On 26/07/2021 12:20 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 26/07/2021 10:54, JNugent wrote:
>> On 25/07/2021 06:22 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>
>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>> On 24/07/2021 09:39 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> 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).
>>>
>>>>> IIRC they "agreed" being faced with it being clear that otherwise they
>>>>> would face additional financial losses/burdens 'decided' by
>>>>> Government.
>>>>> So a tad like someone 'agreeing' to had over their watch rather than
>>>>> having their pocket picked.
>>>
>>>> An agreement is an agreement.
>>>
>>> Someone with a gun threatens to shoot you unless you hand over your
>>> wallet.
>>> You hand it over because you're convinced he'll do as he says. You then
>>> contact the police and they tell you, "Sorry, you agreed to hand it
>>> over.
>>> Your choice!" - and refuse to do anything because you 'agreed'.
>>>
>>> That's fine then, eh?
>>
>> The BBC wasn't threatened with a weapon of any sort.
>
> In terms of physical weapons, obviously true, but ...
>
>> It *chose* to accept the deal it was offered (it didn't have to),
>
> ... nonsense, it had no choice to accept the deal offered by government,
> how was it supposed to continue functioning without money coming from
> the government?  He who pays the piper calls the tune.
>
>> and later *chose* to impose the licence fee tax on those of 75 or
>> older who are not in receipt of Pension Credit.
>>
>> As another poster has (correctly) pointed out, though we already knew
>> it (because we saw it happen), the BBC was empowered to make that choice.
>
> So finally at last you now admit that the BBC did not break its
> agreement with the government, so isn't it about time that you stopped
> bitching at it for, as you have consistently claimed, doing so?

I haven't said that it broke an agreement with "the government"
(whatever that term actually means in detail).

It broke its promise (via the agreement) with the viewing public, and
especially with those aged 75 or over.

>> The simple calculation and choice it made was that the money was
>> better in its corporate pocket, and in the pockets of its executives
>> and "stars" such as Lineker, Jeremy Vine and Graham Norton, than left
>> in the purses of 75-yr-olds.
>
> https://www.prolificnorth.co.uk/news/radio-news/2020/09/bbc-presenters-salaries-revealed-lineker-remains-highest-paid-star-while
>
>
>     Gary Lineker:    £1.75m
>     Jeremy Vine:    £322k
>     Graham Norton:    £727k
>     Etc
>
> Compared with me and probably you, these salaries are high, but compared
> with ITV they are not unreasonable, indeed the BBC's annual published of
> stars who earn over a given threshold has been dubbed a "poacher's
> charter" ...

ITV doesn't have the power to extract money from your pocket. And you
don't have to pay ITV for permission to watch Channel 4, Sky One or PBS
America.

That's about as poor an analogy as could be chosen.

> https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/showbiz-tv/how-much-itvs-stars-paid-14895054
>
>
>     Ant & Dec    £30m
>     Amanda Holden    £2m
>     Etc
>
> ... and of course many senior executives in business earn even more.

Irrelevant. Those businesses operate on a "buy if you want, don't buy if
you don't want" basis.

> But let's do another comparison, the *total cost* of the salaries listed
> on the first link above averages to around £21.25m, but, from your own
> link previously given, "Funding free TV licences for all over-75s would
> have cost the BBC £745m by 2021-22".
>
> 21.25 is just 3% of 745!

I couldn't care less about the totals of this or that salary at the BBC.
It's still indicative of poor choices at the BBC.

The millionaire talking heads are more important to the Beeb than are
people aged 75 or more.

>> No amount of ill-advised defence of the BBC's behaviour devalues a
>> word of that. The BBC agreed the settlement, then chose to impose its
>> tax on 75 year olds (which I would say fully deserves the epithet
>> "welshing"). It was free to make other choices, but it didn't. Full stop.
>
> No amount of bigoted shit from you alters the above hard facts.  You
> have consistently been proven wrong on every allegation throughout this
> thread, but equally consistently, until at last the admission above,
> though still no apology, you have refused to accept that you were wrong.
>
> Now it is time to start doing so, grow up and 'fess up.

I answered your points out of courtesy. Please reciprocate by displaying
some yourself.

On 25/07/2021 11:51 am, Java Jive wrote:
> On 25/07/2021 11:37, JNugent wrote:
>> On 25/07/2021 10:41 am, MB wrote:
>>
>>> On 24/07/2021 09:35, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>
>>>> So although nicer in some ways, they failed to make the changes
>>>> which might have dealt with the underlaying problems. e.g. went on
>>>> allowing
>>>> Social Housing to be flogged off at prices that lost Council's money
>>>> and made it impossible for the Social Housing to be fully replaced.
>>>
>>> It went further than that, one senior Labour figure had a plan to
>>> replace most of the houses in one city with new ones. But this meant
>>> demolishing all the old ones against the wishes of the occupants.  It
>>> was calculated that the old houses could have been improved to modern
>>> standards for a much lower cost. Coincidentally a relative of the
>>> senior figure had an interest in a large building company in the area.
>>
>> Although it is now common knowledge that Labour local politics in
>> *some* areas was riddled with corruption, with undesirable effects on
>> housing policy, it's only fair to remark that the same sort of
>> policies were followed in almost all urban areas. They can't all have
>> been corrupt but they all did more or less the same thing.
>
> More bias: It is equally common knowledge that many Tory local politics
> in some areas was corrupt as well, but I note that you don't mention
> that, only Labour local politics.

I really wasn't going to mention names, but as far as I am aware, there
was nothing to equal, still less surpass, the magnitude of the Newcastle
City Council affair, involving T. Dan Smith (Labour) and John Poulson -
not even amongst other Labour councils.

The current pending criminal charges against Labour elected officials in
Liverpool are small beer by comparison with what happened during the 1960s.

>> City councils were simply following the group-think of the day, in
>> which it was seen as desirable to erase working class inner-city
>> neighbourhoods and to relocate the inhabitants in new-build estates
>> out on the edge of town. This often even put former city-dwellers in
>> council houses, maisonettes and tower block out beyond the city
>> boundaries, disenfranchising them from even having a right to provide
>> electoral "feedback" on how acceptable their new living conditions were.
>>
>> It is now obvious to us that improving older but structurally-sound
>> houses was better in various ways, but sixty years ago, borough
>> engineers and councillors were implacably convinced that traditional
>> terraced housing was an unalloyed Bad Thing (one the "bad" things
>> being that councils didn't usually have control of it).
>
> Yes, much of the above is true.  In the post-war years, there was a hell
> of a lot of war damage to clear up, some of it was still visible in
> Bristol as much as 30 years later, and for many years the modernist
> group-think just bull-dozed whole areas and created concrete modernist
> monstrosities as replacements  -  high-rise urban jungles in residential
> areas, for example in many areas of SE London, and concreted over whole
> town centres, for example Bristol.
>

On 25/07/2021 12:15 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 25/07/2021 11:41, JNugent wrote:
>> On 25/07/2021 10:58 am, MB wrote:
>>> On 24/07/2021 09:49, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>> It would be fair*if*  we also could choose to have a price discount
>>>> when we
>>>> buy something whose makers advertise on TV channels we don't watch.
>>>> Alas,
>>>> even having no TV doesn't mean we don't pay for them.
>>>
>>> I usually point out the "Advertising Tax" that is very difficult to
>>> avoid, when people go on about the BBC tax.  I very rarely watch ITV,
>>> CH4 and CH5 but I still pay for them through the Advertisinhg TAx and
>>> I bet I pay a lot more than the TV Licence.
>>
>> There is no "Advertising Tax" effect.
>>
>> Advertising is part of the system of competition, which keeps prices
>> lower than they would be if there were no advertising and no competition.
>
> Perhaps, I have some doubts about advertising tax claims, but ...
>
>> Look at and compare prices in "convenience stores" and in supermarkets
>> to immediately see the truth of that.
>>
>> Almost anything we buy which might be advertised (whether on street
>> billboards, TV, radio, cinema or in the various forms of press) is
>> cheaper in real terms today than it was in our grandparents' prime of
>> life.
>
>> Supermarkets weren't even allowed to discount prices from RRP until 1964.
>
> ... that is irrelevant to your argument, it can be entirely explained
> away by the average wealth of the country improving.

