Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[ralphjohn69]

First topic message reminder :

It's not logic. Most pot 4 teams are no worse than Rangers. If Rangers were the worst ever pot 4 team last year, what makes them any better now?

Because instead of playing another Pot 3 team they will be playing a Pot 4 team, who will probably be worse than a Pot 3 team so they have a better chance of getting 3rd, although it's obviously not guaranteed. You really don't help yourself when you post about football....

[Duty281]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67076341

BBC doubling down on not calling terrorists terrorists. Even Starmer weighing in against the BBC.

Remember - don't pay the licence fee. Never, ever, ever.

Surely you're not advocating breaking the law?

If you watch the BBC live, or anything on BBCiPlayer (not sure why you would), then morally you should pay the licence fee.

But if you're watching live TV on other stations - e.g. Sky Sports for the Cricket World Cup - then, yes, absolutely break the law. Why pay the BBC in that circumstance for their dismal left-wing output, refusal to call terrorists terrorists, protection of child abusers, and pathetic letters of intimidation to people who don't pay the license fee?

[JuliusHMarx]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67076341

BBC doubling down on not calling terrorists terrorists. Even Starmer weighing in against the BBC.

Remember - don't pay the licence fee. Never, ever, ever.

Surely you're not advocating breaking the law?

If you watch the BBC live, or anything on BBCiPlayer (not sure why you would), then morally you should pay the licence fee.

But if you're watching live TV on other stations - e.g. Sky Sports for the Cricket World Cup - then, yes, absolutely break the law. Why pay the BBC in that circumstance for their dismal left-wing output, refusal to call terrorists terrorists, protection of child abusers, and pathetic letters of intimidation to people who don't pay the license fee?

Anarchist! Where does it end? No car tax because the roads have potholes, no council tax because they're a Tory/Labour* run shambles? Should we get to pick and choose which laws we follow and which we don't?

*delete as apprppriate.

[Duty281]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67076341

BBC doubling down on not calling terrorists terrorists. Even Starmer weighing in against the BBC.

Remember - don't pay the licence fee. Never, ever, ever.

Surely you're not advocating breaking the law?

If you watch the BBC live, or anything on BBCiPlayer (not sure why you would), then morally you should pay the licence fee.

But if you're watching live TV on other stations - e.g. Sky Sports for the Cricket World Cup - then, yes, absolutely break the law. Why pay the BBC in that circumstance for their dismal left-wing output, refusal to call terrorists terrorists, protection of child abusers, and pathetic letters of intimidation to people who don't pay the license fee?

Anarchist! Where does it end? No car tax because the roads have potholes, no council tax because they're a Tory/Labour* run shambles? Should we get to pick and choose which laws we follow and which we don't?

*delete as apprppriate.

The law around the license fee makes zero sense. Imagine if Netflix charged you for watching Amazon Prime, or The Times said you had to pay them because you read The Guardian. And if you didn't pay them then you get sent threatening letters, or have thugs turn up on your doorstep. It would be nonsensical, just like it's nonsensical for the BBC to expect a person to pay them if they watch Sky Sports and nothing else.

I disagree with council tax - and only pay it under duress -  because most councils are hopeless. They should, of course, be privatised, rather than let the most ghastly people from local politics run them.

[JuliusHMarx]

Should everyone be allowed to ignore the laws they think make little sense?

[JuliusHMarx]

Robust defence from John Simpson, who has more integrity than many people on here and who has seen things the rest of us are fortunate enough not to have seen. Note what he says about the Nazis and the IRA - obviously they were afraid of the Nazi lobby and the Irish Republican lobby.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67083432

[Duty281]

Should everyone be allowed to ignore the laws they think make little sense?

As long as they're victimless crimes, a bit of civil disobedience is all fine and dandy.

[JuliusHMarx]

Should everyone be allowed to ignore the laws they think make little sense?

As long as they're victimless crimes, a bit of civil disobedience is all fine and dandy.

