Huw Edwards

Forums New posts
To think that nearly a year the taxpayer paid nearly 500k for that nonce.to claim mental health.
Alot of people have serious mental issues.

This guy is just a disgusting fucking weasel.

May he burn in hell sooner rather than later.
 
Indeed. This Owen Jones tweet aged like milk on a hot day.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Ryan69 said:
To think that nearly a year the taxpayer paid nearly 500k for that nonce.to claim mental health.
Alot of people have serious mental issues.

This guy is just a disgusting fucking weasel.

May he burn in hell sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...
Fucking idiot.

The BBC receives nothing through taxation. The BBC is primarily funded by the licence fee, supplemented by income from their commercial subsidiaries.

@Findlayhibby yes we can.
 
Jack said:
Fucking idiot.

The BBC receives nothing through taxation. The BBC is primarily funded by the licence fee, supplemented by income from their commercial subsidiaries.
Click to expand...
You can’t prove any of that to Ryan’s satisfaction though.
 
Jack said:
Fucking idiot.

The BBC receives nothing through taxation. The BBC is primarily funded by the licence fee, supplemented by income from their commercial subsidiaries.

@Findlayhibby yes we can.
Click to expand...
Do you not think TV tax ...is a Government tax?

Think you may be the idiot here.

The Government will fine you or jail you for not paying it.

Why?
 
Smurf said:
BBC knew for 9 months what the charges were against this sick beast yet still continued to pay him. Unbelievable.
Click to expand...
The beeb like a cover up to themselves.

As for Edwards, he's already used the mentally unstable card, as has the bbc to justify still paying the nonce.
 
Doc Shrink said:
But not charged.
Click to expand...
He should have been sacked after getting caught sending messages to that child that he admitted. He was then arrested due to pictures seen shared on a convicted peados phone when he got charged last year and put back in jail. For the BBC to neglect that, pay full pay then gie him a £40k pay off of taxpayers money is beyond belief mate.
 
Bambino said:
He should have been sacked after getting caught sending messages to that child that he admitted. He was then arrested due to pictures seen shared on a convicted peados phone when he got charged last year and put back in jail. For the BBC to neglect that, pay full pay then gie him a £40k pay off of taxpayers money is beyond belief mate.
Click to expand...
Nah.
He got charged last month not last year.
Played the mental health card earlier, and probably had a good (expensive) lawyer.
Don’t think he got a pay off for being sacked, and of course it’s not taxpayers money either.
Ideally I’d have seen him sacked earlier too.
 
Doc Shrink said:
Nah.
He got charged last month not last year.
Played the mental health card earlier, and probably had a good (expensive) lawyer.
Don’t think he got a pay off for being sacked, and of course it’s not taxpayers money either.
Ideally I’d have seen him sacked earlier too.
Click to expand...
He was arrested in suspicion of this shit last year and the police informed the beeb.
He resigned also, never got sacked. I get what you mean though. It's licensers money then, it's late :)
Night mate.
 
Ryan69 said:
To think that nearly a year the taxpayer paid nearly 500k for that nonce.to claim mental health.
Alot of people have serious mental issues.

This guy is just a disgusting fucking weasel.

May he burn in hell sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...
Yet you verbally suck Trumps cock on here and no doubt on the madcap qanon sites you love - hypocritical much?

Both should burn in hell.
 
Jack said:
It's not a tax. It's not paid to the government for government services. Its collected by the BBC for the BBC.
Click to expand...
It's practically forced upon though regardless of if you watch the BBC or not.
 
Jack said:
It's not a tax. It's not paid to the government for government services. Its collected by the BBC for the BBC.
Click to expand...
So if Dave TV tried to emulate them do you think that would work?

I don't. And the different circumstances that mean that Dave are on a loser, make it a tax.

Edit- not sure Dave stills exists but you take the point I hope
 
egb_hibs said:
So if Dave TV tried to emulate them do you think that would work?

I don't. And the different circumstances that mean that Dave are on a loser, make it a tax.

Edit- not sure Dave stills exists but you take the point I hope
Click to expand...
Naw.

