Slashdot Mirror
BBC Criticized For Snooping Under RIPA Powers
judgecorp writes "The BBC and other UK public bodies have been criticized for excessive and secretive use of snooping powers granted under RIPA (the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act). The act allows the BBC and other to request information on suspected criminals, but it has been over-used, and used covertly according to critics. From the article: 'The BBC said it had not been secretive about how it was using RIPA powers. “The BBC uses Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act for the detection of television licence evasion alone,” a spokesperson said. “It is only used as a last resort once other enforcement methods have been exhausted.The reason we do not release more details on how and when it is used is to ensure people without a valid TV licence don’t use this information to their advantage when attempting to avoid detection.”'"
It's worth it to have the BBC. Seriously.
When V for Vendetta came out, I was watching it and thinking "Curfews? Meh. Government sponsored rape squads? Yawn. You call this a dictatorship? ...wait a minute, they've replaced the BBC with US-style propoganda TV? The bastards!"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence
You pay that there IS something to watch in the first place.... (Instead of fundfraising pleas from you PBS)
bickerdyke
Yes, and in return, you have one or several channels that are rely less on advertising resources for their survival. You also get news that is written more by real journalists and less by corporate bullies with political agendas (yes, I'm talking about Fox)... while still be independant from their government. You also get shows and other stuff that would not be considered mainstream enough to make money... Some countries decide that it's worth it to have some sort of tax on everybody to promote/create/garantee that sort of stuff. You have the right to disagree of course.
In Soviet UK, TV watches you!
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
You have to have a TV licence for live TV. Most of the money goes towards the BBC and the TV, radio and other services it provides. The upshot of that is that BBC content is broadly well regarded quality wise and doesn't contain third party advertising. The down side is that some people don't see why they should have to pay the licence if they don't like the BBC's content.
In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?
Not only in the UK, but in most civilised countries yes you pay a tv license fee.
BBC, Arte, Rai among others are all public broadcasters.
The reason behind this choice is that by having a public broadcaster you can ensure more or less objective news (among other things). Without a neutral (public founded) broadcaster you end up with a situation where the airwaves are at the mercy of private broadcasters (and they sure as hell don't care about democracy or telling news only infotainment). It sure beats the american way of doing tv. Private broadcasters that tell lies (cough cough fox news), and a semi-public broadcaster like PBS that has to ask, no beg viewers for donations.
> In the UK you pay for the right to watch TV ?
...
No, we pay for the right to *not* watch TV
AccountKiller
Only if you want off-air or live streaming. The BBC provides about a dozen advert-free channels of high-quality programming, and dozens of ad-free radio stations..
Compare this with the state of TV in the US, where you pay about the same amount of money (or more, depending on your cable or satellite provider) to watch ten minutes of adverts with two minutes of programme in between.
It must be great if someone is rich enough that paying the TV license is a moot point when it comes to affordability. However, whether or not there's exemptions for the poor, for those near poor it can be a burden I imagine. Why don't they just subsidize the revenue needed by shifting to a graduated income tax? Just get rid of the TV license. I imagine it'd be more cost effective to have one less method of taxation. Plus, I subscribe to the idea that communication should be tax-free.
That's about the size of it. It's slashdot, so they must maintain their rabidly anti-UK stance no matter what.
It's like they hate us because we're free, or because we keep pulling them out of the shit when they get embroiled in wars the US can't fight on their own, or something.
I haven't paid my TV license since I moved away from home some 10-15 years ago. Most of that time I haven't actually had a TV either, I get my media online these days... but the people who come asking why I haven't paid my license are rarely so easily convinced.
"Hello, I'm from 'Radiotjänst', we notice you haven't paid your TV license."
"I don't have a TV."
"Really? Can I look?"
"I don't have a TV, I don't have a TV card for my computer, or any other item that is listed as requiring me to pay your license."
"Are you sure, it covers quite a lot. If I can come in and have a quick look..."
"I'm quite sure, and no, you can't come in."
Then they'll usually call a few weeks later, because the inspector reports that behaviour as suspicious, so they call to ask. And then sometimes I get a letter as well, making sure I know that I seem to have 'forgotten' to pay my license.
Agencies like that are the basic reason why things like RIPA is a very, very bad thing. Guilty until proven innocent, and harassed until you confess whether actually guilty or not. Organizations with that mindset is what caused the inquisition, so we really need to keep them under check rather than giving them more power.