Some might say it's your Duty.

[Duty281]

Robust defence from John Simpson, who has more integrity than many people on here and who has seen things the rest of us are fortunate enough not to have seen. Note what he says about the Nazis and the IRA - obviously they were afraid of the Nazi lobby and the Irish Republican lobby.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67083432

If it's perfectly reasonable to call them 'atrocities', as Simpson argues, then it's perfectly reasonable to call them terrorists, because that's exactly what they are.

If the BBC wish to be truly impartial and objective, and not take sides or using loaded terms, maybe they shouldn't throw around words like 'atrocity', 'far-right', 'white supremacist', or 'extremist'. Bit loaded, isn't it? Why are those terms fine, but 'terrorist' is some sort of breach?

Ultimately, if the BBC refuses to call a terrorist organisation that beheads children 'terrorists', then it's just a sign of how pathetic the BBC are.

Covering up child abusers (past and present) and refusing to call a spade a spade....the BBC are truly the shame of this country.

[Duty281]

Should everyone be allowed to ignore the laws they think make little sense?

As long as they're victimless crimes, a bit of civil disobedience is all fine and dandy.

Some might say it's your Duty.

And it must be done two hundred and eighty one times before the next full moon.

[navyblueshorts]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67076341

BBC doubling down on not calling terrorists terrorists. Even Starmer weighing in against the BBC.

Remember - don't pay the licence fee. Never, ever, ever.

Compete BS from the BBC. Virtually every first world country refers to them as a terrorist group.
They claim it's because calling them terrorists would be "taking sides" I don't understand that, this is a group which murdered a grandmother, filmed it on her phone and posted it on her own Facebook page, it's beheading babies and indiscriminately gunning down civilians.
If you can call a murderer a murderer, a diddler a diddler, or a r***ist a r***ist (maybe you can't with the preposterous censorship on here) why not call a terrorist group a terrorist group?
They're so afraid of the Muslim lobby.

Rubbish. Try thinking.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67083432

Countries calling Hamas terrorists is not the same as the BBC doing so. You don't appear equipped to understand this sort of thing, but you'll just have to get used to it, I'm afraid. You ruin any argument you might have had with your last throwaway remark as well, which is just your own prejudiced opinion.

[navyblueshorts]

Should everyone be allowed to ignore the laws they think make little sense?

As long as they're victimless crimes, a bit of civil disobedience is all fine and dandy.

As long as one accepts the consequences of such disobedience. I guess you're fine with the XR and Just Stop Oil clowns and their road blocks etc?

[Soul Requiem]

Should everyone be allowed to ignore the laws they think make little sense?

As long as they're victimless crimes, a bit of civil disobedience is all fine and dandy.

As long as one accepts the consequences of such disobedience. I guess you're fine with the XR and Just Stop Oil clowns and their road blocks etc?

They're not the same thing. My household not paying for a TV licence affects no one apart from us.

[Soul Requiem]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67076341

BBC doubling down on not calling terrorists terrorists. Even Starmer weighing in against the BBC.

Remember - don't pay the licence fee. Never, ever, ever.

Compete BS from the BBC. Virtually every first world country refers to them as a terrorist group.
They claim it's because calling them terrorists would be "taking sides" I don't understand that, this is a group which murdered a grandmother, filmed it on her phone and posted it on her own Facebook page, it's beheading babies and indiscriminately gunning down civilians.
If you can call a murderer a murderer, a diddler a diddler, or a r***ist a r***ist (maybe you can't with the preposterous censorship on here) why not call a terrorist group a terrorist group?
They're so afraid of the Muslim lobby.

Rubbish. Try thinking.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67083432

Countries calling Hamas terrorists is not the same as the BBC doing so. You don't appear equipped to understand this sort of thing, but you'll just have to get used to it, I'm afraid. You ruin any argument you might have had with your last throwaway remark as well, which is just your own prejudiced opinion.

