anti BBC tirade
 

Just interested, and apologies if you've answered this elsewhere, but can
you honestly say that you NEVER watch any of BBCs output?

Cheers,

Chris.




I certainly do watch some BBC programmes:

- This Week (BBC DUMB).
- occasionally Newsnight (BBC TWO) when I'm in a current affairs mood and
there is geo-political news.
- The Sky at Night (BBC DUMB) - the only intellectual science programme on
the BBC.
- occasionally Working Lunch for the stock market reports (BBC TWO).
- crap films late at night perhaps once per week or per two weeks (BBC
DUMB).


I do not however consider the benefit of these programmes is worth £133.50
of my cash, and would rather deal with the "criminal justice system"
instead.

This valuation is called "competive market value" which is a term Michael
Grade and Mark Thompson are very familliar with. I am merely applying my
treatment of the BBC in exactly the same way the BBC says its employees and
leaders are to be remunerated.

I note that the public works I do as an elected officer, I do so without
payment, voluntarily, and merely for the good of my community.


If the BBC would like a payment of say £10 for the above list, I might
consider paying for it.

However, as discussed, I am not buying "The Sky at Night" and paying for all
the **** / ****s attached to the deal.




"If I hold the chewing gum out long enough most people take it. It's a sign
that they'll crack under pressure."

anti BBC tirade
 

uk.media.tv.sky
Heracles Pollux
Fri, 21 Jul 2006 13:46:17 +0100


I do not however consider the benefit of these programmes is worth £133..50
of my cash, and would rather deal with the "criminal justice system"
instead.

This valuation is called "competive market value" which is a term Michael
Grade and Mark Thompson are very familliar with. I am merely applying my
treatment of the BBC in exactly the same way the BBC says its employees and
leaders are to be remunerated.


A hypothetical question for you .....

If johnny scumbag terrorist was to target the bbc would you .....

(A) - Say nothing and secretly support the terrorists

(B) - Say you dont like the bbc but no need for that

(C) - Say well done johnny scumbag

(D) - None of the above


A tricky question as some would say the bbc are terrorists themselves as
intimidation and force is used to extract what they demand .


(krusty is just playing devils advocate & asking the question)


--
Encrypted email address
www.emailuser.co.uk/?name=KRUSTOV
Make a shorter url
www.vhit.co.uk

anti BBC tirade
 

"Krustov" wrote in message
m...
uk.media.tv.sky
Heracles Pollux
Fri, 21 Jul 2006 13:46:17 +0100


I do not however consider the benefit of these programmes is worth £133.50
of my cash, and would rather deal with the "criminal justice system"
instead.

This valuation is called "competive market value" which is a term Michael
Grade and Mark Thompson are very familliar with. I am merely applying my
treatment of the BBC in exactly the same way the BBC says its employees
and
leaders are to be remunerated.


A hypothetical question for you .....

If johnny scumbag terrorist was to target the bbc would you .....

(A) - Say nothing and secretly support the terrorists

(B) - Say you dont like the bbc but no need for that

(C) - Say well done johnny scumbag

(D) - None of the above


A tricky question as some would say the bbc are terrorists themselves as
intimidation and force is used to extract what they demand .


(krusty is just playing devils advocate & asking the question)





I am not in favour of violence nor do I need violence to solve my problems
(however I will use violence to defend the innocent if required).

Why would one know that Jonny scumbag was allegedly to target the BBC?

Not moving in New-IRA or Al Quaida circles one would not know.

In any event, one's duty if one sore criminality, real criminality that is,
about to take place is to report it to the lawful authorities, and possibly
intervene if necessary and acutely time critical.



There is no doubt that the BBC uses state authority to enforce its "empire"
on women and children using threats, intimidation, and coercion. The BBC
could be classed as sanitized terrorists, but of course they are the servant
of the state/establishment/government, and our state has always worked this
way (The British India Company for example, China Tea, Slavery, etc).



At least I'm part of the solution, not the problem.

anti BBC tirade
 

In article ,
Heracles Pollux wrote:
I certainly do watch some BBC programmes:

[Snip]

If the BBC would like a payment of say £10 for the above list, I might
consider paying for it.

However, as discussed, I am not buying "The Sky at Night" and paying for all
the **** / ****s attached to the deal.

Would you object if we called you thief and parasite?

--
John Cartmell [email protected] followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

anti BBC tirade
 

"Heracles Pollux" wrote in message
...

