Equally unique

Tories will allow TV product placement

Cripes, I am running out of options to vote for come election time.

Certainly this writes off the Conservatives for me.

At best... a horde of new staffers to be wined and dined to 'objectively' shovel tat onscreen in the name of 'saving' money. PTOO! (Pull the other one!)

Or, at worst, there is even less connection between actions and accountability by 'losing' it in the Council Tax???! Barking.

The Enemy is at the Gate! Bring out the Bolly!

BBC splashed out £81,000 of licence fee cash on lavish Wimbledon hospitality event

My first thought was to wonder just how many were there to watch the tennis and how many to simply suck up and schmooze. Until recently that may have been fine, if sickening, for an independent bank. Not so much the BBC, though. IMHO.

And if they are 'doing business', are they buying or selling? If it is not a staff jolly, where I come from you only blow such money to make it.

Don't people come to the BBC to try and make a score of the £3.5B, 60M audience and worldwide access? They should be the ones throwing the party!.If it is the other way (and I know there is, and maybe even has to be, and aspect of that), is this not a sorry further sign of the creeping, one-way commercial intrusions Aunty is making. What next? No one attends a legitimate business launch because the public have pony'd up for an event they a) would be booted out of and b) may be to help promote something directly competitive?

Since when did I authorise such use of funds via my licence fee?

Between the antics of the Labour Party, their camp followers and cheerleaders in chief, this getting to be like a mix of the Last Days of the Raj and the bunker behaviour of the Fall of Berlin.

ps: Nice picture of No 11 stocking up

Harry Potter and The Long, Drawn Out Downward Spiral of Denial

Fairness is still our guide

And the sword of social justice strong in its sheath?

Who writes this guff?

I guess... journalists:

Harry Potter author JK Rowling gives £1 million to Labour

I know everyone is at it, but I would have liked my national broadcaster and its crack squad of blonde Whitehall building attendants to help me understand one small thing that immediately struck me from such as this:

'But a source indicated that Miss Rowling's money would not simply be swallowed up in debt repayments, but would allow the party to continue with its work.'

Oddly this echoes the 'story' in the BBC, too.

Reads more like a press release than a bit of Whitehall chat.

Other than just how many 'sources' there are these days to issue such speculative gems, how does this work?

If I have massive debts and get some money, no matter what happens isn't the effect just to defray the debt and its effects slightly?

So If I owe the Government for tax or the BBC for its licence fee because I am broke (ironically thanks to their best efforts on behalf of my family), they can't come after it if it arrives in my bank account because 'it is allowing me to carry on with my work'?

Seems like a multiplicity of standards to me, at best, but I am sure there good and legal, if not ethical accounting practices to justify it all.

BBC - Newsnight - Won't let me post, amazingly, again, for some reason (who knows why? Apologies for the rerun, but I did need to tweak it a tad):

One for Monday maybe...

"Fairness is still our guide"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/20/economy.labour?commentpage=3&commentposted=1

"And the sword of social justice strong, still, in its sheath!"

Who writes this guff?

I guess... journalists:

"Harry Potter author JK Rowling gives £1 million to Labour"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/3021309/Harry-Potter-author-JK-Rowling-gives-1-million-to-Labour.html

I know everyone is at it, but I would have liked my national broadcaster and its crack squad of blonde and/or bald Whitehall building attendants to help understand one small thing that immediately struck me from such as this:

'But a source indicated that Miss Rowling's money would not simply be swallowed up in debt repayments, but would allow the party to continue with its work.'

Oddly this echoes the 'story' in the BBC, too.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7626589.stm

Reads more like a press release than a bit of Whitehall chat.

Other than just how many 'sources' there are these days to issue such speculative gems, how does this work?

If I have massive debts and get some money, no matter what happens isn't the effect just to defray the debt and its effects slightly?

So If I owe the Government for tax or the BBC for its licence fee because I am broke (ironically thanks to their best efforts on behalf of my family), they can't come after it if it arrives in my bank account because 'it is allowing me to carry on with my work'?

Seems like a multiplicity of standards to me, at best, but I am sure there good and legal, if not ethical accounting practices to justify it all.

