Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Its not independent. Its government:
The BBC Trust was formed on 1 January 2007, replacing the Board of Governors as the governing body of the Corporation. The Trust sets the strategy for the corporation, assesses the performance of the BBC Executive Board in delivering the BBC's services, and appoints the Director-General.

BBC Trustees are appointed by the British monarch on advice of government ministers.[28] The current members of the Trust are:

Sir Michael Lyons (Chairman)

SilverMK2 wrote:

biccat wrote:What exactly is your problem with what I said?

Lets find out shall we?

Is the BBC not a government run station?

No, it is not. It is an independent body. It even has a Royal Charter (renewed every 10 years) and is autonomous - http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/purpose/what.shtml

They are paid for by tax dollars which are mandatory (if you own a TV).

Well, a few things - we don't use dollars (small point just for laughs), it is not a tax, it is a service fee - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence#United_Kingdom

Is the government not telling you what's going on? The BBC is a government entity and broadcasts the news.

I refer you to point one above. The BBC is not a government body. It is an independent, autonomous company. You can read related papers here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/purpose/charter/

"The Trust is made up of a Chairman, a Vice-Chairman and ten Trustees. Four Trustees take special responsibility for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. All Trustees are appointed by the Queen on advice from Ministers after an open selection process."

So let me get this straight:

The BBC was created by a Royal Charter, and requires a Royal Charter to continue to function.
The BBC is supported by mandatory fees that are set by the government and enforced by means of criminal sanctions.
The people who run the BBC are appointed by the Queen and her Ministers.

...and the BBC is not a government body.

Well, I suppose we have different definitions of "government body."

Although reading up on the BBC, it does appear that they have some duty to be independent, at least, they're not controlled directly by parliament or the PM.

Kilkrazy wrote:Why do you think people with no money can pay a lot of legal costs?

I think that the point in the first post saying that they are getting legal support because they lack income led to his point of view.

You just go ahead and prove you own the house with a deed, land registry to the english I guess, and then the squatters are evicted. Some places in america don't let squatters have the right to stay somewhere just because its derelict. Most squatter's rights laws require a certain amount of time on the property and then intent to improve the property, some places require 5 continuous years on the property.

Ribon Fox wrote:

We lost the Empire by paying back the cripling loans you lot made to us during and after WW2.

Payback is a b**ch. You shouldn't have tried to tax the tea so heavily...

halonachos wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Why do you think people with no money can pay a lot of legal costs?

I think that the point in the first post saying that they are getting legal support because they lack income led to his point of view.

You just go ahead and prove you own the house with a deed, land registry to the english I guess, and then the squatters are evicted. Some places in america don't let squatters have the right to stay somewhere just because its derelict. Most squatter's rights laws require a certain amount of time on the property and then intent to improve the property, some places require 5 continuous years on the property.

If the squatters are getting legal aid and that aid is used to pay the court costs to the millionaire, it means I have subsidised the millionaire out of my taxes. I can't get legal aid because I earn too much. That would not be fair IMO.

Yes. The Land Registry is where the deeds of ownership are held in England and Wales. Things are probably a bit different in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

biccat wrote:"The Trust is made up of a Chairman, a Vice-Chairman and ten Trustees. Four Trustees take special responsibility for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. All Trustees are appointed by the Queen on advice from Ministers after an open selection process."

So let me get this straight:

The BBC was created by a Royal Charter, and requires a Royal Charter to continue to function.
The BBC is supported by mandatory fees that are set by the government and enforced by means of criminal sanctions.
The people who run the BBC are appointed by the Queen and her Ministers.

...and the BBC is not a government body.

Well, I suppose we have different definitions of "government body."

Although reading up on the BBC, it does appear that they have some duty to be independent, at least, they're not controlled directly by parliament or the PM.

It may be difficult for "an outsider" to understand, but it is not a government body

1) It is not paid for by government.
2) It is not controlled by government (in terms of they do not run it day to day, or inform its broadcasting etc).
3) While the Queen appoints the Trustees and is advised by government ministers, candidates for the positions can put themselves forwards from any walk of life. It is also a point to note that Trustee-ship of the BBC is not a government office or position. It is also a point to note that the Queen is the Queen - her position is markedly different from a head of state such as the President of America. Her favour is linked to no party or political group. She represents "the country and her people", not "the government/current ruling party".
4) Criminal sanctions are applied in the same way that you would be charged for not paying any other utility. Although I grant that they have their own special place in UK law.

