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.

On 22/07/2021 05:58 pm, Java Jive wrote:

> On 22/07/2021 16:21, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> But OTOH, the BBC *is* reported to be investigating reported
>> misconduct by their "TV Licensing" minions when dealing with the
>> public, especially vulnerable members of the public.
>
> No, this is just more no-gent(-leman) bullshit.  Firstly, you accused
> them of being BBC minions *before* you knew that the BBC themselves had
> been investigating them,

What difference does that make?

What difference *could* that make?

> because that information came from the link I
> gave up thread debunking that original lie, and that link clearly shows
> that it was NOT TV Licensing minions that were being investigated, it
> was Capita minions, and they are a different company, and that is why
> you are and were wrong to call them BBC minions, which, as everyone here
> knows, you only did out of your well-documented bigoted spite against
> the BBC anyway.
>
>> I'm not a bog fan of "no smoke without fire", but I don't think the
>> BBC would even investigate if they weren't of the prima facie view
>> that there was a problem.
>
> Again reread the link. Then 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.

"TV Licensing" is a creature of the BBC (it owns the trading name, for
Gawd's sake!) and those working in it are minions of the BBC. Theyre
either working to collect money for the BBC or they're not, and we all
know which of those it is.

Obviously, you find that distasteful and it's only natural that you wish
it were not so.

But it *is* so and your ranting and raving doesn't change that.

On 22/07/2021 19:49, JNugent wrote:
>
> Dear, oh dear...
>
> Tut tut!
>
> Do at least *try* to keep that nasty temper of yours under control.

All this nonsense is still just a continuation of your attempt to move
the goalposts away from your original erroneous claim that the
contractors', Capita's, staff are "BBC minion"s.

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 22/07/2021 08:11 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 22/07/2021 19:49, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> Dear, oh dear...
>>
>> Tut tut!
>>
>> Do at least *try* to keep that nasty temper of yours under control.
>
> All this nonsense is still just a continuation of your attempt to move
> the goalposts away from your original erroneous claim that the
> contractors', Capita's, staff are "BBC minion"s.
>
> 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.

I've already *told* you about that nasty temper of yours.

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.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 22/07/2021 20:04, JNugent wrote:
> On 22/07/2021 05:58 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>
>> On 22/07/2021 16:21, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>> But OTOH, the BBC *is* reported to be investigating reported
>>> misconduct by their "TV Licensing" minions when dealing with the
>>> public, especially vulnerable members of the public.
>>
>> No, this is just more no-gent(-leman) bullshit.  Firstly, you accused
>> them of being BBC minions *before* you knew that the BBC themselves
>> had been investigating them,
>
> What difference does that make?
>
> What difference *could* that make?

It means that you can't use the BBC investigating misconduct by Capita's
operatives as an excuse to call them "BBC minion"s, because you didn't
know about it at the time you did so, and you can't continue to do so
now because it has been proven to you that they work for Capita, a
completely different firm. Therefore that you continue in this factual
error merely proves again what everyone here already knows, that you are
a bigoted bag of shit.

> "TV Licensing" is a creature of the BBC (it owns the trading name, for
> Gawd's sake!) and those working in it are minions of the BBC. Theyre
> either working to collect money for the BBC or they're not, and we all
> know which of those it is.

But Capita are not, they are an independent firm, and it was their
staff, not BBC staff, that were the subject of investigation, so your
jibe up thread which you have restated immediately above has no possible
justification.

> But it *is* so and your ranting and raving doesn't change that.

It is *NOT* so and your puerile stubbornness in refusing to admit when
you are wrong doesn't alter the actual facts. 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 22/07/2021 20:23, JNugent wrote:
>
> [the usual childish bollocks]
All this nonsense is still just a continuation of your attempt to move
the goalposts away from your original erroneous claim that the
contractors', Capita's, staff are "BBC minion"s.

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 Thu, 22 Jul 2021 16:18:55 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

>On 22/07/2021 03:25 pm, Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> NY wrote:
>>
>>> What is the exact law nowadays?
>>
>> I think everything via iPlayer requires a licence, from UKSI 2016/704
>> explanatory notes
>>
>> "These Regulations amend existing legislation so that, as well as for
>> receiving live programmes, a TV licence is required to stream or
>> download any programmes in an on-demand programme service provided by
>> the BBC (such as the iPlayer)."
>
>ISTR that it was one of the changes that came in just a few years ago
>when the BBC also undertook to finance the free TV licence for those
>aged over a certain age (80? 85?).
>
>I wonder, in the light of the BBC's subsequent welshing on that deal,
>many people will feel under any compulsion to comply with the other side
>of it?