Hamas are designated as a terrorist organisation by the UK so the BBC should be referring to them as such.

[super_realist]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67076341

BBC doubling down on not calling terrorists terrorists. Even Starmer weighing in against the BBC.

Remember - don't pay the licence fee. Never, ever, ever.

Compete BS from the BBC. Virtually every first world country refers to them as a terrorist group.
They claim it's because calling them terrorists would be "taking sides" I don't understand that, this is a group which murdered a grandmother, filmed it on her phone and posted it on her own Facebook page, it's beheading babies and indiscriminately gunning down civilians.
If you can call a murderer a murderer, a diddler a diddler, or a r***ist a r***ist (maybe you can't with the preposterous censorship on here) why not call a terrorist group a terrorist group?
They're so afraid of the Muslim lobby.

Rubbish. Try thinking.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67083432

Countries calling Hamas terrorists is not the same as the BBC doing so. You don't appear equipped to understand this sort of thing, but you'll just have to get used to it, I'm afraid. You ruin any argument you might have had with your last throwaway remark as well, which is just your own prejudiced opinion.

Why is it certain media outlets won't call terrorism terrorism. I don't buy the "impartiality" excuse given that the likes of the BBC are on record as NOT being impartial on many things.
Seems they only want to be impartial when it suits them.

[McLaren]

"Terrorists Attack America"


Not sure where it leaves me that I might be on the same side as Duty and Super.


"Terrorist

a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

I actually don't understand how calling someone a terrorist is taking sides if they literally meet the definition.

[McLaren]

Strength isn't, or shouldn't be, the leader of a vastly more powerful nation simply beating his (always 'his', isn't it?) chest and blowing loads of people up just because he can and to satisfy what is, lets face it, just a desire for retribution, even if that is an understandable immediate emotion. Any thug in charge of a vastly superior military force can do that. A stronger leader might actually use his brain, wait and think a bit.

Such a great point that is missing in much of the coverage. It is sad that a military response (or any cruel response) is seen as the only way to make a strong response.

[Duty281]

Should everyone be allowed to ignore the laws they think make little sense?

As long as they're victimless crimes, a bit of civil disobedience is all fine and dandy.

As long as one accepts the consequences of such disobedience. I guess you're fine with the XR and Just Stop Oil clowns and their road blocks etc?

Those morons actually harm people's lives, however, so no.

[McLaren]

Is jogging or cycling the saddest pastime?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-67066250

Maybe jogging?

[JuliusHMarx]

For those who are interested in the detail - these are the BBC guidelines, which explain why the term 'terrorist' isn't used and why it is considered different from other terms.
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/pdfs/reporting-terrorism.pdf

[Duty281]

For those who are interested in the detail - these are the BBC guidelines, which explain why the term 'terrorist' isn't used and why it is considered different from other terms.
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/pdfs/reporting-terrorism.pdf

As said, it makes zero sense. They're happy to throw around terms like 'Islamist', 'far-right', 'extremist' and 'white supremacist' - all loaded, partial and usually subjective terms which will sway the reader/listener, and does not enable their audience to make their own assessments - but magically draw the line at 'terrorist'.

[super_realist]

Is jogging or cycling the saddest pastime?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-67066250

Maybe jogging?

Probably watching F1 is the saddest as it's not even taking part. It's watching someone else in a two horse engineering competition.

[super_realist]

For those who are interested in the detail - these are the BBC guidelines, which explain why the term 'terrorist' isn't used and why it is considered different from other terms.
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/pdfs/reporting-terrorism.pdf

Doesn't wash. It's just a terrible excuse.

[JuliusHMarx]

News agency in 'Can't please everyone' shock.

[super_realist]

News agency in 'Can't please everyone' shock.

It's not about "pleasing" everyone. It's about a pathetic absolution of journalism. Is anyone going to be remotely bothered or worry about so called impartiality?

[JuliusHMarx]

News agency in 'Can't please everyone' shock.

