Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. This is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may also be moderated. Any suggestions for stories that you might like covered would be appreciated! It’s your space, use it wisely.
General BBC-related comment thread
Bookmark the permalink.
Radio 5 talking about political correctness on the phone in. The BBC doesn’t do irony does it?
I got collared by a Telly Tax gimp on Monday night – stoopidly confirmed my name but nothing else.
Am I screwed? Should I just buy a licence?
HELP.
The BBC website headline about council tax is another classic piece of bias. “council tax rises to be limited” – sounds almost like the govt. are limiting them but also tries to put a rosy picture on rises during a recession/depression. On the other hand they could have said ‘council tax rises by 30 times the rate of inflation (RPI)’ or that it is rising at the rate of CPI inflation. This is while Scotland has a council tax freeze, the Tories have promised a council tax freeze and many Tory councils are delivering council tax cuts or the smallest rises of all councils.
Dick 9:27
Did they phone you or come knocking at the door ? What happened ?
Knocked at my door. He said are you ‘Dick’ – I said yeah, then he said we’ve no record of you paying and I hit the ‘can’t help you mate’ mantra.
It’s not the money, it’s not particularly the court (although that really grates) but why should I pay for rich gimps patronising me?
I’m not offended by money at all – I’m offended by hypocrisy. ‘I’ve got a cushy public sector job, massive expense acct, no scrutiny, no performance measures, can drivel venal pious crap and you’re gonna pay to keep me in Volvos and Fortnum & Masons marmalade’.
Angry.
PS – it was about 8pm at night so you kinda figure it’s a buddy.
Here’s a post from the Guido Fawkes comments about David Camerons sons death…
‘I have just been angered to hear Nick “Toenails” Robinson say on the BBC that Cameron can’t expect any electoral advantage from this tragic event “as Gordon Brown has already lost a child of his own”.’
If Nick Robinson has said this he needs to be sacked. It’s a disgrace.
Dick 10:11
It will be interesting to see what happens next. Keep us in touch !
Will do Grant – think i’m just gonna pay it (wimp).
Kegs – too bloody right – what a disgusting thing to say.
Top Priority message to
Dick the Prick – read the posts that follow!!!!
The information copied below was on a website in 2003. If I remember correctly, the site was owned by Vladimir Bukovsky author of To Build a Castle: My Life as a Dissenter,
——————-quote starts-
Noticed some additional comments and “facts” on the latest intimidating letter from the TVLA ? – here they are:
“… To help us update our records please write to us at TV Licensing … stating that you do not use a television. We will contact you in due course, just to confirm the situation.”
Helping out the TVLA keeping their records up to date is the very last thing you should do. If, for whatever reason, you do not need a TV Licence then … well … you are not breaking the law so why should you provide the TVLA with a statement ?
You are not at all obliged to contact the TVLA. There is no law that says you have to make statements – just ignore these people.
Keep in mind that these statements are only useful to be used against you.
Using sophisticated equipment on unlicensed household, we can identify if a TV is being watched within 20 seconds.
Whether the TVLA does or does not have electronic gadgetry to play “big brother”, fact is that no-one has never been convicted based upon “evidence” gathered by means of this type of electronic spying, which is in fact a breach of privacy.
If we suspect that an offence is taking place, we are authorised to request a search warrant if we cannot gain access.
Getting a search warrant involves spending money so they are used much less frequently than people think. If the TVLA has the evidence to get a warrant and they also have your name, then they will usually go straight to issuing you with a summons to bring you to court. This is administratively far more cost-effective.
Never ever let a TVLA Enquiry Officer, without search warrant, in your home. Do not speak to him/her – do not make a statement and do not sign.
We may caution you in compliance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and use your statement as evidence in your prosecution.
Now this is what it’s all about. As a profit making company the TVLA [Capita] depends heavily on people admitting that they do not have a TV Licence. The statement, signed by those who admit, is then used against you. This is a very cost effective way of operations for the TVLA.
Again… never ever let a TVLA Enquiry Officer, without search warrant, in your home. Do not speak to him/her – do not make a statement and do not sign.
–quote continues below; another article on their site—-
WHAT SHOULD I DO WHEN THE TV LICENCE MAN CALLS?