In the UK we a;lso have Channel 4 which is a QUANGO (Quasi Autonomous Non-Governmental Organisation) meaning, in practice, that it is funded by a mixture of (mainly) taxation bolstered by advertising revenue. C4 content isn't nearly as good quality, on average, as that of the BBC but its existance shows that either model can fund a public broadcaster.
"The reason we do not release more details on how and when it is used is to ensure people without a valid TV licence don’t use this information to their advantage when attempting to avoid detection.”
Bollocks. The reason they do not release more details is that they don't want to.
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
"...Why don't they just subsidize the revenue needed by shifting to a graduated income tax? Just get rid of the TV license. I imagine it'd be more cost effective to have one less method of taxation...."
Yes, it would be much more cost-effective. If you only interested in making a profit. But that's not the point.
Ever since Lord Reith, the BBC has carefully guarded its independence. Do you think we haven't thought of funding through direct taxation? But The important (VITAL!) thing about the BBC is that it is NOT a government-run station. It is not beholden to government and dependent on a minister deciding to provide or withhold tax. That means that it can afford the huge and rare luxury of:
1 - not being commercial. Not only does that mean no adverts, it also means that unusual/experimental programs can be run depending on artistic merit alone, even if there is not an obvious market for them. Why do you think the BBC leads the world in development of novel entertainment?
2 - being able to criticise not only government policy, but ALL pressure and interest groups equally. This enables it to have balance, which no other broadcasting station can have. During WW2 the world listened to the BBC, because everyone knew that it would report stories accurately, no matter who was going to be annoyed...
3 - transmitting civilisation according to educated ideals. Lord Reith laid down the dictum that the BBC's job was "to inform, educate and entertain". In that order. No other funding system would be able to support that ideal.
In fact, what happens is that the British pay into a fund to maintain themselves and the rest of the world at a reasonably civilised cultural level. The BBC is neither commercial nor political in spirit. It is biased in favour of idealism. There is nothing anywhere else like it.
once granted, it is always abused.
You also get programs like Dr Who (recently revived, but going back to 1963) that is difficult to show elsewhere such as the USA - such as the center of the Slashdot Universe at times it seems - because it has to be cut so much to fit in all the channel's adverts that viewers then try to cut out themselves using channel hopping or a DVR recorder.
Or do you all really, religiously watch all the adverts? You should! It pays for the programming remember...
Despite this I thought having to pay for TV License because I had *any* device in my property that could receive live TV was a little silly, expensive and wasteful for all concerned. It seemed such an outdated and unworkable system in the days of large apartment blocks (difficult to ascertain whether an unlicensed apartment really had a TV in it) when the receiver could be a little USB device smaller than the PSU of my laptop. What to replace it with though?
For a few months I just used the BBC i-Player and watched the shows from the BBC - including back episodes of Dr Who - on my Ethernet wired Internet connection for 15UKP / month (oh, almost the same as the TV license then!).
ITV (that get no subsidy from the TV License) also had a lot of their shows free to watch (and advert free) on their WWW site. Again these aren't live-to-air but I remember watching some of the classic Sci-Fi series such as Space 1999, The Prisoner and UFO on there - I'd never have thought of watching or buying.
Yes, this is about the general level of intelligence one expects on the subject, first raising stuff that happened hundreds of years ago to no one in living memory, then claiming some irrelevant current affairs come into it, and then claiming that not liking racism against your fellow countrymen is "nationalism", when the sad fact is that it's US nationalism that causes them to believe that *all* countries are inherently inferior (which does at least explain US foreign policy).
The funny part is you apparently think the other news programs in thw US have "real" journalists. CNN? MSNBC? CBS? These guys trip over their own ideological slant every day
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
There is very little in the way of subsidy , being blind reduces the licence fee and i think there is a provision for pensioners. Other than that there are fines and imprisonment as alternatives to paying.
One issue, often stated, with bundling into general taxation is that it would probably lead to the government deciding what is or isn't acceptable to broadcast, especially when it is something which shows the government in a poor light.
It would make sense for the BBC to encrypt their channels and eliminate most of the thorny issues concerning licensing. Since if you want to watch the content you would need to pay for a card to decrypt it. Unfortunately the BBC knows that the revenue base would shrink dramatically. It would also put an end to most of Europe having free access to the BBC via satellite. Interesting to the note the contrast between Britain and Ireland in broadcasting to it's neighbours, There is a certain propaganda value to pushing British Culture to foreign parts one not shared by the more neutral Irish.