It's not about "pleasing" everyone. It's about a pathetic absolution of journalism. Is anyone going to be remotely bothered or worry about so called impartiality?

Apologies, I should have written "News agency in 'Can't please reactionary right-wing loony' shock"

[super_realist]

News agency in 'Can't please everyone' shock.

It's not about "pleasing" everyone. It's about a pathetic absolution of journalism. Is anyone going to be remotely bothered or worry about so called impartiality?

Apologies, I should have written "News agency in 'Can't please reactionary right-wing loony' shock"

Ah yes, the standard retort from someone who has a differing opinion.
If the King, who is certainly more impartial than the BBC calls them terrorists, it's about time the BBC updated their editorial stance.

[JuliusHMarx]

News agency in 'Can't please everyone' shock.

It's not about "pleasing" everyone. It's about a pathetic absolution of journalism. Is anyone going to be remotely bothered or worry about so called impartiality?

Apologies, I should have written "News agency in 'Can't please reactionary right-wing loony' shock"

Ah yes, the standard retort from someone who has a differing opinion.

Not true. Duty also has a different opinion from me on this matter, and I do not consider him reactionary right-wing loony.

[navyblueshorts]

Should everyone be allowed to ignore the laws they think make little sense?

As long as they're victimless crimes, a bit of civil disobedience is all fine and dandy.

As long as one accepts the consequences of such disobedience. I guess you're fine with the XR and Just Stop Oil clowns and their road blocks etc?

They're not the same thing. My household not paying for a TV licence affects no one apart from us.

Splitting hairs. Actually, your lack pf paying a licence almost certainly does affect others - they're required to pay more to make up for those that don't abide by the law because, presumably, those latter think they're above such a law.

[navyblueshorts]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67076341

BBC doubling down on not calling terrorists terrorists. Even Starmer weighing in against the BBC.

Remember - don't pay the licence fee. Never, ever, ever.

Compete BS from the BBC. Virtually every first world country refers to them as a terrorist group.
They claim it's because calling them terrorists would be "taking sides" I don't understand that, this is a group which murdered a grandmother, filmed it on her phone and posted it on her own Facebook page, it's beheading babies and indiscriminately gunning down civilians.
If you can call a murderer a murderer, a diddler a diddler, or a r***ist a r***ist (maybe you can't with the preposterous censorship on here) why not call a terrorist group a terrorist group?
They're so afraid of the Muslim lobby.

Rubbish. Try thinking.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67083432

Countries calling Hamas terrorists is not the same as the BBC doing so. You don't appear equipped to understand this sort of thing, but you'll just have to get used to it, I'm afraid. You ruin any argument you might have had with your last throwaway remark as well, which is just your own prejudiced opinion.

Hamas are designated as a terrorist organisation by the UK so the BBC should be referring to them as such.

Nope. Try again. The UK designation is entirely political. The BBC (and, arguably, other journalistic entities) shouldn't designate Hamas as such at all.

I take Duty's point somewhere earlier re. why not use the word 'terrorist', when other terms are used etc. Can't answer that, but have to draw a line somewhere I guess.

[navyblueshorts]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67076341

BBC doubling down on not calling terrorists terrorists. Even Starmer weighing in against the BBC.

Remember - don't pay the licence fee. Never, ever, ever.

Compete BS from the BBC. Virtually every first world country refers to them as a terrorist group.
They claim it's because calling them terrorists would be "taking sides" I don't understand that, this is a group which murdered a grandmother, filmed it on her phone and posted it on her own Facebook page, it's beheading babies and indiscriminately gunning down civilians.
If you can call a murderer a murderer, a diddler a diddler, or a r***ist a r***ist (maybe you can't with the preposterous censorship on here) why not call a terrorist group a terrorist group?
They're so afraid of the Muslim lobby.

