Why are UK households who use a TV to receive live broadcasts forced to
pay a tax to support this propaganda outlet?
It's wrong on so many levels.
1. The TV signals encroach on my property, I didn't ask them to (like
their pesky inspectors) if I use a passive receiver to pick them up,
it's my business.
2. The TV license is supposed to make them unbiased but they could not
be more biased.
3. How is it a corporation can be funded by taxes (which is what the TV license is)? Isn't it anti-competitive?
4. The nuisance to sometimes downright intimidatory TV license
enforcement tactics.
On 07/02/2025 21:57, J Newman wrote:
Why are UK households who use a TV to receive live broadcasts forced to
pay a tax to support this propaganda outlet?
It's wrong on so many levels.
1. The TV signals encroach on my property, I didn't ask them to (like
their pesky inspectors) if I use a passive receiver to pick them up,
it's my business.
2. The TV license is supposed to make them unbiased but they could not
be more biased.
3. How is it a corporation can be funded by taxes (which is what the TV
license is)? Isn't it anti-competitive?
4. The nuisance to sometimes downright intimidatory TV license
enforcement tactics.
The latest biased journalism here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdGSGMQKG8E
It's not just the BBC!
A whole shedload of laws encroach on my property. I certainly didn't
invite them in.
How does the Government manage to have a monopoly on making these laws?
Why are UK households who use a TV to receive live broadcasts forced to
pay a tax to support this propaganda outlet?
It's wrong on so many levels.
1. The TV signals encroach on my property, I didn't ask them to (like
their pesky inspectors) if I use a passive receiver to pick them up,
it's my business.
2. The TV license is supposed to make them unbiased but they could not
be more biased.
3. How is it a corporation can be funded by taxes (which is what the TV license is)? Isn't it anti-competitive?
4. The nuisance to sometimes downright intimidatory TV license
enforcement tactics.
The latest biased journalism here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdGSGMQKG8E
On 2025-02-08, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
How does the Government manage to have a monopoly on making these laws?
Who put them in charge!?
Why are UK households who use a TV to receive live broadcasts forced to
pay a tax to support this propaganda outlet?
On 8 Feb 2025 at 12:56:54 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-08, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
How does the Government manage to have a monopoly on making these
laws?
Who put them in charge!?
The nominal answer to ‘who put the government in charge?’ is ‘those
that voted’, but a more perceptive question might be ‘who tells the
government what to do?’
As a general proposition that is exactly the right question. But in the particular case of the BBC I reckon there is a goodly proportion of the population (perhaps one of these famous silent majorities?) who think
the BBC is not too bad and worth paying for.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-08, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
How does the Government manage to have a monopoly on making these laws?
Who put them in charge!?
The nominal answer to ‘who put the government in charge?’ is ‘those that
voted’, but a more perceptive question might be ‘who tells the government what to do?’
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-08, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
How does the Government manage to have a monopoly on making these laws?
Who put them in charge!?
The nominal answer to ‘who put the government in charge?’ is ‘those that
voted’, but a more perceptive question might be ‘who tells the government
what to do?’
As a general proposition that is exactly the right question. But in the particular case of the BBC I reckon there is a goodly proportion of the population (perhaps one of these famous silent majorities?) who think the BBC is not too bad and worth paying for.
On 8 Feb 2025 at 12:56:54 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-08, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
How does the Government manage to have a monopoly on making these laws?
Who put them in charge!?
The nominal answer to ‘who put the government in charge?’ is ‘those that
voted’, but a more perceptive question might be ‘who tells the government
what to do?’
As a general proposition that is exactly the right question. But in the particular case of the BBC I reckon there is a goodly proportion of the population (perhaps one of these famous silent majorities?) who think the BBC is not too bad and worth paying for.
On 08/02/2025 14:19, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 8 Feb 2025 at 12:56:54 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:I would like to agree with you, but that would 'out' me as not one of
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-08, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
How does the Government manage to have a monopoly on making these laws? >>>Who put them in charge!?
The nominal answer to ‘who put the government in charge?’ is ‘those that
voted’, but a more perceptive question might be ‘who tells the government
what to do?’
As a general proposition that is exactly the right question. But in the
particular case of the BBC I reckon there is a goodly proportion of the
population (perhaps one of these famous silent majorities?) who think the BBC
is not too bad and worth paying for.
the silent majority.
On 08/02/2025 02:19 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-08, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
[after a sizeable snip, it seems:]
How does the Government manage to have a monopoly on making these
laws?
Who put them in charge!?
The nominal answer to ‘who put the government in charge?’ is ‘those that
voted’, but a more perceptive question might be ‘who tells the
government
what to do?’
As a general proposition that is exactly the right question. But in the
particular case of the BBC I reckon there is a goodly proportion of the
population (perhaps one of these famous silent majorities?) who think
the BBC
is not too bad and worth paying for.
If it were a majority, the BBC would have no fear of the "licence" tax
being made voluntary. But it isn't, so they do fear having to compete in
a market for the consumer's quid.
As was once famously said, there are lots of people who would willingly liquidate all of ther assets, even their homes, in order to give it all
to the BBC.
Make it a subscription service. That's the only fair way to deal with
the problem of citizens having to PAY in order to watch what are
supposed to be free services, such as ITV, C4, Five and Sky News. Other
free services are available.
