So, a lot of people are saying that the government's ludicrous 'Work Programme' is a piece of crap. I am one of them. It has been created by the clueless (at best), is operated by the incompetent, and does little for anyone. Bear in mind, also, that the companies running this are paid on results. As they are not even achieving the low standards that were set, they will receive less funding next year. Yeah, you see the problem, don't you? If they can't make the grade now, how will they do it next year with less money and fewer resources? They will be adding to the jobless figures, surely.

Trying to PROVE the point is difficult but, below is a prime example of why the scheme is not working.

This is a screenshot from the new Jobseekers' registration at the Direct Gov website. What we have here is the account registration page. Jobseekers have to register an account before they can look for a job. You have to fill in the usual blurb then, click the 'I agree' gubbins. Pretty standard stuff.

The thing is, you have to click the box to agree to complete the MANDATORY Equality questionnaire.

Yeah. You see where I'm going with this...

If it is mandatory, agreement is irrelevant. You have to do it, whether you agree or, not. If you don't, you cannot move on. However, when you click on the '?' next to the statement a box pops up (the one shown in the screenshot).

This pop-up box informs you that you can choose 'Prefer not to say' as your selection.

So, let me get this straight. To register an account, you have to complete the mandatory form but, on that form, you can choose not to answer?

This may sound like a trivial point but, as an Instructional Designer, I know a little bit about this stuff. This is the registration page; the first page you come to on this site. A mixed message is being given. That is unacceptable. I would not have let that out of the building. As for the rest of the site, if you're already registered with Monster, Job Site, Job Search et al, for alerts, this just duplicates everything.

I suspect someone will argue that it is useful information to know that someone chose not to answer the Equality questions.

No, it isn't. Knowing that someone chose not to answer is about as much use as asking me if they like badgers. You need to know, at least, WHY they chose to not answer. Besides, I was under the impression that my ethnicity was of no relevance so, why do you want to know? Let's face it, you should already know pretty much everything about me, as you have my NI number!

And, that is why the government's scheme is not working. Like everything else this government is doing, either no one has thought it through or, like the review of disability payments, this isn't about about helping people back to work, if it is about keeping track of people, trying to catch them out, so that their benefits can be stopped. Either way, it's not good; our government is either lying or, incompetent.

Mark L. Potts
The God of Thunder

30th November 2012

So, following my email below, TV Licensing passes the hot potato, not wanting any part of the BBC's current issues...(Scroll down for the original communications)

TV Licensing 10:59 (4 hours ago)
to me

TV LICENSING
BRISTOL
BS98 1TL

Tel:      0300 790 6087
Fax:      0300 790 6012
Email:    enquiries@tvlicensing.co.uk
Our Ref:  TVL29226---

23 November 2012

Dear Mr Potts

Thank you for your email of 22 November, which has been recorded under your complaint reference 551564. Please use this number if you wish to contact us again.

I'm sorry that you're unhappy with my response to your previous email.

We at TV Licensing are only able to provide information relating to how the TV Licence fee is distributed.

Any further information in relation to BBC spending should be requested directly from the BBC in the form of a Freedom of Information request.

You can do this by emailing foi@bbc.co.uk, or by writing to the following address:

BBC Freedom of Information
PO Box 48339
London
W12 7XH

Thank you for taking the time to contact us.

Yours sincerely

Scott Martin
Customer Relations

Need further help? Try our online help service, click here to access it: http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/info.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark L. Potts" <marklpotts@gmail.com>
Date: 22 November 2012
Subject: Re: TVL29132525, Contact Us , General Enquiry - All

FAO Scott Martin.

Really? That is your patronising response to my question?

You should check your records.

I HAVE A TV LICENSE! Keep your insulting form letter responses for someone
who may be swayed by your scripted garbage.

Now, answer the question I asked.

You may think that I will let this drop but, you are incorrect. The BBC has
many issues to deal with and, believe me, you do not want me to report that
you are incapable of responding to a simple question.

More BBC cover ups?

Go on, keep ignoring me, because I will NOT let this drop. You think I'm
joking? The power of Social Media is immense. Try me. Now, answer my
question.

Mark L. Potts

Do you have to be a cretin to enter politics or, is it that you get lobotomised once they count the rigged votes?

What this country needs is an end to the current political system. Get rid of these chinless assholes. If these tossers had to send their CVs in to apply for these positions, they wouldn't get the job so, why should we let them ruin our country?

                            WE DIDN'T EVEN VOTE THIS ASSHAT INTO POWER!

                                       WE CERTAINLY DON'T WANT HIM NOW!