Rubbish. Try thinking.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67083432

Countries calling Hamas terrorists is not the same as the BBC doing so. You don't appear equipped to understand this sort of thing, but you'll just have to get used to it, I'm afraid. You ruin any argument you might have had with your last throwaway remark as well, which is just your own prejudiced opinion.

Why is it certain media outlets won't call terrorism terrorism. I don't buy the "impartiality" excuse given that the likes of the BBC are on record as NOT being impartial on many things.
Seems they only want to be impartial when it suits them.

I'm afraid I disagree. Again, your last sentence renders anything else you put forward as irrelevant, really. All it does is show your very obvious bias in forming your opinion on this.

[navyblueshorts]

Spoiler:

"Terrorists Attack America"


Not sure where it leaves me that I might be on the same side as Duty and Super.  


"Terrorist

a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

I actually don't understand how calling someone a terrorist is taking sides if they literally meet the definition.

A fair point, well-made. In that regard, then, we can also safely say that the Israeli state is a terrorist organisation, can't we? I'm sure everyone would agree?

[navyblueshorts]

News agency in 'Can't please everyone' shock.

It's not about "pleasing" everyone. It's about a pathetic absolution of journalism. Is anyone going to be remotely bothered or worry about so called impartiality?

If they don't, they really should. It's a shame you don't appear to value that. At all.

[navyblueshorts]

News agency in 'Can't please everyone' shock.

It's not about "pleasing" everyone. It's about a pathetic absolution of journalism. Is anyone going to be remotely bothered or worry about so called impartiality?

Apologies, I should have written "News agency in 'Can't please reactionary right-wing loony' shock"

Ah yes, the standard retort from someone who has a differing opinion.
If the King, who is certainly more impartial than the BBC calls them terrorists, it's about time the BBC updated their editorial stance.

You do know the King is very limited in what he's allowed to say on things such as this, don't you? He's just reflecting, as a Head of State presumably should do, the views of HMG. Amazing...

[Soul Requiem]

Should everyone be allowed to ignore the laws they think make little sense?

As long as they're victimless crimes, a bit of civil disobedience is all fine and dandy.

As long as one accepts the consequences of such disobedience. I guess you're fine with the XR and Just Stop Oil clowns and their road blocks etc?

They're not the same thing. My household not paying for a TV licence affects no one apart from us.

Splitting hairs. Actually, your lack pf paying a licence almost certainly does affect others - they're required to pay more to make up for those that don't abide by the law because, presumably, those latter think they're above such a law.

It's not splitting hairs, it is my sole decision not to pay for the TV licence and that affects no one else.

[Soul Requiem]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67076341

BBC doubling down on not calling terrorists terrorists. Even Starmer weighing in against the BBC.

Remember - don't pay the licence fee. Never, ever, ever.

Compete BS from the BBC. Virtually every first world country refers to them as a terrorist group.
They claim it's because calling them terrorists would be "taking sides" I don't understand that, this is a group which murdered a grandmother, filmed it on her phone and posted it on her own Facebook page, it's beheading babies and indiscriminately gunning down civilians.
If you can call a murderer a murderer, a diddler a diddler, or a r***ist a r***ist (maybe you can't with the preposterous censorship on here) why not call a terrorist group a terrorist group?
They're so afraid of the Muslim lobby.

Rubbish. Try thinking.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67083432

Countries calling Hamas terrorists is not the same as the BBC doing so. You don't appear equipped to understand this sort of thing, but you'll just have to get used to it, I'm afraid. You ruin any argument you might have had with your last throwaway remark as well, which is just your own prejudiced opinion.

Hamas are designated as a terrorist organisation by the UK so the BBC should be referring to them as such.

Nope. Try again. The UK designation is entirely political. The BBC (and, arguably, other journalistic entities) shouldn't designate Hamas as such at all.

I take Duty's point somewhere earlier re. why not use the word 'terrorist', when other terms are used etc. Can't answer that, but have to draw a line somewhere I guess.

The UK designation is enshrined in law, the terrorism act of 2000. The UK has proscribed Hamas to be a terrorist organisation so all media in this country should refer to them as such.

