In message <tqjg3a$34pj8$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> writes
>On 22/01/2023 13:36, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>
>> On 22/01/2023 in message <tqjcmn$3493d$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 22/01/2023 08:24, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Lawyer is meaningless.
>>>
>>> If it's meaningless, then how come others have been able to quote
>>>its dictionary definition at you?  I do so again:
>>>
>>> lawyer
>>> noun
>>> noun: lawyer; plural noun: lawyers
>>>
>>> a person who practises or studies law, especially (in the UK) a
>>>solicitor or a barrister or (in the US) an attorney.
>>>
>>> So it's a generic term, the exact meaning of which can depend on its
>>>context, and my use of it in IANAL was entirely appropriate.
>> Did you forget the space between "I" and "ANAL"?
>
>Nyah! Nyah! Nyah!
>
>> I know you are not a "Lawyer" because of your replies and the fact
>>there is no such qualification in the UK.
>
>I wasn't referring to a qualification, merely using a generic term to
>describe any of several possible professions.
>
If 'singer' is a generic term for someone who engages in singing, why
can't 'lawyer' be a generic term for someone who is concerned with the
law?
--
Ian

On 21/01/2023 16:24, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 21/01/2023 in message <tqh2ta$2llac$1@dont-email.me> Tweed wrote:
>
>> Here’s what the general population think
>>
>> https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/is-the-bbc-more-favourable-towards-labour-the-left-or-the-conservatives-the-right
>
> Interesting, probably reflects the insidious socialist propaganda
> machine that is out in force.
>

I looked at the chart, and couldn't tell all the colours apart. But they
let you pull down the data:

Is generally much more favourable
towards Labour and/or the left 12%

Is generally a little more favourable
towards Labour and/or the left 10%

Is generally neutral 27%

Is generally a little more favourable
Conservatives and/or the right 11%

Is generally much more favourable
Conservatives and/or the right 7%

Don't know 32%

That's 32% think biassed Toward labour, and 18% towards Con.

Mind, I read the Torygraph every week for balance, and even _They_ don't
like the Tories much these days!

Andy.

In article <tqjqre$362lu$3@dont-email.me>,
Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 21/01/2023 16:24, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> > On 21/01/2023 in message <tqh2ta$2llac$1@dont-email.me> Tweed wrote:
> >
> >> Here‘s what the general population think
> >>

> >> https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/is-the-bbc-more-favourable-towards-labour-the-left-or-the-conservatives-the-right

Anyone believe yougov polls. Well, I suppose someone must.

> Mind, I read the Torygraph every week for balance, and even _They_
> don't like the Tories much these days!

That's likely because there are no tories anymore. There are a bunch
of WEF puppets who have wrecked everything and seem to have no clue
how to fix a single thing. They are sticking with net-zero despite
the facts that all it can achieve is more poverty, cold homes and
death. Such is their unbelievable incompetence some are asking if
it's deliberate.

Bob.

On 22/01/2023 15:40, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> In message <tqjg3a$34pj8$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
> <java@evij.com.invalid> writes
>>
>> On 22/01/2023 13:36, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>
>>> I know you are not a "Lawyer" because of your replies and the fact
>>> there  is no such qualification in the UK.
>>
>> I wasn't referring to a qualification, merely using a generic term to
>> describe any of several possible professions.
>
> If 'singer' is a generic term for someone who engages in singing, why
> can't 'lawyer' be a generic term for someone who is concerned with the law?

Exactly, of course it can be used in that way, and in this country
that's probably its most common usage. The problem here is not
etymology or usage, but merely that Jeff Gaines can't bring himself to
admit that he's lost an argument, nor follow the usual advice to someone
who's in a hole: Stop digging!

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 22/01/2023 17:51, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <tqjqre$362lu$3@dont-email.me>,
> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 21/01/2023 16:24, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>> On 21/01/2023 in message <tqh2ta$2llac$1@dont-email.me> Tweed wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here‘s what the general population think
>>>>
>
>>>> https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/is-the-bbc-more-favourable-towards-labour-the-left-or-the-conservatives-the-right
>
> Anyone believe yougov polls. Well, I suppose someone must.

TRANSLATION: The results don't agree with my entrenched world view, so
I choose to ignore them rather than learn from them.

