• maxwells_daemon@lemmy.worldEnglish
    15·
    10 hours ago

    Oi, you got yer internet licence, mate? Can’t be crackin’ these jokes if you ain’t a proper grown-up, innit?

  • gmtom@lemmy.world
    9·
    10 hours ago

    One of 3 jokes.

    Its either either :

    “loicence”

    Haha no spices

    Or “bad teeth”

    • Zron@lemmy.world
      6·
      5 hours ago

      My favorite to poke at is treating anything with a blade on it like it’s a deadly weapon with no other purpose.

      Can’t have a locking pocket knife.

      There was a group that wanted to ban pointed kitchen knives.

      Had a dude tell me he doesn’t carry an axe or saw when camping because it “might scare passersby”

      Photos of police “hauls” that show screw drivers and hammers as “deadly weapons that don’t belong on the streets”

      So it’s at least 4 jokes.

    • HugeNerd@lemmy.ca
      42·
      8 hours ago

      Don’t forget the bizarre “r” into everything like drawring, the lawr, etc.

      • LotrOrc@lemmy.world
        42·
        8 hours ago

        Thats more American in my experience That and completely dropping entire parts of words for absolutely no reason I can understand

        Ex. Comfortable somehow becomes comftable. Drawer becomes drawr. Wednesday becomes wensday

        • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
          2·
          7 hours ago

          People (I’m in the US) are pretty much always astonished to realize, when I ask them to say the word “important”, that they more often than not will pronounce zero of the T’s in the word, when I point out that they didn’t.

          It always really stuck out to me as a kid when Shawnee Smith (probably most famous for the Saw movies now), on the old sitcom Becker, would always enunciate the T’s in that word—that’s what made me realize how weird it was that everyone wasn’t saying it that way, lol.

        • HugeNerd@lemmy.ca
          1·
          8 hours ago

          I’ve only ever heard that “added r” thing when watching BBC stuff. Can you link me to some Americans saying drawring instead of drawing, for example?

          • LotrOrc@lemmy.world
            3·
            8 hours ago

            Huh thats really interesting ive never heard that on BBC

            Its all over the place in New England especially in MA

            • HugeNerd@lemmy.ca
              1·
              8 hours ago

              Hm, I’ll try and find some examples. It just fascinates me how things like language evolve chaotically, like tiny changes that somehow then become the new equilibrium point.

            • Alaik@lemmy.zip
              1·
              8 hours ago

              I didnt know people from Boston could pronounce Rs at any point, let alone add more. “Pahk the cah.”

      • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
        1·
        7 hours ago

        Apparently, there’s some sort of linguistic exchange program within British English where T’s are traded out for R’s, and then a persistent logistics issue causes the R’s to be distributed incorrectly.

        • HugeNerd@lemmy.ca
          2·
          7 hours ago

          I’m glad I’m not the only one thinking about this important issue… I wonder what Susie Dent thinks of it.

  • markovs_gun@lemmy.world
    311·
    14 hours ago

    I’m really glad I didn’t have to see the word cunt here that would have really ruined my day

    • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
      321·
      1 day ago

      Americans fund public TV and radio infrastructure through taxes, Brits just make it opt-out if you meet certain criteria by labeling it as a license.

      You tell me which has more “freedom.”

          • lessthanluigi@lemmy.sdf.org
            7·
            1 day ago

            Sometimes I forget how much freedoms we have in Washington State. The only thing is strict gun laws, but it’s mostly background checks and limited magazine sizes

            • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              4·
              11 hours ago

              Limited mag sizes are a legit issue, but NICs checks are federal.

              The only thing limited mags are effective against is the possibility to have more rounds in a home defense situation (which is really only a problem if there are multiple invaders, but of course there usually are, that’s not usually a solo activity).

              Their stated objective (to reduce the amount of rnds/mag so mass shooters are less effective) is complete hogwash, magazines can be changed in one literal second, and sometimes the shooters even prefer the 10-20rnd mags because the standard 30s are harder to hide. Changing mags is only a problem when someone is returning fire, if you’re completely unimpeded you might as well have a damn lever action.

              • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                3·
                9 hours ago

                And it’s not like mass shooters are law abiding citizens except in the small area of murdering random people… They can easily drive one state over to Idaho and get whatever they want, and if they’re out, continue south to Utah or east to Montana. Nobody is going to check your car on the way back…

                I grew up in WA, and everyone got around whatever law they didn’t like. Want to blow up big fireworks but your town doesn’t allow it? Go to the local res, hide them under a blanket in the car, and be a very law abiding citizen on the way home (and blow them up in a random neighborhood). Before weed was legal, people would just grow it in the forest on public land, which was literally everywhere.

                The mag law just exists to piss off law abiding citizens and is the same “save the children” BS excuse that’d being used to effectively ban porn and other things across the country. Solve the problem another way.

                • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  1·
                  7 hours ago

                  Tbh you don’t even have to drive, you can 3d print standard capacity magazines and then use a spring, which you can buy in any state, or cannibalize one from another mag (certain mags that can be legally bought in restricted states work too, but a man has to keep some secrets).

                  But also yeah driving works too, and plenty people have done it.

                  I grew up elsewhere, but have similar experiences regarding weed, fireworks, and more. Laws don’t stop people from doing anything they’re significantly intent on doing in my experience.

