UKMT September - The Baby That Saved Britain

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > UKMT September - The Baby That Saved Britain

«‹›60 »

Obliterati: Nov 13, 2012; Pain is inevitable.
Suffering is optional.
Thunderdome is forever.

Whoever wins, we lose.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 16:37

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 29, 2024 03:35

Mr Cuddles: Jan 29, 2010; Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.

I saved this post on the subject of national debt but neglected to cite the author. So if you wrote it then come and claim it but I just wanted to share a really interesting post I once read on the subject of national debt that is written in such a way that almost anybody can understand the issues.

quote:

National debt is completely and totally unlike household finances. The thing is that people just aren't used to thinking of money on those terms and default to thinking about credit cards, egged on by politicians who want to manufacture a crisis to implement their political agenda.

So first of all, sovereign debt (that is, debt issued in the currency of the issuing nation) has a pretty spectacular get-out-of-jail-free card. We agree to pay someone 1.1 billion quid in a year if they lend us a billion (the interest rate is a *lot* lower than that in reality but obviously I'm simplifying). Hmm... where can we lay our hands on 1.1 billion quid? Well, there are these printing presses over here... Long-term this isn't sustainable - the "free" money makes its way back into the economy, devaluing the pound and causing inflation, and the people we lent the money to remember and want more money next time - but short-term, say when recovering from a truly unprecedented crash in the world economy, it's fine.

This, by the way, is why any comparison to Greece or any other Eurozone nation is entirely pointless. Greece don't have a printing press, the Germans have it, and they're not going to gently caress up their own economy to help out the Greeks, European Ideal or not. It's also why debt-to-GDP is completely and totally pointless as any kind of indicator when comparing us to the Eurozone. We can use our printing press to grow our economy, through investment in infrastructure, R&D, and all that sort of fun stuff. We don't need to shrink the debt side if we grow the GDP side.

The next important difference between sovereign debt and household debt is cost - bond yields (the equivalent of an interest rate - basically we auction off bits of paper that are effectively IOUs saying "We'll pay whoever owns this bit of paper x million pounds on y date, and the difference between that face value and the amount they sell for at auction is basically the interest rate we pay) are spectacularly lower for sovereign debt. Indeed, in times of great financial calamity - like, say, the last 5 years - investors are so desperate for a safe harbour for their money that they are willing to pay more than the face value of the bond for the lack of risk. Just to reiterate, in bold because this is really loving important, when things are really hosed, we actually pay a negative interest rate. People will give us a million quid now for 990,000 quid later.

So. National debt - at this point - not an actual issue. However the Tories never let a crisis go to waste. They implant the idea that we have to pay off our national credit card (obviously bloated by evil Labour spending money on mansions for pedophile gypsies, not in a desperate attempt to rescue a financial system that is the darling of the neoliberals from imploding from the inevitable stupidity and unreality at its heart). This idea takes hold and the Tories give a really obvious solution to it - cut government spending! This is an obvious, common-sense, man-on-the-street solution and so is, of course, completely and totally the wrong thing to do. It completely ignores where almost all government spending goes, which is of course straight into the economy - in particular mostly to the poorest members of society, who instantly spend it (the feckless bastards) in local shops, who spend it with local suppliers, who spend it with local wholesalers, generating jobs and tax revenue all the way down the line. Much better to let the rich keep it where they can do good things like it like dumping it into the housing bubble or squirrel it away in the Virgin Islands.

The net effect of massive spending cuts then is to shrink the economy, shrinking tax revenues, meaning... you're going to love this... we have to borrow more money when we cut spending. It's a lie so spectacularly big that literally nobody ever dares call them out on it. The government's solution to a problem which doesn't actually exist actually exacerbates the problem. MORE CUTS FOR THE CUTS GOD! So why are they doing this? The same two reasons they do everything, and the two central planks of all Tory (of all colour) policy:

1: More money for us
2: gently caress you

Spending cuts have only one real effect - concentrating money into the hands who already have it. This isn't a matter of opinion, it's simple fact. When pressed on this Tories will either say that well actually the people at the top deserve that money or really it's going to help the economy in the long term by getting the nasty inefficient government out of the way of the strivers, but see points one and two and work out which story better fits the observable facts.