That would not explain the differences in price levels between corner
shops (which effectively track RRP more closely) and supermarkets (which
don't).

Supermarkets are in a stronger position re competition for share of the
market precisely because they, among other things, advertise heavily.
That is to the advantage of the public.

Arguments sometimes encountered to the effect that viewers finance ITV
by paying more money for advertised goods are patently incorrect. The
"price" for ITV and other commercial stations is the time spent in front
of the TV whilst adverts are being played.

On 25/07/2021 12:45 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 25/07/2021 12:11, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> On 25/07/2021 11:59 am, Tweed wrote:
>>>
>>> See also business rates - collected via the council but amount set
>>> centrally.
>>
>> That doesn't answer the question. Someone has to decide the amount,
>> and "the government" would effectively be doing that on behalf of the
>> BBC (just as at present).
>
> Yes, note that, *the government*, not the BBC which you hate so
> irrationally, decides it, so stop blaming the BBC for everything, and
> start blaming the government as well.
>
>> And it's not even as if the BBC can be trusted to adhere to agreements
>> it makes as a QPQ for increases (or changes in the law to its
>> advantage and the disadvantage of the citizen).
>
> As has now been explained to you countless times, the BBC broke no
> agreement.  The agreement *empowered* them to make changes to the Free
> TV Licence benefit.
>
>> The BBC must be the only business in the UK which has an absolute,
>> unfettered, legally-guaranteed right, not only to exist, but to be
>> ever more prosperous at the expense of the citizen (who has no say in
>> the process).
>
> Except local libraries, the NHS, the army, the navy, the air force, etc,
> etc.

Which bit of the word "business" passed you by?

On 26/07/2021 12:20, Java Jive wrote:

>
> https://www.prolificnorth.co.uk/news/radio-news/2020/09/bbc-presenters-salaries-revealed-lineker-remains-highest-paid-star-while
>
> Gary Lineker: £1.75m
> Jeremy Vine: £322k
> Graham Norton: £727k
> Etc
>
> Compared with me and probably you, these salaries are high, but compared
> with ITV they are not unreasonable, indeed the BBC's annual published of
> stars who earn over a given threshold has been dubbed a "poacher's
> charter" ...
>
> https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/showbiz-tv/how-much-itvs-stars-paid-14895054
>
> Ant& Dec £30m
> Amanda Holden £2m
> Etc
>
> ... and of course many senior executives in business earn even more.
>
> But let's do another comparison, the *total cost* of the salaries listed
> on the first link above averages to around £21.25m, but, from your own
> link previously given, "Funding free TV licences for all over-75s would
> have cost the BBC £745m by 2021-22".
>
> 21.25 is just 3% of 745!

I can't argue with the figures you quote, but I will point out that the
BBC has two pay processes. There is the direct payments to (eg) Jeremy
Vine, and the indirect payments which have so far never been revealed.
For instance, David Attenborough obviously does work for the BBC and is
unlikely to do it without payment, but he has never appeared on any BBC
pay list so it must get to him by some covert indirect route which the
BBC has so far managed to avoid revealing. I can remember seeing a small
list of "for instance" missing names in a newspaper, but can't remember
any of the others and one example is enough to prove my point that the
figures the BBC quote provide a false picture.

The other thing the BBC doesn't seem to be publicly factoring in is the
number of elderly sufficiently incensed by the BBC attitude that they
have stopped paying for a licence. For a pensioner living alone facing
the probability of eventually paying for a place in a nursing home until
their savings run out, the refusal to pay for a TV licence or the fines
for not having one and thus getting board and lodging funded by "Her
Majesty's Pleasure" doesn't look much of a deterrent. The Government has
chickened out of making the lack of a TV licence a civil offence, so it
remains a criminal offence and a prison sentence is the inevitable final
sanction.

I am not 75 yet and am content to pay for my viewing until I get to that
age, but I have recently bought a second hand "Youview" box so that I
can choose to watch programmes up to a week old via the internet, and
ITV Hub and All4 will be sufficient to provide the hour or so of news
and entertainment that I watch each day, and watching the lunchtime news
at tea time is still going to keep me reasonably informed. It is a
simple answer to legally watching broadcasts without a TV licence. I
wonder how many others are considering something similar?

Jim

On 26/07/2021 13:12, JNugent wrote:
> On 26/07/2021 12:20 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 26/07/2021 10:54, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 25/07/2021 06:22 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>
>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>> On 24/07/2021 09:39 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> 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).
>>>>
>>>>>> IIRC they "agreed" being faced with it being clear that otherwise
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> would face additional financial losses/burdens 'decided' by
>>>>>> Government.
>>>>>> So a tad like someone 'agreeing' to had over their watch rather than
>>>>>> having their pocket picked.
>>>>
>>>>> An agreement is an agreement.
>>>>
>>>> Someone with a gun threatens to shoot you unless you hand over your
>>>> wallet.
>>>> You hand it over because you're convinced he'll do as he says. You then
>>>> contact the police and they tell you, "Sorry, you agreed to hand it
>>>> over.
>>>> Your choice!" - and refuse to do anything because you 'agreed'.
>>>>
>>>> That's fine then, eh?
>>>
>>> The BBC wasn't threatened with a weapon of any sort.
>>
>> In terms of physical weapons, obviously true, but ...
>>
>>> It *chose* to accept the deal it was offered (it didn't have to),
>>
>> ... nonsense, it had no choice to accept the deal offered by
>> government, how was it supposed to continue functioning without money
>> coming from the government?  He who pays the piper calls the tune.
>>
>>> and later *chose* to impose the licence fee tax on those of 75 or
>>> older who are not in receipt of Pension Credit.
>>>
>>> As another poster has (correctly) pointed out, though we already knew
>>> it (because we saw it happen), the BBC was empowered to make that
>>> choice.
>>
>> So finally at last you now admit that the BBC did not break its
>> agreement with the government, so isn't it about time that you stopped
>> bitching at it for, as you have consistently claimed, doing so?
>
> I haven't said that it broke an agreement with "the government"
> (whatever that term actually means in detail).
>
> It broke its promise (via the agreement) with the viewing public, and
> especially with those aged 75 or over.
>
>>> The simple calculation and choice it made was that the money was
>>> better in its corporate pocket, and in the pockets of its executives
>>> and "stars" such as Lineker, Jeremy Vine and Graham Norton, than left
>>> in the purses of 75-yr-olds.
>>
>> https://www.prolificnorth.co.uk/news/radio-news/2020/09/bbc-presenters-salaries-revealed-lineker-remains-highest-paid-star-while
>>
>>
>>      Gary Lineker:    £1.75m
>>      Jeremy Vine:    £322k
>>      Graham Norton:    £727k
>>      Etc
>>
>> Compared with me and probably you, these salaries are high, but
>> compared with ITV they are not unreasonable, indeed the BBC's annual
>> published of stars who earn over a given threshold has been dubbed a
>> "poacher's charter" ...
>
> ITV doesn't have the power to extract money from your pocket. And you
> don't have to pay ITV for permission to watch Channel 4, Sky One or PBS
> America.
>
> That's about as poor an analogy as could be chosen.
>
>> https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/showbiz-tv/how-much-itvs-stars-paid-14895054
>>
>>
>>      Ant & Dec    £30m
>>      Amanda Holden    £2m
>>      Etc
>>
>> ... and of course many senior executives in business earn even more.
>
> Irrelevant. Those businesses operate on a "buy if you want, don't buy if
> you don't want" basis.