"Oh, you're so wrong. You're violent and want to return to the old days, like Chairman Mao"

No! You're an idiot! Shut up!

I grew up in the 70s. It was far from perfect. I had a few slaps, a hell of a lot of blackboard rubbers and chalk thrown at me and, yes, I got a clip round the ear from a copper, more than once. What's more, I deserved every single one of those reprimands.

Did I beat the shit out of my children?

No. But, I didn't allow them to behave badly in public, either. I may just kick your ass, though.

How did my children turn out? More sense, more ability, and more potential than I had.

What this country needs is common sense. I know some people still have it. I talk to people and no one I have talked to believes in this government. EVERYONE, I would wager, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, believes this government to be corrupt and untrustworthy.

                        SO, WHY ARE WE PUTTING UP WITH THESE MORONS?

I'm with The Beserker. Time to get Icelandic on our 'leaders' and return some dignity to the UK. In 2009, the Icelandic people turned on their leaders and overthrew it's government.

What? You didn't know?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/world/europe/27iceland.html

Yep. Really.

So, here's the short version of what happened in Iceland:

• The entire Government was forced to resign.
• The Bank was nationalised.
• A referendum was held so that people could decide their economic policies.
• The lying, cheating scum bags responsible, ended up in prison.
• The constitution was re-written, by the people.

Although we will have to wait and see how it turns out, Iceland's future is looking pretty rosy, right now. Meanwhile, we are being raped by the unelected Scameron and his evil posse of slime monsters and Bliar is the peace envoy for the war he created with his lies and duplicity.

You really want to change things? How badly do you want it?

Mark L. Potts
The God of Thunder

24th November 2012

Fluoride. It's all the stupidity of the modern world rolled into one, convenient, pile of crap. It is an ongoing, almighty argument.

Now, take a step back. It is something that really, should not be an issue. The fact that it is our leaders, effectively, poisoning us, is just the tip of the iceberg.

But, fluoride is good for teeth.

No, there is no scientific evidence to prove that. The fluoride they put into the water supply is a man made chemical.

It makes our teeth whiter.

Actually, no, it doesn't. It has never been proven that it does anything of the sort. IT may help to prevent cavities but, if a cavity has already formed, it makes matters worse. See, the thing is, it was always assumed that in medieval times everyone had rotten teeth. Not, actually true, when you think about it. There were no refined sugars back then, which is what causes most tooth decay.

So, ask yourself: Why do they put fluoride in the water?

Mark L. Potts
The God of Thunder

24th November 2012

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2234277/Seven-year-olds-lessons-Greek-Latin-reforms-introduce-compulsory-language-classes.html#ixzz2CU3ctmRf

If I thought these morons (our unelected leadership, that is) were capable of actually making this work, it would be a pretty good move. However, it's the myopic leading the blind, I fear.

Years of successive incompetent idiots bumbling around, changing things (to justify their creative expense sheet entries, have left our education system the worst in Europe and, our young people are severely disadvantaged because of it. And, now, it is so broken that the only way to fix it is to throw it in the bin and start again. What the UK education system needs is a good stripping back to a more traditional curriculum. Media studies is not education, it's what I do for fun!

Teach these blank canvases the basics and they will be more able to cope with the other stuff. Show them passion in learning. Stop watering down the content. Make them want to learn more.

Bring back discipline in schools. This pinko-commie faggot, tree-hugging hippie crap needs to stop. Children need structure, discipline, and organisation, not bullshit, ineffectual platitudes, and ever-more ludicrous schemes.

"Violence is not the answer..."

Oh shut up, before I slap the taste out of your mouth. Kids to day are well acquainted with their rights and what can - or can't - be done to them. It appears that no one has explained to them that, with rights come responsibility and accountability.

"You shouldn't call them 'kids'. They're not baby goats. It's demeaning."

Someone, actually, once said that to me. I responded that they, obviously, had no lucid argument and were, unquestionably, educationally subnormal, incapable of forming a clear train of thought, without resorting to obfuscation and trivialities.

What some of these little darlings need (and a good few grown ups too) is a frank explanation of how to stop being a complete oxygen-thief. It is called a boundary. Kids test them. A slap on the arse is a way of marking it. Or, am I the only one who has noticed that since punishment in school was outlawed - by politically correct wasters who need a good slapping - discipline is non-existent and standards have plummeted. Oh, yeah, I forgot, the statistics tell another story... Yeah. We all know that the statistics are bullshit.

Deal with it!

