Ah, that makes sense, so that bring me back to another reply i posted at the start.

It’s very specifically about what an individual does and does not wish to watch,** because it only applies in certain circumstances**. If it wasn’t about that, everyone would have to pay it regardless of usage.

It only applies in certain circumstances, because that’s how it was implemented.

If a public broadcasting tax is what they want, then they should introduce it that way, not a slow creep of additional conditions and charges like some shitty subscription service .

It makes it look like they are too cowardly to just make it a universal mandatory tax.

The tax idea you suggest is a reasonable approach, but it isn’t how it currently works, which is why i was saying that it’s very specifically about if the individual meets the criteria that exist right now.

Im not sure im reading the tone correctly from your reply, was it sarcasm or a legit take on that quote section?

Victimhood as in “a victim of something” or “claiming to be a victim of something”.

I want to be crystal clear here, im just trying to figure out what they were implying, not making implications of my own.

Can’t blame the gov for everything.

True, but in the case of a well publicised and documented failure of multiple generations of government, a case in which they have already admitted culpability and are (very slowly) working to redress, i don’t need to blame them, blame is firmly established.

Feel free to look it up, it’s in the article.

The logic is simple to follow, i’ll lay it out in steps

• If he was already a citizen , the issue of deportation wouldn’t exist.
• By the sounds of it, it seems he should have already been a citizen long before this happened.
• The reason for him not already being a citizen is governmental incompetence (or malice, i suppose)

All of that is assuming, of course, that he is one of the people affected by said government fuckup, which again, it seems like he is.

Is he a nice person? no idea

Does he deserve the rules to be applied evenly to him? absolutely.

Interesting, seems they did in fact put him on a plane, he came back because barbados refused him entry (due to him being a long time resident of the UK)

It also sounds like he should already be a de-facto citizen but isn’t because of long term governmental incompetence.

I will preface this with :

• ACAB
• The current legal system is corrupt in it’s uneven application
• legality and ethics/morals are subjective and not always the same thing.

So know that im not defending the legal system here, just stating that weak/innacurate arguments weaken whatever position you try to build upon them.

Planning a violent crime, even with intent, isn’t considered a violent crime in and of itself, as it involves no violence.

Intent and action are different things, which is why there are separate names and crimes.

The argument that they deserve the same punishment is interesting though and (I think) sometimes valid.

If deportation is a named consequence of the crime(either part of the sentence or a consequence of having a criminal record of that nature) then they should have been deported immediately.

If it is not, then they have paid for their crime and tagging consequences on after the fact is vigilante behaviour.

To be clear, im not arguing against vigilante justice here, just pointing out that it would be extra-judicial, making whoever preformed that action a criminal as well.

By definition it’s less dangerous.

One involves the violence, one is the planning of the violence (with no actual violence having happened).

It implies multiple parties and the intent to commit the violence in the future, but the violence hasn’t happened yet.

If they were the same ting there wouldn’t be a separate term and or crime.

It sounds like you want to argue that the planning (with intent) should carry the same sentence and repercussions, which is an entirely valid argument, have at it.

Pretending that planning and execution are the same exact level of danger serves only to undermine what might otherwise be a well reasoned argument.

then you’re funding a valuable public service to others, that provides not only the news, weather, and eastenders, but also a host of revision tooling for students of all ages, language services, a public information broadcast point in case of national disaster, and so on. It’s not just about you and what you do or do not wish to watch. If you drive a car, a portion of the tax you pay still goes towards public transport services.

Genuine question, which part of this is referring to income tax?

The only tax reference i’m seeing is the one that specifically prefaces it with “if you drive a car”.

Another genuine question, i’m not seeing how

just because I drive a car, I cannot (and should not) be able to reclaim the proportion of tax I pay that is put towards public transport infrastructure.

Relates to anything in my reply.

Not looking for a fight , it seems i’m legitimately missing something important here.

I agree fully.

If you’re charging for BBC services then charge for that, if you want to tax tv based entertainment, then be honest.

This “how do we word it so we can effectively tax everyone, but don’t have to admit that’s what we want” approach is bullshit.

This was going to be my answer but it apparently already is, officially, a tax.

It’s very specifically about what an individual does and does not wish to watch, because it only applies in certain circumstances. If it wasn’t about that, everyone would have to pay it regardless of usage.

Much like car tax is about whether or not a person drives a car.

They’ve had solar incentives,multiple times, the government fucked around and made it absolutely excruciating, then fully dropped it with a big fuck you.

There were legit financial reasons for this afaik, but it still left a bunch of people holding the bag.

People are understandably wary of any new promises.

I wonder if this it is a coincidence that this comes closely on the heels of : this or this or this

yeah, It’s not the numbers specifically , it’d be the collection methodology used to obtain those numbers that’d be interesting.

I’d be interested to see where that number comes from because im fully sceptical of their ability to determine that.