                  Totally agree, and I extend that to all the pointless feature bans. Their true purpose is for politicians to posture for reelection lol, same with the anti-porn bullshit, just different politicians.

        • Jade@programming.dev
          18·
          1 day ago

          Nope. You can just plug your TV into the aerial to get BBC + free channels. Netflix and whatever costs extra tho

          • MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.todayOP
            22·
            1 day ago

            I’m surprised that according to the website, they actually let you get away without a license if you only use commercial streaming services and don’t watch any BBC content. In Germany, that excuse doesn’t fly. As long as your device has the capacity to receive aerial broadcast, you have to pay, whether you watch it or not is irrelevant.

            • Shadowedcross@sh.itjust.works
              3·
              13 hours ago

              In theory, but the BBC has been known to harass people into paying, even pressuring you into letting them into your house even though they don’t have the right to do so.

            • Knuschberkeks@leminal.space
              7·
              1 day ago

              afaik in Germany you even have to pay if you have no device that to receive anything. Every household has ro pay wirth a few exeptions.

              • MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.todayOP
                11·
                1 day ago

                Pretty sure not owning ANY broadcast receiving devices is the only way to get around it, but that’s extremely difficult to accomplish. Keep in mind radio counts as well (though you can be eligible for a reduced rate if you only have radio access and no TV), including the one in your car, your stereo, or your alarm clock. Owning a TV with no antenna hooked up does not count either, since it’s trivial to do so, and you could just be hiding an antenna in your attic or your basement.

                Basically, the only way to legally skirt the fee is to live under a bridge or in a forest without any electronic devices besides a flash lamp.

                • ThoGot@feddit.org
                  3·
                  16 hours ago

                  Pretty sure not owning ANY broadcast receiving devices is the only way to get around it

                  That was a thing years ago, but nowadays everyone has to pay (except if you have a low income and receive social benefits)

            • Darren@sopuli.xyzEnglish
              1·
              2 hours ago

              Yes, and it’s ad-riddled nonsense.

              The BBC runs no adverts, save for trailers of its own stuff.

              • Bobby Turkalino@lemmy.yachts
                1·
                2 hours ago

                Yeah and even cable/satellite, paid services, are ad-riddled lol. Always kills me how the older generations criticize us for being financially irresponsible when they’re paying to watch a service that’s 20-25% ads

        • Deceptichum@quokk.auEnglish
          3·
          1 day ago

          Do people elsewhere in the world pay for “cable” tv? I know we had a version here in Australia but it was so rare, no one really used it.

          • Bobby Turkalino@lemmy.yachts
            9·
            1 day ago

            It was pretty big over here in the US, and still is with Gen X and older. Nowadays, pretty much the only reasons to get it are if you’re a sports fan or enjoy brainrot 24/7 news networks

    • rtxn@lemmy.world
      24·
      1 day ago

      The early idea was to support the state-owned and state-operated channels through taxes. Then the channels got privatized and now the taxes are going straight into the pockets of The Brexit Bunch. I mean why would they voluntarily cut off a money source that people were already paying.

      • UncleGrandPa@lemmy.worldEnglish
        30·
        1 day ago

        In San Diego they had a toll bridge… once it was paid for they kept the toll. When asked why they were still charging a toll… They said the toll booths still cost money to run. They had to be sued for the toll to stop

        • nialv7@lemmy.world
          11·
          1 day ago

          Having to charge toll because they need money to run the toll booths is the most Kafkaesque thing I have heard in a while.

    • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
      18·
      1 day ago

      This is/was a thing in many other European countries too.

      In Austria it used to be (not long ago, a few years at most) that only people who owned a TV needed to pay it, not anymore, now every household has to pay it, so it is basically a household tax.

      • алсааас [she/they]@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        8·
        1 day ago

        It’s not a tax tho? At least not in Germany. It’s going directly to the state-broadcasting service but unconditionally; the idea being it’s harder to influence the content or threaten them with cutting off their funding.

        • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
          3·
          1 day ago

          This is also the case in Austria according to https://orf.beitrag.at/faq/allgemein so whether to call that a “tax” or not is purely a terminological question. It used to be that this was only required for owning a TV, but this was hard to enforce because there was no automatic legal requirement to let inspectors into one’s home and companies started to produce TVs without a TV tuner (i.e. could only stream from the Internet) to get around this.

    • Avicenna@lemmy.world
      10·
      16 hours ago

      that is coming to the UK and the EU soon. It is almost like these people are saying “while Trump is doing some outrageous shit, lets slip in a couple quickies ourselves shall we?”

      • Regrettable_incident@lemmy.world
        1·
        14 hours ago

        Yeah I think a lot of people don’t realise how significant these changes are going to be. It’s a big increment of the surveillance state. The fuckin Labour party are making a big lurch to the right, the Palestine Action thing is another sign of the times.

      • QueenHawlSera@sh.itjust.works
        5·
        17 hours ago

        In my state they tried that but everyone ignored the law because they didn’t include a way to enforce it.

        Pornhub and only pornhub is blocked but if I gave a shit I’d use a VPN

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          4·
          16 hours ago

          It’s the same in the UK. The politicians bitch and moan about it but they’re not actually going to do anything about VPN because that would be far too complicated to work out and enforce, and it would force them to admit that the law doesn’t work, and they don’t want to draw attention to that.