On 08/02/2025 15:13, JNugent wrote:
On 08/02/2025 02:19 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-08, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
[after a sizeable snip, it seems:]
How does the Government manage to have a monopoly on making these >>>>>>laws?
Who put them in charge!?
The nominal answer to ‘who put the government in charge?’ is ‘those >>>>that
voted’, but a more perceptive question might be ‘who tells the >>>>government
what to do?’
As a general proposition that is exactly the right question. But in the >>>particular case of the BBC I reckon there is a goodly proportion of the >>>population (perhaps one of these famous silent majorities?) who think the >>>BBC
is not too bad and worth paying for.
If it were a majority, the BBC would have no fear of the "licence" tax >>being made voluntary. But it isn't, so they do fear having to compete in
a market for the consumer's quid.
As was once famously said, there are lots of people who would willingly >>liquidate all of ther assets, even their homes, in order to give it all
to the BBC.
Make it a subscription service. That's the only fair way to deal with the >>problem of citizens having to PAY in order to watch what are supposed to >>be free services, such as ITV, C4, Five and Sky News. Other free services >>are available.
Which tax would you say should be increased to compensate for the lost >licence fee revenue?
On 08/02/2025 15:13, JNugent wrote:
On 08/02/2025 02:19 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-08, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
[after a sizeable snip, it seems:]
How does the Government manage to have a monopoly on making these
laws?
Who put them in charge!?
The nominal answer to ‘who put the government in charge?’ is ‘those >>>> that
voted’, but a more perceptive question might be ‘who tells the
government
what to do?’
As a general proposition that is exactly the right question. But in the
particular case of the BBC I reckon there is a goodly proportion of the
population (perhaps one of these famous silent majorities?) who think
the BBC
is not too bad and worth paying for.
If it were a majority, the BBC would have no fear of the "licence" tax
being made voluntary. But it isn't, so they do fear having to compete
in a market for the consumer's quid.
As was once famously said, there are lots of people who would
willingly liquidate all of ther assets, even their homes, in order to
give it all to the BBC.
Make it a subscription service. That's the only fair way to deal with
the problem of citizens having to PAY in order to watch what are
supposed to be free services, such as ITV, C4, Five and Sky News.
Other free services are available.
Which tax would you say should be increased to compensate for the lost licence fee revenue?
The BBC should gather what its services are actually worth in the
market. Every other broadcaster does.
On 08/02/2025 03:18 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 08/02/2025 15:13, JNugent wrote:
On 08/02/2025 02:19 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-08, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
[after a sizeable snip, it seems:]
How does the Government manage to have a monopoly on making these >>>>>>> laws?
Who put them in charge!?
The nominal answer to ‘who put the government in charge?’ is ‘those >>>>> that
voted’, but a more perceptive question might be ‘who tells the
government
what to do?’
As a general proposition that is exactly the right question. But in the >>>> particular case of the BBC I reckon there is a goodly proportion of the >>>> population (perhaps one of these famous silent majorities?) who think
the BBC
is not too bad and worth paying for.
If it were a majority, the BBC would have no fear of the "licence" tax
being made voluntary. But it isn't, so they do fear having to compete
in a market for the consumer's quid.
As was once famously said, there are lots of people who would
willingly liquidate all of ther assets, even their homes, in order to
give it all to the BBC.
Make it a subscription service. That's the only fair way to deal with
the problem of citizens having to PAY in order to watch what are
supposed to be free services, such as ITV, C4, Five and Sky News.
Other free services are available.
Which tax would you say should be increased to compensate for the lost
licence fee revenue?
None whatsoever.
The BBC should gather what its services are actually worth in the
market. Every other broadcaster does.
The current system is outrageously oppressive and unfair.
On 08/02/2025 in message <m0paupFm85iU3@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells wrote:
On 08/02/2025 15:13, JNugent wrote:
On 08/02/2025 02:19 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-08, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
[after a sizeable snip, it seems:]
How does the Government manage to have a monopoly on making these >>>>>>> laws?
Who put them in charge!?
The nominal answer to ‘who put the government in charge?’ is ‘those >>>>> that
voted’, but a more perceptive question might be ‘who tells the
government
what to do?’
As a general proposition that is exactly the right question. But in the >>>> particular case of the BBC I reckon there is a goodly proportion of the >>>> population (perhaps one of these famous silent majorities?) who
think the BBC
is not too bad and worth paying for.
If it were a majority, the BBC would have no fear of the "licence"
tax being made voluntary. But it isn't, so they do fear having to
compete in a market for the consumer's quid.
As was once famously said, there are lots of people who would
willingly liquidate all of ther assets, even their homes, in order to
give it all to the BBC.
Make it a subscription service. That's the only fair way to deal
with the problem of citizens having to PAY in order to watch what
are supposed to be free services, such as ITV, C4, Five and Sky
News. Other free services are available.
Which tax would you say should be increased to compensate for the lost
licence fee revenue?
None, the BBC can run ads or work as a subscription service. They must
spend 90% of their fees chasing people who moved 10 years ago anyway.
The fact is that the TV Licence, which is actually a licence to install
and use television receivers, not a BBC fund, raises a lot of money, is
very cheap to administer, and has a very high rate of compliance. Even
if the BBC was cast off to stand on its own commercial feet, I think the government would be somewhat reluctant, even though there would be
pressure, just to abandon such a cash cow. It would be more likely in
my view to regard it as a lucky windfall*.