Mark L Potts
The

I must confess that I have always objected to the TV Licence fee. Not because I believed that it was being spent on activities I would not approve of but, purely because it is clearly unfair to favour one broadcaster over others. When there was only one channel, that was fine, even when there was only one commercial competitor, that was one thing but, now, the BBC needs to enter the real world. The population needs to stop paying for what should be provided through fair competition. Most of the BBC's modern, quality output isn't even made by the BBC, it is bought in from overseas and production companies. Don't even get me started on the outrageous cost. £145 per year? You kidding me?

But, that's cheaper than Sky.

So? I choose NOT to pay Rupert the Tumour. I can always read a book. I do not want or need 24/7 game shows, celebrity this and that, soap operas up the wazoo, and crap so bad that even American's don't watch it. In fact, the only thing I EVER watched live on the BBC was F1!

I said I wouldn't get into the BBC selling off the rights to F1... About leaving the license fee payers with a second rate commentary team and coverage so poor that half of the races I haven't bothered to watch because, by the time the BBC showed them, Facebook, Twitter and, even their own news programme had given the result away BEFORE highlights were shown on BBC. 

So, Forbrydelsen, Broen, Borgen, Den Som Draeber, Inspector Montalbano, Lilyhammer, to name a few, I do not need the BBC for. If they had not appeared on BBC, I would still have watched them. Why should I pay the BBC for programmes I can see elsewhere in the world? There are lots of programmes that the BBC has not made. Do I need a TV license to watch Matador? Old silent italian films? German TV broadcasts from live rock concerts in Essen in 1982?

What am I actually paying the BBC for? Let them finance their own business, like everyone else. I'm sure that the BBC's higher echelons are replete with crooked bankers who can do a dodgy Venture Capital deal.

But, it's not just about the morality of the people paying for something, in which they have no say nor, control. It is about how the BBC has been spending our hard earned £££s. When the Savile fiasco blew up, it became clear that the BBC had, knowingly, allowed Savile and his 'friends' to carry out their behaviours on BBC premises. Far from being the guardians of our morality, the BBC was riddled with all manner of evil and, they actually protected him. You, me, your parents, and your children, WE, the Great British public have been paying for it. I never signed up for that and I don't think you did, either.

So, I decide to look at the wording of the TV License. This is what it says:

Your TV Licence allows television receiving equipment to be installed and used at the premises specified in our terms and conditions.

OK. I'm following it, so far.

Your TV Licence allows television receivers to be installed and used at the premises specified on the licence, and at the other places detailed on the licence, subject to the terms and conditions stated below.

Right. Got it. I can watch TV, on a TV (other means of watching televisual entertainment are available) at the place I say I live, provided that...

Definitions
You means the person named on the licence.

TV equipment means television receiving equipment, such as a TV set, computer, mobile phone, games console, digital box or VHS/DVD recorder.

...I am me and that I have a TV (or whatever).

OK. So far so good... That's all pretty tame. However, it is the next part that intrigues me...

'as they are being shown on television.'

So, let me get this straight. According to their own wording, I only need a TV license to watch live programmes...

...or ones that are receivable in the UK and recorded, as they are broadcast. Trying to cover all eventualities, eh?

Seriously? Has anyone ever challenged this point? They are saying that to watch a program that was not even made in the UK, and had nothing to do with the BBC, I have to pay the BBC for the privilege? Surely, this can only apply if the originator is registered in the UK? The BBC cannot possibly claim any jurisdiction over anything that happens to be picked up in the UK, that comes from outside the UK, from a broadcast that is 'alien' in origin. NO, I'd challenge that one, for a start.

So, if I don't watch Live TV, do not record the broadcast, I do not need a license. It says so in their own wording. Proving it is another matter. Who is the burden of proof on? Me to prove I don't watch Live TV or them to prove I do?

What does your licence allow?

I'll save you some effort. This next bit is all about how they have changed the wording of the license, over the years, to try and cover every base and, so that the TV license covers a location, but only by person, not the location. Oh. Bad people trying to steal radio waves!

It's like car insurance. In Germany, for example, your vehicle is insured, not the specific driver. In the UK, the car is covered only for specific drivers. It's a scam, designed to rip us all off. Pure greed. Think about it. The car will cost the same to fix or replace, irrespective of who was driving it... TV License... one house, a number of flats. Each flat needs its own TV License. Greedy Auntie Beeb! Got to pay for the debauched lifestyles of its employees somehow, eh? Should change the name to DBC: Dorian Gray Broadcasting Corporation

Shameful. But, then again, we're British and don't like to make a fuss. Hell, I want to make a fuss. The TV Licence is unfair and ridiculously outdated and Car Insurance is, presumably, only allowed to rip us off because the government makes a shedload of cash out of it. Why is it in the British nature to give in, so easily, to being fleeced by the rest of the world? Rant for another day, methinks?