Of course, that is just how I see it. I know the majority of people in the UK see the BBC as apart from the government as well, though their thoughts on the reasons for this may differ.

biccat wrote:
Well, I suppose we have different definitions of "government body."

Although reading up on the BBC, it does appear that they have some duty to be independent, at least, they're not controlled directly by parliament or the PM.

Is your judiciary separate from your govt ?

My understanding is that Congress can remove Judges from their office, and the courts are -- correct me if I'm wrong -- funded by tax payers. And yet one of the key roles of the judicary is to be a separate force from the govt. (as a legislative entity) and if needs be use their power/s to prevent the govt. of the day doing whatthecasemaybe ?

And all your TV ( ..and radio ? Dunno.) Stations are answerable to the FCC and dependant upon them for their broadcasting license, I don't see much difference there except exactly which state ( or head of) allows them to broadcast in the first place.

Technically, everything legitimate in the whole of the USA is run by the government.

It is operated under the law, which maintained at gunpoint by armed police.

It uses dollars, a made-up currency issued by a monopoly government department and enforced at gunpoint by the Secret Service.

Blah blah blah.

killkrazy
Well obviously all our police and courts are ignorant of the law then.

Wouldn't be the first time...

frazzled
The BBC has chicks with cool accents. enough said.

I married to one... bow chicka wow wow...

Kilkrazy wrote:Technically, everything legitimate in the whole of the USA is run by the government.

It is operated under the law, which maintained at gunpoint by armed police.

It uses dollars, a made-up currency issued by a monopoly government department and enforced at gunpoint by the Secret Service.

Blah blah blah.

..if only there was some similar system, perhaps one that had worked for even longer, in this country !

) It is not paid for by government.
***Its paid by a forced tax no? That’s government power.
2) It is not controlled by government (in terms of they do not run it day to day, or inform its broadcasting etc).
***Its controlled by people appointed by the government. That’s, er..government control.

3) While the Queen appoints the Trustees and is advised by government ministers, candidates for the positions can put themselves forwards from any walk of life. It is also a point to note that Trustee-ship of the BBC is not a government office or position. It is also a point to note that the Queen is the Queen - her position is markedly different from a head of state such as the President of America. Her favour is linked to no party or political group. She represents "the country and her people", not "the government/current ruling party".
***Whoop de frigging woo. Its still the government.
4) Criminal sanctions are applied in the same way that you would be charged for not paying any other utility. Although I grant that they have their own special place in UK law.
***So it confirms that it’s a government forced tax. Love it.

You’re really just saying its like PBS. Lie it or don't like it, but don't kid yourselves.

*any* tax as such is , by your somewhat unique definition of, forced.apparently... .and.. so what ?

There is a clear difference between something running under the rule of law and being ran by the govt.


" Whoop de frigging woo. Its still the government " No. The Monarch, or the crown rather, is not the Govt. That's one of, if not perhaps, THE key point of the whole set up we have got going.

reds8n wrote:*any* tax as such is , by your somewhat unique definition of, forced.apparently... .and.. so what ?

There is a clear difference between something running under the rule of law and being ran by the govt.


" Whoop de frigging woo. Its still the government " No. The Monarch, or the crown rather, is not the Govt. That's one of, if not perhaps, THE key point of the whole set up we have got going.

If you don't pay the fee what happens? Who enforces it?

Wait so the Queen is not government now? She not the titular head of Great Britain?

Frazzled wrote:Wait so the Queen is not government now? She not the titular head of Great Britain?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_the_United_Kingdom

"She and her immediate family undertake various official, ceremonial and representational duties. As a constitutional monarch, the Queen is limited to non-partisan functions such as bestowing honours, dissolving Parliament and appointing the Prime Minister. Though the ultimate executive authority over the government of the United Kingdom is still by and through the monarch's royal prerogative, in practice these powers are only used according to laws enacted in Parliament or within the constraints of convention and precedent."

Well, we're kind of going seriously OT when I'd rather waive my epeen around and cry havoc about the squatters, so I'll let he BBC thing go.

Frazzled wrote:
Wait so the Queen is not government now? She not the titular head of Great Britain?

... you really asking this ? Seriously ?

I'm somewhat baffled as to how far you're stretching this line of reasoning.


By your logic, Fox News is a govt. run agency. They're licensed by and ultimately responsible to the FCC.. who are funded by tax payers.. and if you don't pay your taxes the govt. locks you up.
*thats* the kind of stretch you're making here.