Ireland already does encrypt it's channels delivered by satellite, you need to access them via a subscription to Sky TV or use Digital Terrestrial TV *. Either way you will not be able to view outside of Ireland, to be honest you wouldn't be missing much other than Fair City, and Irish News and Sport. The bulk of the broadcasts are from UK, Australia and the USA, and are widely available anyway.
Ireland still has the curse of TV licensing and since digital terrestrial isn't encrypted an excuse to carry on with it into the future.
* Analog TV shuts off in Ireland in a few months time.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
What defines a TV in the UK? If I have a 50" flatscreen hooked to my PC and never use it to watch TV (very common), does that mean it is not a "TV"? Is it anything with a tuner? It's harder and harder to get a large flatscreen without a tuner these days.
Your example kind of argues against your point.
You do know why Assange is hiding in Ecuador, don't you? HINT: He's not afraid of "special rendition" to Weston-Super-Mare.
As a fan of the BBC I wish all of this were true, unfortuantly its not quite. The BBC's budget is used as a politcal weapon. The Conservatives would like to reduce the BBCs size and thus influence, something they were calling for before they were in power. Personally I'd summise that if News International hadn't scored such an amazing own goal recently (as a lot of influence was coming from them) that the pressure to do so would increase. Their main problem is that like the NHS, on the whole people quite like the BBC...
Also it's woth noting the World Service I'm pretty sure is paid for by the goverment rather than from the license.
Blatant Advert: Android Apps!
This. The BBC has been a mindless lapdog since Hutton.
Interestingly, under the much more authoritarian Thatcher, it remained a thorn in the government's side. (It required a decades or two to remove all the activist management and gradually replace them with stooges.)
"2 - being able to criticise not only government policy, but ALL pressure and interest groups equally. This enables it to have balance, which no other broadcasting station can have. During WW2 the world listened to the BBC, because everyone knew that it would report stories accurately, no matter who was going to be annoyed..."
Which they do so well that practically every ruling UK political party has accused the BBC of being biased in favour of the opposition. Including most recently our current abomination of a government. Basically because the BBC doesn't parrot what they are fed by the government they must be biased. Unlike the commercial media/press organisations that have been shown recently to have a disturbingly close 'relationship' with the UK government. It is just a shame this that will eventually be the death of the BBC as they get punished by those governments by having their funding cut. That and most people think that because they don't like *everything* on the BBC they shouldn't have to pay for any of it so are eager to support such actions.
Bloody hell I would be.
The US relied heavily on Britain's remaining colonial outposts during the cold war. They were quite vocal, in back channels at least, about us not divesting ourselves of them. A lot of them were in very useful places for placing either USAF or USN bases, or sigint and elint stations. Places like Diego Garcia are officially under the control of the British Government, but if you went there all you'd find is a US Naval base and a notional British Government official presence.
Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.
It would ok with me if you could avoid the TV license if you didn't use any BBC content, but the TV license applies to all live TV. Even if I only ever watch commercial TV, I still need to pay the TV license. Perhaps that made sense when there were only a few channels, but not today. It's just another one of the UK government's stealth taxes.
The money doesn't go to the UK government, so I'm not sure how it's "just another one of the UK government's stealth taxes".
1. We know these powers have been abused in the past, and more generally speaking power is always abused when given. That is why we need oversight of power.
2. There is no oversight in these cases. It isn't just the BBC, there are other unmonitored organizations. You are correct in stating that we don't know if there has been any abuse yet (although arguably TV Licensing merely using such powers counts), and that is the problem.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
...unlike commercial television, whereby anybody who buys a packet of breakfast cereal is forced to make a donation to the cost of TV, even if they never watch it... and when they do watch it everything is effectively censored to avoid upsetting the advertisers. Or do you think the money to pay for commercial TV is magically conjured up by the Invisible Hand Fairy?
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Much of that thanks to the tireless efforts of the Daily Mail turning middle class opinion against it, for the very reason that it was a thorn in the Tory government's side.
If you can't kill it directly, go for a propaganda war. The Daily Hate Mail is very good at that sort of thing.
It must be great if someone is rich enough that paying the TV license is a moot point when it comes to affordability.