So, what could we as a society actually have done in '08? Good question. The one thing nobody knows is what would have happened if we'd just let it all crash. not even the most lunatic anarchocapitalist says that it would have worked out well - if nothing else pretty much every piece of money and property in the world would have ended up being the subject of three dozen different court cases in as many different jurisdictions trying to work out who actually owns it. What's certain of course is that the poorest would be the most hosed because that's the inevitable conclusion of everything that happens in this world. At best - at best - the whole world would have ended up like Russia in the nineties, with people giving up everything they own for just enough food to live, to the tiny amount of people who actually had ready cash.

Given that, if we accept that the system needed to be rescued, we could have just done what we always did before - borrow money, inflate ourselves out of the crisis, try to do what we can to cushion the blow as much as possible, and for fucks sake regulate the banking system properly to stop it happening again. So, of course, what we're doing is the exact, polar opposite. We're loving over the very poorest, saddling ourselves with more debt at worse rates (because the money markets aren't stupid and know that austerity is hurting our ability to repay and so cranking our rates up) and of course rejecting any calls to regulate anything ever.

When it happens again - and it will happen again - unless something big happens, the next crash will probably take the whole lot down because we've pissed away all our chances to fix it.

Still, some people made a couple of hundred quid off the Royal Mail privatisation!

# ? Sep 25, 2014 16:41

Guavanaut: Nov 27, 2009; Looking At Them Tittys
1969 - 1998; Toilet Rascal

Jack the Lad posted:

There's a big problem you always face when you're up against an easy, soundbite narrative like:

"We're in debt and need to cut spending."

"When your roof is leaking and your car won't start, that's not the time to stop spending and hope things get better."

quote:

"More immigrants = less jobs for people like you."

"People said the same thing when women entered the workplace, they were wrong then too."

quote:

"People on benefits shouldn't get more than the average working family."

"The average worker should be paid more, a good statement."

And then the press ignores you anyway and focuses on your great uncle saying something communist once.

edit: ^^^^^^

Mr Cuddles posted:

I saved this post on the subject of national debt but neglected to cite the author. So if you wrote it then come and claim it but I just wanted to share a really interesting post I once read on the subject of national debt that is written in such a way that almost anybody can understand the issues.

That's goddamnedtwisto. I have it saved too.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 16:42

Spangly A: May 14, 2009; God help you if ever you're caught on these shores

A man's ambition must indeed be small
To write his name upon a shithouse wall

Jack the Lad posted:

but when you start to talk facts and figures most peoples' eyes glaze over and it's easy for the guy pushing the simple line to come back by making out like you're some weaselly pedant trying to dodge the issue. It's just inherently a weaker position.

I don't know what - if anything - you can do about that, though.

You have to be better bastards than they are. If the deficit comes up, just start shouting about the NHS and Are Brave Boys and how shocking it is that they want to take away doctors and body armour. When benefits come up, tie the point that it's about all benefits, tie it to pensions, make it about middle England. Universal Credit could have been a useful rhetoric tool and it's not a bad idea, but IDS' attempted implementation frankly reeked of ethnic cleansing. Thankfully he's a useless shitcunt, but it's a good idea. Citizens Income is fairly easy to rhetoric for and any vaguely competent speaker should be able to bat away any arguments the tories bring up about how to fund it by making things up about the cost of the departments.

Immigrants is a bit harder because the public seems willfully resistant to reality on the issue, even in soundbite form, but this is tied to recession. Blame it on the Tories for loving up all the jobs. If the Tories hadn't hosed up the recovery and put us years behind schedule, there would be enough jobs for everyone!

It doesn't need to be true. Politics is not about truth.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 17:02

ReV VAdAUL: Oct 3, 2004; I'm WILD about
WILDMAN

Obliterati posted:

Whoever wins, we lose.

So the least the bastards could do is put out some entertaining and forceful attacks.

Spangly A posted:

Immigrants is a bit harder because the public seems willfully resistant to reality on the issue, even in soundbite form, but this is tied to recession. Blame it on the Tories for loving up all the jobs. If the Tories hadn't hosed up the recovery and put us years behind schedule, there would be enough jobs for everyone!

Alternatively: The bankers stole all the money and big business won't pay any tax but yeah, if we focus our hatred on foreigners who are as powerless as we are then everything will be fixed!