[JuliusHMarx]

News agency in 'Can't please everyone' shock.

It's not about "pleasing" everyone. It's about a pathetic absolution of journalism. Is anyone going to be remotely bothered or worry about so called impartiality?

Apologies, I should have written "News agency in 'Can't please reactionary right-wing loony' shock"

Ah yes, the standard retort from someone who has a differing opinion.
If the King, who is certainly more impartial than the BBC calls them terrorists, it's about time the BBC updated their editorial stance.

You do know the King is very limited in what he's allowed to say on things such as this, don't you? He's just reflecting, as a Head of State presumably should do, the views of HMG. Amazing...

Also - he did not refer to Hamas as terrorists or a terrorist organization. The Royals have referred to "acts of terrorism" and "terrorist attacks" but not explicitly labelled Hamas as a "terrorist organization". Careful wording.

[super_realist]

Gary Lineker et al strangely silent.

[JuliusHMarx]

Gary Lineker et al strangely silent.

The only explanation is that they are left-wing terrorist sympathsizers who are rejoicing in private.

[Duty281]

Gary Lineker et al strangely silent.

The only explanation is that they are left-wing terrorist sympathsizers who are rejoicing in private.

Wasn't that long ago that Lineker lamented the death of some Hamas terrorist, so you might not be wide of the mark.

https://www.thejc.com/news/news/palestinian-footballer-lamented-by-lineker-was-hamas-terrorist-1WAfc0XR0JURkNnq8SlAAQ

[navyblueshorts]

Should everyone be allowed to ignore the laws they think make little sense?

As long as they're victimless crimes, a bit of civil disobedience is all fine and dandy.

As long as one accepts the consequences of such disobedience. I guess you're fine with the XR and Just Stop Oil clowns and their road blocks etc?

They're not the same thing. My household not paying for a TV licence affects no one apart from us.

Splitting hairs. Actually, your lack pf paying a licence almost certainly does affect others - they're required to pay more to make up for those that don't abide by the law because, presumably, those latter think they're above such a law.

It's not splitting hairs, it is my sole decision not to pay for the TV licence and that affects no one else.

If you, and others like you, don't pay, the rest of us undoubtedly have to make up the shortfall when the licence fee is calculated/reviewed. It's not difficult. Of course it affects others.

[navyblueshorts]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67076341

BBC doubling down on not calling terrorists terrorists. Even Starmer weighing in against the BBC.

Remember - don't pay the licence fee. Never, ever, ever.

Compete BS from the BBC. Virtually every first world country refers to them as a terrorist group.
They claim it's because calling them terrorists would be "taking sides" I don't understand that, this is a group which murdered a grandmother, filmed it on her phone and posted it on her own Facebook page, it's beheading babies and indiscriminately gunning down civilians.
If you can call a murderer a murderer, a diddler a diddler, or a r***ist a r***ist (maybe you can't with the preposterous censorship on here) why not call a terrorist group a terrorist group?
They're so afraid of the Muslim lobby.

Rubbish. Try thinking.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67083432

Countries calling Hamas terrorists is not the same as the BBC doing so. You don't appear equipped to understand this sort of thing, but you'll just have to get used to it, I'm afraid. You ruin any argument you might have had with your last throwaway remark as well, which is just your own prejudiced opinion.

Hamas are designated as a terrorist organisation by the UK so the BBC should be referring to them as such.

Nope. Try again. The UK designation is entirely political. The BBC (and, arguably, other journalistic entities) shouldn't designate Hamas as such at all.

I take Duty's point somewhere earlier re. why not use the word 'terrorist', when other terms are used etc. Can't answer that, but have to draw a line somewhere I guess.

The UK designation is enshrined in law, the terrorism act of 2000. The UK has proscribed Hamas to be a terrorist organisation so all media in this country should refer to them as such.