>> Mind, I read the Torygraph every week for balance, and even _They_
>> don't like the Tories much these days!
>
> That's likely because there are no tories anymore. There are a bunch
> of WEF puppets who have wrecked everything and seem to have no clue
> how to fix a single thing. They are sticking with net-zero despite
> the facts that all it can achieve is more poverty, cold homes and
> death. Such is their unbelievable incompetence some are asking if
> it's deliberate.

TRANSLATION: I can't bear to be reminded that I voted for them.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 22/01/2023 in message <tqju7q$3738k$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:

>>If 'singer' is a generic term for someone who engages in singing, why
>>can't 'lawyer' be a generic term for someone who is concerned with the
>>law?
>
>Exactly, of course it can be used in that way, and in this country that's
>probably its most common usage. The problem here is not etymology or
>usage, but merely that Jeff Gaines can't bring himself to admit that he's
>lost an argument, nor follow the usual advice to someone who's in a hole:
>Stop digging!

Bit confused, what argument?

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Every day is a good day for chicken, unless you're a chicken.

On 21/01/2023 11:02 am, Wilf wrote:

> On 21/01/2023 at 08:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>
>> Has anybody here ever had a complaint about the BBC upheld? Christian
>> Fraser said on a news programme a few days ago that the UK doesn't have a
>> constitution. I complained and pointed out we are one of the oldest
>> democracies in the world, that we house the Mother of Parliaments, and
>> our
>> constitution is one of the oldest in the world. I got the usual bland
>> reply telling me they had watched a recording and then tried to put it
>> into a context where it would be a true statement, although they didn't
>> deny it was what he said.
>>
>> The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
>>
>
> And that's a reason for destroying a world-recognised and acclaimed
> British institution?

The BBC can't be "sold off" because it doesn't belong to the state.

It is a private organisation with unbelievably wide and unjustifiable
legal privileges.

The main one of those is that it is entitled to have £159 a year out of
the pockets of those who watch TV, irrespective of whether they watch,
or even want to watch, the BBC's output. Imagine the furore if it were
proposed that The Sun or the Daily Telegraph should have an analogous
privilege.

The BBC needs to be stripped of the ability to pick pockets and should
sink or swim on its own merits. If it's as great as its supporters claim
(and I do not claim that it is not excellent), it will have no
difficulty in raising revenue via voluntary subscription.

Anyone opposing that is actually admitting that people are being forced
to pay for what they don't want (the BBC). And there can be no
justification for that. Those who want to pay Amazon, Netflix, Disney+,
etc, and to watch ITV, C4 and C5 free of charge, should be allowed to do
so without being forced to subsidise the preferences of others as a
condition of consuming their own choice(s) of provider.

On 21/01/2023 11:19 am, Scott wrote:
> On 21 Jan 2023 11:12:37 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 21/01/2023 in message <tqggoh$2ilrk$1@dont-email.me> Wilf wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/01/2023 at 08:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Has anybody here ever had a complaint about the BBC upheld? Christian
>>>> Fraser said on a news programme a few days ago that the UK doesn't have a
>>>> constitution. I complained and pointed out we are one of the oldest
>>>> democracies in the world, that we house the Mother of Parliaments, and our
>>>> constitution is one of the oldest in the world. I got the usual bland
>>>> reply telling me they had watched a recording and then tried to put it
>>>> into a context where it would be a true statement, although they didn't
>>>> deny it was what he said.
>>>>
>>>> The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And that's a reason for destroying a world-recognised and acclaimed
>>> British institution?
>>
>> One of many, many reasons. It's lack of impartiality being the main one,
>> if it leant any further to the left it would fall over.
>
> Selective reporting
> Cult of the personality
> Populist presentational style
>
> I believe in plurality of sources but I wouldn't abolish the BBC
> though.

Neither would I.

Just the compulsory nature of the BBC subscription.

In article <k37dgvFmegtU1@mid.individual.net>,
JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:

> The BBC can't be "sold off" because it doesn't belong to the state.

> It is a private organisation with unbelievably wide and
> unjustifiable legal privileges.

> The main one of those is that it is entitled to have £159 a year
> out of the pockets of those who watch TV, irrespective of whether
> they watch, or even want to watch, the BBC's output. Imagine the
> furore if it were proposed that The Sun or the Daily Telegraph
> should have an analogous privilege.

> The BBC needs to be stripped of the ability to pick pockets and
> should sink or swim on its own merits. If it's as great as its
> supporters claim (and I do not claim that it is not excellent), it
> will have no difficulty in raising revenue via voluntary
> subscription.