Also while it is about Americans this article has a lot of good points regarding why the public does what it does: http://exiledonline.com/we-the-spiteful/

ReV VAdAUL fucked around with this message at 17:17 on Sep 25, 2014

# ? Sep 25, 2014 17:03

goddamnedtwisto: Dec 31, 2004; If you ask me about the mole people in the London Underground, I WILL be forced to kill you; Fun Shoe

Guavanaut posted:

That's goddamnedtwisto. I have it saved too.

Although now I read it I see loads of typos. Ah well.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 17:18

Spangly A: May 14, 2009; God help you if ever you're caught on these shores

A man's ambition must indeed be small
To write his name upon a shithouse wall

ReV VAdAUL posted:

Alternatively: The bankers stole all the money and big business won't pay any tax but yeah, if we focus our hatred on foreigners who are as powerless as we are then everything will be fixed!

Also while it is about Americans this article has a lot of good points regarding why the public does what it does: http://exiledonline.com/we-the-spiteful/

That's a good article and I agree with the premise that trusting human decency is akin to suicide. That's why I personally have no qualms about Owen Jones doing everything he can to redefine his own champagne socialism as a palatable "gently caress the rich" and never mentioning marxist theory outright. I have no issue with lying to the electorate because the ends justify the means and gently caress anyone who would let the NHS die over their principles of honesty, because they are the problem just as much as the eternal thieves are.

The working man doesn't want to strive for the ideal of a more humane tomorrow. They want someone to hate and food on the table, just like any other person. So, we give them that, as you say with the bankers.

The bankers aren't a scapegoat, they are the villain. And if we shout that loud enough we might just get away with it. But unless Cicero is chilling out in hackney, they're too well protected by the media.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 18:19

baka kaba: Jul 19, 2003; PLEASE ASK ME, THE SELF-PROFESSED NO #1 PAUL CATTERMOLE FAN IN THE SOMETHING AWFUL S-CLUB 7 MEGATHREAD, TO NAME A SINGLE SONG BY HIS EXCELLENT NU-METAL SIDE PROJECT, SKUA, AND IF I CAN'T PLEASE TELL ME TO
EAT SHIT

ITV News's lead story - a teenage girl whose father was murdered by IS publicly calls for their eradication by any means necessary.

I shouldn't be surprised really, but there's some really grim propaganda being cranked out. I'd like to think people see the irony in a grieving family member calling for armed struggle to destroy those who killed her father, and how this is exploited to further the cause, but I ain't holding out much hope

# ? Sep 25, 2014 19:41

Spangly A: May 14, 2009; God help you if ever you're caught on these shores

A man's ambition must indeed be small
To write his name upon a shithouse wall

baka kaba posted:

ITV News's lead story - a teenage girl whose father was murdered by IS publicly calls for their eradication by any means necessary.

I shouldn't be surprised really, but there's some really grim propaganda being cranked out. I'd like to think people see the irony in a grieving family member calling for armed struggle to destroy those who killed her father, and how this is exploited to further the cause, but I ain't holding out much hope

there's really very little difference between ITV and ISIS when you consider both are motivated to kill everyone who isn't them by any means.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 19:46

baka kaba: Jul 19, 2003; PLEASE ASK ME, THE SELF-PROFESSED NO #1 PAUL CATTERMOLE FAN IN THE SOMETHING AWFUL S-CLUB 7 MEGATHREAD, TO NAME A SINGLE SONG BY HIS EXCELLENT NU-METAL SIDE PROJECT, SKUA, AND IF I CAN'T PLEASE TELL ME TO
EAT SHIT

Alistair Stewart wears a smoking jacket and hungers for blood

# ? Sep 25, 2014 19:48

KazigluBey: Oct 30, 2011; boner

TVLicenseChat:

I seem to remember this coming up in the thread(s) before, but not how far back, so I was wanting to ask what the general protocol is when you receive a letter from the TVLicense people. Seems to be a generic thing, vague threats (you need a TV license if viewing programmes on your phone, really?), especially a warning that if they don't hear back by the 7th of October they'll pass on my address on to "Dundee Enforcement Division" for "investigation". They do specify a websites (tvlicensing.co.uk/noTV) that you can use to stop getting letters but also imply that you'll need to let them into your home to confirm you haven't got a telly stashed away or some poo poo. I mean, they say that watching programmes on ANY medium (phone, computer, etc..) requires a license so what, they're gonna wanna check my browsing history for streaming sites or something? Probably not I'd wager, but with the wording I wouldn't put it past them if they asked.