It's entirely relevant, the presenters the BBC pay are also in a market,
and can command a higher price elsewhere.

>> But let's do another comparison, the *total cost* of the salaries
>> listed on the first link above averages to around £21.25m, but, from
>> your own link previously given, "Funding free TV licences for all
>> over-75s would have cost the BBC £745m by 2021-22".
>>
>> 21.25 is just 3% of 745!
>
> I couldn't care less about the totals of this or that salary at the BBC.
> It's still indicative of poor choices at the BBC.
>
> The millionaire talking heads are more important to the Beeb than are
> people aged 75 or more.

The opposite, they're 3% as important.

>>> No amount of ill-advised defence of the BBC's behaviour devalues a
>>> word of that. The BBC agreed the settlement, then chose to impose its
>>> tax on 75 year olds (which I would say fully deserves the epithet
>>> "welshing"). It was free to make other choices, but it didn't. Full
>>> stop.
>>
>> No amount of bigoted shit from you alters the above hard facts.  You
>> have consistently been proven wrong on every allegation throughout
>> this thread, but equally consistently, until at last the admission
>> above, though still no apology, you have refused to accept that you
>> were wrong.
>>
>> Now it is time to start doing so, grow up and 'fess up.
>
> I answered your points out of courtesy. Please reciprocate by displaying
> some yourself.

It is discourteous not just to me but the wider group as a whole to
continue in the same lies after they have been comprehensively debunked,
as you have done in the past and still continue to do above.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 26/07/2021 13:37, JNugent wrote:
> That would not explain the differences in price levels between corner
> shops (which effectively track RRP more closely) and supermarkets (which
> don't).

That is easy to answer. Supermarkets buy huge quantities, which gives
them huge leverage when discussing contracts. In many cases they tell
the supplier how much they are prepared to pay, take it or leave it.
There is occasional news coverage of a supplier who loses a supermarket
contract and is now facing bankruptcy because nobody else can soak up
the level of production the supermarket had required and produce
previously sold near "at cost" would now be wasted.

Small traders do not have that sort of purchase leverage because their
turnover is relatively small, so suppliers charge more to them to make
up for the tiny profit margins from the supermarkets.

It is much more aligned to supply and demand that to advertising
effectiveness.

Jim

On 26/07/2021 13:37, JNugent wrote:
> On 25/07/2021 12:15 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 25/07/2021 11:41, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 25/07/2021 10:58 am, MB wrote:
>>>> On 24/07/2021 09:49, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>>> It would be fair*if*  we also could choose to have a price discount
>>>>> when we
>>>>> buy something whose makers advertise on TV channels we don't watch.
>>>>> Alas,
>>>>> even having no TV doesn't mean we don't pay for them.
>>>>
>>>> I usually point out the "Advertising Tax" that is very difficult to
>>>> avoid, when people go on about the BBC tax.  I very rarely watch
>>>> ITV, CH4 and CH5 but I still pay for them through the Advertisinhg
>>>> TAx and I bet I pay a lot more than the TV Licence.
>>>
>>> There is no "Advertising Tax" effect.
>>>
>>> Advertising is part of the system of competition, which keeps prices
>>> lower than they would be if there were no advertising and no
>>> competition.
>>
>> Perhaps, I have some doubts about advertising tax claims, but ...
>>
>>> Look at and compare prices in "convenience stores" and in
>>> supermarkets to immediately see the truth of that.
>>>
>>> Almost anything we buy which might be advertised (whether on street
>>> billboards, TV, radio, cinema or in the various forms of press) is
>>> cheaper in real terms today than it was in our grandparents' prime of
>>> life.
>>
>>> Supermarkets weren't even allowed to discount prices from RRP until
>>> 1964.
>>
>> ... that is irrelevant to your argument, it can be entirely explained
>> away by the average wealth of the country improving.
>
> That would not explain the differences in price levels between corner
> shops (which effectively track RRP more closely) and supermarkets (which
> don't).

That has always been the case, then and now, so is a false argument
which proves or disproves nothing. The actual reason for the difference
in price between the two has little to do with advertising, but a
combination of location, which usually works somewhat to the corner
shop's advantage, that's why they're called convenience stores, and
scale of operation which works massively to the supermarket's advantage.

> Supermarkets are in a stronger position re competition for share of the
> market precisely because they, among other things, advertise heavily.
> That is to the advantage of the public.

No, they're in a stronger position because their scale of operation
enables them to screw down prices, often to the detriment of the health
of the producer's business.

> Arguments sometimes encountered to the effect that viewers finance ITV
> by paying more money for advertised goods are patently incorrect. The
> "price" for ITV and other commercial stations is the time spent in front
> of the TV whilst adverts are being played.

Advertising is not free, therefore it costs the supermarkets (in this
example) something, and the supermarkets don't make a loss, therefore we
must be paying for it.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 26/07/2021 13:38, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 25/07/2021 12:45 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 25/07/2021 12:11, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>> The BBC must be the only business in the UK which has an absolute,
>>> unfettered, legally-guaranteed right, not only to exist, but to be
>>> ever more prosperous at the expense of the citizen (who has no say in
>>> the process).

Really I should have picked this up before, but I missed it amongst your
other shit. The BBC has a budget to meet in an inflating world, in what
*real* terms is it growing ever more prosperous at the expense of the
citizen, who on average is presumably growing more prosperous too? And
see below ...

>> Except local libraries, the NHS, the army, the navy, the air force,
>> etc, etc.
>
> Which bit of the word "business" passed you by?

