The Political Thread

[Grugz]

why is it a criminal offence not to pay?

Reading comprehension really isn't your strong point, is it? I specifically said I wasn't discussing the rights and wrongs of whether it was a criminal offence, only that it was.

I can see both sides to the argument, TBH. It seems like overkill to give people a criminal record for non-payment, but by the same token, the BBC argues (with some cause) that more people will fail to pay which just mean less money for the Corporation to do stuff.

And, as I say, the Tories current zeal for BBC 'reform' is more about weakening the BBC to give more power to Rupert Murdoch than it is any real concern for modernising the organisation.

Jim

you said  "only that it was" and I asked "why?"  if you are going to make personal comments on peoples reading comprehension perhaps you should take your own advice ?
didn't molcher make a post about making personal comments?

[Jim_Campbell]

you said  "only that it was" and I asked "why?"  if you are going to make personal comments on peoples reading comprehension perhaps you should take your own advice ?

That's a fair point. I seem to spend an inordinate amount of time correcting people's —often wilful— misreadings of my posts so I'm a little over-sensitive about it. That was snide, and I apologise.

Jim

[Grugz]

hugs all round!

[Spikes]

Just how many Israeli tourists does Bradford get anyway?

[Dog Deever]

re the TV license- I've also read and watched some information from various activists on youtube who have pointed out that the BBC is in breach of their own contract with the UK government, which (apparently) forbids them to turn a profit out of public funding. Apparently again, this is something they ignore which makes that contract null and void, with the knock on effect of making any contract  based on it with the public an illegal and unenforceable contract.
I'm not up on the legal rights and wrongs of this line of argument, but I am aware it exists and is being used to combat both prosecution and paying the license fee.

As to the morality of the licence- well they use the money to help fund the cover up of activities of paedos, sexual harrassers, rapists and all manner of dodgy bastards. If I thought I could get away with it, I'd wouldn't pay either. As it stands, I'm not sure enough of the legalities to  give it a whirl.

[Theblazeuk]

The police and the politicians are the ones using your public money to hide perverts and criminals. Despite all the scapegoating it doesn't matter how much money you throw at something if a bent copper or his boss isn't around to pick it up off the floor.

The BBC turns a profit that is reinvested into the corporation, not paid out to shareholders. High salaried managers and 'stars' notwithstanding.


(BTW it's not that I don't think there's anything to criticise but the scapegoating by vested interests who set a far lower standard - where was the crusading champion of the Sun when it was treating Jimmy like a national hero eh? - drives me up the wall. Plus most every discussion involves a ridiculous amount of hearsay, not least of which comes from various activists.)

[Professor Bear]

I used to think the BBC was worth it for their news services alone, but their Gaza coverage was disturbingly pro-Israeli to the point they were continuing to report stories that had been proven false.  Then there's their baffling blanket coverage of a hard-right party with no MPs in parliament during an election season, and now the election is over and said party has no more need of publicity, the coverage has dried up - so much for not having any political agenda.
Without provable impartiality or at the very least some accountability, I think BBC news has no more validity than RT, and as such should go PPV.

[Theblazeuk]

Yes, it is definitely slipping. Particularly in regards to Gaza. I recall it being toothless but relatively even during the last murder campaign.

[Trout]

Christ, Shark. Get a lawyer and believe his or her advice, will you? Your understanding of basic legal principles is flawed in several ways. You worry me sometimes. I really hope it's all a joke.

Some examples:

Legislation supersedes common law. There are thousands of legal precedents to show it.

Contracts are null and void when they involve obligations that break the law. That includes the common law.

You can't bill someone for services they didn't request. It's banned under legislation. Unsolicited Goods and Practices Act, as I recall. The basis of your relationship with government services isn't contract law.

All that is just half-remembered stuff from law school long ago. Dr X is the real expert, of course. But... The things you say are just fantasy. Please stop being daft and hurting yourself with battles you can't win.

I bet you're Grant in a fiction suit. 

[The Legendary Shark]

Legislation does not supersede common law. Common law is the Basis of legislative law. If, for example, the government passed legislation requiring everyone over the age of 60 be euthenised, would that mean that murdering the over 60s is suddenly legal? Of course not.
.
Also, I have a lawyer working on the police case for me and he understands my arguments and my outlook. The fact that few people understand or agree with my position is quite wearing and does get me down - but I will not give in. Win, lose or draw, this is a struggle I have to undertake. Simply sitting back and trusting to the opinions of others is lazy and dangerous. I was given a mind of my own and, for better or for worse, I intend to use that mind as best I can.
.
Sure, maybe I'm wrong and will end up living in a ditch, or worse. But, what if I'm right?

[JayzusB.Christ]

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/israeli-deputy-ambassador-accuses-irish-group-of-antisemitism-30493770.html

Well, now, Mrs Modai, maybe it's time to grow the fuck up and stop playing the anti-semitism card whenever someone opposes genocide.

[Professor Bear]

The anti-semitism card is invaluable to Israel's defence of their actions because - they believe - it allows them to play the victim.  Modai wants and needs the increasing tide of anti-semitism that Israel's actions have caused in the rest of the world as political capital, and I don't believe for one second she or her rich mates give two fucks about dead Israeli civilians or conscripts - but to give credit where it's due, she did at least have enough sense to not actually dance on the graves of those murdered teenagers for supplying the pretext for the current offensive.

[Hoagy]

Trout and Jim yesterday.

[The Legendary Shark]

Makes me laugh. A Semite is a member of any of the peoples who spoke or speak a semitic language, including Jews and Arabs. The term "anti-Semitic" therefore has nothing to do with being simply anti-Jewish. "Anti-Zionic" would, to me at least, make far more sense and be far more accurate. Still, I guess bodies like the Jewish Defence League and such know what they're doing...
.
Control the language and control the debate. Orwell would be proud.

[Trout]

Legislation does not supersede common law.

Um, it does. The doctrine of supremacy of Parliament says so. Millions of people obey laws laid down in legislation that contradict outdated laws that grew up from old traditions. Honestly.

If, for example, the government passed legislation requiring everyone over the age of 60 be euthenised, would that mean that murdering the over 60s is suddenly legal? Of course not.

Yes, it would. Arguably, if it breaches the Human Rights Act (based on EU law) then legislation can be struck down by the courts, but Parliament can pass any law it wants. Parliament makes the law. It's what it's for.

But, what if I'm right?

You're not right. Sorry.