Telegraph - Labour rebels call a truce for the party conference

Telegraph - Harry Potter says: Vote Labour - I think I like my headline better, but great minds. But I still see some mileage here: 'He who's name must not be spoken... Gordemort'. Oh rats... now I've said it. Maybe no one will notice. There seem to be a few other versions that have been conjured up (sorry) already.

Telegraph - NEW - JK Rowling must expect criticism after £1 million Labour donation

For the donation? Not so sure. Her money, her reasons.

For the press release that went with it? For sure. Head... parapet. You want to play in other areas, be ready to catch the attention of snipers.

The Family. All in.

I was holding this, as it has to be a spoof.

The BBC has 'asked a family...' to be filmed, '...and they were brave enough to say yes'.

Yeah, right.

In this fame-obsessed, 'reality that never is' age, what utter tripe.

No, the, er 'stars' are on the sofa now.

Your licence fee at work.

More listening going on. Again, how much hearing or changing I wonder?

A blog has alerted me to this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/ co...tv_licence.html
Tell the BBC what you think of the licence fee here. They are 'consulting' us again, using our money of course.

I fear I could not resist.

It's an amazing 'poll', not least because much of it is not box ticking but qualitative, which means a drone needs to read it.

Took me about 15 minutes, mainly because they did ask:

Question 1. Do you feel it is clear when a TV licence is needed? Is there anything more which could be done to help people understand?

No. Yes.

Question 2. Did you know about the different ways of paying for your TV licence?

Yes.

Question 3. Is this range of payment methods suitable for you? If not, how would you like to pay?

Yes. However, given the choice I would prefer the option of not having this at all as I don't 'like' paying for the current level of service.

Question 4. Has the direct communication you've received about your TV licence met the aims outlined in the paragraph above? If not, please explain.

Yes, the desire for the BBC to get its 'fee' by any means is made perfectly clear. Though, unlike other service company payment requests (usually not backed by legal threat and compulsion whether you wish to engage or not) perhaps not in a way designed to make one feel minded to comply.

Question 5. Do you think the tone of the marketing and advertising about the TV licence is appropriate?

No.

Question 6. Do you think that the methods of enforcement, including letters, visits and detection, are reasonable and appropriate?

No.

Question 7. Do you think that the process for those who do not need a licence is appropriate? Please explain.

No. It is designed to make life easy for the BBC in collection of its revenue by essentially throwing the onus of the householder to prove they don't need to be fined. I know of no other service provider, certainly in the field of 'entertainment', that operates such a system.

Question 8. Based on your experiences of other collection agencies, such as local councils, utility companies and the DVLA, do you have any suggestions on alternative ways of collection?

No. These provide licence-requiring of fee-demanding services that I either can opt not to use or are essential. I also have various means, via complaints systems and/or my vote, to affect how these systems operate if they fall below a standard I expect. There is hence no equivalence.

Question 9. Overall, do you think the right balance has been struck between encouraging payment and deterring evasion? Please explain

No. But again, this is a unique situation. You are encouraging payment for something the user has no option but to pay for no matter how they feel about the quality of the product.

So far in this 'survey', no pertinent questions have been asked that address this rather key aspect. Nor, I suspect, will it. Another self-serving, money-consuming, box-ticking, jobsworth-employing, agenda-filling waste of time?

As with many BBC-related polls/surveys, the questions seem designed more to derive a desired answer and, one suspects, if/when they do not will be 'adjusted'/moderated/lost/declared secret if they do not serve the agenda.

Question 10. Do you have any other comments about how the TV licence fee is collected?

From reading on the topic, it would appear that it is conducted by third parties who can claim to be working in the name of the law yet often do not obey it. The credibility of the BBC and the government who allows it to operate in this manner is hence rendered zero.

Now being aware of my limited, if eroding rights, I will therefore do all in my power to make things as difficult as possible to effect collection whilst fulfilling my legal obligations under current UK law.

Future aspiring legislators/governing aspirants please take note.

If you selected "other" for any of the categories above, please specify

None of your PC business, I am British

______

I know it matters not a jot as it will get filed and forgot if not 'on message', but it made me feel better. Worth a purge this sunny Thursday

I might just send it to my Prospective Parliamentary Candidates.

Telegraph - BBC licence fee review is missing the big picture