Re: [Fsuk-manchester] social control by " Digital rights management "

[Andy Halsall]

On Monday 17 March 2008 17:20:05 Peter Colton wrote:
> Andy Halsall wrote:
> > Firstly, the BBC's independence, independent media is hard to come by at
> > this point in time, I would suggest that the BBC is the closest thing we
> > have.
>
> The BBC is not independent its that perpetual voice from the minatory of
> truth.
The BBC is independent, or at least as independent as UK legislation allows, 
it is certainly more independent (from corporate interest) than other 
broadcasters or News Papers.  Given they type and quality of content I would 
suggest there is very little to indicate that the BBC caves in to UK 
Government coercion or is controlled by he same.

> Would you say that the Venezuela government TV station is 
> independent ? That's their national broadcasting company. I would say
> not and I bet you would say the same. 

Comparing a state run TV station to an organisation that is somewhat state 
funded (the funding mechanisms are enforced by the state) is rather 
different.  You will also note that the content is rather different too.

> Here in the UK the relationship is 
> just the same. The BBC is the government proper gander machine. Here we
> go one step more and the government charges use for its "proper gander"
> channels, by the TV licence. I have no problem with the BBC not being
> independent. 

> The BBC should have no fee. 

The TV License fee is what allows the BBC to operate outside of corporate 
interest, the alternatives are the free market (advertising) and the 
associated issues such as changes in reporting so as not to cause offence to 
investors or advertisers or outright Government funding, which comes from 
taxation anyway.

> Lots of people out there have  no TV because they can not afford the licence
> fee and some see a TV as  unnecessary cost. No TV licence No TV, you can not
> even watch the free  channels. When the UK TV is fully digital and if the
> BBC wants to change for their channels they can use a pay to view, as sky
> dose. Then the TV licence can scrapped.

Correct, However I see no problem with this scenario.

> > live in a democracy, we can vote for change.
>
> Yes we have representative democracy not participatory democracy.
> Our elected representatives vote for change on our be half. These UK
> elected representatives all have to swear an oath of allegiance to Queen
> and country.  Jerry Adams, the leader of Shinfane can not have a place in 
> parliament because he will not "swear a oath of allegiance to the Queen" of
> England. 

Correct again, and once again I would suggest that this is a matter of choice 
for the country.  As for allegiances, well if the UK were a republic then an 
oath to uphold a constitution, or an oath to the office of President would be 
required. As it is not, an oath to the person who embodies this countries 
sovereignty seems perfectly reasonable.  

>
> Participatory democracy is a population that as access to state power by
> the means of public assembly by constitutional right. Participatory
> democracy is a constitution right in Venezuela. The political parties
> have to share power with the public assembly.
>
> The constitution we have here is a joke. Its that well know I can
> remember its name.
>
> I am the proud owner of a real political constitution . "Constitution of
> The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela". This A5 size book is the hand
> book for civil society in Venezuela. The reader of this book can find
> out how state power is set-up and how they can access it. If you ring
> the UK Venezuela embassy they will send you one for free.

The UK has no constitution as such.  We also have a partly unelected second 
chamber in the House of Lords.  Our Highest court is also unelected.  The 
Armed Forces are technically responsible to the Crown (Not the government).  
All of this is actually a very good thing.

Here's why.  If a nation has only Politicians in power (everyone is elected), 
then everything is (or at least most things are) weighed on political 
grounds.  This means that the majority view has a rather large amount of 
influence, regardless of whether it is a considered view or a snap reaction 
(see Anti-Terror legislation, Criminal Law and Taxation) as do the rich and 
vocal minorities.  

Politicians tend to look toward being elected, if you look at the US, you will 
note that many projects and plans are short term (because things need to 
happen within an election cycle) or intended to benefit the majority (and 
that is the middle classes rather than say the poor) or benefit a special 
interest group because they have the loudest voice.  You also see corruption 
due to the immense campaign finance requirements, you see money allocated 
where it is politically expedient.  

All of this is dangerous and counter productive.  The US has no real process 
to balance these issues (other than the Supreme court, but any rulings there 
come much later than the legislation they are ruling on comes into force.)

Now, if I am honest I would suggest that having an unwritten constitution (As 
we do) and an *unelected* upper house should provide us with stability.  It 
should also allow us to engage in long term planning and prevent long term 
plans (such as those concerning health and infrastructure) from being 
derailed for some short term political agenda.

Finally, this system isn't perfect, none is.  I would however hesitate to 
point at Venezuela as an ideal state or as having an ideal political system, 
just as I would hesitate to pick any other nations system as perfect 
(although the Swiss are close if totally different).  Venezuela has some 
serious problems, both internal and external, as does the UK, but I know 
which system I prefer, the one thing that is important is to ensure that the 
current UK government is kept in check and that any changes that are made are 
the right ones.

Finally, I would suggest that these issues are inappropriate to this list and 
if you wish to continue this debate that we do so directly rather than 
through the list.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.