.... None, these are all businesses of sorts, with budgets,
balance-sheets, etc, and if you don't like the term applied to them,
then by the same consideration you shouldn't have applied it to the BBC.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 26/07/2021 02:19 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 26/07/2021 13:12, JNugent wrote:
>> On 26/07/2021 12:20 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 26/07/2021 10:54, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 25/07/2021 06:22 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>>> On 24/07/2021 09:39 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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).
>>>>>
>>>>>>> IIRC they "agreed" being faced with it being clear that otherwise
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> would face additional financial losses/burdens 'decided' by
>>>>>>> Government.
>>>>>>> So a tad like someone 'agreeing' to had over their watch rather than
>>>>>>> having their pocket picked.
>>>>>
>>>>>> An agreement is an agreement.
>>>>>
>>>>> Someone with a gun threatens to shoot you unless you hand over your
>>>>> wallet.
>>>>> You hand it over because you're convinced he'll do as he says. You
>>>>> then
>>>>> contact the police and they tell you, "Sorry, you agreed to hand it
>>>>> over.
>>>>> Your choice!" - and refuse to do anything because you 'agreed'.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's fine then, eh?
>>>>
>>>> The BBC wasn't threatened with a weapon of any sort.
>>>
>>> In terms of physical weapons, obviously true, but ...
>>>
>>>> It *chose* to accept the deal it was offered (it didn't have to),
>>>
>>> ... nonsense, it had no choice to accept the deal offered by
>>> government, how was it supposed to continue functioning without money
>>> coming from the government?  He who pays the piper calls the tune.
>>>
>>>> and later *chose* to impose the licence fee tax on those of 75 or
>>>> older who are not in receipt of Pension Credit.
>>>>
>>>> As another poster has (correctly) pointed out, though we already
>>>> knew it (because we saw it happen), the BBC was empowered to make
>>>> that choice.
>>>
>>> So finally at last you now admit that the BBC did not break its
>>> agreement with the government, so isn't it about time that you
>>> stopped bitching at it for, as you have consistently claimed, doing so?
>>
>> I haven't said that it broke an agreement with "the government"
>> (whatever that term actually means in detail).
>>
>> It broke its promise (via the agreement) with the viewing public, and
>> especially with those aged 75 or over.
>>
>>>> The simple calculation and choice it made was that the money was
>>>> better in its corporate pocket, and in the pockets of its executives
>>>> and "stars" such as Lineker, Jeremy Vine and Graham Norton, than
>>>> left in the purses of 75-yr-olds.
>>>
>>> https://www.prolificnorth.co.uk/news/radio-news/2020/09/bbc-presenters-salaries-revealed-lineker-remains-highest-paid-star-while
>>>
>>>
>>>      Gary Lineker:    £1.75m
>>>      Jeremy Vine:    £322k
>>>      Graham Norton:    £727k
>>>      Etc
>>>
>>> Compared with me and probably you, these salaries are high, but
>>> compared with ITV they are not unreasonable, indeed the BBC's annual
>>> published of stars who earn over a given threshold has been dubbed a
>>> "poacher's charter" ...
>>
>> ITV doesn't have the power to extract money from your pocket. And you
>> don't have to pay ITV for permission to watch Channel 4, Sky One or
>> PBS America.
>>
>> That's about as poor an analogy as could be chosen.
>>
>>> https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/showbiz-tv/how-much-itvs-stars-paid-14895054
>>>
>>>
>>>      Ant & Dec    £30m
>>>      Amanda Holden    £2m
>>>      Etc
>>>
>>> ... and of course many senior executives in business earn even more.
>>
>> Irrelevant. Those businesses operate on a "buy if you want, don't buy
>> if you don't want" basis.
>
> It's entirely relevant, the presenters the BBC pay are also in a market,
> and can command a higher price elsewhere.

THEN LET THEM DO IT!

The BBC's viewers don't need them. And it it doesn't matter how much ITV
pays.

>>> But let's do another comparison, the *total cost* of the salaries
>>> listed on the first link above averages to around £21.25m, but, from
>>> your own link previously given, "Funding free TV licences for all
>>> over-75s would have cost the BBC £745m by 2021-22".
>>>
>>> 21.25 is just 3% of 745!
>>
>> I couldn't care less about the totals of this or that salary at the
>> BBC. It's still indicative of poor choices at the BBC.
>>
>> The millionaire talking heads are more important to the Beeb than are
>> people aged 75 or more.
>
> The opposite, they're 3% as important.
>
>>>> No amount of ill-advised defence of the BBC's behaviour devalues a
>>>> word of that. The BBC agreed the settlement, then chose to impose
>>>> its tax on 75 year olds (which I would say fully deserves the
>>>> epithet "welshing"). It was free to make other choices, but it
>>>> didn't. Full stop.
>>>
>>> No amount of bigoted shit from you alters the above hard facts.  You
>>> have consistently been proven wrong on every allegation throughout
>>> this thread, but equally consistently, until at last the admission
>>> above, though still no apology, you have refused to accept that you
>>> were wrong.
>>>
>>> Now it is time to start doing so, grow up and 'fess up.
>>
>> I answered your points out of courtesy. Please reciprocate by
>> displaying some yourself.
>
> It is discourteous not just to me but the wider group as a whole to
> continue in the same lies after they have been comprehensively debunked,
> as you have done in the past and still continue to do above.

That, as you know, but cannot admit, is nonsense.

On 26/07/2021 02:20 pm, Indy Jess John wrote:

> On 26/07/2021 13:37, JNugent wrote:

>> That would not explain the differences in price levels between corner
>> shops (which effectively track RRP more closely) and supermarkets (which
>> don't).
>
> That is easy to answer.  Supermarkets buy huge quantities, which gives
> them huge leverage when discussing contracts. In many cases they tell
> the supplier how much they are prepared to pay, take it or leave it.
> There is occasional news coverage of a supplier who loses a supermarket
> contract and is now facing bankruptcy because nobody else can soak up
> the level of production the supermarket had required and produce
> previously sold near "at cost" would now be wasted.

All true. But advertising is a part of that process of acquiring and
keeping market share. Some of the advertising is done by the suppliers
and some by the supermarket (whether for themselves and their services
in general or for particular goods from time to time).

No-one said that advertising is the totality of doing competitive
business. It's obviously only a part of it and there are other aspects,
from keeping a wide range of stock to providing free parking and even
24/7 working in some instances. But competition keeps prices low (not
high) and that's why the situation is actually the opposite way round
from the way it is perceived by those who posit that there is an
"advertising tax" comparable to the BBC licence fee tax.

> Small traders do not have that sort of purchase leverage because their
> turnover is relatively small, so suppliers charge more to them to make
> up for the tiny profit margins from the supermarkets.

Of course. That, among other things, is what competition is all about.

> It is much more aligned to supply and demand that to advertising
> effectiveness.

Yet advertising is still seen as a necessary marketing tool, playing its
part in enabling retailers to remain competitive.

A few years, I read a quote from someone in a blue chip company who said
that half of the firm's advertising budget was wasted. But they didn't
know which half.

Almost any point you could put forward on this subject will be something
I can more or less agree with. The only I can't agree with is that this
imaginary "advertising tax" exists. It doesn't (but you haven't said it
does!).

