Over the past 24 hours the BBC has, quite rightly, made a big deal about the intimidation of its journalists in Turkey.
Bear that in mind.
Also in the past 24 hours – an unassuming little animated film promoting opposition to the TV license (the source of the BBC’s wealth) was posted on YouTube. It mocked the current TV Licensing “Excuses” campaign [See original TV Licensing ad here – comments disabled, you’ll notice]. I watched it on YouTube myself this morning. It’s not there any more. Here’s what you’ll find in its place:
The video is now available on LiveLeak, although for how long is anybody’s guess. This is what TV Licensing doesn’t want YouTube to show, claiming copyright infringement:
Does anybody really think that a “copyright claim” was the real reason they wanted that video pulled from YouTube? Nasty authoritarian bastards.
Don’t pay the license fee. (H/t http://tv-licensing.blogspot.co.uk/)
Unfortunately, a call to end the license fee can be seen in this context (Turkey) as being against “impartial and independent journalism”, the kind that informs citizens about the tyrannical behavior of their government, speaking up for freedom and the downtrodden everywhere*. This Turkey problem is the kind of thing that confirms the BBC’s belief that it has a Divine Right to broadcast wherever and whenever it likes, and nobody outside should be allowed to judge what they do.
If only there was a way to break it up and get rid of the worst offenders, and reform the BBC into a leaner, more impartial and ethical machine.
* Except the US, where they brook no dissent against that Leader.
“Unfortunately, a call to end the license fee can be seen in this context (Turkey) as being against “impartial and independent journalism”
I think the more straightforward reading – stomping on the opposition – supersedes that.
Pravda-like, the bBC believe they have a RIGHT to lie to us (the settled science?) , and if libertarians expose them, they deploy every force they can to silence opposition (28-gate). And the job-seeking careerists on the other media channels play along so as not to harm their career prospects. Leveson is truly a waste of space. The issue for a free society is not who listened to Hugh Grant’s phone, but the wholesale corruption of the mass media news reporting by the Common-Purpose agenda.
Margaret Thatcher had the opportunity to privatize the BBC while she was privatizing whole sectors of union plagued nationalized industries. The BBC would have been just one among many, and any protests could have been dismissed as the whinings of a privileged feather bedded minority.
The Tories missed a real opportunity to get rid of a tax payer funded broadcaster that has been the mouthpiece of Labour and socialism, while being anti-Christian, anti-Western, anti-American, and pro-Muslim.
OTH, I can view the BBC as God’s punishment on a nation that has abandoned God.
Thanks for posting the LiveLeak version, I was able to watch it there.
Apart from those images of Saville and the rest (which are possibly screen grabs from BBC archive footage) I couldn’t see what copyright infringements were made so if the creator removed those then the rest all appears to be original material and it could be reposted on Youtube.
I found the bit about “live broadcasting” interesting….
So, if I only ever watched stuff that I had recorded on Sky+, I wouldn’t need a TV licence? What about if I turned my telly on, clicked pause for a second and then continued to watch for the rest of the day? Technically, I am always a second behind broadcast speed and so not “watching it live”?
The whole thing’s a crock of shit.
If this were a private company, it would have been outlawed decades ago.
As far as I am aware, TVL and the BBC are seperate (but inextricably linked) enterprises and therefore infringement of BBC copyright should not be infringed by the TV Licensing people.
(And as an aside, technically that Sky+ workaround involves recording live TV and playing it back later (albeit only one second later), which requires a licence – so don’t try and pull that one on a TVL
bullyofficer!)I just don’t pay it, and don’t answer the door when they come round, which is hardly ever.
So don’t try and pull that one on a financially stretched member of the public!
TVL and the BBC are not separate:
The BBC is the TV Licensing Authority (TVLA).
TV Licensing (TVL) is a BBC-owned brand name with nor more authority than other BBC brand names e.g. “Mr Blobby”,
The TVL tag is used by the BBC’s agents (primarily Capita Services plc) to do the dirty work, such as accusing TV-free people, like me, of being evaders.
I recommend this website:
http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/forum/index.php
The BBC is TV Licensing,
“Who we are
‘TV Licensing’ is a trade mark of the BBC and is used under licence by companies contracted by the BBC to administer the collection of the television licence fees and enforcement of the television licensing system.
The BBC is a public authority in respect of its television licensing functions and retains overall responsibility.”
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/who-we-are-AB4/
Also if they are a “Public Service” as they like to claim how can they claim copyright on public property, think about that!
The business model of the BBC. stinks. They know it and so do we. Imagine being compelled to buy at the Co-op!
It will have to go sooner or later and be privatized. This is the 21st century not the early 20th and times have actually changed.
One of the last bastions of the nationalised industries that so failed the nation. Get rid .