I do not however consider the benefit of these programmes is worth £133.50
of my cash, and would rather deal with the "criminal justice system"
instead.

What a load of Pollux. Don't you think other self-opinionated loonies have
tried that on before? I had a conversation recently with an acquaintance who
thought he didn't use his car enough to warrant renewing his road tax, and
was as safe as houses on the road so didn't need car insurance either.

He was dealt with by the local magistrates and was fined and disqualified.
Funnily enough they wouldn't accept his argument and they won't accept yours
either. One prosecution every eight years just about should cover it;
although I suspect once they've started with you they will be back for more
every year until you take you head out of your ass.

--

Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)

anti BBC tirade
 

uk.media.tv.sky
Heracles Pollux
Fri, 21 Jul 2006 14:30:48 +0100


Why would one know that Jonny scumbag was allegedly to target the BBC?

Not moving in New-IRA or Al Quaida circles one would not know.


On the news the other week their was a tape recoring played of two
terrorists talking to each other .

From what i could gather , Part of deciding what to do and perhaps to
get on the terrorist league table the number of people their terrorist
action would affect is like some sort of status symbol to them .

IMS one of them said if they killed 100,000 people then their action
would affect well over 1,000,000 people if you include the victims
family/cousins/neightbours etc .

In the same way as some top cop in london said years ago it wasnt a
matter of 'if' london was going to get hit it was a matter of 'when' .

Then using that as some sort of twisted guideline - then isnt it more or
less the same thing and its just a matter on when for the bbc as x
number of millions would be affected .

Dont mean the actual bbc employees - but to target the transmitter masts
or uplink dishes or whatever way output is distributed .


--
Encrypted email address
www.emailuser.co.uk/?name=KRUSTOV
Make a shorter url
www.vhit.co.uk

anti BBC tirade
 

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Heracles Pollux wrote:
I certainly do watch some BBC programmes:

[Snip]

If the BBC would like a payment of say £10 for the above list, I might
consider paying for it.

However, as discussed, I am not buying "The Sky at Night" and paying for
all
the **** / ****s attached to the deal.

Would you object if we called you thief and parasite?

--


I wouldn't care in the slightest, for I'm not charging £18M for running a
chat-show and radio show.

anti BBC tirade
 

"Falcon" wrote in message
...

"Heracles Pollux" wrote in message
...

I do not however consider the benefit of these programmes is worth
£133.50 of my cash, and would rather deal with the "criminal justice
system" instead.

What a load of Pollux. Don't you think other self-opinionated loonies have
tried that on before? I had a conversation recently with an acquaintance
who thought he didn't use his car enough to warrant renewing his road tax,
and was as safe as houses on the road so didn't need car insurance either.

He was dealt with by the local magistrates and was fined and disqualified.
Funnily enough they wouldn't accept his argument and they won't accept
yours either. One prosecution every eight years just about should cover
it; although I suspect once they've started with you they will be back for
more every year until you take you head out of your ass.

--

Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)




As opposed to "self-opinionated loonies" who get given slots on the BBC's
many TV shows.


Bad analogy. For where as most people do not drive their cars only inside
their private homes, I neither drive my TV set down public highways nor
within eyesight of officials. My bicycle is indeed untaxed and uninsured as
well as free to park.



Let the justice system take its course.

You might think a way to run a business / corporation is through the courts.

I happen to think the way you run a successful business / corporation is by,
sorry to be simplistic, "giving the customer what they want" and by what
"sells".

anti BBC tirade
 

In message , Heracles Pollux
writes


In any event, one's duty if one sore criminality, real criminality that is,
about to take place is to report it to the lawful authorities, and possibly
intervene if necessary and acutely time critical.


Is "one sore criminality" when someone only injures one person once?
--
Ian

anti BBC tirade
 

"Ian" wrote in message
...
In message , Heracles Pollux
writes


In any event, one's duty if one sore criminality, real criminality that
is,
about to take place is to report it to the lawful authorities, and
possibly
intervene if necessary and acutely time critical.


Is "one sore criminality" when someone only injures one person once?
--
Ian


Net-Pedant. ;-)

* saw / viewed

Sorry feet up on desk, and typing too fast.

anti BBC tirade
 

"Heracles Pollux" wrote in message
...

"Falcon" wrote in message
...

"Heracles Pollux" wrote in message
...

