Cllrs for Town and Parish councils get paid little to nothing. The article you link to is talking about Cllrs for Primary Local Authorities, which have a lot more responsibility. Regardless of which, town hall officials aren't Cllrs, they're pai employees--yes, overpaid, but completely irrelevent to this discussion.

Nope--Town Councils are equivalent to Parish Councils, it's just a different name. They're unpaid. The town is not a Primary Local Authority, it's in one of the Somerset unitaries, I forget which. (I've lived in the towns of Brixham and Totnes, and now live near Hebden Bridge and Todmorden, all have Town Councils, none of the Cllrs are paid).

Having said that, I agree with your overall point--they should've been able to respond to what was said, it's not like you can't issue a press release.

Punctuation and similar moves on most keyboard layouts on different countries. The HP laptop I'm typing this on has the same punctuation layout as a UK standard keyboard--odds are good that a Can laptop has the same layout as a Can standard keyboard.

If you want to get really confused, try German or Belgian (Flemish) keyboards, they're not even QWERTY, it's QWERTS or something annoying.

Because reliance on advertising revenue as the sole model works really well for the independence of the media in the US. You never ever hear of stories or entire shows being quashed because the advertisers wouldn't stand for it. Oh, wait...

The TV licence allows the BBC to be more independent of outside influence than advertising funding. Doesn't make the BBC perfect, but does mean it has a guaranteed predictable revenue stream that allows it to commit to medium term projects that fulfill a public service remit. Like the iPlayer, and local news gathering, and coverage of non-mainstream events, etc.

There are semantic definitions that could include the fee, but in the UK, a tax is defined as revenue raised to go to the treasury of a form of government, the BBC isn't part of the Govt, and the fee is raised independently by a subcontracted private firm.

You do not need to pay the fee, if you choose not to receive broadcast television: I owned two sets for the period I wasn't paying the fee, but I didn't have them plugged into an aerial and only used them to watch DVDs and videos.

If you choose to take a service (broadcast television) and then refuse to pay for it, then you're subject to civil constraints backed up by legislation. It's not a tax under UK definitions. I'm aware that the US has different definitions, hence the US embassy refusing to pay usage fees for London roads, etc. Specifically, under UK law, it's not a tax. Thus the BBC is not funded by taxpayers, it's funded by licencepayers (and DVD buyers, which I always remained).

Hah! You jest, surely?

It is

Incorrect.

The BBC is funded by a licence fee that all TV set owners pay, it's raised independently of the government and is specifically not a tax, the money never goes anywhere close to the Treasury. Many people chose not to have a TV and thus don't need to pay the license (I was one of these people for about 3 years, I had dial-up and a DVD collection, what'd I need a TV for?)

It also gets money from overseas sales and a semi-independent part dedicated to overseas broadcasts is funded by the Foreign Office in the same way as Radio America and similar.

I suspect the BBC has broken the law. I suspect they'll get investigated. I think that, regardless, they did the right thing--most people have no idea what a botnet is, let alone how much damage they do. Anything that raises awareness amongst domestic users in an open and transparent way is good. Those that had their PCs hijacked mught do well to upgrade their security (again).