————————————————–
IT IS ONLY POSSIBLE TO OFFER GENERAL ADVICE IN THIS DOCUMENT. IF YOU ARE IN ANY DOUBT WHAT YOU SHOULD DO CONTACT A SOLICITOR IMEDIATELY.
The purpose of a visit from a Television Enquiry Officer is to gather information that you have a television, but that you do not have a licence. You can always ask him to come back when you have had a chance to get some legal advice, before you answer his questions.
REMEMBER Television Enquiry Officers must interview you under caution, if they are to use their visit as evidence against you in court. The caution says:
You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence. Do you understand?
So, if you answer questions, those answers can be read out in court, but:
YOU DO NOT HAVE TO SAY ANYTHING
This means “anything”.
You do not have to tell the enquiry officer your name, you do not have to tell him whether or not you have a television, or if you live at the address, or if you have a licence.
WHAT WILL THEY ASK ME?
No surprises here. Television Licensing officers are not paid to think for themselves, they have a list of questions to ask in every case. They are:
Day/date:
Name:
Address:
Post Code:
Are you the occupier?
Do you have a television licence on the premises?
Do you have a licence?
If no administer caution:
“You do not have to say anything. It may harm your defence if you do not mention when
questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence. Do you understand?”
Time of caution:
TELEVISION SET
May I inspect the set?
Inspection details: Black and white/colour
Use?
Channels tested?
Was there a video recorder?
When was the set installed?
When did you first use the set without an appropriate licence?
When did you last use the set?
Do you have satellite or cable?
If yes which channels do you watch?
PERSONAL DETAILS
What is your date of birth?
What is your occupation or status?
I have to tell you that you may be prosecuted for an offence under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949. Is there anything you want to say? You will than be asked to buy a television licence, “without prejudice”, or in other words pay for a licence and still run the risk of being prosecuted. They will then ask you to sign the interview record as accurate, but you
don’t have to do so.
THEY SAID IT MIGHT HARM MY DEFENCE IF I DON’T ANSWER
QUESTIONS.
You are being asked questions because they know you don’t have a licence, but they don’t know who you are, or if you are using a television. If you tell them who you are and you say you are using a television, they will usually take you to court.
If you don’t tell them you stand a better chance of not being taken to court as they don’t know who you are, or if you have a television. If they knew that in the first place there would be no need for them to call.
CAN THEY COME INTO MY HOME?
They can only come into your home if you let them in (Can I inspect the set?), or if a magistrate grants them a search warrant. They will only get a search warrant if they can satisfy the magistrate there are reasonable grounds to suspect you have a television for use on the premises.
——————————————————————————–
SO I ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS AND NOW I’VE GOT A SUMMONS. WHAT CAN I DO?
————————————————– ————-
CAN I GET LEGAL AID?
Every one is entitled to receive a public funding certificate to cover magistrates’ court proceedings free of charge, even if they are a millionaire. If you want advice, you need to see a solicitor who deals in criminal law. Details of solicitors offering legal help can be found from the Legal Services Commission. Alternatively look in yellow pages for any solicitor displaying the Criminal Defence Service logo. If you are on income support, income based job seekers allowance, or working families’ tax credit, you will qualify for free legal help before you go to court. You may also qualify for this help of you are on a low income. Many solicitors will offer you a free first interview anyway. Ask a solicitor for details.
CHECK WHEN THE SUMMONS WAS ISSUED.
The Magistrates’ Courts’ Act 1980 allows the TV Licence authority 6 months to tell the magistrates’ clerk they want a summons issuing. If they are too late its just too bad; they cannot prosecute you.
I WANT TO PLEAD “GUILTY” WHAT CAN I EXPECT?
There are two ways of pleading guilty. You will have received a form with your summons that you can return to the court, saying that you want to plead guilty, or you can attend the hearing.
DOES IT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE IF I TURN UP?
Television licensing courts expect get through 60 • 70 cases in a court session. They do not expect many people to turn up and they expect most of those who do not come to plead guilty by letter. If they don’t do that, and don’t attend, the TV Licensing officers will ask to have the case “proved in absence”. This means that the statement that the TV Enquiry officer made when he visited you and his “interview” will be read out. The magistrates will then find you guilty, and you will normally be fined £150 to £200 and ordered to pay the TV Licensing officers costs (currently £45.00). If you turn up and plead guilty, the magistrates must listen to what you have to say. They will probably fine you about the same amount and order you to pay the costs, but it will take them longer and they will have to consider your case in greater depth.