It works out far cheaper than satellite or cable, and the license only applies if you're watching the broadcast in real-time. If you don't have a TV, and only use the iPlayer for catch-up, then you don't have to pay for the license.
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
Not quite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_4#Funding
C4 receives nothing at all from the taxpayer. It doesn't get anything from the license fee either. The main funding for C4 comes, just like ITV, from advertising.
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
Do you think we haven't thought of funding through direct taxation?
To be very blunt, I think your country is insane for letting the BBC have that kind of power over you. And yes, I don't think your country has thought about it. Else they would be funded differently.
It's just another one of the UK government's stealth taxes.
Wrong on two counts: first, everyone knows about it, and second, fee collection is enforced by the BBC, not by the police.
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
I've tried to pay for a TV license here in the states just to be able to get Top Gear UK legally. Top Gear America is the worst. They refused me saying that I needed a UK address. I asked if I could just pick an address and was hung up on.
I tried again with an actual valid address but only had a credit card from the US and they wouldn't take it. I was asked why I wanted a TV license so bad and I said for the Top Gear show. I was told that it would be easier for me to download it from the internet and have been doing that ever since.
Nathan
The BBC is the Television Licensing Authority.
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
It's like they hate us because we're free
Free-ish. We're not as bad as the US, but we're getting there.
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
The money doesn't go to the UK government, so I'm not sure how it's "just another one of the UK government's stealth taxes".
Well, I imagine a great majority of the other money that goes to the UK government doesn't actually go to the government either. It goes to people, businesses, and whatnot, that just happen to be, like the BBC, doing stuff that the government decided to force their citizens to pay for.
Interestingly, under the much more authoritarian Thatcher, it remained a thorn in the government's side.
Insightful? Really? How many cc tvs were operating under Thatcher? How many ASBO's were issued during Thatcher's time as PM? Oh, wait, only right wing authoritarianism is bad, left wing is ok.
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
So they might not actually have done anything and they most likely haven't done anything inappropriate and they don't have any obligation to reveal what they've used the powers for, but let's pretend they're all doing evil things with it 24/7 because it makes for a better article.
That is a fair assumption to make about power. And since the BBC isn't a citizen but a public organization with a bit of power, there's no concept of "innocent until proven guilty". If they're not willing to show what they're doing with that power, then I'm not willing to assume that they aren't abusing it. That's how I roll.
Unbelievably, I couldn't give a shit whether Americans are watching it or not, but here are a few incredible television shows created by the BBC which spank most - I did say most - comparable American products:
As far as journalism goes, The Daily Mail is an embarrassment. It's an affront to journalism which is purely aimed at tacky sensationalism which has only the most tenuous relationship with the truth.
But this conversation wasn't about "the UK's" journalism, it was about the BBC's journalism, which - while it has some weaknesses I have been known to bitch about - can only be regarded as among the best in the world. The ABC in Australia is the only organisation I can think of with a comparable code of journalistic integrity and surprisingly, the only better journalism I've ever seen comes from Al Jazeera of all places.
If you are handing out challenges though, how about you name just one solitary US news outlet which can be trusted to reliably provide balance to the news stories it broadcasts? Just one. I'll wait.
By the way, did you enjoy watching the Olympics live on NBC?
A.I. Research. The peculiar science in which we know the question and we know the answer, but can't show the working
I don't think I've watched "live" TV in about 15 years. These days if there's anything I want to watch, I'll get it on iPlayer or grab a torrent, at a time that is convenient for me.
The money doesn't go to the UK government, so I'm not sure how it's "just another one of the UK government's stealth taxes".
Well, I imagine a great majority of the other money that goes to the UK government doesn't actually go to the government either. It goes to people, businesses, and whatnot, that just happen to be, like the BBC, doing stuff that the government decided to force their citizens to pay for.
But that's the point - the BBC is independent of the government very specifically. The money collected for running it is not from or collected by the government. It is not a tax in that sense. It's set up this way to ensure that the BBC is not just a state-owned and controlled media arm of whatever government happens to be in charge at the time.
The TV licence is very definitely not a "stealth tax" in any sense of the definition whatsoever. It is not part of the government.
You might as well say that water rates are a stealth tax - the water companies are not part of the government, but you must pay water rates if you want to receive piped water into your house, and the collection of this fee is enforced by law.
Also it's woth noting the World Service I'm pretty sure is paid for by the goverment rather than from the license.
