On 23/07/2021 12:01, Tweed wrote:
<snip>

> However, HMRC already know how much income all pensioners
> receive .
>

That is not true. If it were then:

a. there'd be no need for people to claim pension credit; and
b. there'd not be up to 1 million people entitled to pension credit but
not getting it.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
> On 23/07/2021 12:01, Tweed wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> However, HMRC already know how much income all pensioners
>> receive .
>>
>
> That is not true. If it were then:
>
> a. there'd be no need for people to claim pension credit; and
> b. there'd not be up to 1 million people entitled to pension credit but
> not getting it.
>

But is that down to HMRC not knowing or deliberately making pension credit
something you have to proactively claim? With a few edge case exceptions,
pretty much all pension income is known to HMRC. State pension obviously,
pension scheme income, annuity income, shared dividends paid out within the
UK. What pension credit doesn’t know about is your level of savings, where
presumably a high level disqualifies you. But I was specifically talking
about income.

In article <iltd6lF7uh8U2@mid.individual.net>,
JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 22/07/2021 02:40 pm, Pamela wrote:
> > On 13:51 21 Jul 2021, JNugent said:
> >> On 21/07/2021 01:45 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> >>> On 21/07/2021 13:12, JNugent wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> They work for the BBC. They do not work for themselves.
> >>>
> >>> Nonsense, your persistence when proven wrong shows that you are now
> >>> knowingly lying just to avoid admitting that you're wrong - the
> >>> BBC's only legal relationships are with the contractors, they have
> >>> no legal relationship with contractors' individual staff;
> >>> contractors' staff work for the contractors and their contracts'
> >>> terms and conditions are set by and are an internal matter for the
> >>> contractors.
> >>
> >> They work for the BBC. They do not work for themselves. If they were
> >> collecting the money for themselves, it would be theft, pure and
> >> simple.
> >>
> >> Are you accusing them of theft?
> >
> > "They work for the BBC" is ambiguous. It could mean mean:
> >
> > (1) The work they do on behalf of their employer is for the benefit of
> > the BBC.
> >
> > (2) They are employed by the BBC.

> Indeed. But they collect money for the BBC; not for themselves.
> Everything they do in their interface with the public is done for the
> BBC. Irrespective of the exact routing of their salaries, income tax,
> National Insurance, etc, they are working under a BBC trademark and not
> any other.

so, are all the contractors who make programmes for the BBC also "BBC
Minions"?

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In message <ilvl2mFm06pU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> writes

>
>It can never be right to agree to something you have no intention of
>complying with and it can never be right to unilaterally break an
>agreement whilst keeping the benefits.

Nonsense! If the UK Government can do it with the NI Protocol, so can
the BBC.
>
>

--
Ian

On 23/07/2021 01:22 pm, Robin wrote:

> On 23/07/2021 12:01, Tweed wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> However, HMRC already know how much income all pensioners
>> receive .
>>
>
> That is not true.  If it were then:
>
> a.    there'd be no need for people to claim pension credit; and
> b.    there'd not be up to 1 million people entitled to pension credit
> but not getting it.

Agreed and there are several reasons for it.

One is that HMRC do not pay retirement pension. That's DWP, via its
agency, The Pensions Service.

Secondly, only the Pensions Service has access to how much "extra"
old-style pensioners are getting (via the defunct Graduated
Contributions and SERPS schemes).

Only HMRC has access to data about income from self-employment and/or
investments (not all of which are taxable, of course).

And no government department necessarily has access to details of
occupational and private pension entitlement (unless the pension is a
public sector one).

It is tempting to assume that "the state" knows everything, but it
doesn't. And arguably, shouldn't.

On 23/07/2021 08:56, Tweed wrote:
>
> The full ins and outs of it are here
>
> https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04955/SN04955.pdf
>
> In summary the government grant to cover the free over 75 licences was
> withdrawn and responsibility was moved to the BBC as part of a licence fee
> settlement.
>
> If the scheme were kept in place today unchanged it would cost around 20%
> of the BBCs budget.
>
> The new scheme, covering the poorest pensioners costs a third of that.
>
> My own personal view is the BBC is right. Otherwise it is a transfer of
> money from quite a lot of poorer under 75s to relatively well off
> pensioners. Whilst we do have a core of poor pensioners (largely covered by
> the new scheme) we also have large numbers of very well off pensioners. I
> can’t see that it is right that they get subsidy off the backs of the rest
> of the licence paying public.
>
> 16% of pensioners live in poverty according to ageUK
> around 500,000 pay higher rate (40%)

+1 That's pretty much how I remember it.