CAN I PLEAD NOT GUILTY?
Yes; you can either use the form to tell the court you are “not guilty”, in which case the magistrates will adjourn the case to a trial date, when you must attend, and the trial will take place. You should plead “not guilty” if you do not have television receiving equipment installed, or if you had a licence when the enquiry officer called. If you were promised you wouldn’t be prosecuted, or if you have any doubts what to do, you should see a solicitor.
I HAVE HEARD YOU PAY LESS IF YOU PLEAD GUILTY. IS THIS TRUE?
You are supposed to be given a discount if you plead guilty, but the magistrates will still fine you, and they will fine you more for not having a television licence than they would have fined you if you had stolen something or hit someone in most cases.
I HAVE HEARD THAT IT IS AGAINST EUROPEAN LAW TO BE FINED
FOR NOT HAVING A TELEVISION LICENCE. IS THIS TRUE?
The power of the TV Licence agency to prosecute people is being challenged in a number of test cases, which are based on European law. The result will not be known for some time. A solicitor can advise you how you can have your case challenged in the same way.
—end quote———-
David,
There is comment on Guido and Conservative home about “toenails” Robinson’s reporting of the Ivan Cameron Tragedy.
Any thoughts?
Dick the Prick – In council blocks of tenants like the one I live in, I believe not many have TV licences, unless they have Sky in which case you cannot avoid it.
Obviously I don’t own a TV, and these are the experiences of a friend of mine – and written from the first person for dramatic effect only. One day posts like this will result in a knock at the door within 10 min of sending whatever email address you use, like they did to Damian Green, but for non-celebs too. MWL’s Thought Police will one day operate fully in the UK, and additional censorship on HYS will no longer be required.
Experience 1
I received the usual set of letters about someone will be calling. No-one answers the door to strangers here anyway. So when the bell went I looked out of the window. A man was standing on the opposite side of the road looking up, obviously trying to see if there was any sign of life. After waiting for 10 min he started ringing again. Then he went. I looked up the road from the other side of the block and saw he had parked his car some distance away even though there were places much nearer. A couple of weeks or so later he rang again. I knew it was the same person because when I looked out the same car was hidden in the same spot. That was two years ago and he has not been back.
They are on commission and they don’t want to waste their time.
Experience 2 (A house)
Someone opens the door and the TV man is there. We are all watching the TV. We said we had only just moved in, and one of us had a TV licence at a different address which was being transferred to this house.
My advice when answering the door is to say to callers
– sorry, I am in a hurry, I cannot speak to you now about anything. Please leave a calling card and I will see if I can get someone to ring you back. Sorry, no. Sorry, I said I have no time now. Sorry, I cannot answer any questions just now, I really am in a big hurry. No, not even that question. I really have to go. Sorry, no…..etc etc etc, as long as it takes until they go.
However, I do not blame you if you end up buying the licence, as people chasing you for money can be worrying. I still get bailiffs calling at another place for an electricity bill FOUR YEARS after the previous tenant left, for the same bill that they repeatedly admit is nothing to do with me. They keep saying, dont worry, it is nothing to do with you forget it, then a year later a different debt agency takes over the same debt and the whole process starts off all over again.
I even have letters confirming a bill for some equipment (did not work) has been paid in full and final settlement, followed up by solicitors letters back at stage 1 for the original bill. Standards in this country of behaviour in terms chasing debts are abysmal and sinking lower all the time. I believe incompetent money chasing is wasting incredible amounts of time and money all over the country. Everyone I know seems to have battles of this sort going on endlessly.
BBC’s ‘guess who’?
The BBC’s ‘no-name’ website headline:
“Texting death crash peer jailed”
NOT:
‘Muslim Labour Lord Ahmed jailed for killing motorist’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/7909510.stm
Be fair George … Labour is the first word in the summary section and they have to write a headline that’s between 31 and 33 characters. Adding the word “Labour” let alone “muslim” would make that pretty tricky.
