gusset Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 Don't you need a licence to watch TV via your PC even if you don't have a TV? not unless you're watching it live. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoony Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 How can you prove you are NOT watching it live? There must be some live UK TV progs on the net or am I incorrect? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godley Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 Question 1Question 2 They are partly to blame, the people who loaned them the money are more culpable imo. This does not make them morons and i have no problem labelling those who would advocate eradicating the financially illiterate (or morons for that matter ) nazis. We agree..........they were to blame at least in part thus making them stupid, therefore they are culpable, therefore do not warrant our pity. Moron is slang for 'a stupid person', choose your own definition for what they are (I guess it would be victim from your perspective) either way we agree on all but the noun. Welcome to the National 'Socialist' German Workers Party. For the record I am a capitalist, something the Nazis particularly laissez-faire capitalism despised but you would have known that given your knowledge of history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deflation Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 How can you prove you are NOT watching it live? There must be some live UK TV progs on the net or am I incorrect? Live or near live needs a licence. There are no mainstream UK broadcasters doing this although some progs available on-line within an hour (iplayer, Ch 4 Ch5 on demand etc.) Interestingly, I watched much of the darts world champs on Ladbroke's own website. They had a near-live feed, good resolution too (Sky feed) but only a quarter screen. Still.... free! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huw Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 How can you prove you are NOT watching it live? There must be some live UK TV progs on the net or am I incorrect? Presumption of innocence ... the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huw Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 Live or near live needs a licence. There are no mainstream UK broadcasters doing this although some progs available on-line within an hour (iplayer, Ch 4 Ch5 on demand etc.) BBC News 24 is streamed live, I believe ... comes up with a warning that you need a license to watch it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellerkat Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 How can you prove you are NOT watching it live? There must be some live UK TV progs on the net or am I incorrect? http://zattoo.com/ - live TV routed through Switzerland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoony Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 Right so isn't MR TV licencing going to claim that you can watch BBC news 24 live on your PC so therefore need a licence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huw Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 Right so isn't MR TV licencing going to claim that you can watch BBC news 24 live on your PC so therefore need a licence? No more than I need a licence for owning a TV (that's not used for watching broadcasts). But I expect they will be coming after broadband subscriptions for a cut of the revenue, as their business model starts to creak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeepLurker Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 The state already interferes in this area -- working couples being priced out of family-homes is a case in point. In general, taking resources off one group of people and handing them to another, will enable the second group to reproduce more, and restrict the reproduction of the first group. Can child benefit be considered a form of eugenics (albeit in reverse)? - normally, 'unsuccessful' members of society have a lower chance of having/bringing up children. - eugenics means that they have no children, period. - child benefit means that they can better afford to bring up children, just like 'successful' members of society. It's just a thought... Don't anybody read too much in to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoony Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 (edited) I'd love to get rid of my TV and just watch tv (not live) on my PC but am not confident that TV licensing will leave me alone. I heard about a guy who took the tuner out of his TV and video and TV Licensing took him to court over it He said that he can't receive TV progs, he just watched videos and tuners had been removed. Court ruled against the man and he got a big fine. Whats to stop that happening again? Edited January 8, 2009 by Spoony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huw Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Can child benefit be considered a form of eugenics (albeit in reverse)?- normally, 'unsuccessful' members of society have a lower chance of having/bringing up children. - eugenics means that they have no children, period. - child benefit means that they can better afford to bring up children, just like 'successful' members of society. It's just a thought... Don't anybody read too much in to it. Eugenics-in-reverse is still eugenics. Any tampering with the reproductive outcomes of different groups of people is a form of eugenics ... in a finite system, you can't hand one group additional reproductive resources without removing those resources from another group. