Guest essay by Eric Worrall
British members of Parliament Sir Christopher Chope and Peter Bone have introduced legislation to eliminate the special powers the BBC enjoys to coerce license fees out of poor people.
TORY MPS TABLE BILLS TO DECRIMINALISE NON-PAYMENT OF LICENCE FEE, PRIVATISE BBC AND MONITOR IMPARTIALITY
Looking down the legislative agenda there are three Bills coming up for a second reading in this parliamentary session which will warm the hearts of co-conspirators:
BBC Licence Fee (Civil Penalty) Bill
Public Service Broadcasters (Privatisation) Bill
British Broadcasting Corporation (Oversight) Bill
These are, at the moment, Private Members Bills – from Peter Bone and Christopher Chope – so not likely to become law unless the government takes them up. Guido reckons the decriminalisation of non-payment of the BBC licence fee is actually likely to happen.
…
Read more: https://order-order.com/2020/08/26/tory-mps-table-bills-to-decriminalise-non-payment-of-licence-fee-privatise-bbc-and-monitor-impartiality/
BBC climate bias has been well documented by WUWT, including a recent nasty attempt to smear the reputation of Dr. Willie Soon. This abuse all stems from a meeting a decade ago, in which the BBC accepted advice from a secret panel of experts whose names they refused to release, which concluded that the BBC could ignore their normal charter requirement to be impartial when it comes to discussing climate change.
But trouble for the BBC has been brewing on another front.
The BBC uses license fee collection methods which in my opinion are nothing short of brutal. They enforce their special privilege to collect mandatory license fees even if you don’t watch the BBC. The BBC exercise their “implied right of access” to intrude into people’s homes without a warrant, and they demand money from people who refuse to pay on pain of criminal prosecution.
Plenty of people have released youtube videos detailing the bullying tactics allegedly used by BBC enforcers.
If the BBC are stripped of their special fee collection privileges, they will finally face a genuine test of how popular they really are; only people who actually like the BBC will have to pay their license fee.
For some reason the BBC and their supporters are very opposed to removal of the BBC’s special fee collection privileges.
A lot of people complain about being forced to pay a fee for the BBC. For me it’s better, because I’ve never owned a TV. In the UK I didn’t have to pay. In Australia, I have to, through taxes.
Defund all national broadcasting! It’s just a leftist boondoggle, fleecing taxpayers to spread propaganda by people who don’t have the skills to get a proper job.
I don’t have a licence, I still watch TV. You *only* need a TV licence to watch BB and/or BBC iPlayer. Or any other *live* broadcast, or a videostream that is streamed live at the same time as it is broadcast. Don’t need one to watch Skyfilms/Netflix/Roku/ or any other catch-up service. You simply contact TV licencing and declare that you do not need a licence as you do not watch BBC or receive live broadcasts.
Did that a few years ago, and have received no threats or visits.
And the BBC is not “leftist”. How can a company be called “leftist” when it is run by the upper class?
Like all companies that operate using govt money, it reflects the politics of the current govt.
Defund the BBC, the CBC in Canada, and the ABC in Oz, for a start. Government propaganda media has no place in a modern civilization, especially when it become non neutral and becomes an advocate for certain interest groups. It does damage in the long run, at least during peace time.
As well PBS and NPR in the U.S.
An NPR station in Albany, NY (AMC) has a ferocious hatred of president Trump. I have mixed feelings about Trump but I like to see some balance on news stations. AMC spends all day every day dumping on Trump. I told the guy who runs it- (Dr. Alan Chartock)- that he should try to be more balanced in their political reporting. He told me to apologize for that comment!
Chartok is one of the rudest people I have ever met. He has built up a group-think network of public radio stations which panders to those suffering from TDS. We used to contribute to NPR and PBS stations, but their blatant mis-reporting and out right lies became unbearable after the 2016 election. Never listen or watch that drek at all, it is mentally unhealthy and hopefully will be completely defunded after the next election.
I was told by someone who investigated- that Chartock gets something like $175,000 per year salary plus terrific benefits– all to run an NPR station! Then every year they have their fund raiser- which takes several days and all we hear on that station is their begging. Chartock does much of this begging and he does it well- then takes good care of himself- but he always says, “please give us money or we’ll have to shut the station down”.
In my market one of the commercial radio station morning talk shows has often discussed how incredibly “upscale” the local NPR station is (when they have been there to cut promos, etc.), to the point that they are almost “opulent”. Yet they get half their funding from the government (US taxpayers) and are always begging for more.
I once enjoyed NPR, and occasionally still enjoy a PBS program or two. But I learned long ago that they did not like me – or more to the point, anybody like me. So I ignore them. I can’t even hear them begging for money. Wish they didn’t get a share of my taxes, though.
Agreed!
Nor does NPR like the shows I love.
As time goes by they replace the extremely popular shows with ‘woke’ shows pushing the extreme views on environment, ecology and social justice.
e.g. Victory Garden, the second version of ‘This Old House’ with Norm Abram, ‘The New Yankee Workshop’ with Norm Abram, the original Dr. Who series…
Their famed NOVA and Nature shows have fully leapt off the cliff on virtually every topic circumscribed or causing global warming, extinctions, starvations, etc.
NPR supports dramatization that ignores actual history in favor of their SJW causes.
On not being liked: Terry Pratchett in “Good Omens” had one of his main characters thinking about trying to be “ecological” – he gave it up when he realised that the continuing use of “the community” seemed to explicitly exclude people like himself.
Add SBS too in Aus.
The CBC isn’t government propaganda. In the name of truth the CBC has been made independent of government control of its content. Sadly, truth seems to have been the first casualty as a pseudo intellectual downtown Toronto elite has captured the CBC. They have made it their own propaganda machine. link
I tried to listen to the BBC’s classical music service for a while but gave up in disgust. I’m sure the inspiration for J.K. Rowling’s dementors was the BBC.
The CBC isn’t directly setting the Gov’t propaganda, but the Trudeau Liberal media bailout of $600 Million will only go to media organizations that toe the official line. So, the CBC is Gov’t propaganda, but through the Toronto elite as you suggest. Effectively, it is bribery, if you want a cut of the $600 Million pie.
“Ottawa this week announced an independent panel that will recommend the news operations that will be eligible for assistance under the plan.”
From the horse’s mouth…
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/journalists-question-media-bailout-1.5147761
“Ottawa” means the government, and the government never appointed an independent committee since confederation. Justin the Crook certainly won’t. I don’t think he has the intellectual capacity to recognize bias in himself even if he was inclined to try.
Just a pinheaded bullshit artist.
The description of Dementors could easily be that of any far left supporter, especially those in the media.
Except that it would be reasonable to assume that J.K. is in complete agreement with every jot and tittle of the prevailing BBC narrative.
J.K. probably is in complete agreement with every jot and tittle of the prevailing BBC narrative. But that would be from her own thoughtful, considered opinion.
She is currently persona-non-grata with the Woke because her her own thoughtful, considered opinion is not PC on transsexuals being identical to genetic females.
Be smart. Recognise that some people disagree with you but are not evil for doing so.
We might agree with you on some issues. Deals can be done.
Spoken as a long-standing CAGW sceptic and political left-winger.