This is no longer the case. One of the first things the Tories did when they recently got back into power was to "freeze" the BBC Licence Fee. From 2014, the BBC World Service will be funded from the Licence Free and not from the Government. The deliberate effect is to force bigger cuts onto the rest of the BBC.
first raising stuff that happened hundreds of years ago to no one in living memory
So history is irrelevant
then claiming some irrelevant current affairs come into it
As is the present. So what does that leave us with - the future?
and then claiming that not liking racism against your fellow countrymen is "nationalism"
Despite the fact that, broadly speaking, white Britons and white Americans are from the same racial stock.
it's US nationalism that causes them to believe that *all* countries are inherently inferior (which does at least explain US foreign policy).
Well, ok, one out of four I guess.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
When did we have left wing authoritarianism? We went from Thatcher (Conservative) to Major (Conservative) to Blair (New Labour - Old Conservative) to Brown (ineffectual) to Cameron (Conservative). The only one of those who could possibly be considered left wing was Brown, and he came in at the peak of the financial crisis and spent his entire term on the defensive.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Wonders of the solar system.
Wonders of the Universe.
Everything & Nothing.
Chemistry: A volatile history.
Planet earth.
The frozen planet.
Science & Islam.
The majority of the UK population thinks: global warming is a massive environmental disaster, that we're all descended from a common ancestor, and that the earth has been around for a few billion years more than the bible claims. The quality of the BBC's programming is largely to thank for that, and so i'm happy to continue paying my license fee. Compare any of the above programs with the typical output of 'the history channel', and I think you'll quickly change your opinion about the program quality.
The BBC became the Licensing Authority with responsibility for the administration of the television licensing system in 1991.
It is enforced solely by the BBC, according to Wikipedia:
Since 1991, collection and enforcement of the licence fee is the responsibility of the BBC in its role as TV Licensing Authority.
Original source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/keyfacts/stories/licencefee.shtml
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
Brilliant. We have a story that mentions the name "BBC", and reading down the page, every single comment I can see is ranting either for or against the license fee.
And I'll bet that 90% of those putting their points across aren't even in the UK.
Well, I do live in the UK, and I've been to the US and other countries, and seen their TV. I know what I prefer. My opinion of the UK TV license is coloured by the fact that without it, we would have TV like the Americans. Frankly, I'd pay a lot of money not to suffer that.
When was the last time we needed you? What were the stakes?
Afghanistan and Iraq: support in the UN and on the ground? Or special rendition flights refuelling in Scotland?
When was the last time you needed us? What were the stakes?
The Falklands: support in the UN and the purchase of a few missiles?
But that's the point - the BBC is independent of the government very specifically. The money collected for running it is not from or collected by the government.
It most certainly is collected by government through both the law establishing the licensing fee, the government body that sets the fee, and the actual enforcement of nonpayment.
The TV licence is very definitely not a "stealth tax" in any sense of the definition whatsoever. It is not part of the government.
The TV license is not a "stealth tax" because it is overt. I do consider it a variation of a property tax since it is imposed by government fiat (on owning a working TV) not by contract.
Let's see... Surveillance cameras on every corner, no freedom of speech, no right to self defense, no protection against self-incrimination(encryption keys), and it's the very reason the term "nanny state" was invented. What's not to love?
I'm not saying the UK is worse than my country, but you clearly have serious problems. I don't see how anyone can consider the UK "free".
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
It would make sense for the BBC to encrypt their channels and eliminate most of the thorny issues concerning licensing. Since if you want to watch the content you would need to pay for a card to decrypt it.
Not really because hardly anyone has a receiver capable of accepting such a card. 99% of Freeview and Freesat receivers don't even have card slots.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Well, we needed your support in the UN, which was my point. We have our own refuelling equipment, it would just cost more money to put it into position.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
They really cover all bases in this article. They have both a denial that they have been secretive and an explanation of why they had to be secretive.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
interesting, thanks. uzywane
ciagniki rolnicze.
I just want to point out that if you're talking to an American here, then half of them (us) think that everything in the UK is left-wing, even your most conservative politicians. I have a couple of friends who have moved here from the UK and often comment about how when in the UK they were die-hard conservatives but here they seem to fall into the "bleeding heart liberal" group instead.
Downton Abbey was ITV.
What happens if you refuse to pay? A civil suit? A fine?
It has the same legal standing as a tax, so fines and possible jail time.