> Anyone opposing that is actually admitting that people are being
> forced to pay for what they don't want (the BBC). And there can be
> no justification for that. Those who want to pay Amazon, Netflix,
> Disney+, etc, and to watch ITV, C4 and C5 free of charge, should be
> allowed to do so without being forced to subsidise the preferences
> of others as a condition of consuming their own choice(s) of
> provider.

Thank you.

A well written solid argument.
+1

Bob.

On 23/01/2023 12:41, JNugent wrote:
> On 21/01/2023 11:19 am, Scott wrote:
>> On 21 Jan 2023 11:12:37 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/01/2023 in message <tqggoh$2ilrk$1@dont-email.me> Wilf wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 21/01/2023 at 08:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Has anybody here ever had a complaint about the BBC upheld? Christian
>>>>> Fraser said on a news programme a few days ago that the UK doesn't
>>>>> have a
>>>>> constitution. I complained and pointed out we are one of the oldest
>>>>> democracies in the world, that we house the Mother of Parliaments,
>>>>> and our
>>>>> constitution is one of the oldest in the world. I got the usual bland
>>>>> reply telling me they had watched a recording and then tried to put it
>>>>> into a context where it would be a true statement, although they
>>>>> didn't
>>>>> deny it was what he said.
>>>>>
>>>>> The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And that's a reason for destroying a world-recognised and acclaimed
>>>> British institution?
>>>
>>> One of many, many reasons. It's lack of impartiality being the main one,
>>> if it leant any further to the left it would fall over.
>>
>> Selective reporting
>> Cult of the personality
>> Populist presentational style
>>
>> I believe in plurality of sources but I wouldn't abolish the BBC
>> though.
>
> Neither would I.
>
> Just the compulsory nature of the BBC subscription.

As I don't watch adverts, can I deduct the cost of advertising from the
goods that I buy?

Phil M

In article <k37djrFmegtU2@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
> On 21/01/2023 11:19 am, Scott wrote:
> > On 21 Jan 2023 11:12:37 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 21/01/2023 in message <tqggoh$2ilrk$1@dont-email.me> Wilf wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 21/01/2023 at 08:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Has anybody here ever had a complaint about the BBC upheld?
> >>>> Christian Fraser said on a news programme a few days ago that the UK
> >>>> doesn't have a constitution. I complained and pointed out we are one
> >>>> of the oldest democracies in the world, that we house the Mother of
> >>>> Parliaments, and our constitution is one of the oldest in the world.
> >>>> I got the usual bland reply telling me they had watched a recording
> >>>> and then tried to put it into a context where it would be a true
> >>>> statement, although they didn't deny it was what he said.
> >>>>
> >>>> The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> And that's a reason for destroying a world-recognised and acclaimed
> >>> British institution?
> >>
> >> One of many, many reasons. It's lack of impartiality being the main
> >> one, if it leant any further to the left it would fall over.
> >
> > Selective reporting Cult of the personality Populist presentational
> > style
> >
> > I believe in plurality of sources but I wouldn't abolish the BBC though.

> Neither would I.

> Just the compulsory nature of the BBC subscription.

The "Compulsory BBC Subscription" is the result of Parliament, not the BBC
itself.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 23/01/2023 at 14:29, Phil_M wrote:
> As I don't watch adverts, can I deduct the cost of advertising from the
> goods that I buy?
>

Good one.

--
Wilf

On 23/01/2023 02:29 pm, Phil_M wrote:
> On 23/01/2023 12:41, JNugent wrote:
>> On 21/01/2023 11:19 am, Scott wrote:
>>> On 21 Jan 2023 11:12:37 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 21/01/2023 in message <tqggoh$2ilrk$1@dont-email.me> Wilf wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 21/01/2023 at 08:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Has anybody here ever had a complaint about the BBC upheld? Christian
>>>>>> Fraser said on a news programme a few days ago that the UK doesn't
>>>>>> have a
>>>>>> constitution. I complained and pointed out we are one of the oldest
>>>>>> democracies in the world, that we house the Mother of Parliaments,
>>>>>> and our
>>>>>> constitution is one of the oldest in the world. I got the usual bland
>>>>>> reply telling me they had watched a recording and then tried to
>>>>>> put it
>>>>>> into a context where it would be a true statement, although they
>>>>>> didn't
>>>>>> deny it was what he said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And that's a reason for destroying a world-recognised and acclaimed
>>>>> British institution?
>>>>
>>>> One of many, many reasons. It's lack of impartiality being the main
>>>> one,
>>>> if it leant any further to the left it would fall over.
>>>
>>> Selective reporting
>>> Cult of the personality
>>> Populist presentational style
>>>
>>> I believe in plurality of sources but I wouldn't abolish the BBC
>>> though.
>>
>> Neither would I.
>>
>> Just the compulsory nature of the BBC subscription.
>
> As I don't watch adverts, can I deduct the cost of advertising from the
> goods that I buy?