One could go much further, and say it's all but a myth to say that the
TV Licence is what funds the BBC:

https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-financial-information-AB19

" Section 365 of the Communications Act 2003 (opens in a new window)
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 Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
(opens in a new window).

The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport may retain
a proportion of the licence fee revenue for other purposes (refer to the
BBC’s Royal Charter and Agreement with Secretary of State)."

And we have seen in the past that money supposedly funding the rollout
of digital TV was used to fund the rollout of broadband. Not quite the
same as funding for the BBC, but not that far off, either.

The above quote and history both show that, rightly or wrongly, the
Licence Fee is actually just a form of taxation, therefore should it not
be collected by the HMRC? What other forms of tax collection are
outsourced in this way? There may be some, but I can't think of any.

Again rightly or wrongly, the free TV Licence is a form of benefit, and
therefore again, should it not be administered by the DWP? Again, what
other benefit arrangements are outsourced in this way? Again, there may
be some, but I can't think of any.

The evidence above and in IJJ's link all point to this being a way for
the government to divest itself of the cost of the free TV Licence while
ensuring that someone else got the flak for it, as was claimed at the
time by the opposition, Age UK, etc. The reaction of ministers to the
BBC's proposals for reforming it were deeply hypocritical and dishonest,
considering that they were the ones cutting the funding for it, but
entirely to be expected from a government formed by a Prime Minister
with a known and proven history of lying to the public.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 23/07/2021 01:49 pm, charles wrote:
> In article <iltd6lF7uh8U2@mid.individual.net>,
> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 22/07/2021 02:40 pm, Pamela wrote:
>>> On 13:51 21 Jul 2021, JNugent said:
>>>> On 21/07/2021 01:45 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>> On 21/07/2021 13:12, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They work for the BBC. They do not work for themselves.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nonsense, your persistence when proven wrong shows that you are now
>>>>> knowingly lying just to avoid admitting that you're wrong - the
>>>>> BBC's only legal relationships are with the contractors, they have
>>>>> no legal relationship with contractors' individual staff;
>>>>> contractors' staff work for the contractors and their contracts'
>>>>> terms and conditions are set by and are an internal matter for the
>>>>> contractors.
>>>>
>>>> They work for the BBC. They do not work for themselves. If they were
>>>> collecting the money for themselves, it would be theft, pure and
>>>> simple.
>>>>
>>>> Are you accusing them of theft?
>>>
>>> "They work for the BBC" is ambiguous. It could mean mean:
>>>
>>> (1) The work they do on behalf of their employer is for the benefit of
>>> the BBC.
>>>
>>> (2) They are employed by the BBC.
>
>> Indeed. But they collect money for the BBC; not for themselves.
>> Everything they do in their interface with the public is done for the
>> BBC. Irrespective of the exact routing of their salaries, income tax,
>> National Insurance, etc, they are working under a BBC trademark and not
>> any other.
>
> so, are all the contractors who make programmes for the BBC also "BBC
> Minions"?

Who are they working for and are they working on behalf of the BBC?

It would be difficult to see ITV plc (who make, for instance,
"University Challenge" for the BBC) as a BBC minion. At least in theory,
they could choose to show the programme on ITV, or farm it out to C4, C5
or any of dozens of other stations.

But the people under discussion are doing what they do on behalf of the
only organisation of its type in the world. They can't offer to collect
a licence fee on behalf of ITV, Sky, C4, NBC, RAI or anyone else. They
can only work for the BBC (or rather, for its subsidiary, "TV Licensing").

Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <ilvl2mFm06pU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> writes
>
>
>
>>
>> It can never be right to agree to something you have no intention of
>> complying with and it can never be right to unilaterally break an
>> agreement whilst keeping the benefits.
>
> Nonsense! If the UK Government can do it with the NI Protocol, so can
> the BBC.
>>
>>
>
Lol.

