But you did consume the BBC output. The license funds the BBC. The law says you should pay. If you don't like that, get the law changed by lobbying and/or legal challenge. Otherwise you don't have a leg to stand on unless you can mobilise mass civil disobedience and the govt caves in (Poll charge?). You can't have it both ways. You either want a civilised, law based, parliamentary system or ...... anarchy, dictatorship, tyranny. Make the right choice.Derek27 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 3:29 pmIf I walk out of a supermarket and realise I forgot to pay for something, anything more than the price of an onion I'd be straight back in the shop without giving it a thought. I was only caught nicking a plastic bag because I already paid for my shopping before realising I need another bag and couldn't be arsed to queue up just for a bag.greenmark wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 2:56 pmDerek the morality here is taking something that doesn't belong to you and not paying the ticket price. Greater dishonesty should be called out, but doesn't excuse stealing from the content provider and, indirectly, from me. Because I pay the licence thar the BBc and govt decide on. And part of that analysis is factoring in the lost revenue and costs of trying to recover it.Derek27 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 1:22 pmThe reason the DWP know how many millions have been lost to fraud and error combined but not individually, obviously, is that people just look at the word fraud and blame benefit claimants for it. About 80% of the total lost is believed to be error/incompetence but we'll never know for sure.
When Vlad the Impaler was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (otherwise known as Iain Duncan Smith), the Daily Mail would make headline news of claimants defrauding the DWP of a few hundred quid but kept very quiet about the tens of millions Vlad wasted to save his own face, defending a hopeless case at the Court of Appeal. It was a demand by the Information Commissioner to disclose documents believed to prove he lied to parliament. If he remained in his job he would have taken it to the Supreme Court and wasted even more money.
And there's greenmark worrying about £130 odd that the BBC have no moral right to anyway.
Would you walk into a corner shop and take something without paying and feel pleased if you walked away with your theft undetected? Shops factor in stock losses to their prices, so the rest of us pay for the people that don't.
I've already explained the difference here. Over a couple of decades, if I decided not to watch BBC I'd still be breaking the law and potentially get fined. I could be fined for watching BBC and fined for not watching it!
The law is an ass, Derek's law is much fairer.
UK General Election 2024 (or 25)
Fuck the law. TV Licencing wouldn't have a leg to stand on because they can't prove any wrongdoing. There's already mass civil disobedience as millions of people watch TV without a licence. We just have better things to do than attend mass demonstrations.greenmark wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 3:44 pmBut you did consume the BBC output. The license funds the BBC. The law says you should pay. If you don't like that, get the law changed by lobbying and/or legal challenge. Otherwise you don't have a leg to stand on unless you can mobilise mass civil disobedience and the govt caves in (Poll charge?). You can't have it both ways. You either want a civilised, law based, parliamentary system or ...... anarchy, dictatorship, tyranny. Make the right choice.
Why don't the BBC just have a subscription-only service like Amazon or Netflix?
Because it would seperate a large section of the population from as unbiased an opinion as you can find in broadcasting. Is that not worth protecting?Derek27 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 4:05 pmFuck the law. TV Licencing wouldn't have a leg to stand on because they can't prove any wrongdoing. There's already mass civil disobedience as millions of people watch TV without a licence. We just have better things to do than attend mass demonstrations.greenmark wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 3:44 pmBut you did consume the BBC output. The license funds the BBC. The law says you should pay. If you don't like that, get the law changed by lobbying and/or legal challenge. Otherwise you don't have a leg to stand on unless you can mobilise mass civil disobedience and the govt caves in (Poll charge?). You can't have it both ways. You either want a civilised, law based, parliamentary system or ...... anarchy, dictatorship, tyranny. Make the right choice.
Why don't the BBC just have a subscription-only service like Amazon or Netflix?
Marrs left because he wanted to express his opinion. Unbiased journalism does not allow the opinion of the journalist. The BBC is currently examining itself in public. BBC journalists grilling the DG. Is this not a fantastic institution that should be applauded, not eroded?