Erin O’Toole the new conservative leader in Canada has said he is going to De-Fund the CBC. So CBC the Liebel Fake News propaganda arm is going all in to try and stop this man.
The CBC is so biased it must be de-funded and disbanded as it is today. Take the 1.5 Billion dollars of our tax dollars wasted on this Liebel pork barrel outfit and spend it on our veterans and the military. O’Toole has made a point in statements that the CBC charter given to it by the Canadian government has been totally ignored by the CBC in the last 10 years and it is time to clean house in this unbiased liberal supporting organization.
The CBC is an out of control Liebal supporting bunch of lefty clowns. Nobody I know watches their garbage left leaning content. If you doubt what I say then just try to watch their main stream fake News the National objectively. Watch the posture, the tone of voice and the actual content of their Un-baised trusted reporting. The negative attitude, tone and the scowls from the reporters against all stories the CBC does not agree with is oblivious to a person not blinded by the lefty zeal. Try it sometime when you see it once you can NOT un-see it ever again.
One of the greatest ironies of the CBC broadcasting is during the low viewed hours what is the Canadian content that these up holders of virtue are showing. Would you believe the BBC soap show Coronation Street.
One time I was watching the hockey playoffs once one of the largest viewed sports shows on this channel. Instead of showing an overtime period in a hotly contested series the hockey broadcast was cut while the head announcer was arguing with the program directors over this decision. He was later fired for calling out these idiots. What was the urgent programing that had to be shown instead of the number one rated sports show on this pork barrel channel. We went to a program “Already in progress” for 25 minutes of an hour production already gone by. It was a documentary about a CBC woman producer who had “Come out of the closet” in 1962 and declared she was gay. This bit of history was produced in 1968 and was originally scheduled to fill in after the News till sign off. That little bit of mis-programming was one of the factors for another broadcaster to under cut the 50 year monopoly of the CBC when it came to broadcasting NHL hockey in Canada. Now 95% of NHL hockey is not broadcast on the CBC. The final irony of this is the theme music for Hockey Night In Canada went to the other broadcaster to use as well. Any Canadian who grew up listening to that theme song knew exactly what it was.
What? The bullies don’t like being bullied?
It’s not just the BBC with their own agenda
I was watching ITV news the other night. After an item about BLM, the newsreader made a personal comment and about the story.
No problems with him having an opinion, but he’s there to readthe news in an impartial manner not express his opinions
Journalism is dead
Jounalism is very alive and in rude health.
Reporting is in intensive care.
Turn off life support and start again. Hello young people, you can do it. You only get one life and being lied to for 80+ years shouldn’t be the driving force.
Pumpsump; sorry but journalism is pretty dead as well. Don’t confuse journalists with propagandists which are pretty thick on the ground and definitely flourishing.
Journalism IS propagandism, has been for as long as I can remember and I’m sure a lot longer before. Now there are just more of them and more outlets for them to fill
That would be NPR in the USA?
When I was just north of Toronto (1990) I watched this channel from Boston that survived on subscriptions. It was excellent.
In NZ they used to have the same TV licensing laws. Anyway a few years before it was abandoned they accused me of not paying it when I had and I never got another demand after that occasion. Bloody idiots.
I was in NZ at the time and had to give my address and contact details, in store, when I bought a new TV. There was a case against the TV fee IIRC because they proved the fee was a tax and that fee had GST applied. It is (Was?) illegal to put a tax on a tax in NZ so it was abolished.
Think progressive. A tax on a tax on a tax is the future.
Depends what they call a tax, or not.
Property rates have GST applied – they maintain rates isnt a tax.
Petrol at the pump is tax to a great extent – but they call it an excise, not a tax!! Go figure. In Auckland region, an additional 10c/litre is added as a regional “levy”. Not a tax, they maintain.
Regardless, GST is added to they whole sum.
Customs duty has GST added.
So, it may or may not be illegal, but they do it anyway.
We had recently cancelled the BBC tax and very predictably, now we are getting hammered with snail mail telling us to pay. Very soon, someone will show up by our doorstep and request to have a look around the house to see whether we are using a TV anyway… It will be good fun 🙂
Some 10 or 20 years ago, they ran an Orwellian ad campaign stating that they had a complete list of every property in the country, where they knew exactly for which addresses they receive money and for which they don’t and that they would go after every address for which they do not.
Be careful, I’m not advocating anyone break the law, especially when it comes to defying the laws protecting the BBC. They might forcibly sell your house to recover the TV licensing debt or something.
I lived in England for 11 years (and recently returned, but thats another story) and have never paid the TV license, due to never watching broadcast TV. I had loads of threatening letters, but no one ever turned up. At least not while I was there.
They also demand that retailers collect names and addresses from retailers of people who buy TVs from them, so they probably do mostly know who has a set.
Yes, mainly Mickey Mouse, Captain Sensible and someone at an address which doesn’t exist!
They do have the freedom to ask you that. But they have no powers what so ever. They can ask to enter, you can refuse. They can ask for you to show them your TV, you don’t have to. They can ask you to plug it in and turn it on, you don’t have to. There is absolutely nothing in current British law that gives these private debt collectors any rights what so ever.
While this is correct they can, if they have evidence, seek a warrant of entry from a court. They must be accompanied by a police officer to be able to enforce it. It only happens rarely.
How do they obtain evidence, by peering through the sitting room window? That is trespass.
You can inform them online that you don’t require a licence. That should stop the letters. They may send someone round but you don’t have to let them in or even talk to them them, though there’s no harm in saying you don’t require a licence and that you are complying with the requirements. Don’t engage beyond that. Presence of a TV means nothing. You can watch all sorts of on demand stuff except BBC iPlayer. Don’t sign anything. They are paid by results and allegedly play dirty. The people they prosecute have usually self incriminated or been watching live TV when the enforcer called.
“You can inform them online that you don’t require a licence”
Yes. but only if you give them your email and telephone number. I grant you, it would be difficult to contact you without those, but that’s their problem.
Sue them for sending radio signals into your home without permission!
Matt – you might already know this, but you’re perfectly entitled to own a tv and use it to watch anything other than live TV broadcasts or BBC iPlayer (this doesn’t include programmes you pre-recorded). AFAIK the onus isn’t on you to prove you don’t watch live tv. I guess some sort of sound recording device could catch someone in the act, but short of that, only an admission could see someone convicted.
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming-Climate Change is completely Mann-made(up).
The **ONLY** way to stop the alarmist Climate Scam coming out of rent-seeking pseudoscience academics at this point is to defund it. Completely. Send them packing.
In the UK that also includes the BBC.
Dr Lindzen’s recommendation to defund climate science grants from the NSF by 90% here in the US would be a good start too. Start with the modeling community and their Cargo Cult models. Observational platform funding and studies should continue. The modeling junk though has to stop.
Something has changed:
when I lived in Scotland in the 90s, there was no license fee for radio only. This was based on the notion that radio was essential in case of authorities needed to reach the general population. For example in case of chemical accident.
Same issue in Sweden, where the government from January 2020 changed the law, so that license fee is now collected mandatory via the tax return. Apparently too many here in Sweden were not impressed with the content of national radio and TV here. Personally I have not seen Swedish TV the last ten years I have lived in Sweden, as I am tired of listening to how the polar bears are almost extinct at every commercial, every 20 minutes.