Unfortunately, the chances of any politician having the backbone to take on the BBC is nil – and likely to remain so for the very foreseeable future. Gutless w*nkers, all.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2343323/400-000-households-avoid-paying-TV-licence-watching-BBC-programmes-iPlayer.html…just watch iplayer
i wonder if the bbc are spying on those who use iplayer to get there ip numbers to check if they are paying the tv licence,just a bit suspicious about this free use of the bbc iplayer.
I think they’d need the cooperation of the internet service providers to do that, and I don’t think they have the authority to demand it. Not yet, anyway!
Stuart, the answer is no, but I suspect that the Iplayer is a Trojan Horse to get people used to watching TV online, so that the TV licence fee can be replaced by another form of revenue e.g. Internet or PC ownership tax (as in Germany) or vis council tax.
Me I’m keeping an eye on the BBC’s relationship with BT as they have just gifted BT F1 and the BBC also dump much of their content on the BT player thing! bit that I don’t like is what ever the ISP BT still owns and controls the infrastructure !
‘It is getting harder and harder to make the licence fee work because there are now so many different ways of viewing TV content.’
Not long to go now!! Let’s all look forward to that joyful day when the latest stooge from the one party by 3 names has to stand up in parliament to make a statement about the future of the BBC…and in effect is forced to announce that it doesn’t have one….’advances in technology’, ‘unsustainable model’, ‘whole house agrees very sad’, ‘national institution’, ‘end of an era’, ‘envy of the world’…..
The Liberal Left won’t allow their mouthpiece, the BBC, to go down without a fight. It is too valuable to them to allow it to be done away with. If they believe that the BBC is underfunded they will try a combination of the following:
a) Increasing the License Fee
b) Charging for use of new technology in some way or other
c) Raising money for the BBC by some diversion of other taxes
Additionally, if they think that thy are losing control of the news agenda and the population is becoming too well informed from sources other than the BBC, they will seek to limit the information that can be disseminated by new technology.
The very last thing the Liberal Left want is for ordinary British people to be presented with the truth about what is happening to the country and then making up their own minds.
They had a recording of a car crash Ed Miliband phone-in removed on copyright grounds a few years ago as well.
I doubt a copyright suit would succeed. The video makers could claim Public Interest as a defence and have a fair chance of success but that would require going to court.
Given the Balen experience, the BBC will take the case to the highest court, the last possible appeal and pay an unlimited sum to do it. The ‘beauty’ of the BBC tactic is no one has the time, money or interest of an Steven Sugar to take-on the BBC that way.
MacDonalds was extremely embarrassed in a long running libel case, the so called MacLibel case but the defendants were without assets, unemployed and ideologically committed to bringing down capitalism. In other words they were BBC supporters.
The way the licence fee will be replaced is probably by a levy on top of council tax bills. Quite why this hasn’t been done up to now I don’t know. This way every home in the country will be given the “right” to receive contemporaneous TV transmissions (whether you want it or not: rather like my enforced payment for Haringey’s “low carbon” or black history month garbage). BTW, arranged this way the fee will be difficult to evade since it will be melded into council tax such that a refusal to pay the licence fee bit will effectively be a non-payment of council tax with all the criminal hoo-hah which would result.
Following criticism, the droid news bulletins eventually morphed from referring to ‘the bedroom tax’ to ‘the so-called bedroom tax’ and then onto the slick ‘what its opponents refer to as the bedroom tax’.
Never quite got round though to referring to the licence fee as ‘the so-called telly tax’.
I think of myself as being a BBC conscientious objector or refusenik. The BBC/government on the other hand sees me as a law breaker and will put me in jail.
At present there is no official avenue for BBC refuseniks, so the only recourse I have is to withhold my license fee money, rather like refusing to carry a pass in apartheid South Africa, except that law breaking was greeted with BBC approval.
Some may say (as per BBCese) that the drama content alone is worth the license fee, but unfortunately even drama has been infiltrated with the BBC ‘right’ view and tainted with propaganda.
if you stick a sign on your garden gate saying no trespassers, and TVL knock on your door without a warrant, you can sue them for trespass and get damages and an injunction to stop them doing it again
Not true – TVL, like anyone else have an Implied Right of Access to enter the boundary of your property and approach the main entrance.
This, in itself, is not trespass. If, however, the house holder withdraws the Implied Right of Access, verbally or in written form, from any caller or organisation (e.g. TVL), then they must comply and any further visits to the property would be trespass.
The “No trespassing” sign would be ineffective, as TVL would not be trespassing, unless the Implied Right of Access had already been withdrawn.
your last paragraph is a contradiction in terms. thats what the no trespassing sign does, it removes the common law right of way to use any recognised path or driveweay in order to communicate with the householder
my gates locked. if anyone goes through, under or over it and theyre not a police officer with a warrant, trespass is the least of their worries
The Greek state broadcaster isn’t financed by collecting licence fees. They assume that everyone should pay, and apply a levy on the electricity bills. Even more peremptory than the British.
shocking stuff