I think you’ll find the agreement was for the BBC to take over
responsibility for the over 75 scheme, not to take over responsibility and
to keep it unchanged. Note the use of the word whether in the text below.

“The level of the fee is set by Secretary of State for Digital, Culture,
Media and Sport after consultation with the BBC. A key element of the
licence fee settlement, announced in July 2015, was that the BBC would take
over funding free licences for the over-75s.
Section 365A of the Communications Act 2003, as inserted by section 89(7)
of the Digital Economy Act 2017, transferred responsibility for determining
whether there should be an age-related concession to the BBC. Section 89(7)
came into force on 1 June 2020.”

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04955/SN04955.pdf

For those complaining that the BBC is deciding social policy they should
take it up with the creators of the Acts cited above.

On 23/07/2021 02:13 pm, Ian Jackson wrote:

> In message <ilvl2mFm06pU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> writes
>
>> It can never be right to agree to something you have no intention of
>> complying with and it can never be right to unilaterally break an
>> agreement whilst keeping the benefits.
>
> Nonsense! If the UK Government can do it with the NI Protocol, so can
> the BBC.

The BBC can welsh on an agreement and that's perfectly OK with you
(presumably, as long as you don't suffer from it - yet)?

On 23/07/2021 11:41, JNugent wrote:
>
> It doesn't matter who they are, they are either working to collect money
> for the BBC as minions of that corporation, or they are working to
> collect money for themselves. It can't be both.

It's exactly both! Do you think Capita do it for free? Do you think
Capita's staff work for free?

But the point still stands that they are Capita's staff, not BBC staff,
and therefore cannot be described as "BBC minion"s.

> Calm down, lad.
>
> You'll do yourself a mischief.

Fuck off back to infant school until you've learnt:
+ To base your opinions on fact rather than bigotry;
+ To fact-check claims before making them;
+ To apologise when, as so often, you are wrong.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 23/07/2021 11:36, MrSpud_fp03fOm6i@fxbysu8r9ei.edu wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 18:00:10 +0100
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>> On 22/07/2021 14:29, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>> You have obvious anger-management issues.
>>
>> You have obvious English comprehension and rational understanding
>> issues. Now fuck off back to infant school until you've learnt:
>> + To base your opinions on fact rather than bigotry;
>> + To fact-check claims before making them;
>> + To apologise when, as so often, you are wrong.
>
> It must be national Hypocrisy Day and Mr Jive is getting in early.

You should follow the above advice as well.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 23/07/2021 12:01, Tweed wrote:
>
> The government wanted to stop the over 75 licence fee blanket subsidy but
> it knows that tangling with pensioners, who go out and vote, is politically
> a bad idea. So they dumped it on the BBC who stupidly fell for it. The
> subsequent fall out shows exactly why the government didn’t want to take
> responsibility for doing this.