“Same issue in Sweden, where the government from January 2020 changed the law, so that license fee is now collected mandatory via the tax return”
– a similar change is currently under (gradual) implementation in Denmark.
This is nothing to do with climate: it is right wing political activism against an independent and largely unbiased source of accurate news and information.
The BBC don’t support the climate skeptic view because it has no basis in fact.
(The UK govt including its PM personally support UK ambitions for net zero by 2050 etc)
griff,
You obviously cannot use critical thought to sort Fact from unsubstantiated Claim. Or Science from Pseudo-science. Or untestable conjecture from testable hypothesis.
Your Science 101 grade: F-
Cheers.
Dr O’Bryan
Griff failed Remedial Kindergarten, twice….
Griff, you really have got it bad haven’t you?
The BBC manage to push ‘Climate Change’ at every opportunity even in some dramas where it’s totally irrelevant. The BBC is an organisation of climate activists and lefties. Furthermore the skeptic view is based on facts not in crappy models.
Brilliant Friday Funny Griff!
Always good to start the day by having a big laugh at breakfast time.
Grfft
U r the 1 ov uz tht kan red and writ we yir fridz thank u
Largely unbiased, except for weapons of mass destruction, predicting the fall ofWTC 7 and pretty much anything to do with Russia and China. Not that any of these were that important. Griff thanks, you made me laugh out loud 🙂
Independent? How the hell is the BBC independent??
If it’s truly independent it could charge for ads, subscriptions, etc., put out its content and let people decide whether or not to pay, rather than extort money from people regardless of whether or not they watch it. If it’s a great as you think it is it will have no problems, right?
Griff, irrespective of whether you believe in AGW or not, we are forced to pay for a service many do not need or want – I am sure you would not be happy to pay for Sky Sports if you didn’t watch it.
If the BBC is that good, people will be only too eager to pay a subscription wouldn’t they?
Like most socialists, griff couldn’t care less what you want or desire.
It’s what she wants and desires that matters, and your obligation to provide those for her.
Griff many of us regard the BBC as a green propaganda outlet, so we see it as a good thing when their coercive funding model is threatened.
What they did to Willie Soon is particularly unconscionable in my opinion, they tried to paint him as a big oil shill, spent an entire episode smearing his reputation, then even though they admitted they had received a response from him to their accusations, they did not present that response.
IMO that is just state sponsored bullying. The sooner it is brought to an end, the better.
Actually the BBC did not paint Dr. Soon out to be a shrill. What they did was point out that the oil companies paid for his research even they they knew it was wrong.
Izaak, thank you for confirming that you get your news from the BBC. We can now treat your posts with the gravity that they deserve.
Izaak, like the BBC only cares about advancing the agenda. Truth is secondary at best.
Speaking of shrill shills, here comes Izaak to repeat the lies.
1) No oil company paid for Dr. Soon’s research.
2) The Exxon knew garbage has been so thoroughly refuted that only a complete idiot could possibly still believe in it.
As always, the trolls stick to their lies, because it’s all they’ve got.
An oil company gave a small grant, just a few thousand dollars to Heartland for a specific project. This grant occurred years prior to Dr. Soon joining Heartland.
The grant was just a few percent of Heartland’s operating budget for the year. It was a one time grant and has never been repreated.
This is the fact that our socialist brethren have blown up into the lie that oil companies paid for Dr. Soon’s work.
Like the rest of our trolls, Izaak wouldn’t know the truth even if he was paid to.
“it has no basis in fact.”
You have it bass-over apex.. It is the climate change FARCE that has no facts to back it up.
STILL waiting for you to produce some empirical evidence that atmospheric CO2 causes warming.
You remain EMPTY.
Above that, you refuse to admit that the current global temperature is only just a degree or so above the COLDEST period in 10,000 years.
You are a CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER, griff. !!
BBC is also a pack of climate LIARS and are constantly producing FAKE climate news..
They should be defunded.
Let those gullible drones, like YOU, that want to pay for the trite erroneous garbage they put out, pay for it.
Grfft
U r the 1 ov uz tht kan red and writ we yir fridz thank u
“griff August 28, 2020 at 12:00 am
The BBC don’t support the climate skeptic view because it has no basis in fact.”
Can you demonstrate where the sceptical view is void of fact? I didn’t think so.
The BBC says it, therefore it is proven.
The best bit of election night is turning on the Biased Corp to watch their faces drop when the Tories win.
Multiply that by 1,000 the night in 2016 when they realised that their relentless pro-EU propaganda and smearing and demeaning of the leave vote had failed and we were out.
Nothing beats November of 2016 when many in the US media actually cried on camera when it became apparent that Trump had won. Oh, was that a great night. And in the weeks that followed there were scores who said they were leaving for Canada or elsewhere. While we fervently wished they would, they are, of course, liars.
I can still remember Dan RatherNot declaring that the American voters had thrown a tantrum, the night the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives for the first time in several generations.
….. yep, despite having many people, not liars, I being one not liar who would literally drive them there.
More on topic, Baghdad Bob got defunded, so yes, why not the Baghdad Bob Corporation.
I was at the count in Scotland. After working my socks off (and about a stone in weight) and having not seen a single SNP activist during the campaign, about a dozen of them turned up at the count to “claim their victory” as I think they saw it. Being one of the most pro-remain areas in the UK, they were all smirks all night until about 3am, when they all suddenly disappeared from the count only to reappear with the smirks completely wiped off their faces.
That’s when I knew we’d won!!
I have to congratulate Mr. Watts in continuing to entertain the “Griff”s, “Moshers”s, and “Stokes”s on entertaining their comments on the WUWT site. We can easily shoot down their biased arguments, but it’s still good to see what the naysayers provide for debate. They don’t often provide any actual cogent arguments for debate, but they are always a reliable bell-weather for the “pro-warming” side of the debate. I just wish that this particular troll “Griff” had more to contribute. It seems “it” just posts a comment and then disappears, leaving smarter heads to “discuss” its’ debating point with no resolution. It seems a lot of the trolls on WUWT seem to do the same. Still, I applaud Mr. Watts on the debate, open (or not) as it may be.
BBC cannot be described as “unbiased.” They are the very definition of biased.
BBC employees have pensions. Like any pension fund, a bit of your regular paycheck goes toward your retirement fund. Your employer takes that money and invests it in order to generate earnings on that capital while you are waiting for retirement.
BBC has a set of investment principles. This includes “green” investing. This is no secret. It is on a web page of theirs. Link and quotes below.
So, BBC by their own rules MUST invest in “green” businesses. For example, a solar panel company. So, BBC has a vested interest in how these green businesses perform across time. OK, that is bias.
And, it provides ample opportunity for further bias. If the BBC can get the general populace, through their content, to believe in and support government efforts and support of “green” technology and policies, then this drives political support for the government to invest in these businesses in whatever varied and numerous ways.
In short: BBC can drive public sentiment toward green government policies in order to drive government actions in order to drive government programs that benefit the “green” industry.
This is very strong, inherent bias. As a matter of principle. There is no way to claim BBC is largely “unbiased.”
