Added Snoopery?

I started reading this article in the DM  more for entertainment value than any other reason:

I do not have a TV license as I only watch Netflix and Amazon. However, I’ve heard I will now need to buy a license. Is this true?

I know, I know:  the premise of the question is puzzling to my Murkin Readers, in that the very concept of a “TV license” is unfamiliar not to say abhorrent.  But leaving that aside for the moment, I found my amusement turning into something else altogether as I started reading the answer:

The general rule is that under UK law you need to have a current TV license if you, or anyone within your house, flat or premises, watches live television on any channel or service, record television programs as they are being broadcast live or watch anything on BBC iPlayer.

So when you tune in to watch ‘on demand’ television, such as Netflix, Amazon and other similar streaming services, no TV license is needed.

This is because here you are not watching ‘live’ programs – i.e. shows that are being broadcast when you watch or record them but, instead, choosing from a catalogue of options.

So far. so good (well no, not at all good, but whatever).  Here’s where I started to feel a familiar itch in the old trigger finger:

What you have heard about relates to Netflix, the US streaming giant which has 17.1 million UK subscribers and has launched a new service where it broadcasts ‘live’ events – for example the former heavyweight champion Mike Tyson versus Jake Paul boxing match being broadcast on Friday.

This is therefore ‘live’ television, meaning if you watch this, or any other Netflix live event, as it is broadcast, or even if you record it to watch later, you fall squarely into the territory of needing a TV license.

To clarify, you can continue to watch Netflix without a TV license if you chose not to watch the live events.

Which begs  raises the question:  how EXACTLY does the BBC licensing Stasi know whether you’re watching a movie or a live show?

It seems quite a simple deduction that that the answer is twofold:  either Netflix is sharing the viewing choices of the subscribers with the BBC, or the BBC is able somehow to monitor the channel feed, whether terrestrial or wireless.  Either answer is fucking terrible.

I should point out that the only way the BBC can enforce this ridiculous license fee nonsense is because Brits are largely disarmed.  If some Lizenzinspektor  came to the average Texan’s door and started with the strong-arm bullshit, there’d soon be murders.

And just so we know what this is all about:

The standard TV licence now costs £169.50 per year.  If you are required to have a license but fail to buy one, you risk being fined up to £1,000, plus any legal costs and compensation you may be ordered to pay. 

Let’s hear it for the Surveillance Society.

Let’s Hear It For The Pollsters

I think this little debacle — initially seen in 2016 with Trump’s first electoral victory — can be summed up thus:

So much for them, then:  they were as clueless as all their US counterparts, all of whom called the election as “close” when (barring vote fraud) it was never going to be anything like that.

I know, I know:  everyone tries to hedge their bets in the prediction game, but never so egregiously.  It was obvious to any disinterested observer that they were cooking the  stats by slanted sampling and so on.

One would think that the pollsters would have learned their lesson from 2016, but noooo.

What I want to know is:  why should we believe anything these assholes tell us from now on?

Anyone?  Bueller?

Over Till Next Year

Thank goodness that Halloween is over and we can go back to a streaming movie schedule which doesn’t feature wall-to-wall horror movies, nor be greeted by foul Halloween decorations at every turn.

Of the loathsome pumpkins, we will not speak.

Also — and I must issue a stern Puke Alert here — we are also spared the appearances of celebrities and harlots (considerable overlap) in “fancy dress” costumes, an example of which can be found below the fold:

Read more

That FDR Bullshit

One of the most stupid media tropes (among oh so many) is that incoming U.S. presidents should have a “100-day” report card on their performance.  It’s another hangover (among oh so many) from the detestable Franklin Roosevelt which should be taken out and shot in the back of the head.

Why one hundred?  Well, like any arbitrary number, it’s conveniently round but sheesh, it has no bearing in reality.

Some policies can be enacted immediately (e.g. re-opening the Keystone XL pipeline, mobilizing the Corps of Engineers to continue building the southern border wall) — which can safely be called a one-day report card;  others may require a little longer, in that the job cannot be done immediately, but can be safely implemented within a month or so (e.g. putting a budget proposal together, firing a large number of federal bureaucrats);  while still others may take several months, probably because they require the assistance of the tortoises in Congress (tax cuts, balancing the budget, cutting spending — as opposed to just cutting the growth of spending, which is what those assholes “call cutting”).

Of the immediate- to short-term initiatives, let’s just hope that Trump follows up on his promise to enlist the support of Elon Musk — especially when it comes to trimming the headcounts in various federal departments — to get things moving, in the manner of trailblazing ArgyPres Javier Milei.

And we don’t need any stupid polls like this one to tell Trump what to do about illegal immigration either.  As Commander-In-Chief, he can tell the military to start gassing up the C-130s on Day One, to be ready for takeoff by Day Seven.  (Why seven?  Because it should only take a week to start emptying out the existing detention centers and jails prior to transporting the illegals and criminals out of the country.)

Whatever these initiatives may entail, let’s please ignore the stupid “100-day” report card because like so many artificial deadlines, it’s totally meaningless.