Are you saying then that your judiciary system is a branch of , and therefore subserviant to, the elected govt. of your country ? And if not, why not ?

Fox isn't governed by the FCC. Its on cable. Sorry...

.. I almost feel guilty about this...

How can I file a complaint against my cable company?
Complaints about rates or service should be directed to your local franchise authority. A franchising authority is the local municipal, county or other government organization that regulates certain aspects of the cable television industry at the state or local level. The name of the franchising authority may be on the front or back of your cable bill. If this information is not on your bill, contact your cable company or your local town or city hall.

So once again, it's the govt. , via those hard working tax payers, who get to decide who can and can't broadcast.

Well, we're kind of going seriously OT

yeah. whoops !

[/hijack]

reds8n wrote:.. I almost feel guilty about this...

How can I file a complaint against my cable company?
Complaints about rates or service should be directed to your local franchise authority. A franchising authority is the local municipal, county or other government organization that regulates certain aspects of the cable television industry at the state or local level. The name of the franchising authority may be on the front or back of your cable bill. If this information is not on your bill, contact your cable company or your local town or city hall.

So once again, it's the govt. , via those hard working tax payers, who get to decide who can and can't broadcast.

Well, we're kind of going seriously OT

yeah. whoops !

[/hijack]

You can't get away that easily Red, because I really need to add this line-

I find your lack of faith in the Queen disturbing...

Frazzled wrote:I find your lack of faith in the Queen disturbing...

Sometimes I love having photoshop

Fools!

The Queen does not use Teh Force to strangle people who oppose her will.

She has equerries to do it for her.

Indeed, that is why Darth Vader is known as Lord Vader...

reds8n wrote:Is your judiciary separate from your govt ?

No, the Judiciary is part of the government.

reds8n wrote:And all your TV ( ..and radio ? Dunno.) Stations are answerable to the FCC and dependant upon them for their broadcasting license, I don't see much difference there except exactly which state ( or head of) allows them to broadcast in the first place.

Yes, you're right, TV and radio are answerable to the FCC and dependent upon them for their broadcasting license.

However, the content is not provided by taxpayers, but by advertisers. That means that the TV stations aren't answerable to the taxpayer, but to the advertising agencies.

The heads of the TV and radio stations are also not appointed by or subject to approval of the U.S. Government. The only people the heads are answerable to are the shareholders, as most media companies are corporations.

Also note cable and the internet is NOT under control of the FCC.

I so wish I could see the Queen Vader pic...

Frazzled wrote:Also note cable and the internet is NOT under control of the FCC.

I so wish I could see the Queen Vader pic...

The Queen inspecting the troops with Lord Vader.

excellent!

biccat wrote: That means that the TV stations aren't answerable to the taxpayer, but to the advertising agencies.

And the BBC is answerable as well to those who pay the license fee. They don't operate in a vacuum, and consistently score high approval ratings for their overall behaviour.


As is the govt too of course..... although, obviously, there approval ratings are somewhat more prone to fluctuations.

The heads of the TV and radio stations are also not appointed by or subject to approval of the U.S. Government.

Take your word for it, I was under the impression that there were certain criteria that could indeed see a person barred from owning certain media franchises -- monopolies and mergers aside -- but that not now/have veer been the case.

No, the Judiciary is part of the government.

And yet (in theory anyway I'll grant you) despite being funded by tax payers via the other branches of the govt. it is free to act within its legal remit and defined role.

Frazzled wrote:

reds8n wrote:*any* tax as such is , by your somewhat unique definition of, forced.apparently... .and.. so what ?

There is a clear difference between something running under the rule of law and being ran by the govt.


" Whoop de frigging woo. Its still the government " No. The Monarch, or the crown rather, is not the Govt. That's one of, if not perhaps, THE key point of the whole set up we have got going.

If you don't pay the fee what happens? Who enforces it?

Wait so the Queen is not government now? She not the titular head of Great Britain?

If you don't pay the fee you don't get TV

It would be like someone here stealing cable and not paying for it.

biccat wrote:Only 12? Not bad. It's 15 in the US.

Actually I believe it varies from state to state, but yes, a similar law is in place in the US.

The articles were submitted as corroborating the original story.

I know that's why you put them there, but if you'd read them properly you'd have noticed how they paint a much clearer picture of what's happening.