Mostly lurking
The name ‘AHMED’ is short enough to put in a headline surely? Let’s try to forget the ‘Muslim’, ‘Labour’ and ‘Lord’.
But you get all that information (bar the completely irrelevent “muslim”) in the first para.
And you’ve got “Lord” anyway because “peer” is in there.
What would you have written?
Mostly lurking
You can, and apparently will, defend the BBC’s penchant for anonymity in its headline writing in the case of particular political subjects, such as Labour Lord Ahmed, just as I will criticise it.
I just don’t get the issue with this one. He’s a lord, he was texting, it was a crash, it was fatal, he’s gone to prison.
I can’t think which bit of that lot I’d leave out to accomodate his name or political party.
You can’t even say “Labour death crash peer jailed” because its one character short.
Cheers Caveman & NTVL. I’ll wait and see what happens. Hmm.
The Shaw Theatre is to stage a two-week run of Maggie’s End, a play by Ed Waugh and Trevor Wood, that begins with the state funeral of the former prime minister and is funded by trade unions including the NUM, which led the miners’ strike in the 1980s.
“There’s little doubt that most Labour supporters would see a state funeral for Margaret Thatcher as the ultimate betrayal by their party and that to acknowledge her in this way would reopen many of the sores of the 1980s,” says Wood.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mandrake/4800138/Miners-back-Margaret-Thatcher-funeral-play.html
Apart from their NUM-funded anti-Thatcher play, the writers Waugh and Wood are also working on something else:
They are currently developing a sitcom ‘Silver Acres’ with Aficionado Films and the BBC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Waugh_and_Trevor_Wood
No surprises there.
It’s simple to me, but too complicated for the BBC and its supporters: I expect to see, in the news web headline, the name of the subject of the crime:i.e. AHMED. It is a short name.
He is a political figure. He happens to be a Muslim Labour Lord. The BBC has no political motive for having an anonymous headline, does it? Prove it: put ‘Ahmed’ in the headline, where it belongs.
Ahmed jailed for 12 weeks according to the opening line of Al Beebs article…its not till you get to the very last paragraph that you find out the actual length of time he will serve in jail is a mere 6 weeks for killing another person!
Mailman
Dick, don’t be a mug. There’s nothing they can do because you haven’t admitted to anything other than your name. Only when they have PROOF you are watching a TV without a licence can they do anything, and they don’t have that so your clear.
I once had the same thing happen to me. I said my name, told them I had a TV, and the guy cautioned me on the spot. I laughed at him and slammed the door in his face while he was mid caution. Never heard another word from them, simply because they hadn’t proved I was WATCHING the TV or that it was tuned in.
I just don’t understand how anyone can post on these boards and own a TV licence. Knocking the hypocrisy of Bono flying hats in private jets can’t be taking seriously when so many are raging about the existence of the BBC whilst funding it.
But, George, the name in the headline tells you absolutely nothing unless the name is very well known. “Lord Ahmed” is nearly a third of your headline (just “Ahmed” is too common a name) and tells most people in the country absolutely bugger all because he’s not a well known figure.
If it was Peter Mandelson it would be very different and I would absolutely say you should use the name.
Radio 4 is now doing the right thing and describing him as a Labour peer.
BBC the odd one out in not naming Lord Ahmed in its web headline.
e.g. alternative headlines:
‘Harry’s Place’
“Lord Ahmed jailed”.
‘Guardian’
“Lord Ahmed jailed for dangerous driving”.
Beyond the anonymity of BBC headlines on Lord Ahmed, there is the more serious issue of BBC omission on
Lord Ahmed:
‘Cranmer’
“Lord Ahmed must be prosecuted for treason”
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2009/02/lord-ahmed-must-be-prosecuted-for.html
and giving his name
Harry’s place: too short (and (with the best will in the world) aimed at the anorak end of the market)
Guardian: Its a good clear headline but for the Beeb its too long (and also a more specialist audience if we’re honest).
I’ve been trying but I can’t actually get a decent headline that fits the limits and includes his name.
All the details ARE right there. They’re immediately under the headline on the front page and there’s even a picture.
What is this arbitrary limit on headline length ?
Does the BBC always stick to it ?