What "cost" do you incur in not watching... well... anything, really?

On 23/01/2023 03:12 pm, charles wrote:

> JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
>> Scott wrote:
>>> "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>> On 21/01/2023 in message <tqggoh$2ilrk$1@dont-email.me> Wilf wrote:
>>>>> On 21/01/2023 at 08:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
>>>>>> Has anybody here ever had a complaint about the BBC upheld?
>>>>>> Christian Fraser said on a news programme a few days ago that the UK
>>>>>> doesn't have a constitution. I complained and pointed out we are one
>>>>>> of the oldest democracies in the world, that we house the Mother of
>>>>>> Parliaments, and our constitution is one of the oldest in the world.
>>>>>> I got the usual bland reply telling me they had watched a recording
>>>>>> and then tried to put it into a context where it would be a true
>>>>>> statement, although they didn't deny it was what he said.
>>>>>> The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
>
>>>>> And that's a reason for destroying a world-recognised and acclaimed
>>>>> British institution?
>
>>>> One of many, many reasons. It's lack of impartiality being the main
>>>> one, if it leant any further to the left it would fall over.

>>> Selective reporting Cult of the personality Populist presentational
>>> style
>>> I believe in plurality of sources but I wouldn't abolish the BBC though.

>> Neither would I.
>> Just the compulsory nature of the BBC subscription.
>
> The "Compulsory BBC Subscription" is the result of Parliament, not the BBC
> itself.

The BBC is the loudest voice in support of the £159 a year (current
price) pick-pocketing scheme (which ought to have been abolished with
effect from September 1955 when they gained a competitor). The BBC even
makes and shows propaganda adverts in favour of its "licence".

Whereas at one time, it was the GPO which handled the BBC Tax, nowadays
it is purely the Beeb "TV Licensing" is a brand-name of the BBC.

There is no reason why anyone should have to pay £159 to the BBC in
order to be allowed to watch a programme on Sky Arts or Channel Five.

On 23/01/2023 03:55 pm, Wilf wrote:

> On 23/01/2023 at 14:29, Phil_M wrote:

>> As I don't watch adverts, can I deduct the cost of advertising from the
>> goods that I buy?

> Good one.

What cost is he talking about?

On 21/01/2023 02:26 pm, Phil_M wrote:
> On 21/01/2023 11:12, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>> On 21/01/2023 in message <tqggoh$2ilrk$1@dont-email.me> Wilf wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/01/2023 at 08:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Has anybody here ever had a complaint about the BBC upheld? Christian
>>>> Fraser said on a news programme a few days ago that the UK doesn't
>>>> have a
>>>> constitution. I complained and pointed out we are one of the oldest
>>>> democracies in the world, that we house the Mother of Parliaments,
>>>> and our
>>>> constitution is one of the oldest in the world. I got the usual bland
>>>> reply telling me they had watched a recording and then tried to put it
>>>> into a context where it would be a true statement, although they didn't
>>>> deny it was what he said.
>>>>
>>>> The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And that's a reason for destroying a world-recognised and acclaimed
>>> British institution?
>>
>> One of many, many reasons. It's lack of impartiality being the main
>> one, if it leant any further to the left it would fall over.
>>
> There was a complaint recently that it was too far to the right, though
> it was probably in a left of centre newspaper.
>
Complaints that the BBC (the BBC!) is biased to the right are not credible.

They'll be written in green ink by someone living in a Commercial Road
bedsit, a Stockwell council flat or something similar

On 23/01/2023 16:21, JNugent wrote:
> What cost is he talking about?

When he buys a product that was advertised on TV, but he did not buy it
after seeing the advert, he would like to be refunded the subsidy made
to ITV, UK TV, etc, that is included in the price of the product and
went towards providing him with free of charge programmes.

