<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Official: The BBC is owned by Blair</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.tamba2.org.uk/T2/2006/01/21/official-the-bbc-is-owned-by-blair/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.tamba2.org.uk/T2/2006/01/21/official-the-bbc-is-owned-by-blair/</link>
	<description>Eclectic.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 03 Jan 2010 17:10:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: What makes you happy ? &#187; Fee : a definition for the BBC</title>
		<link>http://www.tamba2.org.uk/T2/2006/01/21/official-the-bbc-is-owned-by-blair/comment-page-1/#comment-7920</link>
		<dc:creator>What makes you happy ? &#187; Fee : a definition for the BBC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2006 22:12:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tamba2.org.uk/T2/?p=2109#comment-7920</guid>
		<description>[...] No, there is no quote because on that BBC page the word &#8216;fee&#8217; does not appear. The word &#8216;licence&#8217; does though - quite a few times. But the word &#8216;fee&#8217; does not accompany it. Why ? Because as I posted in January the licence fee is now a tax. However, in that story at the bottom it says &#8220;&#8220;We have a database of 28 million addresses that shows us who does and does not have a current TV licence,&#8221; the TV Licensing spokesman said.&#8221; Okay&#8230; so the line is still being followed. Until you go to the home of TV Licensing and check their &#8216;About Us&#8217; page. The word &#8216;Fee&#8217; is mentioned 6 times. The word &#8216;Tax&#8217; is missing. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] No, there is no quote because on that BBC page the word &#8216;fee&#8217; does not appear. The word &#8216;licence&#8217; does though &#8211; quite a few times. But the word &#8216;fee&#8217; does not accompany it. Why ? Because as I posted in January the licence fee is now a tax. However, in that story at the bottom it says &#8220;&#8220;We have a database of 28 million addresses that shows us who does and does not have a current TV licence,&#8221; the TV Licensing spokesman said.&#8221; Okay&#8230; so the line is still being followed. Until you go to the home of TV Licensing and check their &#8216;About Us&#8217; page. The word &#8216;Fee&#8217; is mentioned 6 times. The word &#8216;Tax&#8217; is missing. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gregory</title>
		<link>http://www.tamba2.org.uk/T2/2006/01/21/official-the-bbc-is-owned-by-blair/comment-page-1/#comment-7381</link>
		<dc:creator>Gregory</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Jan 2006 20:42:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tamba2.org.uk/T2/?p=2109#comment-7381</guid>
		<description>lol

Hmmm maybe that&#039;s why I keep blogging so sporadically. Must shoot from the hip more often! ;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>lol</p>
<p>Hmmm maybe that&#8217;s why I keep blogging so sporadically. Must shoot from the hip more often! ;)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://www.tamba2.org.uk/T2/2006/01/21/official-the-bbc-is-owned-by-blair/comment-page-1/#comment-7380</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Jan 2006 20:35:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tamba2.org.uk/T2/?p=2109#comment-7380</guid>
		<description>Gregory - If I took the time to think everything out that I write I&#039;d have nothing to blog about :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gregory &#8211; If I took the time to think everything out that I write I&#8217;d have nothing to blog about :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gregory</title>
		<link>http://www.tamba2.org.uk/T2/2006/01/21/official-the-bbc-is-owned-by-blair/comment-page-1/#comment-7379</link>
		<dc:creator>Gregory</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Jan 2006 20:25:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tamba2.org.uk/T2/?p=2109#comment-7379</guid>
		<description>Ah, well that is something seperate really.

I agree the BBC should mention it (though I&#039;ve not been watching News 24, so they might have). However we&#039;ll see what the coverage is in other outlets as well.

I don&#039;t think the change fundamentally makes anyone suffer - however if something like the situation you describe happens, well then THAT is what is making people suffer, taxing twice. Not the BBC&#039;s relationship with the government.

However as that hasn&#039;t happened, and there is no indication it will (the government having already said the BBC&#039;s proposed increases were too much), I think you are leaping to conclusions.

Not unreasonable ones, but still leaping.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ah, well that is something seperate really.</p>
<p>I agree the BBC should mention it (though I&#8217;ve not been watching News 24, so they might have). However we&#8217;ll see what the coverage is in other outlets as well.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t think the change fundamentally makes anyone suffer &#8211; however if something like the situation you describe happens, well then THAT is what is making people suffer, taxing twice. Not the BBC&#8217;s relationship with the government.</p>
<p>However as that hasn&#8217;t happened, and there is no indication it will (the government having already said the BBC&#8217;s proposed increases were too much), I think you are leaping to conclusions.</p>
<p>Not unreasonable ones, but still leaping.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://www.tamba2.org.uk/T2/2006/01/21/official-the-bbc-is-owned-by-blair/comment-page-1/#comment-7378</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Jan 2006 20:06:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tamba2.org.uk/T2/?p=2109#comment-7378</guid>
		<description>I disagree (as i do :) )
If this was a change abroad then the BBC would make noise about this. They will not. I think that though the change may be subtle on some levels it&#039;s fundamentally quite different and that as a result both parties suffer.
It also makes the &#039;license fee&#039; term completely redundant. GB will now increase tax to &quot;pay for the BBC&quot; while also increasing the license &quot;fee&quot; to &quot;pay for the BBC&quot;. It may all be spin but it&#039;s another bad spin.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I disagree (as i do :) )<br />
If this was a change abroad then the BBC would make noise about this. They will not. I think that though the change may be subtle on some levels it&#8217;s fundamentally quite different and that as a result both parties suffer.<br />
It also makes the &#8216;license fee&#8217; term completely redundant. GB will now increase tax to &#8220;pay for the BBC&#8221; while also increasing the license &#8220;fee&#8221; to &#8220;pay for the BBC&#8221;. It may all be spin but it&#8217;s another bad spin.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gregory</title>
		<link>http://www.tamba2.org.uk/T2/2006/01/21/official-the-bbc-is-owned-by-blair/comment-page-1/#comment-7377</link>
		<dc:creator>Gregory</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Jan 2006 20:00:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tamba2.org.uk/T2/?p=2109#comment-7377</guid>
		<description>Of course that is actually no different to how it was before. Yes the term has changed, so the link is more obvious, but in a practical sense it is exactly the same.

It was a service charge from a service that was set up, subsised, partially funded by and enforced by the government.

Sorry Mark - lot of fuss over nothing. Any pressure that might be brought to bear now could have (and probably was) before. The wording just makes it more explicit - and basically, more honest.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Of course that is actually no different to how it was before. Yes the term has changed, so the link is more obvious, but in a practical sense it is exactly the same.</p>
<p>It was a service charge from a service that was set up, subsised, partially funded by and enforced by the government.</p>
<p>Sorry Mark &#8211; lot of fuss over nothing. Any pressure that might be brought to bear now could have (and probably was) before. The wording just makes it more explicit &#8211; and basically, more honest.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
