Goodbye Sky Onc, Hello Sky1

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:50:51 +0100, Carl Waring wrote:

Yes. The relevant being that she was "not paying the fine levied by The
Courts", which would have happened /whatever/ her original offence was.

Once again, the progression is as follows:

No LF
Fine
Jail

It does NOT go:

No LF
Jail

which is what the original poster meant.

Michael Moore did a feature on this some years ago - much amusement on the
part of 'Merkins because people were going to jail for watching TV.
Ho, ho!

"Appelation Controlee" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:50:51 +0100, Carl Waring wrote:

Yes. The relevant being that she was "not paying the fine levied by The
Courts", which would have happened /whatever/ her original offence was.

Once again, the progression is as follows:

No LF
Fine
Jail

It does NOT go:

No LF
Jail

which is what the original poster meant.

Michael Moore did a feature on this some years ago - much amusement on the
part of 'Merkins because people were going to jail for watching TV.
Ho, ho!

Except, of course, that they weren't. As demonstrated.


--
Carl Waring
DigiGuide:
Full: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495
Web-based: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=3&r=1495

As someone who receives "The Magistrate" (the club magazine for
"beaks"), I have an article in my filling cabinet by a Magistrate
stating just that, and that on a tour of a women's prison she did,
the first prisoner she saw inside a cell was a women incarcerated for
7 days for not funding the BBC and subsequently not paying the fine
levied by The Courts.

Yes. The relevant being that she was "not paying the fine levied by The
Courts", which would have happened /whatever/ her original offence was.

Once again, the progression is as follows:

No LF
Fine
Jail

It does NOT go:

No LF
Jail

which is what the original poster meant.




Except there would have been no "offence" if the BBC as we know it did not
exist and insist on funding itself regressively using coercion.

The only offence the offender had made was not funding the BBC.

They just happen to spend the majority of it on programmes.


A fact that is completely and utterly IRRELEVANT to this discussion,
which is about the LICENCE FEE.




I'll think you'll find that ITV, C4, Five, BSKYB, and thousands of other
channels also regard the "majority" of their revenues and spending are on
programmes too.

"Carl Waring" wrote in message
...
Light of Aria wrote:
"Carl Waring" wrote in message
...
Martin wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 10:15:10 +0100, "Carl Waring"
wrote:

Zero Tolerance wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 09:39:17 -0700 (PDT), allan tracy
wrote:

There is choice, the BBC has its license fee but is denied
advertising revenue, which actually puts it at a disadvantage
with the commercial channels.

No disadvantage at all. The BBC sells its programmes to UKTV
(which it already owns 50% of, and wants to own more) and they get
advertising revenue from that.

Actually, the UKTV channels are 50% owned by BBC Worldwide which,
of course, has nothing to do with the BBC's UK LF-funded services.

Other than it gets BBC material at a very favourable rate.

Can you cite a credible source for this statement of fact. Thank-you.



The BBC's internal accounts are "commercial and confidential" in
their exact own words and due to the "commercially sensitive nature"
of the content are withheld from scrutiny.

It is therefore not possible for most people to scrutinize and hold
the BBC to account.

That'll be a 'no' then.

--
Carl Waring
DigiGuide:
Full: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495
Web-based: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=3&r=1495




Indeed it's a no. Because unlike BSKYB Plc, ITV Plc, and all PLCs, the BBC
does not recognise the concept of shareholders and therefore can not be held
to account by members of the public.

Believe it or not, anyone, even you, can own a share in the above PLCs,
attend the AGM, and attempt to raise a question or motion to the board of
directors. They can even on mass, vote for Directors!

"Light of Aria" wrote in message
...


As someone who receives "The Magistrate" (the club magazine for
"beaks"), I have an article in my filling cabinet by a Magistrate
stating just that, and that on a tour of a women's prison she did,
the first prisoner she saw inside a cell was a women incarcerated for
7 days for not funding the BBC and subsequently not paying the fine
levied by The Courts.

Yes. The relevant being that she was "not paying the fine levied by The
Courts", which would have happened /whatever/ her original offence was.