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.

Rather than having no licence and being pestered by Capita I think a
b&w licence will keep them happy.

--
brightside S9

BrightsideS9 <reply_to_address_is_not@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 16:18:55 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
> wrote:
>
>> On 22/07/2021 03:25 pm, Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>>> NY wrote:
>>>
>>>> What is the exact law nowadays?
>>>
>>> I think everything via iPlayer requires a licence, from UKSI 2016/704
>>> explanatory notes
>>>
>>> "These Regulations amend existing legislation so that, as well as for
>>> receiving live programmes, a TV licence is required to stream or
>>> download any programmes in an on-demand programme service provided by
>>> the BBC (such as the iPlayer)."
>>
>> ISTR that it was one of the changes that came in just a few years ago
>> when the BBC also undertook to finance the free TV licence for those
>> aged over a certain age (80? 85?).
>>
>> I wonder, in the light of the BBC's subsequent welshing on that deal,
>> many people will feel under any compulsion to comply with the other side
>> of it?
>
>
> 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.
>
> Rather than having no licence and being pestered by Capita I think a
> b&w licence will keep them happy.
>

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%)

On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 15:16:40 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

>What is the exact law nowadays? Wasn't it a case at one time that watching a
>recording (via iPlayer) did not need a licence whereas watching as broadcast
>did need a licence. That always seemed a nit-picking distinction.

You need a licence to watch any streamed material via iPlayer, but you
don't need one to stream anything else, even including BBC material as
long as it's on any other service than iPlayer. Yes, it's nit-picking
in the extreme, and some of the anomalies it creates are beyond logic.
Sometimes a programme will be available on both iPlayer and one of the
other streaming services,e.g. Amazon or Netflix, and one will be legal
to watch without a licence and the other not, even though it's the
same programme.

Rod.

On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 12:46:14 +0100, David Woolley
<david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:

>On 21/07/2021 19:15, NY wrote:
>> The problem would be finding a set top box that has is old enough to
>> have an (analogue) RF output, or a B&W TV that is new enough that it has
>> a SCART (analogue) or HDMI (digital) input.
>
>I've used a Humax PVR (in real time mode) with an analogue monochrome
>monitor, and done so in anger, when my colour set broke, until I
>organised a replacement. I used SCART out to BNC in. (The audio always
>goes through the Hifi amp and speakers.)
>
>I do and did have a fully paid up, colour, licence.
>
>I don't think the amber phosphor made it a colour monitor!

I've made SCART to BNC adaptors too, sometimes as a cable, and
sometimes with a BNC socket mounted directly in the back. In fact I
still have one of the latter with a little 12V keyfob battery inside
connected to whichever pin it was (pin 8?) that will force a monitor
to select that particular input. (Useful if a monitor or TV has to be
used as a practical display but nobody can find the remote).

Say what you will about the design of the SCART connector (and there's
plenty to say) it was big enough to permit oldfashioned bodgery like
this, and the cable grip was just fine for standard video co-ax.

Rod.

In article <sd96f3$v94$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:

> Thus they are not *independent* contractors. Although the staff are
> employed and managed by the contractor, what they actually do under the
> heading "TV Licensing" is supposed to be wholly defined in the contract
> terms, and the BBC retains overall responsibility for what they do.

> That said, without seeing the contract, I have no way of telling whether
> the role really is wholly defined, but any ambiguity or shortfall
> remains the responsibility of the BBC.

This argument sums up quite nicely why the way 'public' bodies like the
BBC, NHS, Probation Services, Test and Trace, etc, suffer because
Government obsesses about pushing them to 'outsource' things to *private*
contractors who specialise in 'outsourcing'.

Such 'outsourcing'companies then play piggie-in-the middle to squeeze a
profit by hiring incompetents they over-load and eho duly act in a
'jobsworth' manner. Harming both the end user/customer and those who they
provide the 'outsourcing' for. i.e. they make their money from us, by
failing both us and the bodies that need to hire them.

The nastiest example of this is the rigermole the NHS get put though.
Where, for example, pay for direct-employed nurses is held down, causing
many to quit their 'NHS' job *only to come back with better terms and
conditions and pay as a 'outsourced' worker*. Thus costing the NHS far more
per nurse-hour because of that *and* the added charges creamed off by the
outsourcing company.

Perhaps if the outsourcing companies fed less money and power back to key
politicians who enable this to occur we could get rid of it, and then
funding 'public' organisations could be run without the flawed middlemen.
Perhaps even nurses and other directly-employed 'public' sector workers
could be better paid, we could have more of them, etc, at *lower* cost to
the taxpayers.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <ilqrb9Fmh2hU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> The BBC is a public authority in respect of its television licensing
> functions and *retains* *overall* *responsibility*.