The licence allows installation and use of TV equipment:

• At the licensed place by anyone.
• In a vehicle, boat or caravan by:
  • You and anyone who normally lives with You at the licensed place (so long as TV equipment is not being used in a non-touring caravan and at the licensed place at the same time).
  • anyone, who normally works at the licensed place (so long as the vehicle, boat or caravan is being used for a business purpose).
  Use of TV equipment powered by internal batteries anywhere:
  
  
  • By You and anyone who normally lives with You at the licensed place.

What does your licence not cover?

• Any parts of your premises with separate legal arrangements e.g. occupied by tenants or lodgers.
• Self contained or physically separate units on the premises.
• Any parts of your premises with separate administrative arrangements e.g. paying guests.

Haha! I particularly enjoy this bit...

Black and white licences:

• If you use TV equipment to record television programmes, you need a colour licence even if you only have a black and white television as TV equipment records TV in colour. A black and white licence is valid only if the digital box is not designed to record television programmes.

If all I've got is a B&W TV, chances are I don't have the means of recording it in colour, or otherwise.

And then, covering off every thing that their evil little minds can invent...

Further conditions of your licence

• The licence fee must be paid when due.
• You may transfer the licence to a different address if the change of address is permanent.
• A licence may be cancelled or revoked or its conditions modified by a notice sent to You or by a general notice which will be published on the BBC's website and, if deemed appropriate by the BBC, in other national communications.
• Our officers may visit the licensed place to verify our records and inspect the TV equipment at any time, but you do not have to let them in.
• You must not cause undue interference to any other radio or television reception with your TV equipment.
• Your licence is issued on behalf of the BBC by TV Licensing.

For further information on whether you require a TV Licence contact www.tvlicensing.co.uk.

Please note that separate terms and conditions apply to the following types of TV Licence: hotel and mobile units TV Licence, ARC concessionary TV Licence and entertainment units TV Licence. If you have one of these, please refer to your licence for specific terms and conditions or contact us for information.

All of the above is mostly crappy bollocks, apart from this bit, which amuses me greatly:

Haha! If they come to check my equipment, they will get so much more than they bargained for.

The last bit is the break down of how the money is spent...

'...as it is broadcast...' See, that's the part that I like, a lot.

Oh, well, that's all right then. We know that the government is filled with corrupt expenses fiddlers, and who knows what else they and the BBC are colluding to fiddle with?

That's my look at the TV Licence fee T&Cs. It is antiquated and extraordinairly expensive. I know of no other country that imposes such a draconian entertainment tax on its population. Yes, other countries do require a fee, Germany, for example, but it is easy to not pay and, it is a fraction of the cost. Even ffrance, yes, the cheese-eating surrender monkeys, are the next most expensive, and that is still only two thirds of the UK cost.

We laugh now at the Beard Tax, Window Tax or, other antiquated forms of screwing money out of those with the least. But, consider that in a few hundred years, future generations will look back to their history - our NOW - and say:

Why did these people pay so much for everything? Why did they permit their elected leaders to treat them like that? Why were they so greedy and stupid? The planet has everything we need, as long as we are not selfish, greedy, and stupid.

Mark L. Potts
The God of Thunder

23rd November 2012

In response to my recent email to TV Licensing about what percentage of the license fee went on programming and how much on supporting undesirables like Savile, I received the following from Customer Relations:

(Formatting as in the original email)

TV LICENSING
BRISTOL
BS98 1TL

Tel:      0300 790 6087
Fax:      0300 790 6012
Email:    enquiries@tvlicensing.co.uk
Our Ref: XXXXXXXXX

21 November 2012

Dear Mr Potts

Thank you for your email of 14 November, which has been recorded under your complaint reference 551564. Please use this number if you wish to contact us again.

I must remind you that whatever your personal view may be, it's still against the law to watch broadcast television programme services without a TV Licence.

We visit all unlicensed addresses in the UK and anyone found to need a licence, could be prosecuted and fined up to £1000.

Last year, each household's colour licence cost about £12.13 per month. On average, this is how the BBC spent the money in 2010/11 (source - TV Licensing annual review 2011 which can be found on the TV licensing website):

TV                       - £8.01
Radio                    - £2.16
Online                   - £0.66
Other                    - £0.61
Collection                       - £0.42
Digital ? Marketing / help scheme - £0.27
Total                    - £12.13

I hope I've been able to explain the situation and thank you for taking the time to contact us.