Once again, the progression is as follows:

No LF
Fine
Jail

It does NOT go:

No LF
Jail

which is what the original poster meant.




Except there would have been no "offence" if the BBC as we know it did not
exist and insist on funding itself regressively using coercion.

The only offence the offender had made was not funding the BBC.

Which, of course, is completely irrelevant; as usual. I'm sensing a pattern
here ;-)

No-one would be jailed for not paying a court-imposed fine if the offence
for which is was incurred did not exist.


--
Carl Waring
DigiGuide:
Full: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495
Web-based: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=3&r=1495

"Carl Waring" wrote in message
...
"Light of Aria" wrote in message
...


As someone who receives "The Magistrate" (the club magazine for
"beaks"), I have an article in my filling cabinet by a Magistrate
stating just that, and that on a tour of a women's prison she did,
the first prisoner she saw inside a cell was a women incarcerated for
7 days for not funding the BBC and subsequently not paying the fine
levied by The Courts.

Yes. The relevant being that she was "not paying the fine levied by The
Courts", which would have happened /whatever/ her original offence was.

Once again, the progression is as follows:

No LF
Fine
Jail

It does NOT go:

No LF
Jail

which is what the original poster meant.




Except there would have been no "offence" if the BBC as we know it did
not exist and insist on funding itself regressively using coercion.

The only offence the offender had made was not funding the BBC.

Which, of course, is completely irrelevant; as usual. I'm sensing a
pattern here ;-)

No-one would be jailed for not paying a court-imposed fine if the offence
for which is was incurred did not exist.




Exactly so.

And so we should be careful to respect the law and ensure that laws are made
for the broad benefit of society and civilisation and not to appease small
groups of interested parties.

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:20:11 +0100, "Light of Aria"
wrote:



As someone who receives "The Magistrate" (the club magazine for
"beaks"), I have an article in my filling cabinet by a Magistrate
stating just that, and that on a tour of a women's prison she did,
the first prisoner she saw inside a cell was a women incarcerated for
7 days for not funding the BBC and subsequently not paying the fine
levied by The Courts.

Yes. The relevant being that she was "not paying the fine levied by The
Courts", which would have happened /whatever/ her original offence was.

Once again, the progression is as follows:

No LF
Fine
Jail

It does NOT go:

No LF
Jail

which is what the original poster meant.




Except there would have been no "offence" if the BBC as we know it did not
exist and insist on funding itself regressively using coercion.

The BBC doesn't decide how it is funded. It is Parliament that chooses to fund
the BBC by levying a tax by way of the Licence Fee. AFAIK it is the only
hypothecated tax in the UK i.e. instead of going into a big pot of money & then
being shared out to the different government departments it is paid directly.
Other taxes do not like the so called 'Road Fund Licence' which is not used
exclusively for road building & maintenance or National Insurance which isn't
earmarked just for the NHS.

The only offence the offender had made was not funding the BBC.

The offence is not paying a fine levied for not paying a tax. If you drive your
car without paying Vehicle Excise Duty (Road Tax) then you can be fined in just
the same way. If they had paid the tax for watching the TV there would have
been no offence & hence no fine.
--

Cheers

Nigel Barker
Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur

"Nigel Barker" wrote in message
...

The offence is not paying a fine levied for not paying a tax. If you drive
your
car without paying Vehicle Excise Duty (Road Tax) then you can be fined in
just
the same way. If they had paid the tax for watching the TV there would
have
been no offence & hence no fine.

You won't win - they really can't fathom it out and you're just wasting time
and effort trying to get it through to them.

Ian

"Ian F." wrote in message
...
"Nigel Barker" wrote in message
...

The offence is not paying a fine levied for not paying a tax. If you
drive your
car without paying Vehicle Excise Duty (Road Tax) then you can be fined
in just
the same way. If they had paid the tax for watching the TV there would
have
been no offence & hence no fine.

You won't win - they really can't fathom it out and you're just wasting
time and effort trying to get it through to them.

Ian



That's what I have been saying to the BBC / TV Licensing for 6 years. ;-)))