So what's the best course of action? No, there isn't any TV in the flat, only a couple of laptops and such.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 20:36

Shyrka: Feb 10, 2005; Small Boss likes to spin!

KazigluBey posted:

TVLicenseChat:

I seem to remember this coming up in the thread(s) before, but not how far back, so I was wanting to ask what the general protocol is when you receive a letter from the TVLicense people. Seems to be a generic thing, vague threats (you need a TV license if viewing programmes on your phone, really?), especially a warning that if they don't hear back by the 7th of October they'll pass on my address on to "Dundee Enforcement Division" for "investigation". They do specify a websites (tvlicensing.co.uk/noTV) that you can use to stop getting letters but also imply that you'll need to let them into your home to confirm you haven't got a telly stashed away or some poo poo. I mean, they say that watching programmes on ANY medium (phone, computer, etc..) requires a license so what, they're gonna wanna check my browsing history for streaming sites or something? Probably not I'd wager, but with the wording I wouldn't put it past them if they asked.

So what's the best course of action? No, there isn't any TV in the flat, only a couple of laptops and such.

I moved in here about two and a half years ago and told them I don't have a tv over the internet when I got the letter. I got another letter early this year but they've never come to my door.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 20:40

hyper from Pixie Sticks: Sep 28, 2004

KazigluBey posted:

TVLicenseChat:

So what's the best course of action? No, there isn't any TV in the flat, only a couple of laptops and such.

You need a license to watch or record programmes as they are being broadcast. If you aren't doing that, you can ignore the letter. The 'enforcement division' have no more right of entry into your home than any other random fucker who knocks.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 20:41

Praseodymi: Aug 26, 2010

Don't you just go on the website and say 'I don't need a licence'?

# ? Sep 25, 2014 20:42

Spooky Hyena: May 2, 2014; Choosing to benefit from an empire of murder and genocide makes you complicit.

lol, nice meltdown

In Scotland, they don't have a legal right to enter your home, and they also can't prosecute you without having proof that you've been watching live or as-live (ie, stuff recorded using your sky box) broadcast footage. You can even have a TV plugged in and ready to receive broadcasts, but if they don't catch you doing it from outside your house there's nothing they can prosecute for.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 20:45

Total Meatlove: Jan 28, 2007; Rangers died, shoujo Hitler cried ;_;

If you're watching live TV don't whine like a bitch and pay up like every other fucker does?

# ? Sep 25, 2014 20:47

JFairfax: Oct 23, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

Total Meatlove posted:

If you're watching live TV don't whine like a bitch and pay up like every other fucker does?

This.

Interestingly you don't need a license if you watch on demand iplayer stuff that isn't life.

You can opt out on the website saying 'I don't need a license' but they'll probably still send letters for a while, but you can comfortably ignore them.

However if you are watching live TV it's a dick move to avoid the license as the BBC is cool and good.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 20:51

Microplastics: Jul 6, 2007; It's what's for dinner.

KazigluBey posted:

So what's the best course of action? No, there isn't any TV in the flat, only a couple of laptops and such.

If the letters don't bother you, bin them and ignore any others they send.

If they do bother you, you can tell them you don't have a TV and they should stop sending you letters, and they probably will stop.

They can't barge in and look for a TV (or check your browsing history or anything like that) without a court order from a magistrate (which they'll never bother getting) so if they ever show up tell them politely to gently caress off.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 20:52

hookerbot 5000: Dec 21, 2009

I just did the declaration for my kid, he's not going to have a TV and won't be watching live streaming so he doesn't need one.

I probably don't actually need one either - our TV hasn't been plugged into the aerial since Sherlock was on at Christmas and everything we watch is from one of the on demand sites, Netflix or our own collection. But we can afford it without causing misery and I still watch a lot of BBC programmes either on iplayer or youtube so paying it doesn't bother me.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 20:53

Obliterati: Nov 13, 2012; Pain is inevitable.
Suffering is optional.
Thunderdome is forever.