On 09/02/2025 14:37, JNugent wrote:
<snip>
The BBC should gather what its services are actually worth in the
market. Every other broadcaster does.
Does the same apply to museums, art galleries and so on?
On 09/02/2025 04:18 PM, Clive Arthur wrote:
On 09/02/2025 14:37, JNugent wrote:
<snip>
The BBC should gather what its services are actually worth in the
market. Every other broadcaster does.
Does the same apply to museums, art galleries and so on?
Are broadcasters in the same market for the same commodities as are the
BBC, ITV, Channel Four, Five, the various Sky and UK-TV channels, etc?
If they're not, what is the reason for your question?
On 09/02/2025 20:36, JNugent wrote:
On 09/02/2025 04:18 PM, Clive Arthur wrote:
On 09/02/2025 14:37, JNugent wrote:
<snip>
The BBC should gather what its services are actually worth in the
market. Every other broadcaster does.
Does the same apply to museums, art galleries and so on?
Are broadcasters in the same market for the same commodities as are
the BBC, ITV, Channel Four, Five, the various Sky and UK-TV channels,
etc?
If they're not, what is the reason for your question?
Just clarification. I know that there are some for whom 'the market' is
the only metric.
Still, despite their apparently disadvantaged position, there seems to
be no lack of TV channels. I don't expect they're operating at a loss.
But - and this is a mere observation - by all that is noodly, what a
load of shite many of them broadcast. Lowest common denominator.
FWIW, my view is fund the state broadcasting service from taxes. Lose
the 'we must compete with shite' mantra. Lose the local radio. And WTF
is radio 4 extra? Hancock's half century? FFS.
On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 15:02:41 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...
The fact is that the TV Licence, which is actually a licence to install
and use television receivers, not a BBC fund, raises a lot of money, is
very cheap to administer, and has a very high rate of compliance. Even
if the BBC was cast off to stand on its own commercial feet, I think the
government would be somewhat reluctant, even though there would be
pressure, just to abandon such a cash cow. It would be more likely in
my view to regard it as a lucky windfall*.
Unlike general taxation, currently the licence fee money goes directly
to the BBC (though the government controls how much it should be).
For the government to use it as a windfall, they would have to repurpose and redirect it, and it would be illogical just to charge people with TVs.
Some may say that it is already illogical, given that some licence
payers might not want to watch the BBC. But I don't think you can
address that criticism by making it even more illogical.
I cannot agree with funding from taxation. It would mean that the BBC, uniquely among broadcasters, would be guaranteed its income irrespective
of the quality or ethos of its programme material and/or the motives and purposes of its executive cadre. Permanent guarantee of employment (for employees) and cosy arrangements between the Corporation and its
favoured contractors.
Why are UK households who use a TV to receive live broadcasts forced to
pay a tax to support this propaganda outlet?
It's wrong on so many levels.
1. The TV signals encroach on my property, I didn't ask them to (like
their pesky inspectors) if I use a passive receiver to pick them up,
it's my business.
2. The TV license is supposed to make them unbiased but they could not
be more biased.
3. How is it a corporation can be funded by taxes (which is what the TV license is)? Isn't it anti-competitive?
4. The nuisance to sometimes downright intimidatory TV license
enforcement tactics.
The latest biased journalism here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdGSGMQKG8E
On 10/02/2025 00:27, JNugent wrote:
I cannot agree with funding from taxation. It would mean that the BBC,
uniquely among broadcasters, would be guaranteed its income
irrespective of the quality or ethos of its programme material and/or
the motives and purposes of its executive cadre. Permanent guarantee
of employment (for employees) and cosy arrangements between the
Corporation and its favoured contractors.
Could not the same or similar be said about the NHS?
On 10/02/2025 08:13 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 10/02/2025 00:27, JNugent wrote:
I cannot agree with funding from taxation. It would mean that the BBC,
uniquely among broadcasters, would be guaranteed its income
irrespective of the quality or ethos of its programme material and/or
the motives and purposes of its executive cadre. Permanent guarantee
of employment (for employees) and cosy arrangements between the
Corporation and its favoured contractors.
Could not the same or similar be said about the NHS?
No.
Next...?
On 10 Feb 2025 at 14:33:29 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 10/02/2025 08:13 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 10/02/2025 00:27, JNugent wrote:
I cannot agree with funding from taxation. It would mean that the BBC, >>>> uniquely among broadcasters, would be guaranteed its income
irrespective of the quality or ethos of its programme material and/or
the motives and purposes of its executive cadre. Permanent guarantee
of employment (for employees) and cosy arrangements between the
Corporation and its favoured contractors.
Could not the same or similar be said about the NHS?
No.
Next...?
It not only could be said but is said among those keen to privatise the NHS...
On 10/02/2025 04:45 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 10 Feb 2025 at 14:33:29 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 10/02/2025 08:13 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 10/02/2025 00:27, JNugent wrote:
I cannot agree with funding from taxation. It would mean that the BBC, >>>>> uniquely among broadcasters, would be guaranteed its income
irrespective of the quality or ethos of its programme material and/or >>>>> the motives and purposes of its executive cadre. Permanent guarantee >>>>> of employment (for employees) and cosy arrangements between the
Corporation and its favoured contractors.
Could not the same or similar be said about the NHS?
No.
Next...?
It not only could be said but is said among those keen to privatise the
NHS...
....in the rich imaginations of some.