I do not however consider the benefit of these programmes is worth
£133.50 of my cash, and would rather deal with the "criminal justice
system" instead.

What a load of Pollux. Don't you think other self-opinionated loonies
have tried that on before? I had a conversation recently with an
acquaintance who thought he didn't use his car enough to warrant renewing
his road tax, and was as safe as houses on the road so didn't need car
insurance either.

He was dealt with by the local magistrates and was fined and
disqualified. Funnily enough they wouldn't accept his argument and they
won't accept yours either. One prosecution every eight years just about
should cover it; although I suspect once they've started with you they
will be back for more every year until you take you head out of your ass.

As opposed to "self-opinionated loonies" who get given slots on the BBC's
many TV shows.

Bad analogy. For where as most people do not drive their cars only inside
their private homes, I neither drive my TV set down public highways nor
within eyesight of officials. [...]

I don't think it's a bad analogy at all. I have no sympathy with criminals.
He was breaking the law; so are you. The story only serves to illustrate
that the courts will deal with your arrogance in exactly the same way as
they dealt with his, that's all.

--

Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)

anti BBC tirade
 

I don't think it's a bad analogy at all. I have no sympathy with
criminals.
He was breaking the law; so are you. The story only serves to illustrate
that the courts will deal with your arrogance in exactly the same way as
they dealt with his, that's all.

--

Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)







Ahh yes. It is truly evil and criminal not paying the BBC's army of luvies.

Ohh my conscience... woe unto me. ;-)

anti BBC tirade
 

"Heracles Pollux" wrote in message
...


I don't think it's a bad analogy at all. I have no sympathy with
criminals.
He was breaking the law; so are you. The story only serves to illustrate
that the courts will deal with your arrogance in exactly the same way as
they dealt with his, that's all.

--

Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)







Ahh yes. It is truly evil and criminal not paying the BBC's army of
luvies.

Ohh my conscience... woe unto me. ;-)





Except last night on "Newsnight" which I was watching via my unlicensed TV
set, they were saying how Blair plans to "decriminalise" TV Licensing
offences turning it into one of those "summary justice" civil matters.

It appears that H.M. Government don't think this henious crime should be
classed as a crime any more.

anti BBC tirade
 

"Heracles Pollux" wrote in message
...
[...]
Except last night on "Newsnight" which I was watching via my unlicensed TV
set, they were saying how Blair plans to "decriminalise" TV Licensing
offences turning it into one of those "summary justice" civil matters.

It appears that H.M. Government don't think this henious crime should be
classed as a crime any more.

It will cost less to take the £1000 fine off you.
That has to be a good thing.

--

Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)

anti BBC tirade
 

"charles" wrote...
Heracles Pollux wrote:

Except last night on "Newsnight" which I was watching via my
unlicensed TV set, they were saying how Blair plans to
"decriminalise" TV Licensing offences turning it into one of
those "summary justice" civil matters.

It appears that H.M. Government don't think this henious crime should
be classed as a crime any more.

but, if you were caught and fined and refused, on principle, to pay
the fine, that would then be a criminal offence.

It's true that those who are jailed for "refusing to pay a fine" are in
fact being jailed for contempt of court.

But in that case why are they released when someone else pays the fine
for them? It's most unfair.

Matti

anti BBC tirade
 

"Matti Lamprhey" wrote in message
...
"charles" wrote...
Heracles Pollux wrote:

Except last night on "Newsnight" which I was watching via my
unlicensed TV set, they were saying how Blair plans to
"decriminalise" TV Licensing offences turning it into one of
those "summary justice" civil matters.

It appears that H.M. Government don't think this henious crime should
be classed as a crime any more.

but, if you were caught and fined and refused, on principle, to pay
the fine, that would then be a criminal offence.

It's true that those who are jailed for "refusing to pay a fine" are in
fact being jailed for contempt of court.

But in that case why are they released when someone else pays the fine
for them? It's most unfair.

Matti



Well in the case of the BBC, the Courts are simply one more instrument of
coercion and intimidation. I fail to see any moral authority in what are
"private prosecutions" not Crown or Peoples' prosecutions, prosecuted by a
commission-based sales force using a rubber stamped justice process.

The sad thing is the BBC prosecutes the poor, the weak, the gullible, and
the vulnerable. These are the "nice" people who answer their doors to
strangers, yield at the slightest pretence of authority, and confess their
thoughts easily.