Right, the guy should have gotten a lawyer, it probably only would have cost a few hundred to file the paperwork. Then the legal aid attorneys would have requested a hearing, which would entail another few thousand from the homeowner. Then the legal aid group instructs them not to leave, meaning the homeowner has to get an eviction order and have the sheriff (constable? bobbie? Whatever they're called in England) enforce it, with the appropriate 6 weeks notice period (which they'll claim they never received service).

What I got from the article was twofold: squatters are a problem, they get free legal representation, and they cost the homeowner a lot in legal fees.

Well, yes, legal processes cost money. That's life. Your estimates on the time and costs involved are quite inaccurate, though, and you'd know that if you'd read your own links, the hearing this guy screwed up the paperwork for today was to have the squatters evicted, had it succeeded there'd have been no further hearing, the squatters would have been immediately evicted. Nor is a legal aid guy going to be particularly obstructive, the value of his time was hundreds of pounds, that means he turned up today, just to follow through the process.

And no, in the UK there's nothing as anachronistic as a sheriff's office tasked with enforcing court orders. Those functions are tasked to the local police.

So are you suggesting that what the Daily Mail reported wasn't true? That there were not squatters in the man's house who refused to leave and required him to go to court to get them 'evicted'?

I'm suggesting that it greatly misled the reader. This is true in that it gave no value to the amount of legal aid given to the squatters, this is true in that the reason the man was unable to reclaim his house almost immediately was hidden in a single line halfway through the article.

It is obvious in the reaction of the various posters in this thread, and those who took the article at face value came away with a mistaken understanding of the events, but exactly the intent The Daily Mail intended to give;

"How is it not illegal to just refuse to leave someone else's house??"
"Only one thing is 100% about our laws, and it's that the average, working taxpayer will always get the gak-covered end of the stick."

Really. A MOD chimed in and called the source "Little England propaganda". I took this to mean that the source in question wasn't appropriate for this forum. I merely inquired as to what sources I should and should not be allowed to use.

You're allowed to use whatever sources you want. Don't play silly games pretending anyone is stopping you from using whatever sources you want. People are just pointing out to you that if you use poor sources you'll end up with poorly thought through conclusions, and that in the long run this will likely make you stupid.

It has already been confirmed that state-run media outlets are allowable, so I'm not sure what your problem is.

That's just silly. Keep up that approach and it won't be poor sources that make you stupid, it'll be your own dishonesty.

Certain state run media outlets are excellent news carriers, the BBC in the UK and ABC in Australia maintain very high standards of reporting. Pretending otherwise will make you stupid.

The events reported weren't fictional. They really happened. So what exactly is your beef with the article? That it didn't report the other side, or present a sympathetic pro-squatter position, like the Guardian?

You can state only facts while still producing a misleading story. Stating in the third line of the story that the squatters received legal aid, while not stating that it was only a few hundred pounds worth misleads the reader. Waiting until about halfway through the story to explain what actually happened to prevent this guy throwing the squatters out as quickly as possible, and then keeping it to a single throwaway line, misleads the reader.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:The Guardian is like the Bizarro Mail - just a complete mirror image. FWIW, I agree with you on The Times.

The Guardian is decent, if you keep away from the opinions columns. It does slant left but this doesn't significantly affect the information in it's articles. It's actually more like the left wing version of The Times, though I find the quality of reporting in The Times a little better the bias is about equal (except the opinion columns, where The Times bias is notably less).

Both paper are utterly different to The Daily Mail, which presents a picture so skewed that you will likely end up less informed about the world after reading it than you were beforehand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Is the BBC not a government run station? They are paid for by tax dollars which are mandatory (if you own a TV).

There is a difference between government run and government funded. While the government provides the funding they have no control over the content.

As a result, the government of the day is not capable in any way of influencing content. Please understand this and move on.

sebster wrote:The Guardian is decent, if you keep away from the opinions columns. It does slant left but this doesn't significantly affect the information in it's articles. It's actually more like the left wing version of The Times, though I find the quality of reporting in The Times a little better the bias is about equal (except the opinion columns, where The Times bias is notably less).

Both paper are utterly different to The Daily Mail, which presents a picture so skewed that you will likely end up less informed about the world after reading it than you were beforehand.

Yeah... I seem to recall a Guardian article, that MGS posted, shrieking about the gov't selling off our forests. It was nonsense. I maintain my position.

It has a ridiculous amount of left-wing bias.