On 09/02/2025 19:33, Tim Jackson wrote:
Unlike general taxation, currently the licence fee money goes directly
to the BBC (though the government controls how much it should be).
Then it doesn't. It's a TV licence fee that that government has decided should normally be given to the BBC.
For the government to use it as a windfall, they would have to repurpose and
redirect it, and it would be illogical just to charge people with TVs.
It has *always* been the case that it's a licence for TV installation
and reception paid to the government,
however illogical or unreasonable
you may think that is. So, no repurposing is necessary. It's the government's revenue,
and it decides how it should be used, just like
any other taxation.
On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 21:39:41 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...
On 09/02/2025 19:33, Tim Jackson wrote:
Unlike general taxation, currently the licence fee money goes directly
to the BBC (though the government controls how much it should be).
Then it doesn't. It's a TV licence fee that that government has decided
should normally be given to the BBC.
<quote>
'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 fee and enforcement of the television licensing
system.
The BBC is a public authority in respect of its television licensing functions and retains overall responsibility.
<end quote>
https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/who-we-are-AB4
As I said, unlike general taxation, it doesn't go via the Government.
For the government to use it as a windfall, they would have to repurpose and
redirect it, and it would be illogical just to charge people with TVs.
It has *always* been the case that it's a licence for TV installation
and reception paid to the government,
It's not paid to the government.
however illogical or unreasonable
you may think that is. So, no repurposing is necessary. It's the
government's revenue,
It isn't.
and it decides how it should be used, just like
any other taxation.
It doesn't. And that's quite important. (Though the government does
lean on the BBC in other undesirable ways.)
On 10 Feb 2025 at 14:33:29 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 10/02/2025 08:13 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 10/02/2025 00:27, JNugent wrote:
I cannot agree with funding from taxation. It would mean that the BBC, >>>>uniquely among broadcasters, would be guaranteed its income >>>>irrespective of the quality or ethos of its programme material and/or >>>>the motives and purposes of its executive cadre. Permanent guarantee
of employment (for employees) and cosy arrangements between the >>>>Corporation and its favoured contractors.
Could not the same or similar be said about the NHS?
No.
Next...?
It not only could be said but is said among those keen to privatise the
NHS.
On 10/02/2025 in message <0593346862.364afcbd@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 10 Feb 2025 at 14:33:29 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 10/02/2025 08:13 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 10/02/2025 00:27, JNugent wrote:
I cannot agree with funding from taxation. It would mean that the >>>>>BBC,
uniquely among broadcasters, would be guaranteed its income >>>>>irrespective of the quality or ethos of its programme material and/or >>>>>the motives and purposes of its executive cadre. Permanent guarantee >>>>>of employment (for employees) and cosy arrangements between the >>>>>Corporation and its favoured contractors.
Could not the same or similar be said about the NHS?
No.
Next...?
It not only could be said but is said among those keen to privatise the >>NHS.
I do wonder what people mean when they say that, i.e what are area are
they concerned will be privatised? GP practices have always been private businesses under contract to the NHS. There are some private walk in
centres (I have had excellent treatment from them a couple of times) and
day surgery centres (again I had a cyst removed at one, excellent
treatment). All efficient businesses contract out some elements of whet
they do, I wonder why the NHS should be expected to be any different?
On 10 Feb 2025 19:39:08 GMT, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 10/02/2025 in message <0593346862.364afcbd@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 10 Feb 2025 at 14:33:29 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 10/02/2025 08:13 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 10/02/2025 00:27, JNugent wrote:
I cannot agree with funding from taxation. It would mean that the
BBC,
uniquely among broadcasters, would be guaranteed its income
irrespective of the quality or ethos of its programme material and/or >>>>>> the motives and purposes of its executive cadre. Permanent guarantee >>>>>> of employment (for employees) and cosy arrangements between the
Corporation and its favoured contractors.
Could not the same or similar be said about the NHS?
No.
Next...?
It not only could be said but is said among those keen to privatise the
NHS.
I do wonder what people mean when they say that, i.e what are area are
they concerned will be privatised? GP practices have always been private
businesses under contract to the NHS. There are some private walk in
centres (I have had excellent treatment from them a couple of times) and
day surgery centres (again I had a cyst removed at one, excellent
treatment). All efficient businesses contract out some elements of whet
they do, I wonder why the NHS should be expected to be any different?
It doesn't mean anything really, it's just a slogan. "They're privatising
the NHS! They're privatising the NHS! Tory cuts! More Tory CUTS! ..."
On 11/02/2025 09:02, Handsome Jack wrote:
On 10 Feb 2025 19:39:08 GMT, Jeff Gaines wrote:It does mean something though.
On 10/02/2025 in message <0593346862.364afcbd@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 10 Feb 2025 at 14:33:29 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 10/02/2025 08:13 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 10/02/2025 00:27, JNugent wrote:
I cannot agree with funding from taxation. It would mean that the >>>>>>> BBC,
uniquely among broadcasters, would be guaranteed its income
irrespective of the quality or ethos of its programme material
and/or the motives and purposes of its executive cadre. Permanent >>>>>>> guarantee of employment (for employees) and cosy arrangements
between the Corporation and its favoured contractors.
Could not the same or similar be said about the NHS?
No.
Next...?
It not only could be said but is said among those keen to privatise
the NHS.