Do you think the word "overall" here means they have to wear white coats?
8-]

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 22/07/2021 10:08, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> Perhaps if the outsourcing companies fed less money and power back to key
> politicians who enable this to occur we could get rid of it, and then
> funding 'public' organisations could be run without the flawed middlemen.
> Perhaps even nurses and other directly-employed 'public' sector workers
> could be better paid, we could have more of them, etc, at*lower* cost to
> the taxpayers.

Labour were of course keen on outsourcing in the past, particularly with
the notorious PFI contracts. I remember reading one article that said
the PFI companies could afford good lawyers who wrote contracts to
maximise profits. There were lots of examples of them squeezing more out
of the NHS in this way.

On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 10:09:02 +0100, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:

>In article <ilqrb9Fmh2hU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
><jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> The BBC is a public authority in respect of its television licensing
>> functions and *retains* *overall* *responsibility*.
>
>Do you think the word "overall" here means they have to wear white coats?
>8-]
>
>Jim

Many years ago, as an engineer in TV Centre, we were actually issued
with white coats, two each, free of charge, but I don't recall any
instruction about when or whether we should wear them. They were quite
handy for grubby DIY work at home, but the only time anyone ever wore
one at work was when "borrowing" nice items of furniture from the
sixth floor for our workshop. In a large corporate environment a white
coat, especially if there are two of you wearing them and walking in a
purposeful manner, could be effectively a free all-areas pass, and
you could help yourself to anything, including, for example, sofas.
(Just saying...)

Rod.

On 22/07/2021 10:09 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <ilqrb9Fmh2hU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> The BBC is a public authority in respect of its television licensing
>> functions and *retains* *overall* *responsibility*.
>
> Do you think the word "overall" here means they have to wear white coats?
> 8-]
>
> Jim

Hmmm... I thought they had to wear evening dress to read the news...?

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.

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).

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.

On 22/07/2021 08:42 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 22/07/2021 20:04, JNugent wrote:
>> On 22/07/2021 05:58 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>>> On 22/07/2021 16:21, JNugent wrote:
>>>>
>>>> But OTOH, the BBC *is* reported to be investigating reported
>>>> misconduct by their "TV Licensing" minions when dealing with the
>>>> public, especially vulnerable members of the public.
>>>
>>> No, this is just more no-gent(-leman) bullshit.  Firstly, you accused
>>> them of being BBC minions *before* you knew that the BBC themselves
>>> had been investigating them,
>>
>> What difference does that make?
>> What difference *could* that make?
>
> It means that you can't use the BBC investigating misconduct by Capita's
> operatives as an excuse to call them "BBC minion"s, because you didn't
> know about it at the time you did so, and you can't continue to do so
> now because it has been proven to you that they work for Capita, a
> completely different firm.  Therefore that you continue in this factual
> error merely proves again what everyone here already knows, that you are
> a bigoted bag of shit.

The people operating as "TV Licensing" ARE BBC minions. How could they
not be? "TV Licensing" is a wholly-owned trademark of the BBC!

>> "TV Licensing" is a creature of the BBC (it owns the trading name, for
>> Gawd's sake!) and those working in it are minions of the BBC. Theyre
>> either working to collect money for the BBC or they're not, and we all
>> know which of those it is.
>
> But Capita are not, they are an independent firm, and it was their
> staff, not BBC staff, that were the subject of investigation, so your
> jibe up thread which you have restated immediately above has no possible
> justification.

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.

>> But it *is* so and your ranting and raving doesn't change that.
>
> It is *NOT* so and your puerile stubbornness in refusing to admit when
> you are wrong doesn't alter the actual facts.  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.

Calm down, lad.

You'll do yourself a mischief.

On 23/07/2021 08:26 am, BrightsideS9 wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 16:18:55 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
> wrote:
>
>> On 22/07/2021 03:25 pm, Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>>> NY wrote:
>>>
>>>> What is the exact law nowadays?
>>>
>>> I think everything via iPlayer requires a licence, from UKSI 2016/704
>>> explanatory notes
>>>
>>> "These Regulations amend existing legislation so that, as well as for
>>> receiving live programmes, a TV licence is required to stream or
>>> download any programmes in an on-demand programme service provided by
>>> the BBC (such as the iPlayer)."
>>
>> ISTR that it was one of the changes that came in just a few years ago
>> when the BBC also undertook to finance the free TV licence for those
>> aged over a certain age (80? 85?).
>>
>> I wonder, in the light of the BBC's subsequent welshing on that deal,
>> many people will feel under any compulsion to comply with the other side
>> of it?
>
> 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).