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huw Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 I'd love to get rid of my TV and just watch tv (not live) on my PC but am not confident that TV licensing will leave me alone. I heard about a guy who took the tuner out of his TV and video and TV Licensing took him to court over it He said that he can't receive TV progs, he just watched videos and tuners had been removed. Court ruled against the man and he got a big fine. Whats to stop that happening again? There's plenty of info on the web, eg here. I had a word with TV Licensing when they called me about renewing my previous licence, and they stated I didn't need one for uses other than watching or recording TV (so DVDs or pre-recorded programmes are fine). The Wireless and Telegraphy Act, 1949 "states that you need a licence for any equipment capable of receiving television signals. This means in effect that you don't have to be actually watching television to require a licence; the mere fact that you have a piece of equipment (ie, a tv set) in your home that can, if switched on, receive television signals means that you need a licence; and if you don't pay the Licence Fee you will be prosecuted under criminal law." However this is not what TV Licensing presses for in its communications (nor does it seem to rely on the above Act, instead it refers to the Communications Act, 2003). I'm not sure why this would be, perhaps because it would be tricky to use the 1949 Act to cover the use of streamed internet broadcasts Sadly, you probably will get harassed and/or be bombarded with paper if you don't have a TV Licence, there's a guide to dealing with TVL salespeople here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redcellar Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 lol. Reminds me of the news last night showing the pensioners struggling to pay their heating bill. This old man saying he didn't know how he was going to manage whilst he watched SKY on his enormous plasma TV. You heartless g*t. I mean, maybe he made a conscious decision that SKY was more important than living. We should support these poor souls so they can watch Lost and 24 and then realise life isn't worth living and save the tax payer some benefits and a pension payment. I never understand those news articles myself. I think they are supposed to be an ironic look at a moronity, sorry I mean minority. It's pathetic that the press don't take the real cases of the OAPs who did save and did the right thing and are now right royally shaft** by our pathetic unfair benefits system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Bart' Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Umbrage, editor. Let's keep standards up. God I've made a rod for my own back here haven't I? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1929crash Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 God I've made a rod for my own back here haven't I? And I thought you were talking about the place where The Archers is located. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingsgate Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Bought council house for 40k, took second mortgages to take it to a total of 150kCrash and burn!!! Well, they deserve all they get, then. Even if they have to flog their kids off on Ebay. Tough sh1t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsNoelEdmonds Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Thats what we thought. Maybe there's gold in them there sausages?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xux42 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 That doesn't make them fcuktards, imbeciles, morons.... No, they were fcuktards, imbeciles and morons already. They wanted to play in the big boy room but didn't know how. I couldn't believe that at no point did any of the adults even accept part of the blame. People who can't accept responsibility should not have been sold mortgages and allowed to MEW. End of. A woman prone to panic attacks who steadily increased her debts until they were unservicable. Can anyone else see what's wrong with this picture? Its a shame really, they could have afforded the houses OR the cars, home improvements, TVs, motorhomes, bikes, etc. Now they have neither. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sun n sea Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 In the real world people like Applegarth and Goodwin have evaded all responsibility for their own failures and mistakes- they really DID want to play in the big boys room and look what happened. If Applegarth had run a "normal" business, one where the boss had to hand over personal guarantees to obtain funding then he would today be the UK's biggest bankrupt- instead he's on a big fat f*ck off pension for the rest of his life and sitting pretty. Goodwin is a f*cktard who dumped 100 billion quid on one Dutch bank- if he'd waited 12 months he could have bought just about every bank in the western world and had a few billion in change left over. Not very sharp is he? Can't see why being adult and taking personal responsibility for ones actions should only apply to the poor and not the rich?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