I do wonder what people mean when they say that, i.e what are area are
they concerned will be privatised? GP practices have always been
private businesses under contract to the NHS. There are some private
walk in centres (I have had excellent treatment from them a couple of
times) and day surgery centres (again I had a cyst removed at one,
excellent treatment). All efficient businesses contract out some
elements of whet they do, I wonder why the NHS should be expected to
be any different?
It doesn't mean anything really, it's just a slogan. "They're
privatising the NHS! They're privatising the NHS! Tory cuts! More Tory
CUTS! ..."
quote
The NHS is “drinking in the last-chance saloon” and needs to change, the former health secretary Alan Milburn has said as he prepares to take up
a senior role in the Department of Health.
unquote
So what does this actually mean? That if the NHS fails to grasp its
"last chance" it will be abolished or drastically changed? If so, how precisely?
There is a well-meaning campaign to preserve the NHS as a
publicly-funded service. To allow US companies to cream off the most profitable parts of the service and pay large dividends to shareholders
does not solve any of our real problems.
Hip and knee replacements are a
tiny part of the problem.
No private health insurer is going to fund
social care or provide a quicker service in A&E.
https://keepournhspublic.com/about-us/
On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 21:39:41 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...
On 09/02/2025 19:33, Tim Jackson wrote:
Unlike general taxation, currently the licence fee money goes directly
to the BBC (though the government controls how much it should be).
Then it doesn't. It's a TV licence fee that that government has decided
should normally be given to the BBC.
<quote>
'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 fee and enforcement of the television licensing
system.
The BBC is a public authority in respect of its television licensing functions and retains overall responsibility.
<end quote>
https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/who-we-are-AB4
As I said, unlike general taxation, it doesn't go via the Government.
For the government to use it as a windfall, they would have to repurpose and
redirect it, and it would be illogical just to charge people with TVs.
It has *always* been the case that it's a licence for TV installation
and reception paid to the government,
It's not paid to the government.
however illogical or unreasonable
you may think that is. So, no repurposing is necessary. It's the
government's revenue,
It isn't.
and it decides how it should be used, just like
any other taxation.
It doesn't. And that's quite important. (Though the government does
lean on the BBC in other undesirable ways.)
It might if it reduced waiting lists for elective operations, and cut down the legendary inefficiency in NHS administration.
On 11/02/2025 01:39, Tim Jackson wrote:
On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 21:39:41 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...
On 09/02/2025 19:33, Tim Jackson wrote:
Unlike general taxation, currently the licence fee money goes directly >>> to the BBC (though the government controls how much it should be).
Then it doesn't. It's a TV licence fee that that government has decided >> should normally be given to the BBC.
<quote>
'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 fee and enforcement of the television licensing
system.
The BBC is a public authority in respect of its television licensing functions and retains overall responsibility.
<end quote>
https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/who-we-are-AB4
As I said, unlike general taxation, it doesn't go via the Government.
Actually, it does.
"Section 365 of the Communications Act 2003 requires the BBC to pay all licence fee revenue it collects (via TV Licensing), less any sums
required for making refunds, into the Government’s Consolidated Fund. TV Licensing doesn’t retain any of the licence fee revenue it collects; all monies are passed to the Government, and then the revenue collected is
passed back to the BBC as Grant-in-Aid from the Department for Culture,
Media and Sport".
https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-financial-information-AB19
For the government to use it as a windfall, they would have to repurpose and
redirect it, and it would be illogical just to charge people with TVs.
It has *always* been the case that it's a licence for TV installation
and reception paid to the government,
It's not paid to the government.
however illogical or unreasonable
you may think that is. So, no repurposing is necessary. It's the
government's revenue,
It isn't.
and it decides how it should be used, just like
any other taxation.
It doesn't. And that's quite important. (Though the government does
lean on the BBC in other undesirable ways.)
In view of the above quote, your argument has just collapsed completely.
while the BBC may collect the licence fee the money does not *all* go to
the BBC. Some has to be given to other public service broadcasters.
On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 20:23:19 +0000, JNugent wrote:
On 10/02/2025 04:45 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 10 Feb 2025 at 14:33:29 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 10/02/2025 08:13 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 10/02/2025 00:27, JNugent wrote:
I cannot agree with funding from taxation. It would mean that the
BBC,
uniquely among broadcasters, would be guaranteed its income
irrespective of the quality or ethos of its programme material and/or >>>>>> the motives and purposes of its executive cadre. Permanent guarantee >>>>>> of employment (for employees) and cosy arrangements between the
Corporation and its favoured contractors.
Could not the same or similar be said about the NHS?
No.
Next...?
It not only could be said but is said among those keen to privatise the
NHS...
....in the rich imaginations of some.
Nigel Farage and Reform UK among them, who are currently leading in the
some of the polls.
But the LF its not linked to TVs only: even if you watch on a computer
tablet or mobile phone, i believe in theory you have to pay the LF.
I
dunno how successful they are in chasing people down for this; do they
have the power to demand the address of the subscriber from the likes of
BT, 3, Virgin, EE etc?
The BBC gets over £5bn to spend every year, which seems ample, but Sky spends over 10bn, ITV 1.3bn, channel 4 only 663 million, but unlike the
other 3, BBC doesnt have to worry about making a loss; Sky made a loss
of 223 million in 2023-4.
On 11/02/2025 10:20, Handsome Jack wrote:
It might if it reduced waiting lists for elective operations, and cut
down the legendary inefficiency in NHS administration.
Letter arrived recently. Could I attend the local hospital two days
earlier please? It was dated the week before. Not exactly a paragon of efficiency. Or common sense.
