But how does this GBP250m investment constitute half your income, as you claimed? Do you mean that the *extra* expenditure pushes the tax take to half your income? If so, you need to read the article again - it's paid for by monies already collected by the BBC for digital switchover. There is no extra taxation for this proposal.

Celarnor suggested that people would have access to services that they would not otherwise, to which you replied "...by giving up half of your income?".

And yes, government gains income from non-voluntary taxation. That doesn't help in any way to establish the accuracy of your observation.

By the way, your use of somewhat juvenile perjoratives like "forcibly removes" and "extorts" makes me think I'm in discussion with a Randroid Libertoonian. And since that bores the living shit out of me, you're welcome to the last word.

--Ng

How do you figure that? Are you referring to the 50% marginal tax rate introduced for next year? You do know that only applies to income over GBP150K (say $225,000), right? Scarcely half of most folks income.

Anyway, the lions share of this investment comes from money not spent by the BBC for switchover to digital TV, rather than direct taxation.

And no, the BBC licence fee is not 50% of anyone's income. It's about GBP 142.50 (~ $220) per annum. If most people where you live earn about $440 a year, you have my undying pity.

--Ng

I'm in Norway, noone here seems to have the balls to stand up to the EU, which has become the place to pass all the unpopular laws and for national politicans to just throw up their hands and say "we must"

You miss the point of the EU. It's one of the most successful policy laundering institutions in the world (WIPO is another).

The EU isn't punting the Orwellian crap: the national governments push it to the EU, knowing that it will be as popular as a rat sandwich to their domestic populations. So, once it gets bullied, cajoled and pushed through as an EU directive, those same governments turn around to their electorates and say "Oh, we have to do this now, it's an EU directive, and we ain't got no say in the matter".

The Data Retention Directive, for instance, is a creation of the UK government. When introducing the legislation to Parliament, they specifically said that it had to be done because it was an EU Directive. No mention that it was their EU directive.

Bastards.

--Ng

The school district does not contest that Ms. Redding had no disciplinary record, but says that is irrelevant.

"Her assertion should not be misread to infer that she never broke school rules," the district said of Ms. Redding in a brief, "only that she was never caught."

Wonderful. So, the absence of any conviction for paedophile rape by the school officers isn't grounds for suspecting that they are innocent of such a crime, merely that no-one has managed to make such a charge stick?

Are they fucking serious? They expect that shit to fly in a court? A real court? I'm in the UK, so I suspect that no school officer would try a strip search here without an army of lawyers, social workers, doctors, parents and the Queen for good measure, but if they did this to my kid, I swear to God the consequences for those responsible would be dire indeed.

--Ng

It's true that most internal decisions are derived and implemented via Holyrood now, rather than Westminster.

Treaty negotiation, however, is not an internal matter, because Scotland is not (yet) a sovereign state. ACTA is being negotiated by the UK government, and will apply to Scotland as well, if the UK Parliament approves.

You can always vote SNP if you want this changed. Pity that the clown contingent is so strong in the SNP though - the basic independence policy suits me fine.

--Ng

One of the tasks which the police has to solve, is to process the stupid criminals quickly, so that they have resources left for the more intelligent ones

I wish this were the case - I really do. Unfortunately, in all major democracies, the police are rated by the number of crimes solved, rather than the subjective seriousness of the crimes. A thief who steals $10 counts in the stats for the same as someone who stole $10000.

So large scale (and illiberal) attempts to dredge low-hanging fruit from the stupid sector is probably enough to give the cops the right sort of cleanup rates. The remaining 10% will be in the bucket of "no policing system is perfect".

And the clever crims? Well, we'll probably wait until their efforts are copied and replicated before some politico decides that Something Must Be Done. By which time the clever ones have moved onto some newer mechanism for crime.

--Ng

As I posted in the £20 tax thread, I can't find any evidence that such a proposal even exists.

The UK government did propose, in the interim Digital Britain report, to explore the willingness of rightsholder organisations (eg, the equivalents of the RIAA and MPAA) to fund a Rights Agency [which is stupid idea, but still...] but there never was a "broadband tax" proposal.

I think that the Times article was simply wrong (did you see it quote anything or anyone? Thought not). However, if anyone can find some counter evidence, then I'd like to read it.

I hold no candle for the Labour government - bash away, but when you bash at a non-existent straw man, then you undermine all your legitimate arguments against the real world shit that the bastards try to pull (ID cards, Internet use database, DNA records, etc.)

--Ng

Not bad. Although the 25 year old Laphroaig is smoother than the other Islay malts I've tried (most of them - never tried Port Askaig). And now the Yanks know why British teeth are so awful - no enamel!

If you can find Ledaig, that's nice too - made in Mull, but the good stuff is rarer than rocking horse shit (the Whisky Shop in Edinburgh's Victoria Street is where I got mine).

--Ng

Famous Grouse? That blended shite? Barely good enough for alkies and Englishmen. ;-)

Oban? Nah, bit weedy for me.

--Ng

You know, the only thing I can find in the Interim Report is this:

Before the final Digital Britain Report is published we will explore with both distributors and rights-holders their willingness to fund, through a modest and proportionate contribution, such a new approach to civil enforcement of copyright

So, the government seem to be saying that they want copyright holders (and those who distribute works, like record companies and film distributors) to stump up to fund the new Rights Agency. Not broadband subscribers. And that might be fair, since its rightsholders who would be the beneficiaries of the agency's activity.

Other than the Times articles, I just can't find where this idea of a broadband tax is coming from

--Ng