UK TV License

[Morkonan]

Nope, I have had relatively few interactions with the police in my life and they have all (save one) been negative.
The worst interaction was ....But this one good experience does not change my general policy regarding the police of: Not to be trusted, until they prove otherwise. . . .

. . . . and I'm white ...

In an effort to disprove Bishop's claim, I was surprised to discover that I was wrong and he is, indeed, Caucasian!





PS - All in fun - Neil was the first image that came to mind as you told of your interactions with the Police. I saw Neil screaming "Pigs" in my mind and just applied it to every circumstance. It worked out well.

[Chips]

have a nice day oficer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-Fn4BiHekk

Looks like the filmographer made a mistake - a Justice of the Peace can indeed sign a search warrant:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/19 ... h-warrants

Power of justice of the peace to authorise entry and search of premises.

(1)If on an application made by a constable a justice of the peace is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing—

(a)that [F1an indictable offence] has been committed; and

(b)that there is material on premises [F2mentioned in subsection (1A) below] which is likely to be of substantial value (whether by itself or together with other material) to the investigation of the offence; and

(c)that the material is likely to be relevant evidence; and

(d)that it does not consist of or include items subject to legal privilege, excluded material or special procedure material; and

(e)that any of the conditions specified in subsection (3) below applies,

Have to admit, I've not checked the entirety of the "Serious and Organised Crime Act" - but is TV licensing an indictable offence?

[Morkonan]

Just curious..

Why aren't the funds made available for public programming taken from general taxes, rather than as a surcharge on "viewers?" I understand the very basic idea of "tax those who are watching" but that doesn't make a lot of sense in terms of something like this that receives public funding. These public channels benefit "everyone." Even if one doesn't like a particular show or doesn't like television, other segments of the society benefit and one will, in turn, receive a benefit by interacting with their fellow society members.

It's like an argument for "The Arts." In the US, there's a "National Endowment for the Arts" that helps provide funding for arts programs. The justification is simple - Art enriches the entire society. I realize that some may consider their most hated programming on a BBC channel to not be "art," but the principle is the same.

So, is there an argument in favor of the TV tax that doesn't rest on the rather simple notion that "the only ones that benefit are those that watch it, so they should be the ones paying for it?" (Or, have I gotten it wrong and there's some other commonly accepted notion that is used to justify the TV tax?)

[Alan Phipps]

Think of it more as a pre-internet situation for which nobody can think of a suitable, acceptable and realisable method to replace or enforce it since then. (Many have tried and failed.)

[birdtable]

BBC does not just do ARTS, SCIENCE etc etc it also shapes peoples opinions through current affairs, news and so on... for the government to have the appearance of not directing it's own agendas while providing the finance from it's own coffers would be a hard call... at least the licence gives the appearance of BBC neutrality ... They do have a charter to provide impartiality. I cannot think of a better way,, certainly not advertisements.

[Morkonan]

BBC does not just do ARTS, SCIENCE etc etc it also shapes peoples opinions through current affairs, news and so on... for the government to have the appearance of not directing it's own agendas while providing the finance from it's own coffers would be a hard call... at least the licence gives the appearance of BBC neutrality ... They do have a charter to provide impartiality. I cannot think of a better way,, certainly not advertisements.

So, what's the opinion on its "neutrality?" Is that even a concern? Do people interpret it as having an "agenda" at times or not?

Alternative ways of gaining financial support are as varied as the means available for anyone to gain financial support. They could sell beer! "BBBC Beer! Drink to support your favorite BBC Programming!" They could have Sir Attenborough get plastered on live TV if supporters help them reach their goal...

Think of it more as a pre-internet situation for which nobody can think of a suitable, acceptable and realisable method to replace or enforce it since then. (Many have tried and failed.)

I can understand that if they're producing certain sorts of programming. For instance, in our "Public Broadcasting System" there is a variety of "enriching" programming that some people may not broadly support. (They do anyway, it seems, but the though it that they might not.) So, an opera? That might not gain a lot of commercial advertising that's broadly viable, but it will make it into PBS programming, nonetheless, because it's "culture, dangit," and our society is better off having people exposed to it than not. (A note: There are no "commercials" on US PBS stations. They're entirely non-profit, but they do present "sponsorship" messages, like "Sponsored by General Motors. "Have you fixed your GM automobile, today?"" etc. A sort of backhanded way of buying advertising, but it's not blatant.)

As a person of foreign persuasion, I enjoy BBC stuff, especially the "nature programming." It used to be, back in the day, that we had such stuff too. We had "Wild Kingdom" and "National Geographic" and " The Undersea World of Jacques Cousteau." (I even had a model of the Calypso!) Now, our "nature programming" is pretty lackluster, IMO, so I turn to BBC programming for my "nature show fix." ie: The "BBC America" channel.

[pjknibbs]

So, what's the opinion on its "neutrality?" Is that even a concern? Do people interpret it as having an "agenda" at times or not?

Those on the left accuse the BBC of being too right-wing, and those on the right say it's too far left, so in my opinion it's doing just fine at being neutral.