BTW apparently the phlebotomy services are now, I learned today from a phlebotomist, not part of the NHS. Been sold off. I was told quite a few
of the affected staff have just left; can't say if that's true or not. I can't imagine how the finances will work out.
Roger Hayter wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
JNugent wrote:
I cannot agree with funding from taxation. It would mean that the BBC, >>>>> uniquely among broadcasters, would be guaranteed its income
irrespective of the quality or ethos of its programme material and/or >>>>> the motives and purposes of its executive cadre. Permanent guarantee >>>>> of employment (for employees) and cosy arrangements between the
Corporation and its favoured contractors.
Could not the same or similar be said about the NHS?
No.
Next...?
It not only could be said but is said among those keen to privatise
the NHS.
I do wonder what people mean when they say that, i.e what are area are
they concerned will be privatised? GP practices have always been private businesses under contract to the NHS. There are some private walk in
centres (I have had excellent treatment from them a couple of times) and
day surgery centres (again I had a cyst removed at one, excellent
treatment). All efficient businesses contract out some elements of whet
they do, I wonder why the NHS should be expected to be any different?
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 08:25:32 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...
On 11/02/2025 01:39, Tim Jackson wrote:
On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 21:39:41 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...
On 09/02/2025 19:33, Tim Jackson wrote:
Unlike general taxation, currently the licence fee money goes directly >>>>> to the BBC (though the government controls how much it should be).
Then it doesn't. It's a TV licence fee that that government has decided >>>> should normally be given to the BBC.
<quote>
'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 fee and enforcement of the television licensing
system.
The BBC is a public authority in respect of its television licensing
functions and retains overall responsibility.
<end quote>
https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/who-we-are-AB4
As I said, unlike general taxation, it doesn't go via the Government.
Actually, it does.
"Section 365 of the Communications Act 2003 requires the BBC to pay all
licence fee revenue it collects (via TV Licensing), less any sums
required for making refunds, into the Government’s Consolidated Fund. TV >> Licensing doesn’t retain any of the licence fee revenue it collects; all >> monies are passed to the Government, and then the revenue collected is
passed back to the BBC as Grant-in-Aid from the Department for Culture,
Media and Sport".
https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-financial-information-AB19
For the government to use it as a windfall, they would have to repurpose andIt has *always* been the case that it's a licence for TV installation
redirect it, and it would be illogical just to charge people with TVs. >>>>
and reception paid to the government,
It's not paid to the government.
however illogical or unreasonable
you may think that is. So, no repurposing is necessary. It's the
government's revenue,
It isn't.
and it decides how it should be used, just like
any other taxation.
It doesn't. And that's quite important. (Though the government does
lean on the BBC in other undesirable ways.)
In view of the above quote, your argument has just collapsed completely.
The fact remains that the money is collected by the BBC, under
arrangements set up by the BBC, and earmarked for the BBC (subject to
minor amounts to other broadcasters noted by Roger).
If it were to be repurposed as general taxation in the way you suggest,
it would no longer be a TV licence, and utterly pointless to call it
such in the way you suggest.
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 08:25:32 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...
On 11/02/2025 01:39, Tim Jackson wrote:
On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 21:39:41 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...
On 09/02/2025 19:33, Tim Jackson wrote:
Unlike general taxation, currently the licence fee money goes directly >>>>> to the BBC (though the government controls how much it should be).
Then it doesn't. It's a TV licence fee that that government has decided >>>> should normally be given to the BBC.
<quote>
'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 fee and enforcement of the television licensing
system.
The BBC is a public authority in respect of its television licensing
functions and retains overall responsibility.
<end quote>
https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/who-we-are-AB4
As I said, unlike general taxation, it doesn't go via the Government.
Actually, it does.
"Section 365 of the Communications Act 2003 requires the BBC to pay all
licence fee revenue it collects (via TV Licensing), less any sums
required for making refunds, into the Government’s Consolidated Fund. TV >> Licensing doesn’t retain any of the licence fee revenue it collects; all >> monies are passed to the Government, and then the revenue collected is
passed back to the BBC as Grant-in-Aid from the Department for Culture,
Media and Sport".
https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-financial-information-AB19
For the government to use it as a windfall, they would have to repurpose andIt has *always* been the case that it's a licence for TV installation
redirect it, and it would be illogical just to charge people with TVs. >>>>
and reception paid to the government,
It's not paid to the government.
however illogical or unreasonable
you may think that is. So, no repurposing is necessary. It's the
government's revenue,
It isn't.
and it decides how it should be used, just like
any other taxation.
It doesn't. And that's quite important. (Though the government does
lean on the BBC in other undesirable ways.)
In view of the above quote, your argument has just collapsed completely.
The fact remains that the money is collected by the BBC, under
arrangements set up by the BBC, and earmarked for the BBC (subject to
minor amounts to other broadcasters noted by Roger).
If it were to be repurposed as general taxation in the way you suggest,
it would no longer be a TV licence, and utterly pointless to call it
such in the way you suggest.
On 10/02/2025 10:29 PM, miked wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 20:23:19 +0000, JNugent wrote:
On 10/02/2025 04:45 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 10 Feb 2025 at 14:33:29 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 10/02/2025 08:13 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 10/02/2025 00:27, JNugent wrote:
I cannot agree with funding from taxation. It would mean that the >>>>>>> BBC,
uniquely among broadcasters, would be guaranteed its income
irrespective of the quality or ethos of its programme material and/or >>>>>>> the motives and purposes of its executive cadre. Permanent guarantee >>>>>>> of employment (for employees) and cosy arrangements between the
Corporation and its favoured contractors.