“Responsible investment involves effective integration of environmental, social, governance and other relevant factors including climate change (collectively referred to as “ESG” factors)…”
“The Trustees require the Scheme’s investment managers to take into account ESG factors in their investment processes, including in the selection, retention and realisation of individual securities.”
“The Trustees have signed up to the UN supported Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI). Each year the PRI carries out an assessment of how each of its signatories is performing in implementing the Principles for Responsible Investment. The Scheme’s 2019 transparency report is available here.”
“The Scheme is a member of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) and has signed their Global Investor Statement. The Scheme is also a supporter of the Climate Action 100+ investor initiative.”
https://www.bbc.com/mypension/about-the-scheme/responsible-investment-policy
I call them the biased corps, because it doesn’t seem to matter what the subject is, the biased corps always has a corporate point of view which it pushes onto its viewers and listeners.
A classic example was the Scottish “independence” referendum where even as a supporter of the greatest union the world has seen, I was still embarrassed by the Biased Corps attacks on the SNP.
But … now the biased corps have changed their tune (i.e. post Brexit), and now they are full flung proponents of destroying the UK.
Impartiality requires an even handedness and humility about your own position which is an anathema to the Biased Corps, which ALWAYS believes it should be telling the viewers & listeners what to think.
You leave constant opportunities for smart people to tell the true facts griff.And for a non-scientist like me,I say thank you.I’ve learnt so much because of you.
I’ll bet the BBC would have been on the side of “100 scientists against Einstein”. Consensus “science”.
Thanks for mentioning the 100 scientists against Einstein.
A quick google search led me to what I think will be interesting reading today.
If only our dear friend Griff could get inspiration from such comments to expand it’s knowledge.
I love the way socialists declare that anything they agree with is independent and accurate, and anything they disagree with is right wing activism.
So griffie poo, the real world has no basis in fact? Only models are real?
Looks like griff is trying to protect his paycheck.
Griff
The Bbc produce many good programmes and I am not personally in favour of defunding them.
However you will see a climate change agenda in many of their programmes on tv and radio. The otherwise excellent World service is often marred by their social justice and climate change programmes
Tonyb
The climate crap has no basis in fact Griff, and it’s on your tribe of idiots to provide the facts, not the skeptics.
Feel free to provide some facts on here for your first time, and good luck with finding any ….
(PS I actually do wish you good luck with finding any, because it will show how close to zero is climate sensitivity and no, I won’t wet my bed knowing I’ll be half a degree warmer if I get up and go out at 5 am). In fact, I would welcome that half degree, if only I could notice it.
Griff
Your comment that the BBC is “largely unbiased source of accurate news and information” brings to mind the CNN reporters (claim by CNN) covering the riots. They have burning buildings in the background, but speak only of peaceful protests.
Or CNN reporters declaring that all Republicans are white supremacists. Even the black ones.
Oh Grffy-poo, poor dear Griffy-poo:
I admit that I perhaps keep referencing George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty Four” novel more often on this website than I should, but I do so for good reason. The message and warnings he left behind fall of deaf ears with individuals like yourself. The BBC and TV sets in Britain appear to be serving the same purpose (to some degree or another) as the telescreens in Orwell’s novel–to serve Big Brother.
You and others in Britain consistently fail to acknowledge the serious scientific problems with Big Brother’s climate alarmist narrative which have been heavily documented on this website. This demonstrates that the BBC’s Orwellian telescreens throughout Britain have done their job, and they have done it well. You would no doubt love Big Brother as a citizen of Oceania, and you would do it with no questions asked….just as the telescreens would tell you to do.
Propagandists and indoctrinators have the most success with those who can most easily be manipulated emotionally and psychologically, no matter how well one may be educated. It is one of the very useful skills of religious cult leaders when attracting members (I am thinking of Jim Jones and David Koresh here). Along with psychological and emotional manipulation, a failure to understand how science works is one of the things that lies at the root of climate alarmism’s success. That ignorance has worked well with people like you (among many others) Griffy-poo, and it is probably sheer joy for the alarmist propagandists to see.
It is ironic here that Orwell was British himself (and a socialist). He probably understand that lies work much better than the truth when seeking power, money and control. As the saying goes, “Lies travel halfway around the world in the time it takes for the truth to put its boots on.”
Enjoy your life Griff as you keep wallowing in your climate alarmist anxiety.
@griff
Seriously ? LOL
Do they give you a teleprompter for spewing your gargbage, Griff? Or do you rad off a script?
Again Mods?
The advent of streaming technology is finishing the BBC. Their charter demands licence for live broadcast. But more and more people are getting smart tv’s and mostly using streaming services like Netflix and Amazon prime. They are noticing that these are superior quality because they are 4k. The BBC understand this, which is why the outgoing director general (doesn’t that sound Orwellian!) is asking the government to impose a mandatory BBC tax on every household even if they don’t have a tv. As more and more people legally move away from the existing model and cancel their licences, their income will shrivel.
Possibly time to show my ignorance but i think it was the hydra that had many heads. Maybe this could be the first step to defeating the hydra by cutting of one of its heads then start on the rest.
The problem with the hydra is that when you cut off one head, two more grew back to replace it.
The only way to kill it was to kill all the heads at the same time.
Killing the BBC is similar, cut off the licensing fee, and they just go to government to get direct funding.
This is true. It’s firings, not defunding that will eradicate this parasite on humanity.
I totally agree. Fire all of the PBS staff.
And start over. Take out the politics. Non-partisan means AI run. It is interesting that the chinese are experimenting with AI running of government departments. Remove corruption. Absolutely impartial and absolutely logical and all seeing.
Do you remember the first time we were told the time for ‘discussions’ about climate change, about open borders, about BLM, about the fact that the green scams do not work, and so on … is over.
The Political power to force all news stations and every government agency, to state that climate science is settled and dangerous, regardless of other needs more and more money must be spent on green stuff and climate ‘research’, and other scams.
Was the absolute closing of the Left’s mind.
The problem with the CAGW lie, forced spending on wind and sun gathering, forced CO2 emissions reduction…. is it (an irrational policy) requires more and more power, to keep it.
So the Left has become more and more powerful, stupid, and ineffective in a manner that is dangerous to the survival of countries.
End the BBCs ability to collect Danegeld from the TV watching population. Good.
Privatize their operations, taking away their ability to collect Danegeld from the British taxpayer. Good.
Monitoring their “impartiality.” Bad. As a private concern, they can be just as impartial as they feel like. And go broke when nobody consumes their propaganda.
The BBC should fund themselves through a subscription service. Through cable tv or internet just like everyone does.
“This is nothing to do with climate: it is right wing political activism against an independent and largely unbiased source of accurate news and information.”
In which case what’s the problem with letting the people decide, you remember……. power to the people comrade.
If the people want to pay to watch then let them, they could have a BBC box on subscription, and then those that don’t can be left alone instead of being harassed and threatened with fines and imprisonment by the BBC’s brown shirts.
The conservatives want to offer people freedom to make a choice, you lefties want the “Duma” to impose a viewing tax on your corrupt lefty media channels including forcing pensioners to cough up their part of Gary Lineker’s million pound salary.
Poor Gary.