So, you're now suggesting that the UK press should have no freedom or independence of thought? When did we turn into Russia? Absurd.

[Soul Requiem]

Should everyone be allowed to ignore the laws they think make little sense?

As long as they're victimless crimes, a bit of civil disobedience is all fine and dandy.

As long as one accepts the consequences of such disobedience. I guess you're fine with the XR and Just Stop Oil clowns and their road blocks etc?

They're not the same thing. My household not paying for a TV licence affects no one apart from us.

Splitting hairs. Actually, your lack pf paying a licence almost certainly does affect others - they're required to pay more to make up for those that don't abide by the law because, presumably, those latter think they're above such a law.

It's not splitting hairs, it is my sole decision not to pay for the TV licence and that affects no one else.

If you, and others like you, don't pay, the rest of us undoubtedly have to make up the shortfall when the licence fee is calculated/reviewed. It's not difficult. Of course it affects others.

You are aware it's not a legal requirement to pay for the TV licence?

[Duty281]

Should everyone be allowed to ignore the laws they think make little sense?

As long as they're victimless crimes, a bit of civil disobedience is all fine and dandy.

As long as one accepts the consequences of such disobedience. I guess you're fine with the XR and Just Stop Oil clowns and their road blocks etc?

They're not the same thing. My household not paying for a TV licence affects no one apart from us.

Splitting hairs. Actually, your lack pf paying a licence almost certainly does affect others - they're required to pay more to make up for those that don't abide by the law because, presumably, those latter think they're above such a law.

It's not splitting hairs, it is my sole decision not to pay for the TV licence and that affects no one else.

If you, and others like you, don't pay, the rest of us undoubtedly have to make up the shortfall when the licence fee is calculated/reviewed. It's not difficult. Of course it affects others.

So blame the BBC for not cutting the salaries of their overpaid staff, rather than blaming people who have a moral or legal justification for not paying the BBC.

[JuliusHMarx]

I'm confused. If someone watches live TV do they -
1. Have a legal requirement to pay the license fee?
2. Have a moral justification for not paying it?

[navyblueshorts]

Gary Lineker et al strangely silent.

The only explanation is that they are left-wing terrorist sympathsizers who are rejoicing in private.

Wasn't that long ago that Lineker lamented the death of some Hamas terrorist, so you might not be wide of the mark.

https://www.thejc.com/news/news/palestinian-footballer-lamented-by-lineker-was-hamas-terrorist-1WAfc0XR0JURkNnq8SlAAQ

Oooo! Could it be that Lineker was commenting purely on the death of a fellow footballer? Could it be that he was unaware of him being, allegedly, part of Hamas at the time of that post? I wouldn't read that much into it.

I find it unsurprising that Lineker, or any other person that S_R labels as a leftist wimp, might be quiet at the moment. Anyone who might be critical, in any way whatsoever, of Israel knows that such thoughts aren't allowed at the moment, if ever. The accepted orthodoxy is that there's zero nuance to the situation in that area of the world. Israel = saintly; Palestinians/Hamas = the Devil incarnate. No questions asked. Obvious really.

[navyblueshorts]

Should everyone be allowed to ignore the laws they think make little sense?

As long as they're victimless crimes, a bit of civil disobedience is all fine and dandy.

As long as one accepts the consequences of such disobedience. I guess you're fine with the XR and Just Stop Oil clowns and their road blocks etc?

They're not the same thing. My household not paying for a TV licence affects no one apart from us.

Splitting hairs. Actually, your lack pf paying a licence almost certainly does affect others - they're required to pay more to make up for those that don't abide by the law because, presumably, those latter think they're above such a law.

It's not splitting hairs, it is my sole decision not to pay for the TV licence and that affects no one else.

If you, and others like you, don't pay, the rest of us undoubtedly have to make up the shortfall when the licence fee is calculated/reviewed. It's not difficult. Of course it affects others.

So blame the BBC for not cutting the salaries of their overpaid staff, rather than blaming people who have a moral or legal justification for not paying the BBC.