You're wrong, you know you're wrong. Move on to your next click bait post.
 
Jack said:
It's not levied, administrated or collected by the government. It can't be a tax.

It's the law that you should pay for your shopping, for example, it's not a tax.
Click to expand...
Lets go with imposed charge if you want to watch tv which goes directly to one corporation/group then.

If you go shopping for some chicken you shouldn't be imposed to purchase ham to get the chicken imo.
 
Jack said:
Naw.

You're wrong, you know you're wrong. Move on to your next click bait post.
Click to expand...
Oh well that settles it.

Everyone in the UK not slavishly loyal to the state will disagree, but what do we know. A legally enforced levy is not a tax because Jack says so.

Not to mention you know better than the ONS and the government itself.
 
Not really straightforward is it....... I wouldn't have said it was a tax, and I'm far from loyal to the state, slavishly or other wise.

Reclassification as a tax​

[edit]
In January 2006, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) changed the classification of the licence fee from a service charge to a tax.Television licensing in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia'][14][/URL] Explaining the change, the ONS said: "in line with the definition of a tax, the licence fee is a compulsory payment which is not paid solely for access to BBC services. A licence is required to receive ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, satellite, or cable". A briefing paper from the House of Commons Library described the licence fee as a hypothecated tax (i.e. one raised for a particular defined purpose).Television licensing in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia'][15][/URL]

Just wiki though :detective:
 
Furthet to previous;

Taxes and fees for sales of service: how they differ and why it is important - Office for National Statistics

Defines and explains the main characteristics that lead to the classification of a transaction as a tax or a fee in the national accounts and public sector finances, and describes their effects on economic indicators and the operation of government.
www.ons.gov.uk
Doc Shrink said:
Not really straightforward is it..... I wouldn't have said it was a tax, and I'm far from loyal to the state, slavishly or other wise.

Reclassification as a tax​

[edit]
In January 2006, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) changed the classification of the licence fee from a service charge to a tax.Television licensing in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia'][14][/URL] Explaining the change, the ONS said: "in line with the definition of a tax, the licence fee is a compulsory payment which is not paid solely for access to BBC services. A licence is required to receive ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, satellite, or cable". A briefing paper from the House of Commons Library described the licence fee as a hypothecated tax (i.e. one raised for a particular defined purpose).Television licensing in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia'][15][/URL]

Just wiki though :detective:
Click to expand...
Yes it's a useful article.

If you don't want to call something legislated by the government, paid by the BBC into government coffers before being redistributed back to them, mandatory to gain access to something that doesn't need to involve the BBC, and referenced in commons proceedings on hypothecated taxes (probably misspelled but meaning purpose dedicated taxes), defined as a tax by the ONS...then fine.

But if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
 
egb_hibs said:
Furthet to previous;

Taxes and fees for sales of service: how they differ and why it is important - Office for National Statistics

Defines and explains the main characteristics that lead to the classification of a transaction as a tax or a fee in the national accounts and public sector finances, and describes their effects on economic indicators and the operation of government.
www.ons.gov.uk
Yes it's a useful article.

If you don't want to call something legislated by the government, paid by the BBC into government coffers before being redistributed back to them, mandatory to gain access to something that doesn't need to involve the BBC, and referenced in commons proceedings on hypothecated taxes (probably misspelled but meaning purpose dedicated taxes), defined as a tax by the ONS...then fine.

But if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Click to expand...

I was trying to shift my position quietly, and without fuss.
:grrr:


I know it's not the done thing on here, but sometimes I can almost admit that I may not be entirely correct. All the time.
 
Doc Shrink said:
I was trying to shift my position quietly, and without fuss.
:grrr:


I know it's not the done thing on here, but sometimes I can almost admit that I may not be entirely correct. All the time.
Click to expand...
:giggle

I wonder if Jack considers vehicle tax to be a tax, or whether it's collection by the DVLA means it's not a tax and they're just pretending?

Then there is VAT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
  • Menu
  • Home
  • Hibs Chat
  • New Posts
  • Just Back
  • Chatroom