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

> Rather than having no licence and being pestered by Capita I think a
> b&w licence will keep them happy.

On 23/07/2021 08:56 am, Tweed wrote:
> BrightsideS9 <reply_to_address_is_not@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 16:18:55 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 22/07/2021 03:25 pm, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>
>>>> NY wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What is the exact law nowadays?
>>>>
>>>> I think everything via iPlayer requires a licence, from UKSI 2016/704
>>>> explanatory notes
>>>>
>>>> "These Regulations amend existing legislation so that, as well as for
>>>> receiving live programmes, a TV licence is required to stream or
>>>> download any programmes in an on-demand programme service provided by
>>>> the BBC (such as the iPlayer)."
>>>
>>> ISTR that it was one of the changes that came in just a few years ago
>>> when the BBC also undertook to finance the free TV licence for those
>>> aged over a certain age (80? 85?).
>>>
>>> I wonder, in the light of the BBC's subsequent welshing on that deal,
>>> many people will feel under any compulsion to comply with the other side
>>> of it?
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Rather than having no licence and being pestered by Capita I think a
>> b&w licence will keep them happy.
>>
>
> 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.

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.

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.

> 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.

> 16% of pensioners live in poverty according to ageUK
> around 500,000 pay higher rate (40%)

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).
>
> 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.
>

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. 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. Likewise the blanket winter fuel
allowance. The argument is that some needy pensioners won’t claim it if it
is means tested. However, HMRC already know how much income all pensioners
receive and it’s fairly easy to taper the benefit away over a certain
income, as is done for child benefit.

There’s many more well off pensioners than hard up ones, the precise
numbers depending on your definition of well off and hard up.

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.

On 23/07/2021 11:01, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> Many years ago, as an engineer in TV Centre, we were actually issued
> with white coats, two each, free of charge, but I don't recall any
> instruction about when or whether we should wear them. They were quite
> handy for grubby DIY work at home, but the only time anyone ever wore
> one at work was when "borrowing" nice items of furniture from the
> sixth floor for our workshop. In a large corporate environment a white
> coat, especially if there are two of you wearing them and walking in a
> purposeful manner, could be effectively a free all-areas pass, and
> you could help yourself to anything, including, for example, sofas.
> (Just saying...)

The equivalent of a high-visibility waistcoat or jacket nowadays.
Though not new, years ago, a friend in the SAS told me a couple of them
walked into a NATO POL depot during an exercise, using a yard brush and
high visibiliyy waistcoat as camouflage.

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).
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> 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.

> 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.

> Likewise the blanket winter fuel
> allowance. The argument is that some needy pensioners won’t claim it if it
> is means tested.

I don't know that that's true. I would see the WFA as part of the
Retirement Pension, withheld at so much a week and paid out at a time of
year when the bills ate about to come in.

If it were abolished, the argument for increasing the weekly Pension by
the equivalent £3.85 a week (per household) would be unassailable.

> However, HMRC already know how much income all pensioners
> receive and it’s fairly easy to taper the benefit away over a certain
> income, as is done for child benefit.

The change to Child Benefit was outrageous. When introduced in 1975, its
main purpose was to transform the Income Tax Child Allowance (and the
minor component - Family Allowance) into what looked like a benefit.

What justification is there for withdrawing a tax allowance?

It was never intended as a social security benefit in the first place.

> There’s many more well off pensioners than hard up ones, the precise
> numbers depending on your definition of well off and hard up.
>
> 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. But they keep the
benefit and renege on the costs.

In article <sde9im$7hv$1@dont-email.me>,
MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 23/07/2021 11:01, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> > Many years ago, as an engineer in TV Centre, we were actually issued
> > with white coats, two each, free of charge, but I don't recall any
> > instruction about when or whether we should wear them. They were quite
> > handy for grubby DIY work at home, but the only time anyone ever wore
> > one at work was when "borrowing" nice items of furniture from the
> > sixth floor for our workshop. In a large corporate environment a white
> > coat, especially if there are two of you wearing them and walking in a
> > purposeful manner, could be effectively a free all-areas pass, and
> > you could help yourself to anything, including, for example, sofas.
> > (Just saying...)

> The equivalent of a high-visibility waistcoat or jacket nowadays.
> Though not new, years ago, a friend in the SAS told me a couple of them
> walked into a NATO POL depot during an exercise, using a yard brush and
> high visibiliyy waistcoat as camouflage.

at one time, just a clipboard was enough.

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