Exactly.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 23/07/2021 12:50, JNugent wrote:
> On 23/07/2021 12:01 pm, Tweed wrote:
>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>> On 22/07/2021 08:26 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>> On 22/07/2021 20:00, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> On 22/07/2021 06:06 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 22/07/2021 16:18, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BBC's subsequent welshing on that deal
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another piece of anti-BBC bias leading to another factual error.  It
>>>>>> was a government, not a BBC, decision:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/articles/over-75s-tvl-update
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "n August 2020 - and following the largest consultation in the BBC’s
>>>>>> history - the process was started to transition over 75 households
>>>>>> from free to paid-for TV licences, following the Government’s
>>>>>> decision to withdraw the concession.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The BBC retained a free licence provision for the most vulnerable.
>>>>>> Free TV licences remain available to anyone aged over 75 who is in
>>>>>> receipt of Pension Credit, paid for by the BBC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This document provides an update on those arrangements, six months
>>>>>> after the change of policy."
>>>>>
>>>>> "change of policy"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes - change of *BBC* policy!
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps you are no more enamoured of The Guardian than I am, but the
>>>>> article referenced below makes it 100% clear that the change of policy
>>>>> was the BBC's decision and no-one else's.
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jul/09/bbc-to-end-free-tv-licences-for-most-over-75s>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Note the first sentence of the article:
>>>>>
>>>>> "The BBC’s decision to end free TV licences for most over-75s, after a
>>>>> two-month delay because of the coronavirus outbreak, has sparked a row
>>>>> with the government."
>>>>>
>>>>> Got that? *BBC's* *decision*
>>>>>
>>>>> You'll no doubt now be saying that the Graun is a right-wing rag.
>>>>
>>>> No, I will be saying they are somewhat mistaken, as are you; I suggest
>>>> you read further down your own link to where it says:
>>>>
>>>> "The shadow culture secretary, Jo Stevens, said: “The refusal of the
>>>> government to fund this vital service after promising to do so is
>>>> nothing short of betrayal.
>>>>
>>>> “Many over-75s have spent months at home with TV providing an
>>>> invaluable
>>>> source of company during the pandemic. For the government to blame the
>>>> BBC who are having to contend with huge cuts is simply passing the
>>>> buck.”
>>>>
>>>> Caroline Abrahams, the charity director at Age UK, also blamed the
>>>> government: “The BBC has taken this decision today but in reality the
>>>> principal responsibility lies with the government. Until a previous
>>>> administration transferred these free licences to the corporation under
>>>> a tapering funding arrangement, they had taken the form of a welfare
>>>> benefit for a generation, and to have done that without any
>>>> consultation
>>>> left a really bad taste in the mouth."
>>>>
>>>> Note: "a tapering funding arrangement", in other words the government
>>>> were progressively cutting the grant to support it, so it was a
>>>> government decision, as the BBC's own website previously linked makes
>>>> clear.  That is why the response of government ministers reported in
>>>> the
>>>> Guardian article is deeply hypocritical.  If they want free licences
>>>> for
>>>> the over-75s, all they have to do is pay for it themselves out of
>>>> government money.
>>>
>>> The BBC agreed to take on the responsibility for "funding" the licence
>>> for those over a certain age as part of the QPQ for certain other new
>>> privileges (such as extending the compulsory licence to those not
>>> receiving the BBC via broadcast).

Where is your evidence for this claim?

>>> The BBC changed its policy so as to only support those over that age and
>>> in receipt of Pension Credit. That was the Beeb's decision and it was
>>> not mandated by any legislation or agreement.

The BBC was *empowered* as part of the agreement to do exactly what it
did, reform the policy, so it wasn't 'welching' on anything. It was a
*government* decision to phase out the funding for the free TV Licence
for the over 75s, so ultimately they are the people to blame for its
removal.

>> It doesn’t alter the fact that a blanket free licence for over 75s is a
>> significant transfer of money from under 75s who are relatively hard
>> up to
>> a relatively large number of over 75s who are not hard up.
>
> That may or may not be the case (though either way, it would not be a
> lot in comparison with other transfer payments to those over retirement
> age, just as they made to other, older, people when they were younger -
> that's the system).
>
> But it's NOT up to the BBC to decide on such things.

On the contrary, as noted above the 2015 agreement empowered the BBC to
do exactly what they did, reform the system as they saw fit. We can be
thankful that they went to such great lengths of public consultation
before acting in a socially responsible manner by choosing a viable
compromise, when they could just arbitrarily have discontinued it
altogether.

>> Whatever your
>> views are about what might or might not have been agreed it doesn’t alter
>> the fact that a lot of well off people are getting a benefit they don’t
>> need. That has to be paid for by someone.
>
> The licence payer. And it was true that "someone else" was paying even
> when it was notionally paid by "the government" - and no-one complained
> about it then.

Because government funding is something of a black hole where funds go
in round the edges and some money radiates out at the poles, but it's
difficult to see the precise relationship between the two - a little
extra money coming out doesn't seem to change significantly what has to
go in. But what is a small fraction of government cash flow is a huge
fraction of BBC cash flow, so the situation was never going to be
sustainable by the BBC, and the government knew that full well when the
agreement was signed, which is why the BBC was empowered to reform the
system as part of the agreement.

>> The government wanted to stop the over 75 licence fee blanket subsidy but
>> it knows that tangling with pensioners, who go out and vote, is
>> politically
>> a bad idea. So they dumped it on the BBC who stupidly fell for it. The
>> subsequent fall out shows exactly why the government didn’t want to take
>> responsibility for doing this.
>
> The BBC doesn't come out of this well. They were under no compulsion to
> agree to the benefits and costs of the agreement.