+97
Who’s Gary Lineker?
an over paid ex football (soccer) player who made millions kicking an inflated bladder around a field and now gets paid millions by the BBC to talk about other people kicking inflated bladders around a field who are also paid millions and watched by people who seem to be passionate about weather the inflated bladder passes between two posts at either end of the field… go figure?
While that is true, and I am no fan of football, he also did a lot of fund raising for leukemia research.
Gary Lineker is an ex-footballer who made a fortune from his , undoubted, skills , then went on to become a sports TV presenter for the BBC at a rumoured 2million annual salary . Simultaneously he appears on commercial TV in ads for that most unhealthy of snacks – potato crisps (but they are tasty).
What is wrong with that you ask , capitalism red in tooth and claw .
Just that I remember long ago a well liked gardening/DIY presenter on the BBC , long established and very popular and knowledgeable , was instantly sacked by the BBC for appearing in an ad for some garden or DIY product.
Autres temps , autres moeurs .
Interesting. I like to keep up with real history. Was that Percy Thrower?
…. and, in his defence, at least Lineker is very good at his current job, as well as his previous inflated bladder-kicking job. He started in the big time at Leicester, so no surprise he does ads for Walker’s crisps
If you’re still here Mike, no need. I answered my own question and looked it up. Yes, it made me wonder why the fcuk I’m living in California and not Shropshire, where I have some long roots (pun intended).
In fairness, Gary Lineker was the top goal-scorer at the 1986 World Cup (only put out by a handball) and he reached the semi-finals in 1990.
He went through his entire professional career without receiving a single yellow card. A testament to self-discipline.
When he quit football he got a job advertising snacks for his home town’s leading snack food producer – Walker’s of Leicester.
And he got a job covering the Olympics as a celebrity for the BBC. On his own initiative he taught himself the rules and culture of judo so as he could avoid talking complete nonsense.
The BBC gave him a permanent job.
And his salary was high because that’s the sort of salary the world’s top sportsmen are used to receiving. He has a good agent.
Euro96 and Euro90 MC. England never made the 94 WC here, although I did, big time.
Yes though, not only a star, but when people talk about sports heroes being role models, you could do a lot worse than this gentleman being your role model.
For those who get what I’m talking about, his comment about Maradona at the 2018 WC Draw – a classic. Could also apply to the similar cheat, Michael Mann.
Ooops sorry, I got my decades mixed up MC. You were right. I was thinking about his goal in the semis at Euro96, as I was there.
A former footballer (soccer player) now a TV pundit and over paid at that.
Socialists don’t believe that average people are smart enough to run their own lives. That’s why every activity under the sun has to be heavily regulated, and government can only be run by people like themselves.
That’s why white Socialists have to speak for black people, They don’t think black people are capable of speaking for themselves. The condescension and lies are so rank that even lifelong black Democrats are realizing what a pack of scum the Dems have “on their side”. Blacks who want to work and get ahead see more progress coming to their lives from Republicans than from the dumbs.
I’m always amazed at images of white liberals telling black conservatives that they (black conservatives) are traitors to their race.
The PPC is quite entertaining to watch – if one considers the futility of shouting at the TV set entertainment.
Their news output is pathetic and ‘Climate Change’ being repeated so often might damage one’s loudspeakers by repetition.
It was the ‘serious’ channel (BBC2 at least) but that was so long ago now.
De-fund it and fold it.
“British members of Parliament Sir Christopher Chope and Peter Bone have introduced legislation to eliminate the special powers the BBC enjoys to coerce license fees out of poor people.”
The BBC does no such thing these days. It does however employ private “debt collecting agents” that seem to think they are above the law. They do not have the right of entry to your home. They do not have the power to force you to plug in a TV to a power outlet and turn it on in your home. Calling the police is pointless until something criminal happens.
You are quite simply wrong. Non-payment is a criminal offence if you watch any live TV, even from another country. About 200k prosecutions take place annually and failure to pay the fine is punishable by prison, though this is rare.
“RobH August 28, 2020 at 4:08 am
You are quite simply wrong.”
I agree, non-payment is a criminal offence, that’s not what my post was about. The BBC does not do this. It is outsourced to private debt collectors. It’s how they can “dodge” this kind of criticism. You only need a *MAINS* powered radio to receive live BBC broadcasts to attract a licence fee. Go check!
Sorry if I was a bit blunt last time but I suspect you don’t live in the UK. We haven’t had a radio licence for over 50 years. You need a TV licence to watch any live TV.
I don’t see how you avoid blame by outsourcing your thuggery. (Your terminology)
I am British, born in Croydon, London. I have not lived in the UK since 1995. There was a time where you needed a license for a mains powered radio, or a license for a black and white TV or one for a colour TV when colour was introduced.
The dissatisfaction with the BBC runs far deeper than the issue of climate change. I have been surprised by how many ordinary people outside of the metropolitan pc correct left of centre bubble express deep contempt and dislike of the BBC. This is from people who don’t give a rat’s bottom about climate issues but resent being lied to, misled, lectured to or called names by the glossy paper people fronting the relentless BBC liberal line. I don’t think the BBC even begins to comprehend the trouble it is in outside of London. I despise it for its serial deceit on climate and the natural world and its relationship to human activities. It continues to be an organisation which likes to appear diverse but in reality is representative of a narrowing world viewpoint.
I think you are all going about this the wrong way. Instead of refusing to pay fees or decriminalizing the collection of them, pass a law that only allows the BBC to broadcast using solar or wind power. No batteries, after all the BBC would not want to be using child labour to mine the materials etc used in the batteries. And most evenings once the sun goes down the wind usually drops , and there would be no power to power the BBC . This would allow the BBC to keep to the principles they are trying to impose on the peasants it is bullying in to paying licence. It would also allow licence fee holders to seek a refund for a service not provided when it is actually wanted. I quite like the idea of the Beeb in those circumstances – broke and off air. .
I remember when Radio Times “celebrated” 50 years of BBC TV news I wrote a letter to it pointing out that 50 years ago the BBC had news readers like Baker and Kendall with a good degree of intilectual “clout”.
Now we have bimbos and playboys more interested in their hairdos and whiteness of their teeth.
Needless to say it was not published
Sadly these are private member’s bills so will go nowhere unless the UK government takes them on. Boris has shown no stomach for battle
The BBC cannot and do not enter your home without a warrant, that statement in the article is incorrect. They must obtain a Search Warrant from a Magistrate and that search must be carried out with a Police Officer in attendance – it is very expensive for them, they almost never do it. Neither are they allowed to look through your windows go gather evidence. For prosecutions they rely on confessions on the doorstep, generally women who say that they “hardly ever” watch it: guilty.
I have not had a TV licence since 2003 and I obey the law. I get a constant stream of threatening letters, which I ignore. I have never had a problem.
The BBC suppressed reports of rape, forced prostitution and brutal enslavement adolescent girls in Rotherham and several other towns. They knew all about Jimmy Saville and covered up his paedophilia and rapes. They have no moral compass other than protecting their position and all this will happen again.
It is a moral imperative to give no money to the BBC, although strangely their funding is mainly driven by women, who must have what are for so many of them, their addictive soaps.