Sounds like a cop-out to me
Wouldn’t “Labour Lord Ahmed jailed” fit any limit ?
“labour peer Ahmed jailed”
Both too short.
To save money all text news is written just the once for a whole host of platforms.
The major limiting factor is Ceefax. Tbh I don’t understand the detail but I do know it requires a headline of 31, 32 or 33 characters (or around that – I may be one out one way or the other).
I can’t imagine you would choose to work within such a limit unless you had to.
On another note, neither headline tells you very much. What for? Was is serious or not? Sleaze? Murder? Who’s Lord Ahmed?
Aaargh! Use preview man!
Scratch the last three words … you’ve both answered that question!
“labour peer lord ahmed jailed”
there perfect.
What FOR, though vicky?
And any sub worth their salt would tell you off for duplication: “Lord” and “peer”
That said, if you’re after page impressions alone I actually think yours would be the better headline – precisely because your first thought is, “bloody hell, what for?!”.
I am still very dubious about the alleged restriction on headline length.
Are all the other headlines today fitting the alleged length restriction ?
i was just being daft with my perfect
remark, i dont think the bbc headline is that bad anyway to be honest with you.
Listening to Justin Webb, you would think that Obama was still riding on a huge wave of popularity. He described Obama as “this most powerful President” today.
Lies, or smarmy sycophantic BS as usual – the guy is no more popular than others after a month in office :
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/02/24/obama-less-popular-bush-after-first-month-office
The BBC musical ovetunes and “Are friends Islamic”
On the day the bBC headlines with “Texting death crash peer jailed”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/7909510.stm
They run an article which promotes this angle;
Texting ‘improves language skill’
I’m sure the victim of Lord “I predict a riot” Ahmed is sure to agree with the above statement.
The BBC musical ovetunes and “Are friends Islamic”
Maybe it is just my loathing for a certain G Brown – and I was only listening with half an ear – but I am sure that a good 5 minutes of the World at One was used by Nick Robinson to tell us how GB empathasied with David Cameron over the loss of his son – with how marvellous GB is implied.
Cameron’s love for Ivan showed the true mettle of the man
“Whatever you might think of Cameron as Conservative leader one could scarcely avoid being inspired by his role in the far more challenging task as a parent of a disabled child”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1155324/HARRY-PHIBBS-Camerons-love-Ivan-showed-true-mettle-man.html
I thought Gordon’s speech expressing sympathy for the Camerons was deeply sincere. The best speech he’s ever done.
Style-police Alert.
I thought, if the picture we saw on BBC news 24 of Lord, Peer, chubby-cheeked text-wizard Ahmed talking on a phone whilst sitting in an interior, was filmed at his home, he should serve extra time in prison for criminally bad taste in sofas wallpaper and other decor.
Other sites are reporting that Nick Robinson is going overboard in reminding people that Gordon Brown also lost a child. So much so that David Cameron’s tragic loss is an afterthought.
Not having access to the BBc now can anyone confirm if this is true?
If it is true then it is difficult to imagine how much lower the BBC can sink.
apparently nick the prick robinson said
on the BBC that Cameron can’t expect any electoral advantage from this tragic event “as Gordon Brown has already lost a child of his own”
seriously time for this guys P45
While his one O’clock news report did mention Brown’s loss – it was in context and not unreasonable. Indeed, the whole tone of the BBC report was both respectful and fair.
Strangely though – the BBC moderators blocked my comment (to the above effect) on NR Blog – on the grounds that it was ‘off-topic’. Strange – because I was responding to comments made attacking NR.
The BBC can be a weird animal sometimes or perhaps I’m now on some kind of automitic BBC black-list. [Whoops – sorry about that racist comment – prohibited list] 🙂
Style-police Alert.
I thought, if the picture we saw on BBC news 24 of Lord, Peer, chubby-cheeked text-wizard Ahmed talking on a phone whilst sitting in an interior, was filmed at his home, he should serve extra time in prison for criminally bad taste in sofas wallpaper and other decor.
Sue | 25.02.09 – 2:44 pm | #
——————————-
Ooh, do tell! Tell all!! What sort of wallpaper, sofas and occasional tables does he have? Oh, curtains and lamps as well. Must have all the gory details to relish or it’s no good!