On the contrary, they needed their charter renewed, so had to kowtow.

> But they keep the
> benefit and renege on the costs.

They don't, they pay it all straight to the government. Effectively
they're now a government tax-collector.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 23/07/2021 02:31 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 23/07/2021 11:41, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> It doesn't matter who they are, they are either working to collect
>> money for the BBC as minions of that corporation, or they are working
>> to collect money for themselves. It can't be both.
>
> It's exactly both!  Do you think Capita do it for free?  Do you think
> Capita's staff work for free?
>
> But the point still stands that they are Capita's staff, not BBC staff,
> and therefore cannot be described as "BBC minion"s.

Yes, they can.

They work at the behest of the BBC. They're BBC minions.

If you don't like that, it's hard to see what a solution would be.

On 23/07/2021 11:47, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 23/07/2021 08:56 am, Tweed wrote:
>>
>> My own personal view is the BBC is right.
>
> It can never be right to agree to something you have no intention of
> complying with

Then you should be complaining about the hypocrisy of the government in
forcing the agreement on the BBC knowing full well that the result would
be a necessity to reform the system, and then saying to the public , in
effect: "Honest, mum, it wasn't me!"

> and it can never be right to unilaterally break an
> agreement whilst keeping the benefits.

There was no such agreement to break, only an agreement that allowed for
reform of the system.

> If that's what the BBC wants, the minimum that should happen is that the
> licence fee increase which was part of the deal should be negated
> (preferable with a flat government guarantee that the licence fee will
> never again be raised) and the law should be changed back to the status
> quo ante, where no licence is required to use the iPlayer.

We live in an imperfect world, as evidenced by the fact that you inhabit
it. No government, well no Tory one at any rate and that's what we have
for the foreseeable future, is going undo the agreement just because
No-Gent thinks it should do so.

>> Otherwise it is a transfer of
>> money from quite a lot of poorer under 75s to relatively well off
>> pensioners. Whilst we do have a core of poor pensioners (largely
>> covered by
>> the new scheme) we also have large numbers of very well off pensioners. I
>> can’t see that it is right that they get subsidy off the backs of the
>> rest
>> of the licence paying public.
>
> None of that is any of the BBC's business. They are there to provide
> broadcasting services, not to make political decisions about social and
> economic issues.

Quite, so why are you ranting at the BBC and not the government who
forced those political decisions upon them?

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 23/07/2021 14:30, JNugent wrote:
> On 23/07/2021 02:13 pm, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
>> In message <ilvl2mFm06pU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
>> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> writes
>>
>>> It can never be right to agree to something you have no intention of
>>> complying with and it can never be right to unilaterally break an
>>> agreement whilst keeping the benefits.
>>
>> Nonsense! If the UK Government can do it with the NI Protocol, so can
>> the BBC.
>
> The BBC can welsh on an agreement and that's perfectly OK with you
> (presumably, as long as you don't suffer from it - yet)?

As has been explained to you many times now, they didn't cheat - I've
changed the word used advisedly* - on any agreement, because the
agreement gave the BBC the power to reform the system, and the
government knew full well that it had to be reformed, but didn't have
the guts to do it for itself.

*I can guess that Welsh people may call your continued use of the word
in that context a form of racism.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 23/07/2021 11:43, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 23/07/2021 08:26 am, BrightsideS9 wrote:
>>
>> I am annoyed by BBC wriggling out of the deal. ISTR they got a licence
>> fee increase if they gave free licences to the over 75s. I don't
>> remember that beingb  handed back.
>
> Exactly. And they got new legislation requiring people using iPlayer to
> have a licence (not previously required).

That was bound to happen anyway, the wonder was that it took them so
long to clamp down on that.

> The BBC welshed on the deal but kept all the benefits of it.