Spooky Hyena posted:

In Scotland, they don't have a legal right to enter your home, and they also can't prosecute you without having proof that you've been watching live or as-live (ie, stuff recorded using your sky box) broadcast footage. You can even have a TV plugged in and ready to receive broadcasts, but if they don't catch you doing it from outside your house there's nothing they can prosecute for.

Building on this, you know those vans they drive around? They can only differentiate between seperate buildings, so if you're in a block of flats it's not impossible they've just block mailed your entire building. They literally cannot tell unless someone rang that snooper line about you.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 21:29

gorki: Aug 9, 2014

baka kaba posted:

ITV News's lead story - a teenage girl whose father was murdered by IS publicly calls for their eradication by any means necessary.

I happened to have ITV on at the time and it really struck me too. I think it is the most egregious example I have seen of "individual personally affected by thing calls on government to take action". No amount of grief in itself qualifies someone to advise anyone on anything. I think news anchors should be obliged to qualify such reports by saying exactly that last sentence, for the benefit of the hard of thinking :ssh:

# ? Sep 25, 2014 21:38

Wolfsbane: Jul 29, 2009; What time is it, Eccles?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98CWbGG2DJ0

# ? Sep 25, 2014 21:39

goddamnedtwisto: Dec 31, 2004; If you ask me about the mole people in the London Underground, I WILL be forced to kill you; Fun Shoe

Obliterati posted:

Building on this, you know those vans they drive around? They can only differentiate between seperate buildings, so if you're in a block of flats it's not impossible they've just block mailed your entire building. They literally cannot tell unless someone rang that snooper line about you.

Detector vans stopped being usable at all once the analogue signal got switched off (and would have had rapidly-dwindling hit rates before that as more and more televisions moved to digital tuners), but realistically stopped being practical some time before that when the density of homes with televisions going up met the price of database searches coming down and it got more economically viable to just blast mail at everyone without a license.

It's weird how they stopped using the vans at some point in the 80s because of the above economic factors (long before technical factors became an issue) and yet people still swear blind that detector vans are in use right now.

(Pre-emptive link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_RAFTER before anyone says "Hurr TV Detector vans never did anything" - MI5 gave the technology to the GPO because it wasn't that useful for the way they were using it. The principle is still sound (and used in counter-eavesdropping techniques to this day) but the leakage from modern digital tuner is so low you basically have to be in the same room for it to work)

# ? Sep 25, 2014 21:40

Obliterati: Nov 13, 2012; Pain is inevitable.
Suffering is optional.
Thunderdome is forever.

goddamnedtwisto posted:

Detector vans stopped being usable at all once the analogue signal got switched off (and would have had rapidly-dwindling hit rates before that as more and more televisions moved to digital tuners), but realistically stopped being practical some time before that when the density of homes with televisions going up met the price of database searches coming down and it got more economically viable to just blast mail at everyone without a license.

It's weird how they stopped using the vans at some point in the 80s because of the above economic factors (long before technical factors became an issue) and yet people still swear blind that detector vans are in use right now.

(Pre-emptive link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_RAFTER before anyone says "Hurr TV Detector vans never did anything" - MI5 gave the technology to the GPO because it wasn't that useful for the way they were using it. The principle is still sound (and used in counter-eavesdropping techniques to this day) but the leakage from modern digital tuner is so low you basically have to be in the same room for it to work)

They used to park them outside our student flats, but I didn't realise how total a bluff it actually was.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 21:41

PriorMarcus: Oct 17, 2008; ASK ME ABOUT BEING ALLERGIC TO POSITIVITY

Even these days its impossible to convince people how much bullshit is said about the TV license and the laws around it. My mum is convinced they have the vans and that they can sue you immediately, then again she also struggles to comprehend windows having multiple catches.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 21:46

Rush Limbo: Sep 5, 2005; its with a full house

There's a loving huge group of people who print weird things about how to 'beat' the TV licensing people, using such novel concepts as 'revoking implied consent' and what have you.

I think it's the British equivalent of Freemen on the Land or something.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 21:56

serious gaylord: Sep 16, 2007; what.

107 people were jailed between 2011 and 2013 for failing to pay the fines given out by the court for not having a tv licence. Saying that they never go after you is a rather silly.

Ddraig posted:

There's a loving huge group of people who print weird things about how to 'beat' the TV licensing people, using such novel concepts as 'revoking implied consent' and what have you.