On 26/07/2021 14:08, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 26/07/2021 12:20, Java Jive wrote:
>
>>
>> https://www.prolificnorth.co.uk/news/radio-news/2020/09/bbc-presenters-salaries-revealed-lineker-remains-highest-paid-star-while
>>
>>
>>     Gary Lineker:    £1.75m
>>     Jeremy Vine:    £322k
>>     Graham Norton:    £727k
>>     Etc
>>
>> Compared with me and probably you, these salaries are high, but compared
>> with ITV they are not unreasonable, indeed the BBC's annual published of
>> stars who earn over a given threshold has been dubbed a "poacher's
>> charter" ...
>>
>> https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/showbiz-tv/how-much-itvs-stars-paid-14895054
>>
>>
>>     Ant&  Dec    £30m
>>     Amanda Holden    £2m
>>     Etc
>>
>> ... and of course many senior executives in business earn even more.
>>
>> But let's do another comparison, the *total cost* of the salaries listed
>> on the first link above averages to around £21.25m, but, from your own
>> link previously given, "Funding free TV licences for all over-75s would
>> have cost the BBC £745m by 2021-22".
>>
>> 21.25 is just 3% of 745!
>
> I can't argue with the figures you quote, but I will point out that the
> BBC has two pay processes. There is the direct payments to (eg) Jeremy
> Vine, and the indirect payments which have so far never been revealed.
> For instance, David Attenborough obviously does work for the BBC and is
> unlikely to do it without payment, but he has never appeared on any BBC
> pay list so it must get to him by some covert indirect route which the
> BBC has so far managed to avoid revealing. I can remember seeing a small
> list of "for instance" missing names in a newspaper, but can't remember
> any of the others and one example is enough to prove my point that the
> figures the BBC quote provide a false picture.

No, not quite true, as you've written it ...

Firstly, BBC Studios is an independent company from 'the BBC' and *NOT*
(capitalised for the benefit of others here, not yourself) funded by the
licence fee, and is in direct competition with other such production
companies. Therefore it is specifically excluded from the requirement
to disclose salaries over £150,000.

Secondly, as for Sir David Attenborough himself, his salary is
presumably paid by his own production firm, which for example had a net
income of 1.1m in 2016. Unfortunately however, this information comes
from the Mail, with all the caution about accuracy that this must
entail. Note particularly that while the article headline does say ...

"Sir David Attenborough's production firm announces £1.1million income"

.... much of the article is written in a language that suggests that this
is personal income, which I very much doubt is true. The figure was
announced as a business income, not profit, and presumably his firm have
other normal business expenses, such as other staff to pay, premises
rental, etc.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4099016/A-wonder-nature-Sir-David-Attenborough-revealed-one-BBC-s-BIGGEST-earners-Planet-Earth-II-star-announces-pre-tax-income-1-1m-corporation-year.html

> The other thing the BBC doesn't seem to be publicly factoring in is the
> number of elderly sufficiently incensed by the BBC attitude that they
> have stopped paying for a licence. For a pensioner living alone facing
> the probability of eventually paying for a place in a nursing home until
> their savings run out, the refusal to pay for a TV licence or the fines
> for not having one and thus getting board and lodging funded by "Her
> Majesty's Pleasure" doesn't look much of a deterrent. The Government has
> chickened out of making the lack of a TV licence a civil offence, so it
> remains a criminal offence and a prison sentence is the inevitable final
> sanction.
>
> I am not 75 yet and am content to pay for my viewing until I get to that
> age, but I have recently bought a second hand "Youview" box so that I
> can choose to watch programmes up to a week old via the internet, and
> ITV Hub and All4 will be sufficient to provide the hour or so of news
> and entertainment that I watch each day, and watching the lunchtime news
> at tea time is still going to keep me reasonably informed.  It is a
> simple answer to legally watching broadcasts without a TV licence. I
> wonder how many others are considering something similar?

Well each to his own. I find that the number of things I am interested
in watching tends to decrease over time, so I may end up in a similar
position, but I'm not yet close to that!

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 26/07/2021 15:52, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 26/07/2021 02:19 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 26/07/2021 13:12, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> It's entirely relevant, the presenters the BBC pay are also in a
>> market, and can command a higher price elsewhere.
>
> THEN LET THEM DO IT!
>
> The BBC's viewers don't need them. And it it doesn't matter how much ITV
> pays.

By and large, on a personal basis I'm inclined to agree. They could
bring new talent to our attention by paying them more cheaply than
established talent, and in fact I believe that I've noticed them doing
this in drama - who'd heard of Jennifer Ehle before "Pride And
Prejudice", Justine Waddell before "Wives And Daughters", or Claire Foy
before "Little Dorritt", certainly not me, or barely so, the sole
exception being Ehle because she was in "The Camomile Lawn" beforehand,
yet these are now well established names partly at least through their
success in these roles, and very possibly might now be beyond the BBC's
budget.

However, the BBC is operating in a market place for ratings as well for
money, and in certain sectors of their programming such a policy might
be dangerous for them. If it was just a question employing a cheaper
presenter than Gary Lineker, that in itself might not be a problem, but
what Gary Lineker himself might do next might be. What if he goes over
to another channel that strips the viewing ratings from the BBC's show?
Then if their ratings fall as a result, all the irrational BBC haters
such as yourself will come crawling out of the woodwork condemning the
BBC poor rating figures. In the eyes of the irrationals such as you,
they cannot win, they're damned if they do, and damned if they don't.
The problem is not actually so much the BBC, it's bigots like you.

>> It is discourteous not just to me but the wider group as a whole to
>> continue in the same lies after they have been comprehensively
>> debunked, as you have done in the past and still continue to do above.
>
> That, as you know, but cannot admit, is nonsense.

And that's the trouble right there, you cannot or more probably will not
see your own faults, however you are told about them.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 26/07/2021 13:32, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 25/07/2021 11:51 am, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> More bias: It is equally common knowledge that many Tory local
>> politics in some areas was corrupt as well, but I note that you don't
>> mention that, only Labour local politics.
>
> I really wasn't going to mention names, but as far as I am aware, there
> was nothing to equal, still less surpass, the magnitude of the Newcastle
> City Council affair, involving T. Dan Smith (Labour) and John Poulson -
> not even amongst other Labour councils.

Tory involved there as well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_scandals_in_the_United_Kingdom

"1970s
Corrupt architect John Poulson and links to Conservative Home Secretary
Reginald Maudling, Labour council leader T. Dan Smith and others
(1972–1974): Maudling resigned, Smith sentenced to imprisonment."

But though corruption on a grand scale, that is still just one case and
a statistical sample of one is not very significant among nearly 12,000
local councils over the half century or so since. There has been
significant corruption at both Tory and Labour councils, but typically
you ignore the former and only mention the latter.

For Tory examples in particular (Capita gets a mention again):
https://ukcampaign4change.com/2018/10/11/how-widespread-is-undetected-fraud-and-corruption-in-uk-local-government/

For a balanced factual exposition mentioned in the above:
http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/52109/1/Corruption_in_UK_Local_Government-_The_Mounting_Risks.pdf

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 26/07/2021 06:09 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 26/07/2021 13:32, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> On 25/07/2021 11:51 am, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> More bias: It is equally common knowledge that many Tory local
>>> politics in some areas was corrupt as well, but I note that you don't
>>> mention that, only Labour local politics.
>>
>> I really wasn't going to mention names, but as far as I am aware,
>> there was nothing to equal, still less surpass, the magnitude of the
>> Newcastle City Council affair, involving T. Dan Smith (Labour) and
>> John Poulson - not even amongst other Labour councils.
>
> Tory involved there as well:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_scandals_in_the_United_Kingdom
>
>
> "1970s
> Corrupt architect John Poulson and links to Conservative Home Secretary
> Reginald Maudling, Labour council leader T. Dan Smith and others
> (1972–1974): Maudling resigned, Smith sentenced to imprisonment."