To say the Biased Corps has “no moral compass” is absurd. They do have a compass and it always points woke. It always points away from industry, engineering, from capitalism. It points away from men to women, away from the majority to the wokest minority. But yes, they have no morality in the sense that above all else, they do what is good for themselves paying themselves enormous amounts for garbage programs whilst having total contempt for the viewers who continue watching their junk and paying for it.
Lucky you- back in the 90s I had a knock at the door when I forgot to renew, ( you had to go and buy one at a post office mainly), and they more or less forced their way in, noted I had a TV, listened to my apology, noted also that we had a new born baby which had caused us to forget all sorts, left and issued me with a nasty fine a couple of weeks later. Utterly without soul or compassion.
The Protocol 11 of the European Treaty on Human Rights, with it’s rules for entry in force, came into force in 1998. Before that they could enter without a warrant.
If their soap isn’t on BBC they can get it on catch up without a licence.
You must have a licence to watch iPlayer.
I would like to see them try this is Texas. Collect a TV tax. Probably be legal to shoot them on the lawn. I thought the Brits had more spine than this to allow that kind of extortion to try and go into someones house to see if their TV works. After a few dozen were cancelled, there would be no more TV tax collector. I would be scared witless to have a job like that, and wouldn’t expect to survive before some old lady clobbers you over the head with a frying pan.
Just a further point. The BBC lost their right of entry without a warrant following decisions by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The Court decided that no one has a right a entry without a Court decision or in an emergency, e.g. gas leak.
The UK has left the EU with Brexit but remains adherent to the ECHR, so rights of entry are not going to change.
I’ve got to the stage where I just laugh at the way the Biased Corporation constantly attacks the few people who still continue watching (mostly the old). And, I suppose I’m equally bemused by the people who continue watching despite the amost daily attacks on them and their politics and culture.
The last group who the Biased Corp gave any pretence of impartiality toward were the politicians – because it used to have the sense to realise that without political support it was just a biased corpse. But they are now so extremist woke, that even that common sense has disappeared and they now attack those who hold the purse strings.
Truly bizarre – but I doubt many will miss it when it goes.
“When it goes..“
That will be the second Thursday after the sun goes red giant.
I remember promises that the Reagan administration was going to defund public broadcasting. Once government starts wasting money on something, it is against the laws of nature for it to ever stop.
In Germany you are prone to be jailed if you refuse to pay your TV fees (210 EUR/a and increasing), no matter whether you even own a receiver or not – like me since 40+ years. The moment you are not homeless, i.e., once you have a domicile, you are forced to pay.
Remember, the BBC deliberately “hid” the abuses of people like Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris for decades. Johnny Rotten of the Sex Pistols identified Savile as a “problem” in 1978, and no-one at the BBC cared.
Brings a whole new meaning to “Jim’ll Fix It”!
The BBC has a long history of harassing older people. I grew up in a house with no electricity and consequently without television. My mother continued to live there without electricity into the mid 1990s. At some point during the 1990s the BBC became convinced she was avoiding the licence fee. After a series of letters to and fro over several months the BBC eventually sent one of their people to verify that she was indeed avoiding the fee, they were sorely disappointed. When he eventually found the house and had had a cup of tea and a biscuit he left convinced that indeed she had no TV. The gas lights and paraffin lamps convinced him fairly quickly.
But like all complaints to the BBC, when she complained about their actions she got the standard “we’re right, you’re totally wrong, stop complaining and never annoy us again” reply.
These were the type of “big brother” ads they used to put out in the 80’s to scare people, yes this is the BBC
Just a guess: Could Prinz Philip incidentally be one of the names?
Prinz Philip is a major name within the WWF (World Wildlife Fund), which gets a lot of adverts, attention and participation from within BBC.
For the sake of completeness, it should be remembered that the identity of BBC’s secret panel of experts was eventually uncovered. It was not pretty.
Well, two were from Greenpeace; one was from Stop Climate Chaos; one was a CO2 reduction expert from BP; one was from Npower Renewables; one came from the left-leaning New Economics Foundation… Only five of those present could, in any way, be considered scientists with disciplines even vaguely relevant to ‘climate change’. And of these, every one had a track record of climate alarmism. No wonder the BBC tried so hard to keep the list of 28 a secret. Its claim that its policy change was based on the ‘best scientific’ expertise turns out to have been a massive lie.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/here-s-a-bbc-scandal-that-should-really-make-you-disgusted
Here is the secret panel of experts who advised the BBC to ignore climate skeptics:
http://omnologos.com/2012/11/12/full-list-of-participants-to-the-bbc-cmep-seminar-on-26-january-2006/
from https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/10/the-secret-28-who-made-bbc-green-will-not-be-named/
A corrupt and totally biased organisation that generates, promotes & broadcasts leftist propaganda and has a profoundly anti-science agenda. The once-venerable BBC, the voice of freedom and hope in a benighted Europe during wartime, is now a sad and pathetic shadow of its former self. Many of its journalists have no qualifications to report on the subjects they cover and they are little more than activists, promoting an agenda of “wokeism”, climate change alarmism, Covid-19 hysteria, BLM hyperbole, anti-Brexit scaremongering and generally anti-British propaganda. They have also made it their mission to try to ridicule & undermine President Trump on a daily basis since he won the election in 2016 and, indeed, throughout his original election campaign.
That they should be defunded is beyond doubt – the sooner, the better.
Ok so you say BBC is biased towards a belief in AGW.
But then so is ITV, Channel 5, Channel 4, France24, Al Jazeera, Euronews, RT, CGTN,CNN,TRT World, etc. I’m sure there must be more but these are the only ones on satellite I can receive/have watched (in UK).
All these have the same view on AGW.
So since you must get your news from somewhere would you like to name a few news stations I could watch for your truth please?
Could you also tell me why these MSM all follow the AGW belief What is the purpose?
The point is you have to pay for the BBC whether you like it or not and it doesn’t have to justify itself to anyone. Also, why MUST you get your news from somewhere? What is the imperative to ‘get’ news? I watch and read none and get along just fine. I have better things to do with my time.
+97
People aren’t FORCED to pay for those other left-wing fake-news outlets, G-half-runt !
Nearly all the MSM are far-left wing.. of course they support far-left-wing causes. !
Also, most of them are just like you, having basically zero comprehension of anything resembling actual science….
They are brain-washed marxist/socialist journalists, who just “accept” the climate lies, because they know no better.
for eg ABC in Australia, 80% of the presenters are Greens voters.
At least you realise and admit that most of the MSM are highly biased to the far-left agendas abd group-think.
I think you are right about the general and thoughtless adherence to the alarmist line in the media, but the issue is that you don’t have to pay a lot of money to many of the media outlets you list. The BBC is a monopoly you are forced to subsidise.
“So since you must get your news from somewhere would you like to name a few news stations I could watch for your truth please?”
Nice straw man there.
It’s not about “our truth” vs “your truth”, Fox vs MSNBC , Guardian vs Breitbart. That’s an in group/out group problem that is being magnified today for clickbait ad revenue, it’s polarising society into black and white thinking…… of which you seem to be a victim, as you put it “us” and “them”.
A wise man should prefer the colour grey.
I think the question is where is the journalistic balance?
Where is the counterpoint?
Where are those that might have something pragmatic to say about renewable energy?
Why are pertinent questions never asked? “devils advocate” if you want.