I think it's the British equivalent of Freemen on the Land or something.

It's exploded recently because of 'The 45%' and its going to end up with a lot of red faced people in front of a rather annoyed magistrate.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 21:57

Spooky Hyena: May 2, 2014; Choosing to benefit from an empire of murder and genocide makes you complicit.

lol, nice meltdown

Ddraig posted:

There's a loving huge group of people who print weird things about how to 'beat' the TV licensing people, using such novel concepts as 'revoking implied consent' and what have you.

I think it's the British equivalent of Freemen on the Land or something.

It's not really beating them if he's not using live TV, so I don't see why it's such a big deal to tell him what to expect.

serious gaylord posted:

It's exploded recently because of 'The 45%' and its going to end up with a lot of red faced people in front of a rather annoyed magistrate.

gently caress's sake, let's not do this again.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 22:02

baka kaba: Jul 19, 2003; PLEASE ASK ME, THE SELF-PROFESSED NO #1 PAUL CATTERMOLE FAN IN THE SOMETHING AWFUL S-CLUB 7 MEGATHREAD, TO NAME A SINGLE SONG BY HIS EXCELLENT NU-METAL SIDE PROJECT, SKUA, AND IF I CAN'T PLEASE TELL ME TO
EAT SHIT

gorki posted:

I happened to have ITV on at the time and it really struck me too. I think it is the most egregious example I have seen of "individual personally affected by thing calls on government to take action". No amount of grief in itself qualifies someone to advise anyone on anything. I think news anchors should be obliged to qualify such reports by saying exactly that last sentence, for the benefit of the hard of thinking

Yeah, I've been unlucky enough to catch a bunch of it recently and they're really milking the personal tragedy angle, like that poor woman whose husband has been captured, pleading for them to have a heart and talking about how she's written to them personally. As though it will make any difference, instead of being the exact reason they targeted these Brits in the first place.

The whole thing's being spun into the TERRORIST THREAT TO BRITAIN narrative, instead of being a sober assessment of what's happening to people in the middle east and why, and I have that sinking feeling of 'here we go again'

# ? Sep 25, 2014 22:03

JFairfax: Oct 23, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

Ddraig posted:

There's a loving huge group of people who print weird things about how to 'beat' the TV licensing people, using such novel concepts as 'revoking implied consent' and what have you.

I think it's the British equivalent of Freemen on the Land or something.

They call themselves Sovereign Citizens over here I think.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 22:12

Rude Dude With Tude: Apr 19, 2007; Your President approves this text.

JFairfax posted:

However if you are watching live TV it's a dick move to avoid the license as the BBC is cool and good.

Yeah basically this. If you don't have a telly phone then and tell them, they'll not bother you for a couple of years. TV licensing is figuratively the only argument which "if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear" applies to.

E: honestly though if you can afford it and you watch the stuff they put out on iPlayer you should probably fork out for it. I'm not saying this as a TV making idiot, but compared to the rest of Europe's TV licencing/state media you get amazing programming for gently caress all money. eg DR in Denmark do you 10 radio stations and 7 TV channels for ~£257, whilst the BBC will do you 9 TV channels, 10 national radio stations and 46 local radio stations for £145.50

Rude Dude With Tude fucked around with this message at 22:27 on Sep 25, 2014

# ? Sep 25, 2014 22:14

serious gaylord: Sep 16, 2007; what.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted:

Yeah basically this. If you don't have a telly phone then and tell them, they'll not bother you for a couple of years. TV licensing is figuratively the only argument which "if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear" applies to.

It's not as simple as that. Not having a tv doesn't exempt you. You can't have a smartphone since you can watch Live tv on the BBC iplayer app. Same for your computer and tablets. Having any device capable of viewing live tv means you need a licence. The burden of proof is not on them either, its on you to prove that you do not watch live BBC television.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 22:16

baka kaba: Jul 19, 2003; PLEASE ASK ME, THE SELF-PROFESSED NO #1 PAUL CATTERMOLE FAN IN THE SOMETHING AWFUL S-CLUB 7 MEGATHREAD, TO NAME A SINGLE SONG BY HIS EXCELLENT NU-METAL SIDE PROJECT, SKUA, AND IF I CAN'T PLEASE TELL ME TO
EAT SHIT

How do you prove that exactly? Can you take a quiz about which BBC celebrities you know?