profitofdoom Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Timing is everything - they would roughly have coincided with a) buying first place at approximately the bottom of the last crash, as a homeowner only ever seeing prices rising c) this coinciding with costs of parenthood.always exceptions obviously, but this was obviously the case for the mewers I said to mrs postigol as we watched this last night, that actually we could consider ourselves grateful that we aren't 10 years older - i can see how easy it would have been to be seduced by this. Then i came to my senses and realised that these were the lazy, greedy, money grabbing *****s that have priced us out of the market and had a good laugh at their misfortune. on another note, I'd wager that it is largely this demographic that was responsible for labours last election victory. Pure speculation, but the 3 couples on this show for me did seem to personify new labour: : you can have it all, you’re worth it, live beyond your means. Certainly they seem to typify the “hardworking families” Labour seem so concerned about. Oddly I said to Mrs Profit that all three typified the old Thatcherite model.We had a financial services man,very few of those are Labour voters.An Essex second hand car dealer,well I am one of those (although not Essex) and I can tell you that Labour voters don't exist in that trade.Thirdly we had a Cotswold self-employed,Range Rover driving Horsiculturist almost dead certs to be Countryside Alliance.I would wager all three voted enthuiastically for Baroness Gaga. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 In the real world people like Applegarth and Goodwin have evaded all responsibility for their own failures and mistakes- they really DID want to play in the big boys room and look what happened.If Applegarth had run a "normal" business, one where the boss had to hand over personal guarantees to obtain funding then he would today be the UK's biggest bankrupt- instead he's on a big fat f*ck off pension for the rest of his life and sitting pretty. Goodwin is a f*cktard who dumped 100 billion quid on one Dutch bank- if he'd waited 12 months he could have bought just about every bank in the western world and had a few billion in change left over. Not very sharp is he? Can't see why being adult and taking personal responsibility for ones actions should only apply to the poor and not the rich?! Very good point. However I do not differentiate between Goodwin and the fighting chump on this programme. They both wanted more than they really should have. They both got greedy. They are both idiots. They are both getting off far more lightly than they should. -One gets put up in a caravan paid for by me. -The other gets put up in a mansion paid for by me. Not that big a difference IMO. Same shit. Different dog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Postigol Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Oddly I said to Mrs Profit that all three typified the old Thatcherite model.We had a financial services man,very few of those are Labour voters.An Essex second hand car dealer,well I am one of those (although not Essex) and I can tell you that Labour voters don't exist in that trade.Thirdly we had a Cotswold self-employed,Range Rover driving Horsiculturist almost dead certs to be Countryside Alliance.I would wager all three voted enthuiastically for Baroness Gaga. That's exactly what I mean - traditional conservative voters who would no doubt have voted for thatcher, but swung the other way last time round because actually the going was ok, gordon was doing a good job, interest rates were low (which is just about all they can probably understand in terms of economics) they were doing nicely thanks very much plus they could also buy into the don't vote for those nasty old conservatives, we pretend to care about people but without all the socialist nonsense anymore that tony spun to everyone. Plus I think it's pushing it to describe Mr Mortgage broker as a financial services man - he might as well have been flogging double glazing. Great debate we are having about something we will almost certainly never know! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeepLurker Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Just watched the program on iPlayer. Got a couple of comments: 1/ The builder guy. It's hard to show him any sympathy whatsoever. - I noticed a silver Range Rover parked outside his house, and he seemed to be driving it when he went to collect his wages. Anyone else spotted this? If it's his, then how the h*** could he afford it on his wages? - There was a bike parked up outside the house. Even at the end of the programme (after several months of fighting to keep their home) he had not thought of selling this expensive toy. 2/ I expected something out of Les Miserables... poor souls that live in crappy rat-infested hell-holes and don't have 2 pennies to rub together. None of the families interviewed fitted this stereotype: - their houses were clean, well-built with no peeling paint or other signs of poor maintenance. - big gardens. - kitchens fitted with all mod-cons. - big flat screen TVs. - leather sofas. - playstations for the kids. Over the several months of the program, none of the families seemed to be making efforts to sell off stuff in order to raise capital, for example trading in their new-ish cars for old bangers. Maybe it's just the way the film-makers cut it, but I don't think so. All in all, I regret watching this program. It just made me angry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Madam Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 (edited) I think it is immoral to sterilise people of lower intelligence, as happened in the US. Where do you stand on this? I agree, but to actively select for them - via our wonderous benefits system is also immoral. And as for the Nazi comments if you knew my family background you would realise how much you've shot yourself in the foot. You can criticise retarded greedy short sighted decisions made without any attempt at due dilligence - without suggesting shades of Oswiecim Berkanau you know... Is it soooooo wrong to suggest that folk don't have kids until they can afford them? Twisted I know... Edited January 8, 2009 by Miss Madam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.