I don’t want to watch political bubble TV, I want to see debate with facts presented from both sides in the arena of ideas, so I can make a judgement using my own brain.
I don’t want propaganda, black or white.
Being a socialist, ghoulfont believes that truth is something that those in authority decide.
Yes,I believe it’s called ” truthiness ” ,Mark.
Actually Ghalfrunt ,you’re quite right.You could also have included Sky News and most of the daily newspapers in the UK.And that’s the problem.Bad news sells.Want a cheap headline? Pick out a bad weather event ,call it “Climate Change” and Hey presto!There’s seldom a week goes by without a weather event in the world and so these “journalists” have an easy gravy train.Of course these events have been happening since time began but with today’s communications and easy travel, (ever wondered how BBC correspondents and journalists arrive so quickly at”disasters? “),we are bombarded with bad news.
Of course there’s more- much more -to it than that.There has for many years been the assumption that compassion is the prerogative of the Left.And that the Left has the monopoly on not only compassion but on the means of being compassionate to “the poor and uneducated.” Whether they like it or not.And so Groupthink flourishes -often in so-called called intellectual middle classes – and in the BBC we have the classic situation of total Groupthink on certain issues.Climate change.Trump.Brexit.Tories.All bad,WE know best.Channel 4 is similar,as is ITV (Groupthink is “catching” and it’s fun! Nobody disagrees as they all find more innovative ways of setting the world to rights!) ITV is interesting as many of their newsreaders ,and even weather presenters think of themselves as ” personalities ” and give their views on certain subjects.Ain’t life good!
Sadly ,these ,and others- even the dishonest and corrupt “climate scientists” are” useful idiots” and tools of Big Money-the Gores ,Suzukis,Gates etc – some of whom are in turn dupes of the UN and the Club of Rome.In his book 1984 Orwell provided many serious warnings and memorable quotes.But I think his most important statement was that the objective of power was not money or sex or prestige .The objective of power is power.
Oh and by the way Ghalfrunt,try Talk Radio in UK if you can get it.Good luck!
All the activist journalists agree with me. Therefore I must be right.
Many here say that you need bad news to sell the info. This is where the BBC wins. It does not need to sell anything. There are no advertisers to placate.
I agree it is not good being forced to pay a license fee. But then how would you fund an advertiser free service.
The BBC is rightly famed for its natural history programmes. It is famed for its comedies. It is famed for its dramas. You would loose these. since minority interests can be catered for without worry of funds.
You want both sides presented – but if science says one thing is valid where do you draw the lines at the other side – do you present UFO stories as fact? Do you have anti vaxxers presenting invalid beliefs?
most here seem to believe hcq treatment is valid but double blind scientific trials say it is not – who chooses the truth? why should we present only vague references to hcq working when there is valid evidence from scientific studies showing it is ineffectual. This just muddies the waters!
“You want both sides presented – but if science says one thing is valid where do you draw the lines at the other side ”
Wow… just wow.
I understand now why you draw such contempt in WUWT comments.
“I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.” ~ Richard P. Feynman
Since I don’t go to news channels for the truth, I can short-cut that one for you.
Go to the data.
AGW sells to idiots.
The BBC exercise their “implied right of access” to intrude into people’s homes without a warrant, and they demand money from people who refuse to ”
The BBC cant enter your home without a magistrate order, what they do is send there thugs around to intimidate you into letting them in, they need to see a device that’s capable of receiving a television signal ,even if you dont watch the BBC that’s enough for a conviction, they have a data base of all UK addresses if theres no licence registration at a address they first bombard you with threatening letters.
The “oversite ” bill is far more important ,but it appears it’s a private members bill ,unless theres a lot of surport its unlikely to get passed the first reading , it will show if it fails that the government propaganda machine will still spew its lies,deception and half truths out to a gullible public.
Decriminalisation of not paying the licence fee is a farce, millions of people already avoid paying , buy making the BBC a none licence view, the propaganda machine will be freely viewed ,this plays right into the governments hands ,scoring brownie points for election purposes and keeping the government arm of propaganda alive and well. Climate is one of many BBC agendas pushed on the public.
I had the misfortune of reading one nights BBC schedule the other day,its a disgrace.
Remove the BBC altogether.
I am so impressed Jeremy Clarkson was allowed to run the Top Gear episodes for so many years – I miss him!
Would Clarkson in 2020 be allowed to so boldly express his love of ICE, and his hate to caravans and battery cars?
In 2016:
Jeremy Clarkson: Top Gear problems got ‘bigger and bigger’ BBC News
Never had one and never will, i would rather sit in a cell than fund those marxist bastards.
Up until 5 years ago i had never had one of their goons at the door, had 2 visits now in total, see i dont watch tv so i dont care about them calling, i use my tv as an extension of my laptop, i.e. a 40 inch screen to play poker on, or watch streaming services.
I voluntarily let the goon in to check once and the letters stopped for a year, second time i shut the door in his face after telling him we dont accept cold callers or door to door salesmen…
Seing a device capable of receiving TV signal is no help to them. They must prove it is used for that purpose, and not only for streaming watching videos etc. You don’t have to let them in on the first place. Their implied right of access is is only up to your front door.
Gee whiz, someone at BirdBrained Corporation thinks people have to watch TV and pay for it, even if they don’t? Wow. Glad I live in the Good Ol’ USofA. If that crap ever starts here (unlikely) I have two burned out TVs they can just haul out of my house so that I can use the space for storing dry goods for the hard times ahead.
I knew they were bad over there across The Pond, but I didn’t know they were that bad. TV in USofA is so godawful bad now that it isn’t even worth getting a working TV any more. Books are better. And I keep getting sales mails from AT&T – remember them? I do not miss any of that crap. Very glad we have choices.
I quote from griff ” The BBC don’t support the climate skeptics view because it has no basis in fact” well here are some facts about UK weather.
1/ 1976 Is still the hottest summer ever recorded.
2/ 1869 was the mildest winter
3/ The winters 2009/13 were the coldest since 1985/89 only 1962/66 were colder.
4/ During the last 17 years seasonal rainfall has been normal for normal for 90% of
the time.
5/ Arctic sea ice reached a minimum in 2007 and 2013, and has increased since then.
6/ Antarctic sea ice is still at it’s normal range.
7/ Snow fall in the Alps has been at or above normal during the last ten years.
So the climate is well within it.s normal range. Only extreme in the eyes of the BBC
Scepticism is always valid – because scepticism is the basis of scientific enquiry and unless griff is against scientific development he has to be in favour of scepticism, and unless he is against climate science he also has to be for climate sceptics because scrutiny and a belief current understanding has to be challenged in order to progress is what any real science would embrace.
But like most of the people who attack “climate sceptics” he has no clue either about the essential role of scepticism in scientific enquiry or about climate sceptics in particular (beyond the lies he swallows from those like the lying biased corps).
For clarification:
In the UK you should have a TV license if you watch any live TV (not just the BBC) on any device including a computer, mobile, games machine etc. This includes watching TV that is broadcast in another country.
You need a TV license if you record live television
You do not need a TV license if you only watch catch up TV, excluding BBC iPlayer
If TV Licensing believes you’re watching ‘live TV’ or using BBC iPlayer without a licence, enquiry officers may pay you a visit. They can’t enter your home without permission, but can apply for a search warrant to do so.