Could not the same or similar be said about the NHS?
No.
Next...?
It not only could be said but is said among those keen to privatise the >>>> NHS...
....in the rich imaginations of some.
Nigel Farage and Reform UK among them, who are currently leading in the
some of the polls.
I think I did hear Farage arguing that the funding should be handled differently (ie, like certain other European countries). I have not
heard him argue that the NHS should be abolished and neither have you.
On 11 Feb 2025 at 16:11:27 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 10/02/2025 10:29 PM, miked wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 20:23:19 +0000, JNugent wrote:
On 10/02/2025 04:45 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 10 Feb 2025 at 14:33:29 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 10/02/2025 08:13 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 10/02/2025 00:27, JNugent wrote:
I cannot agree with funding from taxation. It would mean that the >>>>>>>> BBC,
uniquely among broadcasters, would be guaranteed its income
irrespective of the quality or ethos of its programme material and/or >>>>>>>> the motives and purposes of its executive cadre. Permanent guarantee >>>>>>>> of employment (for employees) and cosy arrangements between the >>>>>>>> Corporation and its favoured contractors.
Could not the same or similar be said about the NHS?
No.
Next...?
It not only could be said but is said among those keen to privatise the >>>>> NHS...
....in the rich imaginations of some.
Nigel Farage and Reform UK among them, who are currently leading in the
some of the polls.
I think I did hear Farage arguing that the funding should be handled
differently (ie, like certain other European countries). I have not
heard him argue that the NHS should be abolished and neither have you.
"How the money is handled" is the whole essence of the NHS. If it was a purely
private or insurance service it would not be the NHS.
On 2025-02-11, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 11 Feb 2025 at 16:11:27 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
I think I did hear Farage arguing that the funding should be handled
differently (ie, like certain other European countries). I have not
heard him argue that the NHS should be abolished and neither have you.
"How the money is handled" is the whole essence of the NHS. If it was a purely
private or insurance service it would not be the NHS.
And do we really want to copy the (evil, IMO) American healthcare system?
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 07:59:48 -0000 (UTC), Ian <${send-direct-email-to-news1021-at-jusme-dot-com-if-you-must}@jusme.com>
wrote:
On 2025-02-11, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 11 Feb 2025 at 16:11:27 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
I think I did hear Farage arguing that the funding should be handled
differently (ie, like certain other European countries). I have not
heard him argue that the NHS should be abolished and neither have
you.
"How the money is handled" is the whole essence of the NHS. If it was
a purely private or insurance service it would not be the NHS.
And do we really want to copy the (evil, IMO) American healthcare
system?
I don't think anybody in the UK is seriously suggesting that. Not even
Nigel Farage. There are people - on all parts of the political spectrum
- who think we should adopt the regulated mutual insurance model used in Germany and Switzerland, where both patient outcomes and customer satisfaction are routinely among the best in the world. But that's a
world away from the free market commercial insurance system used in the
US.
Part of the problem is that when uninformed people on the left hear the suggestion that we should adopt a German style regulated mutual
insurance system, all they hear is the word "insurance" and leap to a knee-jerk conclusion that it means US style private provision, while
when uninformed people on the right hear the suggestion that we should
adopt a German style regulated mutual insurance system, all they hear is
the word "German" and leap to a knee-jerk conclusion that it means
letting the EU tell us how to run the NHS. Of course, both are wrong,
but that pervading cross-party ignorance means that it's hard for there
to be any meaningful debate.
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 09:36:14 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 07:59:48 -0000 (UTC), Ian@jusme.com>
<${send-direct-email-to-news1021-at-jusme-dot-com-if-you-must}
wrote:
On 2025-02-11, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 11 Feb 2025 at 16:11:27 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
I think I did hear Farage arguing that the funding should be handled >>>>> differently (ie, like certain other European countries). I have not
heard him argue that the NHS should be abolished and neither have
you.
"How the money is handled" is the whole essence of the NHS. If it was
a purely private or insurance service it would not be the NHS.
And do we really want to copy the (evil, IMO) American healthcare
system?
I don't think anybody in the UK is seriously suggesting that. Not even
Nigel Farage. There are people - on all parts of the political spectrum
- who think we should adopt the regulated mutual insurance model used in
Germany and Switzerland, where both patient outcomes and customer
satisfaction are routinely among the best in the world. But that's a
world away from the free market commercial insurance system used in the
US.
Part of the problem is that when uninformed people on the left hear the
suggestion that we should adopt a German style regulated mutual
insurance system, all they hear is the word "insurance" and leap to a
knee-jerk conclusion that it means US style private provision, while
when uninformed people on the right hear the suggestion that we should
adopt a German style regulated mutual insurance system, all they hear is
the word "German" and leap to a knee-jerk conclusion that it means
letting the EU tell us how to run the NHS. Of course, both are wrong,
but that pervading cross-party ignorance means that it's hard for there
to be any meaningful debate.
And much of the supposed ignorance is feigned for rhetorical purposes.