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
Yeah, I wasn't sure when that came into effect. Interstingly they're backtracking a little on the cuts they made to the World Service for certain areas of the world. I guess that will mean an ever bigger burden down the line.
Blatant Advert: Android Apps!
Well unlike any time in the last 90 years, maybe they'll think about it now due to your post.
I'm not usually that sarcastic, but the arrogance in your post is staggering. Because their decision is different from yours, rather than thinking that maybe they arrived at the decision based on different priorities or values or something else you're missing, you assert that an entire country of millions of people hasn't seriously thought about the license fee since it was implemented in 1922. Do you realize that you're implying that the currently-living 62 million people, and all the people before them, were just shit-chucking apes who couldn't make their own decisions correctly? And that's not a rhetorical question.
I suggest that you at least consider the possibility that other people did really come to the right decision for them, even if it's not the right one for you. I live in the US, and frankly I'd gladly pay the license fee for quality news and programming live, rather than catching the scraps over here.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Surveillance cameras on every corner - not true
You're right, there are probably a few corners without CCTV. But there are enough cameras in the UK that there is one for every 32 citizens.
no freedom of speech - not true
Proof
no right to self defense - not true
Proof. Notice how strong the doublethink is in the judge, who exlclaims that "People have the right to use that reasonable force" while simultaneously sentencing someone for exercising that right.
no protection against self-incrimination (encryption keys) - not true (not true)
Proof
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
So, they gave the BBC permission to snoop on criminals then are surprised to find that the BBC abuses the privilege? Seriously? Those who do NOT learn from history are doomed to repeat history.
Man can NOT have unchecked power. At all. When you give someone power, you need to have checks and balances to keep that person from abusing that power, otherwise the power will get abused.
And we keep doing this over and over through out history. Will we ever learn?
Be seeing you...
Surveillance cameras on every corner. Bollocks.
No freedom of speech. Bollocks.
No right to self defence. Pretty much bollocks.
Encryption keys- you're right. This was part of "Computers are scary" legislation that had too little oversight.
Reduction of freedom from fear of murder counts a lot. No thought that the guy/gal who is being a dick to you will have a gun. Hooray!
8 775 gun murders in USA in 2010 compared with 51 gun murders in UK (popl 1/5 of USA) (12,996 vs 600 total murders). Hooray!
No "Please don't let me get sick as we'll have to sell the house". Hoo-fucking-ray.
We have all main road (and city) car movements tracked in real-time through an enormous increase in ANPR, the lack of discussion of which worries me. Boo!
We're not totally free, but with 60 million+ on these small isles, it's a different ball game.
Oh, and the BBC are pretty much the best broadcasters in the world, and I've tried most of the English language competition and much of the European language channels. Come and find the radio- recommend 6 Music and Radio 4. World Service's good too, if you want some proper news.
First of all, none of those links are 'proof'. They are mostly anomalous cases.
1:32 camera ratio includes shops, pubs, clubs; cameras are anywhere where private and public meet. I'm surprised it's not more. I can walk mile-upon-mile of streets in my city with no cameras anywhere. Most street surveillance are concentrated where there's booze and people. There's one hell of a lot of extrapolation in that cited article too.
The 'cult' prosecution didn't last 3 days- see the same page. I read the follow-up article [see link on your cited page] as suggesting the Scientologists had an inside man or two on that one, and as soon as it reached the 'normal' judiciary it was squashed. Also, the City of London has the oddest bye-laws in the country. One swallow doesn't make Britain a sunny country.
Finally, and quite frankly, if Tony Martin is your poster-boy, you have no fucking idea.
Um, how do you reconcile these two statements:
Surveillance cameras on every corner. Bollocks.
and
We have all main road (and city) car movements tracked in real-time through an enormous increase in ANPR
No freedom of speech. Bollocks.
You're just in denial here. The Public Order Act of 1986 makes insults an arrestable offense.
No right to self defence. Pretty much bollocks.
Again, this sounds like denial on your part. There are way too many stories like this:
What actually seems to be the case is that the UK officially acknowledges the right to self defense, but has put so many conditions on it that you're likely to be victimized again by the state after doing so. That's not what I'd call having the right to self-defense.
Now I'll happily grant you your other points. I won't claim that the US is better than the UK. I am actually pretty sure that it is not. But that doesn't mean the UK is a free country.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Ever since Lord Reith, the BBC has carefully guarded its independence.