# ? Sep 25, 2014 22:19

Spooky Hyena: May 2, 2014; Choosing to benefit from an empire of murder and genocide makes you complicit.

lol, nice meltdown

serious gaylord posted:

It's not as simple as that. Not having a tv doesn't exempt you. You can't have a smartphone since you can watch Live tv on the BBC iplayer app. Same for your computer and tablets. Having any device capable of viewing live tv means you need a licence. The burden of proof is not on them either, its on you to prove that you do not watch live BBC television.

This is just plain ol' untrue, though. You can own devices that can be used to watch live TV like smartphones, laptops and TVs themselves without a licence. It only becomes illegal when you use them to watch live or as-live TV broadcasts without a licence. The burden of proof being on the accused wouldn't hold up in any sort of court anyway.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 22:20

Zohar: Jul 14, 2013; Good kitty

serious gaylord posted:

It's not as simple as that. Not having a tv doesn't exempt you. You can't have a smartphone since you can watch Live tv on the BBC iplayer app. Same for your computer and tablets. Having any device capable of viewing live tv means you need a licence. The burden of proof is not on them either, its on you to prove that you do not watch live BBC television.

No it doesn't, it just means that you're not allowed to watch live TV on those devices. I don't have a TV licence and I have a laptop and smartphone, I've never been asked to prove anything.

e:fb

# ? Sep 25, 2014 22:20

serious gaylord: Sep 16, 2007; what.

baka kaba posted:

How do you prove that exactly? Can you take a quiz about which BBC celebrities you know?

It's up to you to go 'look, I don't have any of these apps, heres my store history to prove i never downloaded them. I've also never visited the BBC sport website while a live stream was being shown, I've never used iplayer to watch a live broadcast' etc etc.

Its very difficult to prove you havent watched live tv when they eventually get you in front of a magistrate.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 22:21

Spooky Hyena: May 2, 2014; Choosing to benefit from an empire of murder and genocide makes you complicit.

lol, nice meltdown

serious gaylord posted:

It's up to you to go 'look, I don't have any of these apps, heres my store history to prove i never downloaded them. I've also never visited the BBC sport website while a live stream was being shown, I've never used iplayer to watch a live broadcast' etc etc.

Its very difficult to prove you havent watched live tv when they eventually get you in front of a magistrate.

How are they going to get you in front of a magistrate without evidence of you watching live TV (for example, in the case that you haven't been watching live TV)?

# ? Sep 25, 2014 22:25

Zohar: Jul 14, 2013; Good kitty

Yeah, from everything I've been told, in the rare instance that they do drag you to court, they would need to prove you've been watching it, not the other way round. Presumption of innocence and all that.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 22:27

Spangly A: May 14, 2009; God help you if ever you're caught on these shores

A man's ambition must indeed be small
To write his name upon a shithouse wall

serious gaylord posted:

It's up to you to go 'look, I don't have any of these apps, heres my store history to prove i never downloaded them. I've also never visited the BBC sport website while a live stream was being shown, I've never used iplayer to watch a live broadcast' etc etc.

Its very difficult to prove you havent watched live tv when they eventually get you in front of a magistrate.

Nope. This is completely and utterly wrong.

They get you by knowing you have a TV plugged in, then the assumption can be made that you aren't exempt. But you can still apply for an exemption saying "I've got a TV, I don't watch it, I use it for consoles and DVDs"

The stuff about smartphones is just hilarious bullshit and the burden of proof simply doesn't work that way. I've literally done this; I have a TV, it doesn't show live TV, it's just an extension of the consoles. The TV licence people are fine with this.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 22:29

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 29, 2024 03:35

serious gaylord: Sep 16, 2007; what.

Spooky Hyena posted:

How are they going to get you in front of a magistrate without evidence of you watching live TV (for example, in the case that you haven't been watching live TV)?

The same way they got over 180,000 of them infront of one last year.

'We think you're watching live tv without a licence because you have a laptop connected to the internet, and when interviewed you said you use it to watch catch up tv. We think you are also using it to watch as live broadcasts'

Its then on you to prove that that laptop isn't used to watch live tv.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 22:30

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > UKMT September - The Baby That Saved Britain

«‹›60 »