Maudling resigned honourably because of the fact that he had a business
connection with Poulson. That is the way in which most UK politicians
used to behave in such situations.

If you knew of any wrongdoing by Maudling (of course you don't and are
attempting smear tactics), you would say what it was. But you don't say
what you think it was because you know there wasn't any.

You sound like a Guardian reporter: "XXX "has links to YYY" (they have
the same milkman or something).

> But though corruption on a grand scale, that is still just one case and
> a statistical sample of one is not very significant among nearly 12,000
> local councils over the half century or so since.  There has been
> significant corruption at both Tory and Labour councils, but typically
> you ignore the former and only mention the latter.
>
> For Tory examples in particular (Capita gets a mention again):
> https://ukcampaign4change.com/2018/10/11/how-widespread-is-undetected-fraud-and-corruption-in-uk-local-government/

That is utterly ridiculous.

"How widespread is undetected fraud and corruption in UK local
government?", the headline asks?

*Undetected*!

Does the obvious really need to be pointed out?

Then it leads to a story of a fraud committed by a council *employee*
(you MUST be desperate!).

And one of a Conservative council wanting to keep confidential council
business confidential.

Hold the front page - nothing to see here?

> For a balanced factual exposition mentioned in the above:
> http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/52109/1/Corruption_in_UK_Local_Government-_The_Mounting_Risks.pdf

....which contains no accusations against anybody because there are none
to make.

0/10.

Must do better.

On 26/07/2021 19:35, JNugent wrote:
> On 26/07/2021 06:09 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 26/07/2021 13:32, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>> On 25/07/2021 11:51 am, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> More bias: It is equally common knowledge that many Tory local
>>>> politics in some areas was corrupt as well, but I note that you
>>>> don't mention that, only Labour local politics.
>>>
>>> I really wasn't going to mention names, but as far as I am aware,
>>> there was nothing to equal, still less surpass, the magnitude of the
>>> Newcastle City Council affair, involving T. Dan Smith (Labour) and
>>> John Poulson - not even amongst other Labour councils.
>>
>> Tory involved there as well:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_scandals_in_the_United_Kingdom
>>
>> "1970s
>> Corrupt architect John Poulson and links to Conservative Home
>> Secretary Reginald Maudling, Labour council leader T. Dan Smith and
>> others (1972–1974): Maudling resigned, Smith sentenced to imprisonment."
>
> Maudling resigned honourably because of the fact that he had a business
> connection with Poulson. That is the way in which most UK politicians
> used to behave in such situations.

Yes, but that doesn't alter of the fact that he had a business
relationship with a corrupt individual.

> If you knew of any wrongdoing by Maudling (of course you don't and are
> attempting smear tactics), you would say what it was. But you don't say
> what you think it was because you know there wasn't any.
>
> You sound like a Guardian reporter: "XXX "has links to YYY" (they have
> the same milkman or something).

No, that's what you do in ignoring Tory corruption while trumpeting
endlessly on about Labour corruption, ~I'm just providing a more
balanced view.

>> But though corruption on a grand scale, that is still just one case
>> and a statistical sample of one is not very significant among nearly
>> 12,000 local councils over the half century or so since.  There has
>> been significant corruption at both Tory and Labour councils, but
>> typically you ignore the former and only mention the latter.
>>
>> For Tory examples in particular (Capita gets a mention again):
>> https://ukcampaign4change.com/2018/10/11/how-widespread-is-undetected-fraud-and-corruption-in-uk-local-government/
>
> That is utterly ridiculous.
>
> "How widespread is undetected fraud and corruption in UK local
> government?", the headline asks?
>
> *Undetected*!
>
> Does the obvious really need to be pointed out?

So, just as I expected, you didn't bother to read either this or the
next link properly. As the next one explains, that doesn't mean there
hasn't been any!

> Then it leads to a story of a fraud committed by a council *employee*
> (you MUST be desperate!).

Who was working under a Tory council who weren't supervising their
finances properly.

> And one of a Conservative council wanting to keep confidential council
> business confidential.

The question was why don't they want their finances to be investigated
by the press? If they've nothing to hide, what would be the problem?

> Hold the front page - nothing to see here?

They were just two examples of Tory corruption given for balance.
Anyway, why the concern only about local government corruption, when
national government corruption is potentially more serious and more
damaging.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2021/03/tories-are-getting-away-corruption-epic-scale-how-can-labour-make-them-pay

.... and irony of ironies, the man sent to investigate Liverpool hasn't
got an exactly unblemished record himself:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/robert-jenrick-richard-desmond-tory-donor-cash-favours-cabinet-secretary-a9567121.html

>> For a balanced factual exposition mentioned in the above:
>> http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/52109/1/Corruption_in_UK_Local_Government-_The_Mounting_Risks.pdf
>
> ....which contains no accusations against anybody because there are none
> to make.

It gives a number of historical examples of types of corruption, some of
which involved Conservatives.

> 0/10.

For your not bothering to read all the way through the links.

> Must do better.

Indeed you must. The point is that corruption occurs and has the future
potential to occur at all levels of government under any political
affiliation, and your concentrating on just local government under
Labour is therefore inherently biased.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 26/07/2021 16:11, Java Jive wrote:
>
> No, not quite true, as you've written it ...
>
> Firstly, BBC Studios is an independent company from 'the BBC' and *NOT*
> (capitalised for the benefit of others here, not yourself) funded by the
> licence fee, and is in direct competition with other such production
> companies. Therefore it is specifically excluded from the requirement
> to disclose salaries over £150,000.

Thanks, that is educational.

However, taking a step back to view from a greater distance, when BBC
studios employ Sir David Attenborough's production company[1] to prepare
a programme, the production company does need to recoup their
expenditure somehow, or else they would run out of money eventually.
That could be from selling the programme to other television companies
anywhere in the world who express a desire for it and who want to
broadcast it, but it is a pretty safe bet that the BBC will pay BBC
Studios for the right to broadcast it - and that would be from the
licence fees.

Having said that, I can see that the BBC will also be spending licence
fees to other production companies for things that are broadcast, so
excluding such licence fee expenditure from the salaries disclosure
makes perfect sense. In accounting terms they are buying products, not
people. However it does also hide the question of whether the trade
between BBC and BBC Studios is done at what the man in the street might
regard as sensible prices.

[1] ... and any others in a similar position

Jim

On 26/07/2021 21:08, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> Having said that, I can see that the BBC will also be spending licence
> fees to other production companies for things that are broadcast, so
> excluding such licence fee expenditure from the salaries disclosure
> makes perfect sense. In accounting terms they are buying products, not
> people.

Exactly, they are in the same competitive market bidding for the same
sort of work as other production companies who do not have to make such
disclosures, so it wouldn't be fair to make them disclose their staff
salaries.

> However it does also hide the question of whether the trade
> between BBC and BBC Studios is done at what the man in the street might
> regard as sensible prices.

