1 edit
Well I suppose America have only sent troops abroad or struck other countries' territory 216 times since gaining independence.
Since WW2, they have bombed 23 countries, assisted 20 coups, and assassinated 6 heads of state
No wonder they have a defence budget of $532 billion
1 edit
Originally posted by mrstabbyWow. I thought we were doing better than that. We have farther to go than I thought before we catch up to Britian. 😉
Well I suppose America have only sent troops abroad or struck other countries' territory 216 times since gaining independence.
Since WW2, they have bombed 23 countries, assisted 20 coups, and assassinated 6 heads of state
No wonder they have a defence budget of $532 billion
Originally posted by mrstabbyWow!
Well I suppose America have only sent troops abroad or struck other countries' territory 216 times since gaining independence.
Since WW2, they have bombed 23 countries, assisted 20 coups, and assassinated 6 heads of state
No wonder they have a defence budget of $532 billion
Interesting post.
Who were the 6 heads of state?
I wish Saddam had been one, much simpler.
Originally posted by sonhouseThey send computer generated letters to every address that doesn't appear on their database as having a television licence. The letter I got was one step up. They send inspectors round (who have no more right of entry that anyone else) who threaten you with prosecution if you don't want them poking around in your house. They are able to obtain warrants to enter a house to search, but that's only for the really intransigent.
Do the authorities think you have a TV when you say you don't? Presumably not being able to imagine anyone so primative as to NOT want a glorious TV, which BTW, Sylvia in my band Southwind, calls
"pus"! Are they actively sending you summons and such? Do you have to allow an invasion of your privacy while they search high and low for the non-existant TV? Will it come to that?
In fairness to them I haven't contacted them to tell them that I haven't got a TV set, but then again I really don't see why I should have to go out of my way. What I object to is the way the letters assume that you've broken the law - "We are putting in place an investigation into your address". There are arguments both for and against the television licence, mostly to do with avoiding editorial interference from the government - although in the wake of the David Kelly affair I'm not convinced they do have editorial freedom anyway. It's the TV licencing authority I object to.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterWhy should I want a system that gives advertisers yet another way of trying to influence my decisions?
I agree -- it's a damned shame that in this day and age, someone has a system that doesn't support flash animations.
I have an system based on an oldish Red Hat Linux distribution and things like flash are options that I really can't be bothered with. If a website I was interested in started using Flash I might think again, but in the meantime I really don't think I'm missing out on anything worth not missing out on.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtIs this for real? Do the British really make people have a license for television?
They send computer generated letters to every address that doesn't appear on their database as having a television licence. The letter I got was one step up. They send inspectors round (who have no more right of entry that anyone else) who threaten you with prosecution if you don't want them poking around in your house. They are able to obtain warrant ...[text shortened]... they do have editorial freedom anyway. It's the TV licencing authority I object to.
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
Originally posted by MerkRead this:
Is this for real? Do the British really make people have a license for television?
http://tinyurl.com/un6wd
You'll notice that a lot of the European countries, including the UK (which you should read), all have TV licences, so you'll see it is not uncommon.
I think it is justified, at least in the UK. We could hardly be entertained by anything from Europe (language barrier); and we have humour down to an art form, US television just doesn't have enough flare to it I think.
For the European countries, with all their varying languages, I think you can understand their reasons.
Originally posted by petrosianpupilNo you can't, the BBC has copious numbers of adverts on it - just not for third party products.
Yes, but I don't think it is that bad, we can watch soccer without adverts.
Also the BBC acts as a counter balance to business corporations.
The argument for the licence fee is that if the BBC were directly funded by the government they would be under more editorial pressure than they are now. Were they to start generating revenues from advertising then they would come under editorial pressure from their customers, and it would introduce an unfair level of competition for advertising revenues on the independent broadcasters.
The main argument against the licence fee is that it takes absolutely no account of people's circumstances - unless you're over 75 - so that someone whose net income is £10,000 a year has to pay the same as someone whose net income is £100,000 a year.
On balance I think that the TV licence is the least worst way of doing it. This does not mean that I approve of the TV licencing authorities methods.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtWhy do you think it is better than paying for the BBC from general taxation? In the early days of TV when a small proportion of people had TVs, it made sense to only take money from those who were using the service. Now with the vast majority of the population having TVs, it makes no sense to waste time,money,energy and resources on bureaucracy and enforcement.
On balance I think that the TV licence is the least worst way of doing it.
There are plenty of other things that my tax is spent on that benefits some people more than others.
