You keep saying this.

To legally avoid paying the licence fee you either have to prove to the BBC that you do not have a TV or any equipment capable of functioning as such or you have to prove that you have physically disabled your TV from receiving the BBC.

All of the above is very subjective and there have been many court cases where the BBC have denied that the defendant has done this, some they win some they lose.

Practically speaking it is not an option for most.

Meanwhile the rate of non payment is steadily rising year on year. If it continues at its current rate (last recorded rate was 7%) it will eventually reach a tipping point like the Poll Tax.

Edited by Badger11 (09 Jan 2020 7.40am)

One more point

'You only have to not watch live TV.'.....Not true anyway you to be able to prove that.....Which means cutting you TV off from incoming transmissions.

What an appalling requirement from a organisation on individuals to be able to watch television without their lousy and biased channel.

Live TV is shown on all the other channels and this automatically stops that.....No, it's not good enough and another way should be found.

But it's the BBC.....Another elite organization being given powers far beyond what it deserves.....So guess who defends it.

Edited by Stirlingsays (09 Jan 2020 9.24am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

A situation where you are forced to pay for a service you deem unsatisfactory or otherwise you have to radically alter you viewing habits or get rid of your TV is so beyond wrong it's amazing the point has to be made.

But sadly it does.

This is another situation Johnson needs to sort out.

Edited by Stirlingsays (09 Jan 2020 9.31am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Mmmm....a loser who can't accept that they have lost.

Remind us what your position on Brexit was again?

Suggesting that nationality has anything relevant to the concept of 'elitism' is fundamentally ridiculous. The concept of elitism is universal.

You walked into a trap and you have too much hubris to handle or accept it.....but you are happy to claim 'bullying' when your arguments are shown up.

Edited by Stirlingsays (09 Jan 2020 10.03am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Bromley seem fine with implementing it, an idiot friend said he would refuse to pay it and they would never come after him. I told him this is Bromley not Islington anyway just before he was summoned to court he coughed up.

I always suspected that the people who took against it had something to hide e.g. absent fathers not paying child support, illegals, visa over stayers, cash in hand types. In other words the criminal, useless and the feckless who didn't like the idea of the authorities knowing that they existed.

Anyway not the right thread for this and ancient history.

One more point

I will remind you what my position on Brexit was, and is. I haven't "lost" anything, nor will I personally.

We will ALL lose as a result.

My responses on the use of the term "elite" were directed to the examples given and not to any wider context. Expanding the context simply as a way to try to make cheap jibes appears very juvenile to me. Just the kind of thing that might be expected of a playground bully.

The way "elite" is being used today reminds me of the way the term "gay" has changed in my lifetime. When I was a kid it meant carefree and happy. Today it means something completely different.

"Elite" has always meant being the top strata of a group. The SAS being a group of elite soldiers. Thus a wholly positive term.

Today it is used, by some anyway, as a negative term to indicate a kind of shadowy class who conspire together to organise society for their own benefit, mainly through globalisation.

This to me is just further confirmation of how widespread the belief of conspiracy theories has become.

There have always been the wealthy, and the super wealthy, who are able to exercise more influence than the average person. Do they conspire? Perhaps, but that's why we have a democracy to make laws that limit their opportunities.

The only people that really worry me are those who can influence opinions. They aren't "elite" at all. They are the press barons and our foreign adversaries meddling on social media. That's where we are under attack and where we should be focussing. It's them who are raising the spectre of the "elites" to lay false trails for us to follow. We need to wise up.

Thank goodness for the beacon of light that remains our most steadfast protection from all of this. Which is, of course, the BBC.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.