Capita Plc operates the TVaLiban regime as a "sales force" even calling
evaders "sales-leads" and staff "sales officers" who are paid a "commission"
of £18 per sale or per prosecution statement filled. Capita makes a point of
recording who the "suckers" are, and targeting the same suckers repeatedly.
Well a sales force would wouldn't they.

This is not justice, it is a commercial and cynical exploitation.

And at leaves the more careful, thoughtful, and militant "law breaker"
relatively "unenforced".

anti BBC tirade
 

On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 15:54:39 +0100, "Heracles Pollux"
wrote:


snip
Except last night on "Newsnight" which I was watching via my unlicensed TV
set, they were saying how Blair plans to "decriminalise" TV Licensing
offences turning it into one of those "summary justice" civil matters.

It appears that H.M. Government don't think this henious crime should be
classed as a crime any more.

You're missing the point. Such summary penalties are designed to avoid
the inconvenience of someone presenting the case for their defence in
a normal trial. Even when it is a good case, the system builds in an
amount of inconvenience which, in combination with the lack of a
criminal penalty, encourages people to cough up the cash anyway. In
the end the civil penalties can build up to more than any court would
have applied by way of a fine.
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|

anti BBC tirade
 

"Heracles Pollux" wrote in message
...

The law may "require" one to purchase a licence.

"Requiring" and doing are separate matters of course.

Generally people pay taxes and fees because they feel a benefit from doing
so outweighing the cost of not doing so. Knowing that were I to pay the
BBC, they would **** it away on Mark Byford, Jonathan Woss, pointless
advertising, their grafitti strewn digital plan, soap operas and tedious
dramas, biased news, politically correct idents, junkettes for their
super-annuated staff, and bidding against other UK broadcasters for
rights, let's just leave this to be a matter for the Courts and "criminal
justice system".

I don't believe for one second you don't pay your TV licence.

You are just a newsgroup troll, nothing more nothing less.
Filled with your own miss-guided self importance, and purely argueing for
arguement's sake.

****.

Loz

anti BBC tirade
 

"loz" wrote in message
...

"Heracles Pollux" wrote in message
...

The law may "require" one to purchase a licence.

"Requiring" and doing are separate matters of course.

Generally people pay taxes and fees because they feel a benefit from
doing so outweighing the cost of not doing so. Knowing that were I to pay
the BBC, they would **** it away on Mark Byford, Jonathan Woss, pointless
advertising, their grafitti strewn digital plan, soap operas and tedious
dramas, biased news, politically correct idents, junkettes for their
super-annuated staff, and bidding against other UK broadcasters for
rights, let's just leave this to be a matter for the Courts and "criminal
justice system".

I don't believe for one second you don't pay your TV licence.

You are just a newsgroup troll, nothing more nothing less.
Filled with your own miss-guided self importance, and purely argueing for
arguement's sake.

****.

Loz



Kill-filled for incivility, Larry.

anti BBC tirade
 

"Heracles Pollux" wrote in message
...
I don't believe for one second you don't pay your TV licence.

You are just a newsgroup troll, nothing more nothing less.
Filled with your own miss-guided self importance, and purely argueing for
arguement's sake.
****.
Kill-filled for incivility, Larry.

Bothered

anti BBC tirade
 

I don't believe for one second you don't pay your TV licence.

You are just a newsgroup troll, nothing more nothing less.
Filled with your own miss-guided self importance, and purely argueing for
arguement's sake.

Well if he really hasn't got a TV licence he shouldn't be bragging
about on his posts to the newsgroups, as there is enough information
in the posts to identify him.

--
cerberus





No one is "bragging". We are simply discussing the issues. I'm sorry you
feel this is the case.

Would you prefer that we do not discuss flaws in Public Service Broadcasting
and forbid criticism of the BBC altogether?

You miss the point. An organisation like the BBC relies on public
cooperation. Would you rather all descent against the BBC and H.M.
Government be air-brushed away and dismissed as a "small minority"?

Well how Blair-ite. Except, some day, you may find the BBC starts to ****
you off too.

anti BBC tirade
 

"Heracles Pollux" wrote in message
...
No one is "bragging". We are simply discussing the issues. I'm sorry you
feel this is the case.

Would you prefer that we do not discuss flaws in Public Service
Broadcasting and forbid criticism of the BBC altogether?

You don't discuss.
You state your missguided, bigotted views, then argue with anyone who
doesn't share them.
****.
Loz