There is also "Harry Hill's TV Burp"

Wherein Harry Hill spends a half hour making fun of X Factor and Downton Abbey.

@ScientologyIsACult

"I personally couldn't go without ... Top Gear, and so many other quality programs the BBC provided "

"don't forget BBC news is unbiased"

"The BBC is excellent value for money and isn't bloated"

Wow, I wish I could be that sarcastic and still keep a straight face.

The thing about the BBC is, if you refuse to pay the license fee, you get fined and potentially sent to prison. If you refuse to pay the SKY fee they... cancel your service. That's it. You have a choice with SKY and other subscriber-based services but you have no choice at all with the BBC. If you watch TV, you pay for their output whether you like it or not, whether you watch it or not. I don't watch it, but if I were to choose to watch just the toss on ITV (which apparently not many people do these days given their collapsing viewing figures) I'd still have to pay for the BBC. I object to the BBC on that principle alone: they provide output I don't want or need and use threat of force to extract the funds to pay for it. I don't care how "efficient" they are, how much "value for money" they provide, they have no right to that money because I don't *want* to watch the BBC and I don't want to pay what is actually a significant amount of money when you're on a low income for a service I don't use, just so some middle class twat can feel smug about the "quality" of the BBC's output.

As a consequence I don't pay a license fee on principle. It means I can't watch television but, to be honest, it's not much of a loss.

But think about that... if I don't want to pay for the BBC, I can't watch live television without breaking the law. How is that in any way moral, ethical or fair? If it were Microsoft in the same position with computers you'd all be screaming moral outrage but, because it's Auntie and the goggle-box, suddenly it's perfectly okay to extort money from single mothers and the working poor to pay for a bunch of never-had-a-real-job trust-fund babies to prance around on TV and pretend they're worth listening to.

"if I don't want to pay for the BBC, I can't watch live television without breaking the law."

At home, that is. You can go out, to the pub for instance.

And Microsoft did try it. They're still trying it. There were deals where Microsoft got a cut on each computer a manufacturer sold, whether you bought Microsoft software or not. And now when you buy an Android phone, with no Microsoft product in it, you're probably paying a Microsoft tax.

@Robert Carnegie, really you're demonstrating my point (and I know MS tried it, that's why I mentioned them in the first place). There are some differences of course: a phone with data capabilities is an essential piece of equipment, even when you're a sparky, whilst watching TV is a luxury and largely pointless but, in both cases, the injustice of one party using the power of the state to extort money from others to pay for a service those others don't desire is the same. In that sense the BBC is marginally better inasmuch as they do at least provide a service of some sort, but I'll be damned if I'm going to pay so someone else can watch television.

My phone, however, is a Sony Ericsson. Unless I'm mistaken, Sony-Ericsson has no licensing deal with MS so for now I'm in the clear.

Except for the whole "it's made by Sony" thing, which is another issue...

And, for the record, there are far better things to do in a pub that watch TV. They only show football anyway.

Well, it's better than being called a paid shill I suppose.

What part of "I don't watch tv" don't you understand? Top be frank I wouldn't watch anything from sky, either; it's all shite too now. My point, which you spectacularly failed to understand, was that the BBC is funded by people who don't want to watch or pay for it's output but may want to watch other channels, but who don't have any choice in the matter. Its funding is gathered by a set of odficious thugs who use the power of the state as a ckub to extact money from people who can't afford it. It regularly brings prosecutions against people who watch teelvision but never watch the BBC.

explain how that is in any way just.

I'm not saying that the BBC licence isn't a tax on owning and operating a broadcast-television receiving device, which now includes a PC if you use it that way - they're taking a view that watching live broadcast TV online still counts, but only if it is broadcast material and is live.

But it's an annual charge that is still under 40 pence a day - I calculate that it's US $0.62. For that, they create all BBC TV, radio, and online services.

If you choose not to use TV services, that's fine.

Easy to say. They get most of their funding from international sales of their intellectual property, EU grants and other such funding channels. The license only counts for a very small part of the BBC's income these days. They could survive without it, they're just addicted to the free cash.

Ay that would do it

"Psychics" concoct one pathetic excuse after another why they can't spare a morning taking a cool million dollars from Randi. The common one is to pretend the money doesn't exist despite JREF declaring it on their tax returns. If that fails they'll concoct reasons the test cannot possibly work in conditions that prevent cheating or mere chance.

You'd think any genuine psychic would be around like a shot to pick up a cheque. I know I would. After all a million dollars would just be the beginning. Any winner would make tens, hundreds millions more hawking books, TV shows, lectures, readings on the basis of winning.

Yet mysteriously they all make their excuses. One can only surmise that genuine psychics are shy timid creatures who do not seek the fame and limelight which implies any of the numerous "psychics" who does seek the limelight is a complete fraud.

"You'd think any genuine psychic would be around like a shot to pick up a cheque. I know I would. After all a million dollars would just be the beginning. Any winner would make tens, hundreds millions more hawking books, TV shows, lectures, readings on the basis of winning."

Forget that, just go to a casino. If you even have slight psychic ability (say getting a red/black(/green) call right 53% of the time) you can make a metric fuckton of money out of any casino; although how long before the casino network throws you out is another matter. This goes for any person who claims that he has a "system" for gambling, who isn't a billionaire.

Casinos

Well if there were genuine psychics then their personal forte could be astral projection, talking to dead people, picking up empathic "vibrations", telekinesis and so on. That's why Randi goes out of his way to allow the "psychic" to tailor the test in an agreed fashion to suit their claims. As long as the test was fair, precluded cheating by either side, or winning by chance and was self evident.

So if I claimed to be able to astral project the mutually agreed test might be to read 5 out of 6 numbers sitting under cups on a table in the middle of the room.

So yeah maybe there is a psychic who can see the future (though one wonders how you can see the future without altering it) in which case maybe they are cleaning up in Vegas and various lotteries. More likely is they don't exist at all.

Protecting idiots

So if you sold your house cos somebody on QVC said the world would end -in 2012 you can't sue them or Ofcom.

On the other hand a statement on party manifestos saying "This document is purely for entertainment purposes" could be useful.

There is a clear line between the supernatural and the natural. Psychics, healers and religions ask you to believe without proof.

Global warming sceptics and opposition party members are essentially making fact based arguments, so it is possible to pick apart their arguments and see what are established facts, what are controversial/unknown issues, and what are irrational beliefs and biases.

When the theological arm of the house of lords tells us that the shops have to close at 4pm on a Sunday because that's what god wants, there isn't really much scope for reasoned argument.

"Oh no he doesn't"

"Oh yes he does"

"Oh no he doesn't"

etc

If anyone is stupid enough to sell their house because a nut on the telly tells 'em to, I have no sympathy. They should be laughed out of court.

however..

years ago my line boss saw me pissing around in a lunch break with the cards and said 'do me one'..

Well I think I got the moon reversed and death somewhere.. so I said jovially 'someone near to you will probably go MAD and DIE!'

Unfortunately his sister did exactly that the next week and committed suicide.

He told me never to bring them in again..