I suspect that information would be available somewhere in the BBC's
published accounts, and if there was any unmistakable back-scratching
going on, I suspect the strident anti-BBC voices would have found it by now.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 26/07/2021 14:20, Indy Jess John wrote:

> That is easy to answer.  Supermarkets buy huge quantities, which gives
> them huge leverage when discussing contracts. In many cases they tell
> the supplier how much they are prepared to pay, take it or leave it.
> There is occasional news coverage of a supplier who loses a supermarket
> contract and is now facing bankruptcy because nobody else can soak up
> the level of production the supermarket had required and produce
> previously sold near "at cost" would now be wasted.
>
> Small traders do not have that sort of purchase leverage because their
> turnover is relatively small, so suppliers charge more to them to make
> up for the tiny profit margins from the supermarkets.

Detail:
Small retailers buy from wholesalers. The latter get the same sort of
discount as the big supermarts. But they need a mark up. So it amounts
to the same thing.

Bill

On 26/07/2021 08:50 pm, Java Jive wrote:

> On 26/07/2021 19:35, JNugent wrote:
>> On 26/07/2021 06:09 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 26/07/2021 13:32, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 25/07/2021 11:51 am, Java Jive wrote:
>
>>>>> More bias: It is equally common knowledge that many Tory local
>>>>> politics in some areas was corrupt as well, but I note that you
>>>>> don't mention that, only Labour local politics.
>>>>
>>>> I really wasn't going to mention names, but as far as I am aware,
>>>> there was nothing to equal, still less surpass, the magnitude of the
>>>> Newcastle City Council affair, involving T. Dan Smith (Labour) and
>>>> John Poulson - not even amongst other Labour councils.
>>>
>>> Tory involved there as well:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_scandals_in_the_United_Kingdom
>>>
>>> "1970s
>>> Corrupt architect John Poulson and links to Conservative Home
>>> Secretary Reginald Maudling, Labour council leader T. Dan Smith and
>>> others (1972–1974): Maudling resigned, Smith sentenced to imprisonment."
>>
>> Maudling resigned honourably because of the fact that he had a
>> business connection with Poulson. That is the way in which most UK
>> politicians used to behave in such situations.
>
> Yes, but that doesn't alter of the fact that he had a business
> relationship with a corrupt individual.

So might any of us.

>> If you knew of any wrongdoing by Maudling (of course you don't and are
>> attempting smear tactics), you would say what it was. But you don't
>> say what you think it was because you know there wasn't any.
>>
>> You sound like a Guardian reporter: "XXX "has links to YYY" (they have
>> the same milkman or something).

> No, that's what you do in ignoring Tory corruption while trumpeting
> endlessly on about Labour corruption, ~I'm just providing a more
> balanced view.

You are "providing a ...balanced view" by trying to malign and impugn a
blameless man against whom there isn't a scintilla of evidence?

I bet you that you were one of those who jeered at Cliff Richard when
another liar accused him of ridiculous things.

>>> But though corruption on a grand scale, that is still just one case
>>> and a statistical sample of one is not very significant among nearly
>>> 12,000 local councils over the half century or so since.  There has
>>> been significant corruption at both Tory and Labour councils, but
>>> typically you ignore the former and only mention the latter.
>>>
>>> For Tory examples in particular (Capita gets a mention again):
>>> https://ukcampaign4change.com/2018/10/11/how-widespread-is-undetected-fraud-and-corruption-in-uk-local-government/
>>
>>
>> That is utterly ridiculous.
>>
>> "How widespread is undetected fraud and corruption in UK local
>> government?", the headline asks?
>>
>> *Undetected*!
>>
>> Does the obvious really need to be pointed out?
>
> So, just as I expected, you didn't bother to read either this or the
> next link properly.  As the next one explains, that doesn't mean there
> hasn't been any!

You cannot attribute "undetected fraud" (whatever it might be) to
anyone. If you were determined to do it anyway, it'd be safer to
attribute it to Labour politicians, since there is a real track record
there.

>> Then it leads to a story of a fraud committed by a council *employee*
>> (you MUST be desperate!).
>
> Who was working under a Tory council who weren't supervising their
> finances properly.

Rubbish. Employees committing fraud cannot be laid at the door of the
councillors in charge. He was probably a Labour voter anyway.

>> And one of a Conservative council wanting to keep confidential council
>> business confidential.
>
> The question was why don't they want their finances to be investigated
> by the press?  If they've nothing to hide, what would be the problem?

Have you ever had anything to do with a council?

No, I didn't think you had.

If you had, you would know that much council business is commercially
senstitive and confidential and none of the business of nosey newspaper
reporters.

>> Hold the front page - nothing to see here?
>
> They were just two examples of Tory corruption given for balance.

Except that neither was an instance of corruption at all (except for the
Labour-voting council employee who defrauded the authority).

> Anyway, why the concern only about local government corruption, when
> national government corruption is potentially more serious and more
> damaging.
>
> https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2021/03/tories-are-getting-away-corruption-epic-scale-how-can-labour-make-them-pay

Oh, grow up.

One day, you might be mature enough to write drivel for the Guardian.

> ... and irony of ironies, the man sent to investigate Liverpool hasn't
> got an exactly unblemished record himself:
>
> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/robert-jenrick-richard-desmond-tory-donor-cash-favours-cabinet-secretary-a9567121.html

More nonsense.

>>> For a balanced factual exposition mentioned in the above:
>>> http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/52109/1/Corruption_in_UK_Local_Government-_The_Mounting_Risks.pdf
>>
>> ....which contains no accusations against anybody because there are
>> none to make.
>
> It gives a number of historical examples of types of corruption, some of
> which involved Conservatives.

It "gives" nothing of the sort 9except in your over-vivid imagination).
>
>> 0/10.
>
> For your not bothering to read all the way through the links.
>
>> Must do better.
>
> Indeed you must.  The point is that corruption occurs and has the future
> potential to occur at all levels of government under any political
> affiliation, and your concentrating on just local government under
> Labour is therefore inherently biased.

A raw nerve exposed.

On Mon, 26 Jul 2021 14:08:09 +0100, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:

>I am not 75 yet and am content to pay for my viewing until I get to that
>age, but I have recently bought a second hand "Youview" box so that I
>can choose to watch programmes up to a week old via the internet, and
>ITV Hub and All4 will be sufficient to provide the hour or so of news
>and entertainment that I watch each day, and watching the lunchtime news
>at tea time is still going to keep me reasonably informed. It is a
>simple answer to legally watching broadcasts without a TV licence. I
>wonder how many others are considering something similar?

I've been doing this for many years. I've been watching a steadily
increasing proportion of TV material online, beginning with a Windows
XP computer built for the purpose, then an Amazon Fire box and
currently an Nvidia Shield. I still have a working Freeview recorder,
but use it less and less as time goes on. Now nearly all my viewing is
Youtube, Amazon, Netflix or various catchup services. I rarely watch
any BBC programmes at all, so at some point I may decide it would be
no great loss to abandon the BBC altogether.

Judging by end credits (when they give us a chance to read them) many
of the programmes broadcast by the BBC don't seem to be made by the
BBC themselves anyway, and I think the actual broadcasting is done by
somebody else too, so I wonder what we're really paying for.

It's sad to see what this once noble organisation has become, and to
think that when I was at school in the 1960s messing with electronics
in my spare time, it was my dream to work for it (which I eventually
did for a while), because in those days it meant something. Now the
only thing that distinguishes it from hundreds of others is the
corruption, and colossal waste of money.