The BBC have abandoned all sense of impartiality on far too many subjects, so I have abandoned my responsibility to pay their absurd TV fee.
To “table” a bill means to “place it on the table;” that is, to take it out of consideration during the current session. The writers of the article don’t seem to know this.
That’s what it means in the US. Putting something on the table means bringing it up for discussion.
US and Britain, two countries separated by a common language.
Ah, thank you, MarkW. I had assumed that since the Colonies stole all that parliamentary procedure stuff from the the land of Parliament, we would at least use the terms correctly.
We’ve had this discussion in earlier articles that the use of “table’ in regards to legislation means opposite things to American influenced societies versus British influenced societies.
http://www.cambridge.org
Keep in mind that in USA influenced government, most items “tabled” require a vote to be brought back to official consideration.
Items not brought back for official consideration are vacated at the end of annual session.
All too often, “tabled” is the kiss of administrative death.
Perhaps the organisation is feeling the heat building. The radio 4 news this noon time actually featured a report from a reporter broadly positive about mr Trump. Haven ‘t heard that before.
According to one CNN reporter, all white Republicans aren’t just racists, they are all white supremacists who believe that killing blacks is their inalienable right.
Non-white Republicans are all willing stooges who are only permitted to show themselves by the racists so that they can make racism acceptable.
CNN are racist – because racists are obsessed with race and attribute all kinds of thinks which have nothing to do with race to someone’s supposed race.
Biden did say earlier this year, that blacks that vote Republican aren’t real blacks.
PS: When did whites get the right to decide who was a “real” black?
PPS: I thought race was one of those things you get to self identify. Sort of like gender.
Perhaps this should be called the “Orwell” bill after the prescient author who wrote a book in which a public entity very much resembling the BBC took control of all public messaging and thought.
This is the BBC
Eric has new shoes. Eric has new shoes.
Tom has gone on holiday. Tom has gone on holiday
The red queen is sad. The red queen is sad
That was the BBC
Despite the nostalgia it has been a tool since its beginning under Reith.
The new Woke is here. It’s about time.
The BBC news has become the broadcasting arm of BLM and Antifa. Its so focused on the US now that it might as well be a branch of PBS.
The question a lot of UK people are asking is why they are paying for this stuff via a hypothecated tax.
In addition, when its not broadcasting BLM and Antifa propaganda, its continual climate change alarmism, diatribes about the British Empire (of all things), repeated bows to the trans lobby, and continuing invitations to ‘experts’ who turn out to be Labour Party activists….
Defund the thing.
Didn’t think of that. What a waste of money.
Yeah, I think they’re going to regret invoking the D-word. It ain’t the police who are going to be defunded.
There are supposed to be some riots in Oakland tonight. It’s probably the most racially diverse big city on the planet, although it pains me to type the word racially when no one here actually notices skin color, etc. It’s so peaceful and actually lovely to be so diverse that you don’t even think of a “black person” to quote the race-baiter fake-democrats. You think of him or her, my friends, as a person.
This is about Trump destroying their fake causes last night, and I’m no Trump fan, but he did.
Good grief, I have just read the BBC want to impost a council tax like tax on everyone (I remember the council tax riots of the 1990’s) to maintain it’s revenue stream.
A couple of ideas have been floated by them to generate the funds. One is to levy a household tax along the lines of the UK local government tax, the Council Tax.
The other was to tax Internet access.
To which an acquaintance with the typical wry sense of the ridiculous that you so often find in the British proposed with a completely deadpan expression something like the following.
These were good ideas, the idea of taxing some essential and handing the money to the BBC must be right, after all its a national jewel and the envy of the entire world, but perhaps they have chosen the wrong things to tax.
His proposal was to put a tax on food. Everyone has to have food, so that way it would be impossible to evade or dissent from, and there would be none of the bad publicity and resentment that come out of the current prosecutorial and criminal regime.
If people thought taxing food was controversial, though he could not see why it should be, to fund such a noble organization, the envy of the entire world after all, then perhaps a tax on electricity consumption would be a substitute. At any rate, the thing is to have something which is absolutely unavoidable.
I was wrong. It was the poll tax riots I was thinking of. That was before the poll tax became the council tax per individual in a house as apposed to rates on the house. I was threatened with court action for non-payment of my council tax because I, legally, paid by non-direct debit (I forget the actual term for the process now) which took the banks longer to process.
The poll tax was a per-individual tax.
Every person whose name was on the electoral register had to pay the tax.
It directly led to thousands declining to register to vote to avoid payment and thereby being unable to vote.
Labour lost as many as three-quarters of a million votes by this [thinly-disguised] vote rigging tax.
The council tax is a tax on the value of the property, paid by the householder.
You need to look at other European countries….where a load of different means are used to collect the same fee. Very few are free.
The BBC should be made to stand on its own feet.
This is what happened years ago with TV ONE in New Zealand .
We used to have the same nonsense here years ago and all TV owners had to pay a fee each year .
TV ONE has to stand on its own and attract advertisers to pay the running costs .
That is one thing that New Zealand has got right and there is good competition between One and Three .
The BBC has become a mouth piece for every green and climate change useful idiot and governments around the world should be wary as free speech and ideas are the life blood of all true democracies.
Just look at the US where a great number of the television networks are so biased towards one political party that CNN leading the charge should be renamed the Communist National News .
Enough said
The Guardian alerts it’s readership about an ‘opinionated’ threat to the BBC-
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/aug/29/rivals-plan-fox-news-style-opinionated-tv-station-in-uk
The ban on the singing of Rule Britannia is striking.
The words date from the early 1740s. There had been an internal struggle in Britain from 1630 or so on. The question was whether the country would be ruled by an absolute and Catholic monarchy, or by Parliament and a constitutional monarchy.
The matter was initially settled in the civil war, and then finally settled by the Revolution of 1688. However, it was not secure. There was the first 1715 Jacobite Rebellion, and there was to be another in 1745. The main security against Spanish invasion, in the late 16th century, and French invasion in the late 17th and 18th centuries, was the navy and the Channel. As it was to remain through the Napoleonic wars. Napoleon assembled an invasion force on the Channel coast, and the threat of invasion really only ended with the battle of Trafalgar.
Some idiots, unacquainted with history, have purported to find that the words ‘…rule the waves, Britains never shall be slaves…’ somehow carry the meaning that its fine for others to be slaves! Of course they did not!
In fact, they simply meant and were understood to mean that ruling the waves, being a dominant sea power, was the only real protection against the real threat from Continental powers of invasion followed by abolition of British liberties, identified with constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy. This was the ‘slavery’ referred to. And the song celebrates the strength of that protection as it seemed to be in 1740.
The words of the song reflect this.
The BBC management however are obsessed with their weird woke agenda, determined to find something offensive in anything wherever possible, ignorant of their own history and culture, but bent on educating the country to an ignorance equal to their own, and they desperately looked around to find someone who would share their view of the offensiveness of the words. And found to their delight a young Finnish conductor, a woman no less, who would ignorantly opine about the meaning of a poem whose background she had no idea of.
Well said!
Is this a British usage? I thought ‘table a bill’ means they have taken the bill off the schedule.