He's basically saying that advertising supported TV involves taking
payments from the public for things they may not have wanted to pay for.

The logic works a bit better, if the advert wasn't on a channel he
watched, as then he doesn't even get the benefit of TV service for the
premium he is paying for the product.

On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 11:22:45 +0000
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:

> On 21/01/2023 11:14, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> >
> > We don't have a written constitution but we certainly have a
> > constitution, which is evidenced in writing in many ways.
>
> As already explained to you, we don't have a constitution because no-one
> can define unambiguously what it is. You are welcome to try to define
> it, but I bet you can't come up with a definition that is both
> unambiguous and widely agreed upon.
>

I respecfully disagree. We do have a constitution. It has three components:

a) The common law
b) Legislation passed through parliament and approved by the sovreign
c) Precedents established by the judges.
These are tiered.
Those of a lower court are not binding on a superior court but not vice versa.

Regards, Alan

> --
>
> Fake news kills!
>
> I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
> www.macfh.co.uk

--
Mint 20.3, kernel 5.4.0-136-generic, Cinnamon 5.2.7
running on an AMD Phenom II X4 Black edition processor with 16GB of DRAM.

On 21/01/2023 05:29 pm, Tweed wrote:
> Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
>> On 21/01/2023 in message <tqh2ff$2lio0$1@dont-email.me> Tweed wrote:
>>
>>> Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>> On 21/01/2023 in message <tqghj0$2iqgn$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
>>>>>
>>>>> The sooner you understand the British system of government the better.
>>>>
>>>> You have said you are not a "lawyer" (which is an American qualification,
>>>> doesn't exist in the UK) and boy does it show.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think you will find the Law Society of England and Wales refers to
>>> lawyers, as does the Crown Prosecution Service. Solicitors and Barristers
>>> are specialised sub groupings.
>>
>> Creeping Americanism, standards are falling everywhere.
>>
>
> The word lawyer has been around since the 14th century, somewhat before
> America was discovered.

Indeed, and:

Shakespeare:
**********************************
Comedy of Errors (c. 1592); CE V.i.100

[Adriana to Abbess]

I ... will have no attorney but myself

***********************************
Richard II (c. 1595); II.i.203

[York to King Richard, of Hereford]

Call in the letters patents that he hath
By his attorneys general to sue

**********************************
As You Like it (c. 1599); IV.i.85

[Rosalind as Ganymede to Orlando]

....die by attorney...

**********************************
Richard III (c. 1593); V.iii.84

[Derby to Richmond]

I, by attorney, bless thee from thy mother

**********************************
And perhaps best of all:

Henry VI, Part 2 (c. 1592) Act IV, Scene 2

[Dick to Jack Cade]

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

**********************************

On 21/01/2023 11:18 pm, MB wrote:

> On 21/01/2023 16:44, Scott wrote:

>> An added factor you appear to be overlooking is the effect of
>> devolution in Scotland and Wales.
>
> What effect?  Both have their own channels opting out from network. They
> do not make as many programmes as the national networks but that is to
> be expected with their smaller size and so smaller licence income.

They don't have ANY income direct from "licence income".

That all goes to the BBC's head office and is doled out to its regional
and local outposts (including local radio) by that head office. It is
possible that HQ might allocate "the licence fee collected in respect of
postcodes XXXXX to ZZZZZ", but that would still be a HQ decision and
allocation.

> The Scottish commercial TV channel seem to produce even fewer programmes
> for local viewing.

I expect the STV / Grampian produce as much local news and news
magazine-type programming as any English former franchise area (eg,
Anglia, Meridian, Tyne-Tees) does, plus in the case of STV from time to
time, a bit of stuff for the network ("Taggart" is the most obvious of
those over the years).

The same will be true of the former HTV's Welsh studios.

On 23/01/2023 17:47, pinnerite wrote:
>
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 11:22:45 +0000
>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> As already explained to you, we don't have a constitution because no-one
>> can define unambiguously what it is. You are welcome to try to define
>> it, but I bet you can't come up with a definition that is both
>> unambiguous and widely agreed upon.
>
> I respecfully disagree. We do have a constitution. It has three components:
>
> a) The common law
> b) Legislation passed through parliament and approved by the sovreign
> c) Precedents established by the judges.
> These are tiered.
> Those of a lower court are not binding on a superior court but not vice versa.