"They know they (the government) can trust us not to be really impartial" - Lord Reith in his diary during the General Strike in 1926.
The BBC is in no sense independent. The board of governors is appointed directly by the government. Trying to argue that the BBC is independent is like trying to argue that the department manager has no influence over you because you only answer to the line manager (who is answerable to the department manager). There are plenty of examples of the BBC being highly partisan and serving the interests of government. Perhaps one of the most notable is the BBC's involvement in the 1953 Iranian coup. The BBC broadcast the "go" code for the operation.
Most of the time though, you don't need to have some government minister secretly complaining to the board. Like most news organisations, the BBC is well versed in self-censorship. Even the language used betrays the establishment mindset. You can see this most clearly when you contrast reporting on a domestic issue with reporting on a similar foreign issue. So for example, when police are hitting protesters with batons in the UK, the BBC will describe it as "police scuffled with protesters". In contrast, when police in Iran hit Iranian protesters in similar ways, the BBC describe it as "batons swinging wildly at unarmed protesters" etc.
Another example is the seige of Grozny where the BBC reporter was allowed to get fist-shakingly angry (because Russia is an enemy) and demanded to know what right the Russians had to order the citizens to leave.
How many of them were incinerated, crushed by falling masonry or shredded by shrapnel nobody yet knows.
Moscow excused itself the trouble of worrying about such details by equating those who stayed on with terrorists.
Why should they go? By what right was the Russian army forcing them from their homes? So Russia could destroy what it itself dismissed as a handful of terrorists?
In contrast it is interesting to see how the BBC dealt with the very similar situation of the seige of Fallujah. This time the army carrying out the siege was the US army, so the gloves go back on. Instead of a angry reporter cursing the US, we had articles like "Fixing the Problem of Fallujah".
They also show a genuine concern for civilians of Falluja.
The big question is whether the rebels will stay and fight, or if they will simply melt away, as guerrillas tend to do when faced with a large conventional force.
But for the highly-professional marines, Falluja is also a return to the simplicity of combat after the complexities of peacekeeping and an enemy that never shows itself.
Notice the difference?
First of all, none of those links are 'proof'. They are mostly anomalous cases.
It only takes one counterexample to disprove an assertion.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Car movements and cameras trained at people are very different. By driving a car with numberplates, you automatically have a way for the authorities to recognise you. The automated tracking WILL become an issue, but I'm guessing a little here; nothing public has ever been announced (ssshh, terrorists might be listening). Assume most western countries have something similar or it is planned, even if it's publicly there to reduce the "Police-Action" chases ? Not great, but a long, long way off a viewing-port in every dwelling and 'Enemy of the State' eyes, following our every move.
The Reform Section 5 campaign group will hopefully get their way- the current govt. has to give civil liberties a little boost to calm their right-wingers. This is being actively considered [by government] and it was always a bad clause. However, we're into detail. It's a long, long way from 'no free speech'. See the anti-TSA t-shirt wearing air traveller, just a few stories above, if you want an example closer to home.
Read the small-print after the Myleene Klass affair. She wasn't warned by police. Her agent told the press for a reaction/publicity. It was, hating to repeat myself, total bollocks. Can you find another? Look up Vincent Cooke for a man who killed an intruder in self-defence and take note of the remarks from the judge who last week sentenced the dead man's accomplice.
I think the UK has a long way to go. Many, many important issues are buried within celebrity news nonsense. Our journos and politicos all come from the same, small clique, which has pretty much drawn the wagons around it. However, I've never stuck my head above the political parapet [note to self: an interesting metaphor to choose], so haven't found myself on the end of any ways the state can grind you down- one assumes there are many. For my money, the UK isn't too bad yet and really not the 'Nanny State'. The biggest difference in my adult life is pre- and post-IRA, where many subtle rights have paradoxically disappeared as the authorities are not worrying about 'the terrorists winning' any more.
Unlikely though, as even in the US it would be seen as "cruel and unusual punishment".
you assert that an entire country of millions of people hasn't seriously thought about the license fee since it was implemented in 1922.
It's like a car wrapped around a tree. That doesn't happen when everything is working correctly. One doesn't need to know the details of the decision to fund the BBC in this way. The mere fact that it happened, indicates a problem.