Yours sincerely

Scott Martin
Customer Relations

Anyone think that Mr Martin's response impresses me?

Naturally, I have replied... More later.

Maybe it's me...

When I was a kid, one galvanised bin and anything you put out got taken, and the dustbinmen got a bit of something at Christmas, as a show of appreciation for helping to make the world go round.

Nowadays, everything has to be sealed and sorted before being put in one of, who knows how many, different coloured bins, bags, boxes, and skips.

When I was a kid, our dustbinmen were wrangled by Geoff.

What's your binman's name?

This, my friends, is what our leaders call 'progress', 'civlisation' and, 'the future'.

I call it rubbish.

Skyfall
12A cert
142 min

Dir: Sam Mendes

Starring: Daniel Craig, Javier Bardem, Judi Dench, Naomie Harris, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Bérénice Marlohe, Albert Finney


Certain things stay with you throughout your life. For me, James Bond has been one of those. I watched Sean Connery's Bond, as a child, with my dad. For Roger Moore, I went to the cinema with my mates. Timothy Dalton I saw in the cinema, with girls. Pierce Brosnan, I watched with my own children. Daniel Craig, though, he's different. He's a grown up Bond for an audience that encompasses the old and the young, over a period of half a century. That is not an easy task. It needs all the elements of the modern espionage film, whilst maintaining its individuality and being recognisable as a Bond film.

Casino Royale, Craig's first outing as 007 was, universally acclaimed as a new era. Quantam of Solace, although a good film, did not get the expected reaction, being outshone by the competition. Craig, however, left no one in any doubt that HE was Bond for the early 21st century.

The next film would, always, face another issue: all of the original novels had now been filmed. How could another genuine Bond film be made, and still be Ian Fleming's creation?

The answer: Skyfall. The name of James Bond's childhood home and setting for the explosive finale.

I don't, normally, write film reviews and I have no intention of explaining the plot. You can find that, ad infinitum, on the interweb. All I shall say is that Skyfall is pretty epic and I think it has all the elements expected of a Bond film, for young and old, alike. The set piece stunts are stunning, the fight scenes are superb - especially the one in Shanghai; the sets are suitably monumental and the locations precisely what you want to see in a Bond film. It should be a colossal hit.

From a more personal perspective, I was sceptical about it when I sat down to watch. This wasn't real, old school Bond. How could it be?

Well, I fought against it, valiantly, for the first hour of the film and tried to find things wrong. I failed. In fact, I submarined, big time. By the time the disturbing Javier Bardem makes an appearance, I was convinced that this was 'Ultimate Bond'. During the second half of the film, I became engrossed in the twists and turns of the plot. By the end, I was a wreck with a tear in my eye.

I should explain. The acting, from all, is outstanding, the directing is gritty, sharp, and raw. The action is relentless. But, beneath the surface is so much more. The subtle (and not-so-subtle) nods to Bonds past are beautifully incorporated into the proceedings. Bond and M are older, wiser, darker, and Judi Dench's swansong as M is quality drama in its own right. Q, of course, is younger. The other characters you appreciate more towards the end of the film...

Of all the reviews I've read, I have not seen any mention of something that I got from the film. I could be reading too much into it and seeing what I want to see. I don't think so, though.

In the second half of the film, the retreat to Skyfall, I felt a great sense of nostalgia, but not for Bond, per se, more the idea of Bond. The overall aim was to mark this Bond as the 50th Anniversary Bond; bring Bond full circle, almost a Greatest Hits of Bond package. This they do admirably. However, I got an overwhelming sense of John Buchan in the plot and the characters. Buchan's character Richard Hannay was, undoubtedly, part of the model for Fleming's creation. In the later novels, Greenmantle, Mr Standfast, and The Island of Sheep, Hannay is older, wiser, darker. Certain events and locations from those stories are echoed, in the retreat to Skyfall, and the battle. The character of Kincaid, to my mind, is a nod to Pieter Pienaar, Hannay's long-time friend and sidekick. If all of this is accidental then, I am much smarter than I think I am. Still, I felt that this film summed up, not only Bond but all British spies, past and present. I thought they, admirably, captured a hundred years of the gentleman secret agent. Maybe, it's just me.

At the end, I did have a tear in my eye, though. The ending is a moving piece of drama combined with some exceedingly, clever writing. If there were to be a 'final' Bond film, this would be it. It's that good.

Undoubtedly, Commander James Bond will return.

The next one is going to have a hard time besting Skyfall.

Mark L. Potts
The God of Thunder

21st November 2012