Your definition suffers from the same sorts of ambiguities as both my
original suggested definition and the 'official' definition which I
linked in my first post in this thread.

>> --
>>
>> Fake news kills!
>>
>> I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
>> www.macfh.co.uk
Your newsgroup software has erroneously included my sig in your reply,
this is something that perhaps you may like to fix.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 14:29:39 +0000, Phil_M <notused@freenet.co.uk>
wrote:

>>> I believe in plurality of sources but I wouldn't abolish the BBC
>>> though.
>>
>> Neither would I.
>>
>> Just the compulsory nature of the BBC subscription.
>
>As I don't watch adverts, can I deduct the cost of advertising from the
>goods that I buy?

You can choose which goods to buy, either expensive well advertised
ones or cheaper ones. You don't have to pay a fee to one vendor to be
allowed to buy goods from any of the others.

Rod.

On 22/01/2023 11:48 am, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> On Sunday, 22 January 2023 at 10:00:18 UTC, Scott wrote:
>> On 21 Jan 2023 21:02:04 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgne...@outlook.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On 21/01/2023 in message <tqh7i1$2me1r$1...@dont-email.me> Tweed wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> You sure you are not thinking of 'attorney'?
>>>>>
>>>>> No. In the UK we have solicitors and barristers so "lawyer" gives no
>>>>> indication of the qualifications or role of a person.
>>>>>
>>>> Solicitors and barristers are sub groups of lawyers. There are other groups
>>>> who are neither but are still lawyers. Lawyer is an umbrella term.
>>>
>>> The umbrella term in the UK was always "the legal profession". I'd be
>>> interested to know what the "other groups" are.
>> Professors of Law?
>
> Some are qualified as solicitors - e.g. [Prof. E. Rex Makin, who even acted for me once] - others are not.

Where he hold the Chair?

Liverpool University? Liverpool John Moores University?

On 22/01/2023 12:44 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 22/01/2023 08:22, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>
>> On 21/01/2023 in message <tqhrjq$2pk4e$1@dont-email.me> MB wrote:
>>>
>>> I looked in the OED and did not see any suggestion that either LAWYER
>>> or ATTORNEY are Americanisms.  They might have slightly different
>>> meanings there but they have history of use in English.
>
> Quite, and that is the pertinent point.
>
>> Lawyer is an American qualification, in England the equivalents are
>> Solicitor and Barrister.
>
> As the person originally childishly criticised by you because of my use
> of the well-known internet acronym IANAL, I can quite categorically
> state that I wasn't referring to any particular legal qualification, and
> neither is the term particularly associated with any one nation or
> national legal system.  For example, the search terms "American" and
> "United States" both get zero hits on this page:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IANAL
>
> Now shut the fuck up and stop behaving like a stubborn child.

Such intelligent and witty repartee...

On 22/01/2023 12:58 pm, Scott wrote:

> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>> On 22/01/2023 09:59, Scott wrote:
>>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Scott wrote:
>>>>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> ote:
>>>>>> On 21/01/2023 19:09, Scott wrote:
>>>>>>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Scott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>> Question for you the - please tell me what the common law is.
>
>>>>>>>> It's explained in the link I've already given, that's why I gave it.
>
>>>>>>> No, your link tells me how it operates not what it is.
>
>>>>>> "The common law is the law declared by judges, derived from custom and
>>>>>> precedent. It originated with the legal reforms of King Henry II in the
>>>>>> 12th century and was called “common” because it applied equally across
>>>>>> the whole country."
>>>>>> Seems clear enough to me.
>
>>>>> Not to me. I don't see how this differs from the constitution, which
>>>>> is equally derived from custom and precedent and applies equally
>>>>> across the country. It may have originated in a different century but
>>>>> this does not alter the principle.
>
>>>> The so-called constitution has not yet been defined in unambiguous and
>>>> exact terms in the way Common Law has above.
>
>>> Which is entirely different from saying we don't have a constitution.
>
>> I repeat my original question: "How can you claim we have something that
>> we cannot even define?"
>
>>> There are two views whether an 'unwritten' constitution is a
>>> constitution. Yours and mine obviously differ.
>
>> It's not the fact that it's unwritten, it's the fact that it's undefined.
>
> I think we can just respectfully disagree on that.

You might be able to do that.

It is doubtful that the other chap is capable of it.