-
Archery1969
- Posts: 3217
- Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2019 8:25 am
- Location: Newport
Derek, this is shameful, not paying your BBC TV Licence fee and not paying tax on your winnings.Derek27 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 4:05 pmFuck the law. TV Licencing wouldn't have a leg to stand on because they can't prove any wrongdoing. There's already mass civil disobedience as millions of people watch TV without a licence. We just have better things to do than attend mass demonstrations.greenmark wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 3:44 pmBut you did consume the BBC output. The license funds the BBC. The law says you should pay. If you don't like that, get the law changed by lobbying and/or legal challenge. Otherwise you don't have a leg to stand on unless you can mobilise mass civil disobedience and the govt caves in (Poll charge?). You can't have it both ways. You either want a civilised, law based, parliamentary system or ...... anarchy, dictatorship, tyranny. Make the right choice.
Why don't the BBC just have a subscription-only service like Amazon or Netflix?
Angela Rayner will be coming for you Derek after the Eneral Election and put you in the Tower of London for spanking sessions. 
-
Archery1969
- Posts: 3217
- Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2019 8:25 am
- Location: Newport
I wonder how greenmark will feel about subsidising scumbag MPs. If that's the law, that's the law.
The BBC is unbiased?greenmark wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 4:18 pmBecause it would seperate a large section of the population from as unbiased an opinion as you can find in broadcasting. Is that not worth protecting?Derek27 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 4:05 pmFuck the law. TV Licencing wouldn't have a leg to stand on because they can't prove any wrongdoing. There's already mass civil disobedience as millions of people watch TV without a licence. We just have better things to do than attend mass demonstrations.greenmark wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 3:44 pmBut you did consume the BBC output. The license funds the BBC. The law says you should pay. If you don't like that, get the law changed by lobbying and/or legal challenge. Otherwise you don't have a leg to stand on unless you can mobilise mass civil disobedience and the govt caves in (Poll charge?). You can't have it both ways. You either want a civilised, law based, parliamentary system or ...... anarchy, dictatorship, tyranny. Make the right choice.
Why don't the BBC just have a subscription-only service like Amazon or Netflix?
Marrs left because he wanted to express his opinion. Unbiased journalism does not allow the opinion of the journalist. The BBC is currently examining itself in public. BBC journalists grilling the DG. Is this not a fantastic institution that should be applauded, not eroded?
Thats a nonsense post. I wouldn't wilingly subsidise an MP I considered a scumbag.
You're still evading the issue that you gloated at not being caught for not paying what the rest of of us have for - 25 years?
You are willingly subsidising scumbag MPs and non-scumbag MPs because that's the law and you're willingly obeying it.greenmark wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 5:25 pmThats a nonsense post. I wouldn't wilingly subsidise an MP I considered a scumbag.
You're still evading the issue that you gloated at not being caught for not paying what the rest of of us have for - 25 years?
still swerving away from the fact you are technically a thief. I stole two toy models and got dobbed in by my sister. I was then marched off to the store by my Mother to be ticked off by the store manager.Derek27 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 5:29 pmYou are willingly subsidising scumbag MPs and non-scumbag MPs because that's the law and you're willingly obeying it.
My only other thieving was via P2P. I downloaded quite a lot and when I told my brother-in-law who was a musician with many musician friends he pointed out to me that getting output for free deprives the creative of their just earnings for the their unique creativity.
Swivel it how you like, your behaviour and mine is theft - plain and simple.
So you've been thieving shop goods and music. I bet that was last week.greenmark wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 5:38 pmstill swerving away from the fact you are technically a thief. I stole two toy models and got dobbed in by my sister. I was then marched off to the store by my Mother to be ticked off by the store manager.
My only other thieving was via P2P. I downloaded quite a lot and when I told my brother-in-law who was a musician with many musician friends he pointed out to me that getting output for free deprives the creative of their just earnings for the their unique creativity.
Swivel it how you like, your behaviour and mine is theft - plain and simple.
That is disgraceful behaviour and no comparison to not paying for something you haven't even asked for.