The Border Terrier Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 >reports of abuse not taken seriously. Ester Rantzen really should resign from Childline, she’s not the best person for the task. When push came to shove she failed to respond to accusations about her colleague Sir Jimmy Savile. If Jim’ll Fix It were rated higher than That’s Life; maybe she chose to stay quiet as a form of self preservation. Rantzen headed That’s Life, which was an investigative programme designed to flush out any wrong doing; the irony of which cannot be lost on anybody seeking justice. >Even after saville had died the bbc were still covering up his crimes, so that they could broadcast memorial shows for him. One can only wonder of the affect this had on all those hundreds of girls and boys that Savile abused. The BBC were complicit on account of the overwhelming desire to secure positive show ratings over preventing child abuse. How many could have been prevented if positive action had of been taken sooner. Let's face it, the BBC only responded when the police investigation was well under way. If you want proof of whether boycotting the BBC is ludicrous on such grounds, then here it is. If you want to slap all those boys and girls in the face again, then keep disbelieving. >And no, people wouldn't pay to watch iplayer. They'd simply get everything they need on YouTube. And in the wake of the £100 million failure of the BBC’s Digital Media Initiative, they too use YouTube to broadcast shows. You just couldn’t make it up. +1 for MANANNAN from me. TBT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 This thread was meant to be about the licence fee. Once again - there are already two threads about Savile for those of you who appear to relish wallowing in tales of underage sex and child abuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Border Terrier Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 Once again - there are already two threads about Savile for those of you who appear to relish wallowing in tales of underage sex and child abuse. And once again the Manx Forum school bully returns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 Good point. How much lower can you get than projecting the paedophilia of a few individuals onto an entire organisation as a justification for licence fee evasion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thommo2010 Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 that god awful Miranda is reason enough to not pay the fee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
credente Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 that god awful Miranda is reason enough to not pay the fee I wouldn't entirely dispute that - but I would point out that paying £145.50 per annum doesn't necessarily mean that you have to be tuned in 24 hours a day, every day of the year to extract reasonable value from the investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarley Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 I wouldn't entirely dispute that - but I would point out that paying £145.50 per annum doesn't necessarily mean that you have to be tuned in 24 hours a day, every day of the year to extract reasonable value from the investment. Now you tell me. All those hours I'll never get back... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 From IOMOnline: Five hundred caught without a television licence Jurby's going be stuffed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarne Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Poor buggers. 500 seems like a huge number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 I wonder if it really means 'caught'? Don't they have to get into the premises to catch you? Serve you with papers etc.? Personally, I don't think it will be anywhere near that number that will end up in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDave Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 500? Really? That smells like bullshit to me. ETA: Actually Albert, the vast majority of people who get caught admit under caution and sign a statement to the effect that their address doesn't have a TV licence. I don't know how many warrants are issued to gain access to premises but I bet it's exceptionally low and "Detector" evidence has never ever been used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Poor buggers. 500 seems like a huge number. The piece itself says "More than 500 people were caught watching television", so they may have bigged up the number with some sort of notional number per household. Without looking at the original press release you can't tell if it's IOM Newspapers garbling the info or not. But Albert's probably right and very few may end up in Court - and they may be those who refuse to pay up or want to contest the case. TV Licensing are mainly interested in getting people to pay up and scaring those not detected into paying in case. Actually getting people into Court doesn't make them any more money. Looking at the latest Chief Constable's Report nobody was prosecuted[1] the previous two years, though there were 16 cases in 2010-11 which was presumably the last time that the vans came round. [1] As always prosecution doesn't imply conviction or even that the case ever reached court, just that a prosecution was started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parchedpeas Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 500 'caught'. 0 prosecuted. And I don't expect that number will change. What rights do Capita PLC have in Manx law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Actually getting people into Court doesn't make them any more money. Looking at the latest Chief Constable's Report nobody was prosecuted[1] the previous two years, though there were 16 cases in 2010-11 which was presumably the last time that the vans came round. [1] As always prosecution doesn't imply conviction or even that the case ever reached court, just that a prosecution was started. They don't really want people in court, just in case some smart arse lawyer manages to prove that the whole licence fee is illegal on the grounds that it's against someone's human rights or other bullshit. They'd much rather just have 'em pay up. Certainly don't want awkward gits defending a legal action that's for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manx-person Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 I wonder if it really means 'caught'? Don't they have to get into the premises to catch you? Serve you with papers etc.? Personally, I don't think it will be anywhere near that number that will end up in court. Don't worry Albert, dont you know that IoM Newspapers is not just a PR agency, wait till you have read the expert analysis and in depth probing by their journalists into the claims. </sarcasm> I think that they may have conned convinced householders to sign a standard admission form, and then received payment. If they "hear a telly on" then how do they know that the person isn't playing a video game, or using Iplayer, both of which don't require a license. Our newspaper(s) should be ashamed of publishing such nonsense statistics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.