On 12/02/2025 09:57, Handsome Jack wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 09:36:14 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:Blaming other people for being ignorant
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 07:59:48 -0000 (UTC), Ian@jusme.com>
<${send-direct-email-to-news1021-at-jusme-dot-com-if-you-must}
wrote:And much of the supposed ignorance is feigned for rhetorical purposes.
On 2025-02-11, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 11 Feb 2025 at 16:11:27 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
I think I did hear Farage arguing that the funding should be
handled differently (ie, like certain other European countries). I >>>>>> have not heard him argue that the NHS should be abolished and
neither have you.
"How the money is handled" is the whole essence of the NHS. If it
was a purely private or insurance service it would not be the NHS.
And do we really want to copy the (evil, IMO) American healthcare
system?
I don't think anybody in the UK is seriously suggesting that. Not even
Nigel Farage. There are people - on all parts of the political
spectrum - who think we should adopt the regulated mutual insurance
model used in Germany and Switzerland, where both patient outcomes and
customer satisfaction are routinely among the best in the world. But
that's a world away from the free market commercial insurance system
used in the US.
Part of the problem is that when uninformed people on the left hear
the suggestion that we should adopt a German style regulated mutual
insurance system, all they hear is the word "insurance" and leap to a
knee-jerk conclusion that it means US style private provision, while
when uninformed people on the right hear the suggestion that we should
adopt a German style regulated mutual insurance system, all they hear
is the word "German" and leap to a knee-jerk conclusion that it means
letting the EU tell us how to run the NHS. Of course, both are wrong,
but that pervading cross-party ignorance means that it's hard for
there to be any meaningful debate.
is reasonable if you are able to
supply a detailed and accurate account of how the private sector can
rectify the failures in the NHS without undermining the NHS. Are you
really able to do that?
Nigel Farage tells us that the French have a good health system which involves insurance. He backs away from saying that we should simply
adopt the French system. Competent analysts tell us that it wouldn't
work.
We still have too few hospital beds, too few staff. Adopting the
French system would oblige many well-off patients to pay something
towards their treatment but would not give them quicker and more
effective treatment.
A NHS consultant radiologist gets a salary of about 150k per year. If he
is employed in the private sector, treating private patients using NHS facilities, he will get paid 250k per year. That isn't a bad thing
provided the burden of paying his salary does not fall on the taxpayer.
It might fall on the taxpayer if the NHS pays the private sector to
treat the overload of patients and reduce the queue for treatment.
Perhaps it would be better to employ more NHS staff and pay them better
to stop them defecting to the private sector.
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 10:33:41 +0000, The Todal wrote:
A NHS consultant radiologist gets a salary of about 150k per year. If he
is employed in the private sector, treating private patients using NHS
facilities, he will get paid 250k per year. That isn't a bad thing
provided the burden of paying his salary does not fall on the taxpayer.
It might fall on the taxpayer if the NHS pays the private sector to
treat the overload of patients and reduce the queue for treatment.
Perhaps it would be better to employ more NHS staff and pay them better
to stop them defecting to the private sector.
But then their salaries *would* fall on the taxpayer, all the time. If >they're employed by the private sector then at least their salaries are
paid by their employers. The NHS would then buy in medical services from >whichever of these employers sold them for the best value, presumably by >screwing down the consultants' salaries.
Why are UK households who use a TV to receive live broadcasts forced to
pay a tax to support this propaganda outlet?
It's wrong on so many levels.
1. The TV signals encroach on my property, I didn't ask them to (like
their pesky inspectors) if I use a passive receiver to pick them up,
it's my business.
2. The TV license is supposed to make them unbiased but they could not
be more biased.
3. How is it a corporation can be funded by taxes (which is what the TV license is)? Isn't it anti-competitive?
4. The nuisance to sometimes downright intimidatory TV license
enforcement tactics.
The latest biased journalism here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdGSGMQKG8E
On 11/02/2025 01:39, Tim Jackson wrote:
On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 21:39:41 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...
On 09/02/2025 19:33, Tim Jackson wrote:
Unlike general taxation, currently the licence fee money goes
directly to the BBC (though the government controls how much it
should be).
Then it doesn't. It's a TV licence fee that that government has
decided should normally be given to the BBC.
<quote>
'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 fee and enforcement of the television licensing
system.
The BBC is a public authority in respect of its television licensing
functions and retains overall responsibility.
<end quote>
https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/who-we-are-AB4
As I said, unlike general taxation, it doesn't go via the Government.
Actually, it does.
"Section 365 of the Communications Act 2003 requires the BBC to pay all licence fee revenue it collects (via TV Licensing), less any sums
required for making refunds, into the Government’s Consolidated Fund. TV Licensing doesn’t retain any of the licence fee revenue it collects; all monies are passed to the Government, and then the revenue collected is
passed back to the BBC as Grant-in-Aid from the Department for Culture,
Media and Sport".
https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-financial-information-AB19
For the government to use it as a windfall, they would have to
repurpose and redirect it, and it would be illogical just to charge
people with TVs.
It has *always* been the case that it's a licence for TV installation
and reception paid to the government,
It's not paid to the government.
however illogical or unreasonable
you may think that is. So, no repurposing is necessary. It's the
government's revenue,
It isn't.
and it decides how it should be used, just like
any other taxation.
It doesn't. And that's quite important. (Though the government does
lean on the BBC in other undesirable ways.)
In view of the above quote, your argument has just collapsed completely.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 08:47:55 |
| Calls: | 10,388 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,835 |
| Posted today: | 1 |