Tuesday, January 02, 2007
"This is only possible thanks to the unique way the BBC is funded"
The Times reports here in the latest BBC effort to interfere with legislation. Quite why the state broadcaster should be mixing with the legislative process have never been adequately explained.
I'm sure some of my readers will have seen other blogs pointing to the Today poll asking for a vote on which, of a number of Acts of Parliament to repeal. I didn't vote myself, as an option for "all of them" wasn't available and I remembered back two years when something similar was attempted. In that case it was a question of creating legislation and the winning option was to create a "castle doctrine" so: "that, if property owners discovered a burglary in progress, they should have the right to assume they were in mortal danger and “act accordingly”".
I was and still am very much in favour of such legislation, but of course it all got kicked into the long grass and nothing ever came of it. As a result I expected similar complacency to the result of this vote.
"More than half the votes cast were to abolish the Hunting Act, which outlawed hunting with hounds two years ago."
Of course we have the allegations of vote rigging or fixing, but: "The Countryside Alliance later cheerfully confirmed that it had encouraged members to take part." Well there's nothing wrong with that, you have a poll open to the nation, it's only right and proper that an interest group thinking it is of interest to them, can inform their members of it; said members of course choosing to vote or not and what to vote for.
Democracy is an inconvenient process and sometimes you don't get the result you want, in a true democracy, or in an organisation with democratic ideals, they would accept the result of this poll, and now campaign for that result. Of course we'll see pigs fly first.
It's just like the telly tax, if the BBC thought it represented the nation and good value for money, they would be in favour of a voluntary subscription, or even a paid service. They wouldn't even need advertising or product placement, but they know within themselves, that they produce biased liberal drivel, that in the open market people would much rather do without than pay for. Accordingly the BBC fight to keep the tax.
With the tax, the liberals making up the BBC are protected from the reality of both the market place and what the people want. It is taxation without representation, the only way the tax can stay, is with direct elections to the BBC coupled with direct elections to determine its policy and output. Accountability is long overdue.
Taxation without accountability - the unique way the BBC is funded.
I'm sure some of my readers will have seen other blogs pointing to the Today poll asking for a vote on which, of a number of Acts of Parliament to repeal. I didn't vote myself, as an option for "all of them" wasn't available and I remembered back two years when something similar was attempted. In that case it was a question of creating legislation and the winning option was to create a "castle doctrine" so: "that, if property owners discovered a burglary in progress, they should have the right to assume they were in mortal danger and “act accordingly”".
I was and still am very much in favour of such legislation, but of course it all got kicked into the long grass and nothing ever came of it. As a result I expected similar complacency to the result of this vote.
"More than half the votes cast were to abolish the Hunting Act, which outlawed hunting with hounds two years ago."
Of course we have the allegations of vote rigging or fixing, but: "The Countryside Alliance later cheerfully confirmed that it had encouraged members to take part." Well there's nothing wrong with that, you have a poll open to the nation, it's only right and proper that an interest group thinking it is of interest to them, can inform their members of it; said members of course choosing to vote or not and what to vote for.
Democracy is an inconvenient process and sometimes you don't get the result you want, in a true democracy, or in an organisation with democratic ideals, they would accept the result of this poll, and now campaign for that result. Of course we'll see pigs fly first.
It's just like the telly tax, if the BBC thought it represented the nation and good value for money, they would be in favour of a voluntary subscription, or even a paid service. They wouldn't even need advertising or product placement, but they know within themselves, that they produce biased liberal drivel, that in the open market people would much rather do without than pay for. Accordingly the BBC fight to keep the tax.
With the tax, the liberals making up the BBC are protected from the reality of both the market place and what the people want. It is taxation without representation, the only way the tax can stay, is with direct elections to the BBC coupled with direct elections to determine its policy and output. Accountability is long overdue.
Taxation without accountability - the unique way the BBC is funded.
Tags: BBC, television licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Labels: BBC, television licence
Friday, December 22, 2006
The Only Tax Rise I Wanted To See
The Times reports here on a great disappointment, namely the small increase in the telly tax.
As a person exempt from this onerous charge (no not through age or blindness), it's one I like to see go up and up, not because I like high taxes, or because the BBC deserve all this largesse. No, every year the BBC produces a plethora of politically correct rubbish and disgracefully biased and or shoddy reporting. The more they charge for this rubbish, the more likely that people will question the existence of the BBC and its funding basis.
The fact that the rise they wanted has not been approved is in my view a sign that the BBC is starting to lose touch, and they should be grateful to their political masters for this measure as now they will be forced into some economies. In the long run it'll make no difference as I'm sure their bias and political correctness will win out, if I'd have been in charge of the decision I'd have let them go up to £500.00p per annum at their own discretion, I'm confident they'd have reached it within a year or two, well before 2012. Thus by giving them enough rope they'd have solved the whole BBC issue.
As a person exempt from this onerous charge (no not through age or blindness), it's one I like to see go up and up, not because I like high taxes, or because the BBC deserve all this largesse. No, every year the BBC produces a plethora of politically correct rubbish and disgracefully biased and or shoddy reporting. The more they charge for this rubbish, the more likely that people will question the existence of the BBC and its funding basis.
The fact that the rise they wanted has not been approved is in my view a sign that the BBC is starting to lose touch, and they should be grateful to their political masters for this measure as now they will be forced into some economies. In the long run it'll make no difference as I'm sure their bias and political correctness will win out, if I'd have been in charge of the decision I'd have let them go up to £500.00p per annum at their own discretion, I'm confident they'd have reached it within a year or two, well before 2012. Thus by giving them enough rope they'd have solved the whole BBC issue.
Tags: BBC, television licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Labels: BBC, tax, television licence