Rod.

In article <sefvfgd7mj0is15i6u0j865fi33lg46m0i@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jul 2021 14:08:09 +0100, Indy Jess John
> <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:

> >I am not 75 yet and am content to pay for my viewing until I get to that
> >age, but I have recently bought a second hand "Youview" box so that I
> >can choose to watch programmes up to a week old via the internet, and
> >ITV Hub and All4 will be sufficient to provide the hour or so of news
> >and entertainment that I watch each day, and watching the lunchtime news
> >at tea time is still going to keep me reasonably informed. It is a
> >simple answer to legally watching broadcasts without a TV licence. I
> >wonder how many others are considering something similar?

> I've been doing this for many years. I've been watching a steadily
> increasing proportion of TV material online, beginning with a Windows
> XP computer built for the purpose, then an Amazon Fire box and
> currently an Nvidia Shield. I still have a working Freeview recorder,
> but use it less and less as time goes on. Now nearly all my viewing is
> Youtube, Amazon, Netflix or various catchup services. I rarely watch
> any BBC programmes at all, so at some point I may decide it would be
> no great loss to abandon the BBC altogether.

> Judging by end credits (when they give us a chance to read them) many
> of the programmes broadcast by the BBC don't seem to be made by the
> BBC themselves anyway, and I think the actual broadcasting is done by
> somebody else too, so I wonder what we're really paying for.

Neither the programme makers nor the transmission companies do their job
for nothing. Sadly, because of lobbying from their friends, the government
forced the BBC to contract out much of theri programme making

> It's sad to see what this once noble organisation has become, and to
> think that when I was at school in the 1960s messing with electronics
> in my spare time, it was my dream to work for it (which I eventually
> did for a while), because in those days it meant something.

As another former BBC man, I'd agree with you.

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

On 26/07/2021 16:01, JNugent wrote:
> On 26/07/2021 02:20 pm, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
>> On 26/07/2021 13:37, JNugent wrote:
>
>>> That would not explain the differences in price levels between corner
>>> shops (which effectively track RRP more closely) and supermarkets (which
>>> don't).
>>
>> That is easy to answer.  Supermarkets buy huge quantities, which gives
>> them huge leverage when discussing contracts. In many cases they tell
>> the supplier how much they are prepared to pay, take it or leave it.
>> There is occasional news coverage of a supplier who loses a
>> supermarket contract and is now facing bankruptcy because nobody else
>> can soak up the level of production the supermarket had required and
>> produce previously sold near "at cost" would now be wasted.
>
> All true. But advertising is a part of that process of acquiring and
> keeping market share. Some of the advertising is done by the suppliers
> and some by the supermarket (whether for themselves and their services
> in general or for particular goods from time to time).
>
> No-one said that advertising is the totality of doing competitive
> business. It's obviously only a part of it and there are other aspects,
> from keeping a wide range of stock to providing free parking and even
> 24/7 working in some instances. But competition keeps prices low (not
> high) and that's why the situation is actually the opposite way round
> from the way it is perceived by those who posit that there is an
> "advertising tax" comparable to the BBC licence fee tax.
>
>> Small traders do not have that sort of purchase leverage because their
>> turnover is relatively small, so suppliers charge more to them to make
>> up for the tiny profit margins from the supermarkets.
>
> Of course. That, among other things, is what competition is all about.
>
>> It is much more aligned to supply and demand that to advertising
>> effectiveness.
>
> Yet advertising is still seen as a necessary marketing tool, playing its
> part in enabling retailers to remain competitive.
>
> A few years, I read a quote from someone in a blue chip company who said
> that half of the firm's advertising budget was wasted. But they didn't
> know which half.
>
> Almost any point you could put forward on this subject will be something
> I can more or less agree with. The only I can't agree with is that this
> imaginary "advertising tax" exists. It doesn't (but you haven't said it
> does!).

Many years ago, the provision of new tv relay stations depended whether
or not the notional extra advertising income exceeded a minimum level.
I think this was around £200 per household per year - tv licence was
then around £70. On the odd occasion (about once a year) when I watch
an advert on tv, I either can't work out what they are on about or find
them so stupid that I can't believe anyone would buy the product.

Phil M

On 27/07/2021 10:10 am, charles wrote:
> In article <sefvfgd7mj0is15i6u0j865fi33lg46m0i@4ax.com>,
> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2021 14:08:09 +0100, Indy Jess John
>> <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>
>>> I am not 75 yet and am content to pay for my viewing until I get to that
>>> age, but I have recently bought a second hand "Youview" box so that I
>>> can choose to watch programmes up to a week old via the internet, and
>>> ITV Hub and All4 will be sufficient to provide the hour or so of news
>>> and entertainment that I watch each day, and watching the lunchtime news
>>> at tea time is still going to keep me reasonably informed. It is a
>>> simple answer to legally watching broadcasts without a TV licence. I
>>> wonder how many others are considering something similar?
>
>> I've been doing this for many years. I've been watching a steadily
>> increasing proportion of TV material online, beginning with a Windows
>> XP computer built for the purpose, then an Amazon Fire box and
>> currently an Nvidia Shield. I still have a working Freeview recorder,
>> but use it less and less as time goes on. Now nearly all my viewing is
>> Youtube, Amazon, Netflix or various catchup services. I rarely watch
>> any BBC programmes at all, so at some point I may decide it would be
>> no great loss to abandon the BBC altogether.
>
>> Judging by end credits (when they give us a chance to read them) many
>> of the programmes broadcast by the BBC don't seem to be made by the
>> BBC themselves anyway, and I think the actual broadcasting is done by
>> somebody else too, so I wonder what we're really paying for.
>
> Neither the programme makers nor the transmission companies do their job
> for nothing. Sadly, because of lobbying from their friends, the government
> forced the BBC to contract out much of theri programme making

The BBC needed that push.

It had, in fact, always screened a limited amount of independent
purpose-made television material*. And of course, there were always
cinema films. But while they they were happy to patronise independent
production companies in America, Europe, Asia and other places, British
products - except for movies - didn't get much of a look in.

The independent sector was also given a bost by the introduction of
Channel Four and also by moves to ensure that ITV carried more UK
programmes that were not made by the regional contractors. The BBC
wasn't being singled out for rough treatment.

>> It's sad to see what this once noble organisation has become, and to
>> think that when I was at school in the 1960s messing with electronics
>> in my spare time, it was my dream to work for it (which I eventually
>> did for a while), because in those days it meant something.
>
> As another former BBC man, I'd agree with you.

The technology has improved somewhat, though I fully understand
nostalgia for "the old days".

[* The legend has it that a Disney cartoon was half-way through when the
plug was pulled in the summer of 1939, and that the same film was used
to restart the television service after WW2. This in London only, of
course.]

On 27/07/2021 09:27, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> Judging by end credits (when they give us a chance to read them) many
> of the programmes broadcast by the BBC don't seem to be made by the
> BBC themselves anyway, and I think the actual broadcasting is done by
> somebody else too, so I wonder what we're really paying for.

That was because the government told them to contract out production of
programmes. Seemed to be cases where people took retirement /
redundancy and carried on making the same programmes using their own
production company.

I doubt that any money was saved whatever the anti-BBC brigade claim.