No they did not, as has now been explained to you many times. Firstly
the agreement allowed them to reform the free TV Licence system and the
government of the day signed knowing full well that it would have to be
reformed. Secondly, they keep nothing they collect, but pay it all
directly to the government; they're just a tax-collector for the
government in this respect.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 23/07/2021 14:29, JNugent wrote:
> On 23/07/2021 01:49 pm, charles wrote:
>> In article <iltd6lF7uh8U2@mid.individual.net>,
>>     JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>> On 22/07/2021 02:40 pm, Pamela wrote:
>>>> On 13:51  21 Jul 2021, JNugent said:
>>>>> On 21/07/2021 01:45 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>> On 21/07/2021 13:12, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They work for the BBC. They do not work for themselves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nonsense, your persistence when proven wrong shows that you are now
>>>>>> knowingly lying just to avoid admitting that you're wrong  -  the
>>>>>> BBC's only legal relationships are with the contractors, they have
>>>>>> no legal relationship with contractors' individual staff;
>>>>>> contractors' staff work for the contractors and their contracts'
>>>>>> terms and conditions are set by and are an internal matter for the
>>>>>> contractors.
>>>>>
>>>>> They work for the BBC. They do not work for themselves. If they were
>>>>> collecting the money for themselves, it would be theft, pure and
>>>>> simple.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you accusing them of theft?
>>>>
>>>> "They work for the BBC" is ambiguous. It could mean mean:
>>>>
>>>> (1) The work they do on behalf of their employer is for the benefit of
>>>> the BBC.
>>>>
>>>> (2) They are employed by the BBC.
>>
>>> Indeed. But they collect money for the BBC; not for themselves.
>>> Everything they do in their interface with the public is done for the
>>> BBC. Irrespective of the exact routing of their salaries, income tax,
>>> National Insurance, etc, they are working under a BBC trademark and not
>>> any other.
>>
>> so, are all the contractors who make programmes for the BBC also "BBC
>> Minions"?
>
> Who are they working for and are they working on behalf of the BBC?
Oh FFS grow up and 'fess up. You were guilty of yet another factual
error; that was the beginning of it, and with any normal adult would
also have been the end of it when they accepted their mistake and
apologised. Now fuck off back to infant school until you've learnt:
+ To base your opinions on fact rather than bigotry;
+ To fact-check claims before making them;
+ To apologise when, as so often, you are wrong.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 23/07/2021 15:00, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 23/07/2021 02:31 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> But the point still stands that they are Capita's staff, not BBC
>> staff, and therefore cannot be described as "BBC minion"s.
>
> Yes, they can.
>
> They work at the behest of the BBC. They're BBC minions.
>
> If you don't like that, it's hard to see what a solution would be.

It's not a question of my liking it or not, it's a question of factual
accuracy, and if you are too childish or stubborn or thick too see that,
then it's difficult to know what to suggest, other than fuck off back to
infant school until you've learnt:
+ To base your opinions on fact rather than bigotry;
+ To fact-check claims before making them;
+ To apologise when, as so often, you are wrong.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

In message <ilvujnFnrmdU3@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> writes
>On 23/07/2021 02:13 pm, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
>> In message <ilvl2mFm06pU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
>><jennings&co@fastmail.fm> writes
>>
>>> It can never be right to agree to something you have no intention of
>>>complying with and it can never be right to unilaterally break an
>>>agreement whilst keeping the benefits.
>> Nonsense! If the UK Government can do it with the NI Protocol, so
>>can the BBC.
>
>The BBC can welsh on an agreement and that's perfectly OK with you
>(presumably, as long as you don't suffer from it - yet)?

I AM suffering from it! For two years I enjoyed the blissful privilege
of a free licence, but I'm now having to fork out again (despite having
paid it since 1965!). However, even if the free licence had not been
snatched away from me, I still believe it would be far easier to stop
all this messing about, and fund the BBC from our taxes (even though
that WOULD mean I would be contributing).
--
Ian

On 23/07/2021 03:52 pm, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In message <ilvujnFnrmdU3@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> writes
>> On 23/07/2021 02:13 pm, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>
>>> In message <ilvl2mFm06pU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
>>> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> writes
>>>
>>>> It can never be right to agree to something you have no intention of
>>>> complying with and it can never be right to unilaterally break an
>>>> agreement whilst keeping the benefits.
>>>  Nonsense! If the UK Government can do it with the NI Protocol, so
>>> can  the BBC.
>>
>> The BBC can welsh on an agreement and that's perfectly OK with you
>> (presumably, as long as you don't suffer from it - yet)?
>
> I AM suffering from it! For two years I enjoyed the blissful privilege
> of a free licence, but I'm now having to fork out again (despite having
> paid it since 1965!). However, even if the free licence had not been
> snatched away from me, I still believe it would be far easier to stop
> all this messing about, and fund the BBC from our taxes (even though
> that WOULD mean I would be contributing).

