Internet Tax To Fund The BBC!

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Two different things…

well if you want to correct me educate me ..

Build a man a fire, he’s warm for one night - set a man on fire, he’s warm for the rest of his life*

OK, I’ll educate you, but I won’t give you the answer…

If you google "difference between law and government policy UK”, that will provide you the answer.

*T. Pratchett, Jingo

[peanut]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Build a man a fire, he’s warm for one night - set a man on fire, he’s warm for the rest of his life*

OK, I’ll educate you, but I won’t give you the answer…

If you google "difference between law and government policy UK”, that will provide you the answer.

*T. Pratchett, Jingo

I googled haughty and pretentious instead.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by peanut

I googled haughty and pretentious instead.

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Build a man a fire, he’s warm for one night - set a man on fire, he’s warm for the rest of his life*

OK, I’ll educate you, but I won’t give you the answer…

If you google "difference between law and government policy UK”, that will provide you the answer.

*T. Pratchett, Jingo

So basically you will say I am wrong and when I ask how I am wrong you decided to speak total BS . What is the point of that? all you have achieved is me keeping my view on this subject and lowering my opinion of you. ( I know you do not care)

---------- Post added at 07:49 ---------- Previous post was at 07:48 ----------

Originally Posted by peanut

I googled haughty and pretentious instead.

yeah 100%

---------- Post added at 07:53 ---------- Previous post was at 07:49 ----------

Just for reference The UK Court of Appeal ruled that anti-protest regulations pushed through by former Home Secretary Suella Braverman were unlawful and void

So it does happen with Law and policy (I can use Google)

Laws and policies are two different things - a law is passed by legislation, and a policy is how the Government intends to carry out its aims.

The fact that both can be declared unlawful does not make them the same…

https://unifiedcourse.co.uk/differen...on-and-policy/

Legislation and policy often sound similar. So people usually think legislation and policy are the same. But the fact is, there’s a day-night difference between them. You can’t understand it properly until you know the difference between legislation and policy. It’s the only way to differentiate the two words. So, what’s the difference?

Legislation is the law. The government and Parliament make it mandatory for everyone to follow it. Laws set the rules that keep people and organisations safe and fair. At the same time, policy is a plan. Governments and organisations write policies to show how they will follow the law.

[papa smurf]

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Laws and policies are two different things - a law is passed by legislation, and a policy is how the Government intends to carry out its aims.

The fact that both can be declared unlawful does not make them the same…

https://unifiedcourse.co.uk/differen...on-and-policy/

Thank you and I bet it did not hurt

You’re welcome, and I apologise for my previous post - it was inappropriate and unnecessary.

[papa smurf]

just the one post then, [asking for a friend of a friend ....]

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Hugh

You’re welcome, and I apologise for my previous post - it was inappropriate and unnecessary.

Fair play Hugh respect that :-)

[jem]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

Fair play Hugh respect that :-)

Hopefully to provide some clarification, in the UK Parliament is supreme, what they decide is law, that's it, no ifs or buts, no 'this can't be legal'.

An Act of Parliament is primary legislation, that's it, literally what is stated in the wording of the Act is law - every court has to accept it, every person / institution has to obey it, or else.

Now it is understood that it really isn't possible to cover every eventuality so some laws allow government ministers to make decisions on what is allowed or not. This is called secondary legislation, and this can be called into question by courts.

"Just for reference The UK Court of Appeal ruled that anti-protest regulations pushed through by former Home Secretary Suella Braverman were unlawful and void"

And this is an example of this, the Court rules that Braverman has exceeded her authority and that the primary legislation did not permit her to make such regulations.

[Richardr]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

Errrm no. How many times has government policy found to be unlawful?

You are saying that an increase in tax on broadband would be unlawful. When has the increase in tax on anything been found illegal?

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Richardr

You are saying that an increase in tax on broadband would be unlawful. When has the increase in tax on anything been found illegal?

it is ok I accept I have had it disproven and given the information to correct me. I am happy to learn . You did not add anything

---------- Post added at 20:56 ---------- Previous post was at 20:55 ----------

Originally Posted by jem

Hopefully to provide some clarification, in the UK Parliament is supreme, what they decide is law, that's it, no ifs or buts, no 'this can't be legal'.

An Act of Parliament is primary legislation, that's it, literally what is stated in the wording of the Act is law - every court has to accept it, every person / institution has to obey it, or else.

Now it is understood that it really isn't possible to cover every eventuality so some laws allow government ministers to make decisions on what is allowed or not. This is called secondary legislation, and this can be called into question by courts.

"Just for reference The UK Court of Appeal ruled that anti-protest regulations pushed through by former Home Secretary Suella Braverman were unlawful and void"

And this is an example of this, the Court rules that Braverman has exceeded her authority and that the primary legislation did not permit her to make such regulations.

Thanks for the info mate appreciate it

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

no but it was a joke

While acknowledging you were joking …

The reason it wouldn’t work is, I think, because Starlink geolocates you so they’d know you weren’t using it where you said you were. The fact they ask where you’re going to use it when you sign up is, I suspect, enough to suggest they’d stop you doing it.

There is a ‘use anywhere’ version of the service but it’s more expensive, and therefore unlikely to save a UK user anything in comparison to just paying a broadband tax.

---------- Post added at 23:44 ---------- Previous post was at 23:33 ----------

As long as Parliament wills that the UK should have a fully, publicly-funded public service broadcaster, Parliament is going to have to take an interest in whether the way money is collected for this is effective. It has long been a fallacious argument, based on wishful thinking, that if the TV licence became unworkable, then public funding for the BBC would somehow simply just go away. That idea always did fail to understand what ultimately stands behind the TV licence. It is, and always has been, the idea that the UK should have a public service broadcaster for which everyone pays regardless of how much they access it.

“I don’t use the BBC so why should I pay for it” doesn’t answer this argument, because in this sense the BBC is seen as providing a utility, and like all public utilities, we use them to varying degrees or not at all, but through tax we all pay for them. As long as the government of the day continues to view the BBC as a Public Service Broadcaster in these terms, then it is going to start looking at more viable ways for it to be publicly funded.

A broadband tax isn’t as outre as it might first seem, given that in the long run there’s an obvious desire to move to IP-based delivery of broadcast TV in the UK (even if it’s likely to take much longer to get there than some believe).