I'm not American. I should be giving Australia back to the Aboriginals, and the British should be un-deporting me. That aside, history can have a valid impact on the attitudes of people. Are you saying that the Red Indians aren't allowed to feel anger towards the Americans for the actions of their ancestors? Because, after all, the people who did it are dead now.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
It's nothing to do with 'owning a working TV'.
[...]
*except* live broadcast TV
This. The BBC has been a mindless lapdog since Hutton.
You do realise that any given BBC news item is liable to get equal numbers of complaints stating, "Your reporting of this matter demonstrates your bias towards the evil Tories" and "Your reporting of this matter demonstrates your bias towards stupid Labour".
If you think the BBC are being biased, it's more likely due to how you interpret their lack of bias than because they are actually biased.
(Sometimes they are just biased)
Yeah, because the BBC never give members of the Government a hard time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uwlsd8RAoqI
If you own a working TV, but don't use it to receive live TV, you don't need a license. Such as all the instances mentioned by the AC. So you don't have to pay if you own a TV, its only if you use it for a specific use.
It's nothing to do with 'owning a working TV'.
[...]
*except* live broadcast TV
The TV can be working just fine (ie, it could receive live OTA TV if you hooked up an antenna or dish) but if you don't use that function of it, you don't need to pay for a TV licence.
You don't need a special "non working" TV - a normal working one is fine.
Ok, so it's that antenna rather than the TV that gets taxed. I still think it's insane.
It is rather obvious once one thinks about it, isn't it?
A friend of mine hadn't bought a TV licence for about 5 years, at the time they were roughly £100 a year as I recall. I think he was fined £50. Of course they expect you to buy a licence after being caught.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
It would be OK though because it's outside US jurisdiction so it can be as cruel and unusual as you want it to be.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
Counting complaints made by some channel isn't an objective way of identifying bias at all.
When 28 people complain that a TV programme unfairly favoured the Conservative Party and 28 people complain that a TV programme favoured the Labour Party, tell me, is the BBC biased?
I've seen those complaints. They were all for the same programme.
So no, I don't trust generic accusations of bias.
Disclaimer: I don't work in media or for the BBC.
When 28 people eat chocolate, and 28 people have a beer, tell me, is the BBC biased?
Counting complaints made by some channel isn't an objective way of identifying bias at all.
(Sorry, I'm not interested in pursuing this discussion any further. There are essays all over the web discussing the post-Hutton BBC and you're starting from an untenable position.)
I really don't get "made by some channel". But feel free to walk off without addressing my points.
Forward planning, if there was any intention to encrypt the BBC there would be decryption modules or at least a space for one on the freeview boxes. Unlike Sky where encryption increases revenue for the BBC it would lower revenue.
Making the BBC freely available should be good for me, but sadly even though I can receive the BBC via satellite I rarely watch their channels. The Olympics was an exception and particularly absurd since I could watch the BBC tv channels but was region banned from Olympic content on their website.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
Why didn't you ask a friend to buy it for you, or bought it on ebay or over the internet, or even built it yourself?
Considering that the money goes to fund the BBC, which even the most blinkered of Americans has to accept as being "one of the best" broadcasters in the world, and I can watch it's entire output for under 1/4 of the cost of my satellite subscription, I don't have any problem with that. See above comment about paying for a satellite service too, which is vastly poorer value (the satellite fuckers waste much of their income on retard-entertainment like sports!).
What I do still have a problem with, is that they got rid of the Radio reception license - it's incorporated into the TV license. So there is no way for someone who honestly has no TV but does have (and use) a radio to provide funding for the radio system without also paying the far higher licensing fee for the TV (which they don't have.
It's a few years since I succumbed to the wife's demand to have a TV, so I've forgotten some of the details. IIRC the Radio license was subsumed into the TV license in the late 1970s and cost around 1/6th of the TV license at that time. Cheap at twice the price.
Oh ... just try to envisage this : no adverts except for trailers. None. Nada. Zilch.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
No case to answer.
channel = channel of communication, not TV channel (i.e. particular complaints procedure)
And re-posting AC is kinda lame.
AC wasn't me.
Note that I didn't say in which channel those complaints were received. I believe those complaints were made via multiple complaint mechanisms, and not any single channel.
Your problem is that your initial post indicated an extreme bias and you're just not receptive to criticism based on first person anecdote that counters your unfounded claim.
No case to answer? You have no case.
Then it is indeed an insight. Maybe you should take heed rather than drop a bunch of one line quips.