Straw man. You can do better. The law is clear and the consequences to others of mass non-payment are obvious.

[navyblueshorts]

Should everyone be allowed to ignore the laws they think make little sense?

As long as they're victimless crimes, a bit of civil disobedience is all fine and dandy.

As long as one accepts the consequences of such disobedience. I guess you're fine with the XR and Just Stop Oil clowns and their road blocks etc?

They're not the same thing. My household not paying for a TV licence affects no one apart from us.

Splitting hairs. Actually, your lack pf paying a licence almost certainly does affect others - they're required to pay more to make up for those that don't abide by the law because, presumably, those latter think they're above such a law.

It's not splitting hairs, it is my sole decision not to pay for the TV licence and that affects no one else.

If you, and others like you, don't pay, the rest of us undoubtedly have to make up the shortfall when the licence fee is calculated/reviewed. It's not difficult. Of course it affects others.

You are aware it's not a legal requirement to pay for the TV licence?

Let me help you:

https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-legal-framework-AB16

[Duty281]

Should everyone be allowed to ignore the laws they think make little sense?

As long as they're victimless crimes, a bit of civil disobedience is all fine and dandy.

As long as one accepts the consequences of such disobedience. I guess you're fine with the XR and Just Stop Oil clowns and their road blocks etc?

They're not the same thing. My household not paying for a TV licence affects no one apart from us.

Splitting hairs. Actually, your lack pf paying a licence almost certainly does affect others - they're required to pay more to make up for those that don't abide by the law because, presumably, those latter think they're above such a law.

It's not splitting hairs, it is my sole decision not to pay for the TV licence and that affects no one else.

If you, and others like you, don't pay, the rest of us undoubtedly have to make up the shortfall when the licence fee is calculated/reviewed. It's not difficult. Of course it affects others.

So blame the BBC for not cutting the salaries of their overpaid staff, rather than blaming people who have a moral or legal justification for not paying the BBC.

Straw man. You can do better. The law is clear and the consequences to others of mass non-payment are obvious.

Not a strawman at all. If people don't pay then, broadly, the BBC can react by a) putting up prices or b) cut the salaries of their vastly overpaid staff.

Seems strange to blame other people for non-payment anyway. I doubt you do this for any other service.

'The law is clear' - yes, I break the law in this regard, but don't regard it a moral wrong. Other non-payers are not breaking the law if they don't watch live TV at any point (or iPlayer content). Do remember that.

[Duty281]

Gary Lineker et al strangely silent.

The only explanation is that they are left-wing terrorist sympathsizers who are rejoicing in private.

Wasn't that long ago that Lineker lamented the death of some Hamas terrorist, so you might not be wide of the mark.

https://www.thejc.com/news/news/palestinian-footballer-lamented-by-lineker-was-hamas-terrorist-1WAfc0XR0JURkNnq8SlAAQ

Oooo! Could it be that Lineker was commenting purely on the death of a fellow footballer? Could it be that he was unaware of him being, allegedly, part of Hamas at the time of that post? I wouldn't read that much into it.

I find it unsurprising that Lineker, or any other person that S_R labels as a leftist wimp, might be quiet at the moment. Anyone who might be critical, in any way whatsoever, of Israel knows that such thoughts aren't allowed at the moment, if ever. The accepted orthodoxy is that there's zero nuance to the situation in that area of the world. Israel = saintly; Palestinians/Hamas = the Devil incarnate. No questions asked. Obvious really.

Ah OK, so why hasn't he commented on the Israeli footballer killed by the terrorists?

Not sure what media you're consuming if you think it's reported on purely as 'Israel = saintly; Palestinians/Hamas = the Devil incarnate.'

[Soul Requiem]

Let me help you:

https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-legal-framework-AB16

Bless, you're completely misunderstanding my stance. I don't pay for a TV licence because I don't need to.

[Sponsored content]