[CBJ]

It's only having seen more US TV political news coverage recently, mostly linked from here, that I've understood why people from the US get so worked up about neutrality (or lack of it) in their news. Quite frankly I wouldn't even call a lot of that coverage news; they seem to be mainly editorial and opinion pieces. They are also in complete contrast to UK news coverage, whether on BBC or the other UK TV channels, which tend to stick to reporting what has happened rather than passing judgement on it.

In the UK, the news presenters themselves do not generally let their own political opinions (or those of their employers) interfere with the debate. If they are interviewing several people then they will tend to stick to refereeing the debate between the different viewpoints; if they are interviewing a single person then they will automatically challenge them, regardless of what they are saying and with varying degrees of aggressiveness depending on the type of news program, in order to provide some counterpoint to the interviewee's position. The latter situation in particular can sometimes lead to people claiming bias, but as pjknibbs said, the complaints come pretty equally from both ends of the political spectrum, so they are probably doing a pretty good job.

Obviously we do also have programming with more political commentary on UK TV channels, but it's not billed as news.

[Morkonan]

It's only having seen more US TV political news coverage recently, mostly linked from here, that I've understood why people from the US get so worked up about neutrality (or lack of it) in their news. ...

Keep in mind that you probably see a lot of things suitable for linking... IOW: They're bombastic, polarized, inflammatory, clickable clips, for the most part. But, it is true that "news" is getting a bit more polarized. It's also getting to be a bit more "political entertainment" oriented in the form of nighttime talkshows that cover news and political topics.

Those on the left accuse the BBC of being too right-wing, and those on the right say it's too far left, so in my opinion it's doing just fine at being neutral.

LOL

"If you serve everyone, yet make no one happier than any other, then you're doing it right." - Some famous guy, probably... If not, then me.

[CBJ]

Keep in mind that you probably see a lot of things suitable for linking... IOW: They're bombastic, polarized, inflammatory, clickable clips, for the most part. But, it is true that "news" is getting a bit more polarized. It's also getting to be a bit more "political entertainment" oriented in the form of nighttime talkshows that cover news and political topics.

It's not just that, though. The whole idea of having entire TV networks that take a political side is anathema in the UK. That sort of thing was standard with print newspapers, and continues to be so in their online incarnations, but there would be an outcry here if one of the major TV channels were seen to be mixing news reports and editorial. News presenters here can't generally even be seen to express political opinions when not presenting the news. Of course TV channels can carry other programming that takes a political position, but even then they try not to make it too one-sided, and get complaints if they are seen to have failed. Again, though, extremists at either end of the spectrum would disagree, but that's to be expected.

[Morkonan]

It's not just that, though. The whole idea of having entire TV networks that take a political side is anathema in the UK....

It is here, as well. Or, at least it used to be. The surge of interest in "Fox News" started the current war. Fox basically called everyone else "politically polarized to the Left" and made it true in the eyes of their viewers. It also succeeded in pumping up the message that "All political debate that criticizes Conservatives is BAD." Now, it's got a loyal and devoted "fanbase" which really doesn't care as much about "News" as it does about someone putting a spin on it that pleases them. Fox's success has undoubtedly sparked interest in the concept. Unfortunately, as Fox continues to go off-the-rails with much of its programming, other networks have pushed back. One of those is the now-venerable CNN. CNN wasn't politically polarized. But, these days, they're pumping "talk and roundtable" programming during the day, which used to be unusual. At least for shows that are strictly "politically oriented." ie: They're trying to feed the public's desire for "MOAR PROLITICAL ARGEWING NAOW!" It's friggin' disheartening.

What's the last bastion for non-polarized news in the US, these days? Who knows? It might be that "Network News" like the three big, ancient, networks provide might be the least polarized. (ABC, CBS, NBC) But, they only have to content with catching the public's eye for a relatively short period of time. (6pm and 11pm or so, maybe with a morning show too and that's it - Definitely not a 24hr news pipeline programming)

[CBJ]

And that is the point of the BBC charter and hence the licence fee. The BBC isn't being pushed to increase ratings to fund itself through advertising, its income isn't tied to political whim and other taxation priorities, and it's bound by the terms of the charter to maintain political neutrality.

[Bishop149]

Wow, Bishop, this is a completely different side to you, totally unexpected,
but interesting, didn't know you were an Anarchist, you always came across as a mild mannered & careful thinking person

To answer the point you made in jest seriously . . . .
I'm no anarchist although I do have some leanings in that direction. And at this point its worth noting that anarchist does not mean a proponent of violent chaos (as commonly depicted), but rather a sociopolitical philosophy that values person freedom and wants centralised authority minimised. In this, the Republican party in the US could be described as being somewhat anarchist in nature.
I think that the a stateless society is probably impossible (unless humanity itself changes dramatically), and I don't buy the usual anarchist line that a state (with a small s) would be any better than a State.
My own experience is that corruption operates on every level, I mean just look at the seething bed of intrigue that is most Parish councils!
I also don't think that States are nescessarily a bad thing per se, its just very hard to find examples of good ones. But I think this is more a function of their foundational economic principles and the fact they tend to consist of humans.

I've seen similar things, but I don't think it necessarily reflects on the UK police force as a whole.

I would agree that my experience is perhaps not representative of the UK police as a whole, however I do feel they are representative of the Met. specifically and I'd ask, did the things you've seen occur in London by any chance?
IMO that force needs to be torn down and started over, it's rotten to the core.