BBC Blog Network

User Profile

aflockhart

Listed below are comments made by aflockhart between Monday, 28th July 2008 and Tuesday, 12th May 2009.

«Newer
Older»

How damaging is illegal file-sharing? 11:47am on 12 May 2009 To those arguing that downloading causes no harm: what would happen if everyone did it - why would anyone then make and distribute music or films ? Or do you just expect other people to pay the costs of producing music and films while you continue passing copies around your friends without paying a penny ?

Let's see how a file-sharer might justify travelling by train without a ticket, using the same arguments as used above to justify not paying for media:

1) The train is going anyway, so it doesn't cost the train operator any extra if I dodge the fare. (comment #5 above)

2) Train tickets are too expensive so it's OK for people to avoid paying.(#10,20,32,34)

3) The driver only gets a fraction of the fare so I'm not harming him directly (#22,39)

4) If I dodge the fare on enough trains I'll get so used to travelling by rail that I'll end up spending more money on fares in future (41)

5) Most of the train journeys I take are rubbish anyway, I should only have to pay for the ones I enjoy (#8)

6) Travelling without a ticket isn't the same as theft, so it's OK (#17)

7) If I had to pay the fare I wouldn't travel, so the train company hasn't really lost any money. (#11,13)

8) Train companies have been telling us for years that fare dodging is costing them money, and yet the trains still run ! What a bunch of scaremongers ! (#40)

9)Train companies are Bad, Bad, People who make Profits ... (#3,4,5,26 and lots of others ... )

10) It's impossible for anyone to stop people from fare dodging because people can always find a way round it, therefore it's OK for me to do it (#31)

11) Travel is part of the cultural inheritance of humanity and should not be restricted by ability to pay for it (#28)
Medical dilemma of suicide law 2:29pm on 08 Dec 2008 I'd prefer to think that in carefully controlled circumstances - long term, disabling illness and loss of independence - and where I had made my own wishes clear in advance, my doctor was able to help me if I chose to end my life with dignity, rather than "striving to keep me in this world" at all costs.
Bills, bills, bills 3:29pm on 03 Sep 2008 #16

It's far from "obvious" that local income tax is fairest.

Especially one like the SNP's proposal that does not tax unearned income and dividends.

There are a fair number of people who are wealthy and have expensive houses, but who can arrange to live off their dividend income or their savings. Why should these people not pay a share ?

Why are you so opposed to a property tax making up a relatively small part of overall taxation ?
Bills, bills, bills 3:13pm on 03 Sep 2008 #26 and #31

The calculations on that website are based on the assumption that the LIT will be set at 3p, which is not enough to replace the revenue lost by abolishing council tax.

And it does not take account of how the missing funds will be made up.

If the SNP really think councils can get by without a third of their council tax income - and I suppose it would be a suitably Thatcherite economic policy for Alex Salmond to follow - then I have a suggestion that would make *everyone* "better off" - just cut the Council Tax by a third.
Bills, bills, bills 3:01pm on 03 Sep 2008 #20

The main reason Salmond and co are able to claim "80% will be better off" is because the level of tax they propose (3p in the £) is too low to raise the same amount as the current Council Tax.

The most optimistic independent sources have calculated that 3p LIT will raise at most about 2/3 of the money raised by Council Tax. So councils will lose a third of their council tax revenue.

This would need to be made up in one of three ways (or a mixture of all three):

a) by increasing other charges for Council services - pay more for your parking tickets and permits, sports centre entrance fees, rubbish collections, home help charges, library charges, music lessons, etc - so they still get the money out of you, they just call it by another name.

b) By cutting local services to save money.

c) By taking money away from other services such as hospitals, police and prisons so that Alex can give it to Councils.

Or alternatively, the LIT could be set at a more realistic 4.5p or 5p figure - but then they could not claim "80% better off".
Map of the week: Serious violence 3:23pm on 28 Jul 2008 Also I don't think it is actually the Brecon Beacons that has the high rate - they're part of Powys which is shown in white.

So maybe the squaddies are better behaved than the rest of us ?
Map of the week: Serious violence 3:16pm on 28 Jul 2008 Why is this one not presented using the 'hexagons map' that you used for some of the earlier articles ? Contrary to some of the earlier comments, the map actually does show some high figures in London - but the geographical areas are so small that they barely show up.

Zoom in to 400% view and you can just about see that Lambeth, Southwark, Lewisham, Islington, Ealing, Brent, Barking and Tower Hamlets are all "above average"

"Most of London" less violent than "parts of Devon and Cornwall" ? Sounds about right - I'd expect a city like Plymouth to have higher violent crime than the leafier suburbs of London like Barnet or Richmond.

As for fobbing off Scotland with a "make your own" comment ( and omitting NI entirely) : it took me about 5 mins to find the figures and would have taken another 10 mins to plot them on a map - so why can't the BBC take the trouble to do this for its Scottish and Irish licence payers ?

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

aflockhart