I am sorry to hear that, but cannot agree that the BBC should be given a
even longer guarantee of never having to be answerable to its viewers or
to market forces.

The only fair way to deal with the BBC is to let it operate like any
private broadcasting company. Let it institute a subscription system or
let it take advertising (or a combination of both, as well as selling
its products to other channels and to foreign stations).

Then people who don't want it wouldn't be forced to pay for it.

That's the only possible fair outcome.

And there is no case at all for forcing working class viewers to pay the
viewing pleasure of Guardianistas and similar.

Like Channel Four (esp. News), the BBC cannot feasibly complain that it
knew or knows nothing about the widespread dissatisfaction with its
behaviour, especially the blatant political bias.

On 23/07/2021 13:33, Tweed wrote:
> Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>> On 23/07/2021 12:01, Tweed wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>> However, HMRC already know how much income all pensioners
>>> receive .
>>>
>>
>> That is not true. If it were then:
>>
>> a. there'd be no need for people to claim pension credit; and
>> b. there'd not be up to 1 million people entitled to pension credit but
>> not getting it.
>>
>
> But is that down to HMRC not knowing or deliberately making pension credit
> something you have to proactively claim? With a few edge case exceptions,
> pretty much all pension income is known to HMRC. State pension obviously,
> pension scheme income, annuity income, shared dividends paid out within the
> UK. What pension credit doesn’t know about is your level of savings, where
> presumably a high level disqualifies you. But I was specifically talking
> about income.
>

HMRC don't decide policy and law on anything - let alone pension credit
which is DWP's.

There have been pilots in the past that showed DWP could not identify
accurately who was entitled from the data they and HMRC have. Part of
that is down to the fact that the benefit is not based on the income of
individuals but of the benefit unit which is often a couple. Part is
that HMRC's and DWP's data on income is still not real time. Much is
for the previous tax year. While that may be used for pension credit
purposes it can't be relied upon as the claimant's circumstances may
have changed.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 23/07/2021 11:41, JNugent wrote:
>
> The people operating as "TV Licensing" ARE BBC minions. How could they
> not be? "TV Licensing" is a wholly-owned trademark of the BBC!

If you look in the Capita website, the group dealing with TV licences
are referred to as "Capita TV Licensing". They are Capita employees. As
far as the BBC is concerned Capita is an outsource company with which
the BBC has a contract, and how that contract is managed is entirely the
responsibility of Capita management.
>
> It doesn't matter who they are, they are either working to collect money
> for the BBC as minions of that corporation, or they are working to
> collect money for themselves. It can't be both.

The typical financial outsource contract collects money which goes into
some Suspense Account in the outsource company and at intervals defined
in the contract the company transfers an agreed fee for the services
into their own company accounts and transfers the rest to the contractor
(in this case the BBC).

Under no stretch of imagination can the Capita employees be called
"minions". They work for Capita and place money in a specific Capita
account. Thereafter, the Capita accountants (who are *not* the people
who obtained the money) execute the contract terms.

Jim

On 23/07/2021 16:05, JNugent wrote:
>
> And there is no case at all for forcing working class viewers to pay the
> viewing pleasure of Guardianistas and similar.

Then by the same token why do you force us here to read all your
dishonest propaganda? If you are going to apply that rule to the rest
of us, apply it first to yourself, and shut the fuck up!

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 14:32:35 +0100
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>On 23/07/2021 11:36, MrSpud_fp03fOm6i@fxbysu8r9ei.edu wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 18:00:10 +0100
>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 22/07/2021 14:29, JNugent wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You have obvious anger-management issues.
>>>
>>> You have obvious English comprehension and rational understanding
>>> issues. Now fuck off back to infant school until you've learnt:
>>> + To base your opinions on fact rather than bigotry;
>>> + To fact-check claims before making them;
>>> + To apologise when, as so often, you are wrong.
>>
>> It must be national Hypocrisy Day and Mr Jive is getting in early.
>
>You should follow the above advice as well.

Ah, it is. Thanks for clarifying!