TV licensing strikes again!

battybouncer

trisontana wrote: »

Not "good for them". They are breaking the law. Why should the rest of us who pay our TV licence subsidise those who don't? I am afraid that we cannot be selective in what laws we want to obey and those we want to ignore.

No,that is just !!!!!! that they want us to believe.Even if every person in this country bought a tv licence they would still want more each year to pay for the rubbish that they show.
Do you really think that it would be cheaper?
I think not.:p

trisontana

battybouncer wrote: »

No,that is just !!!!!! that they want us to believe.Even if every person in this country bought a tv licence they would still want more each year to pay for the rubbish that they show.
Do you really think that it would be cheaper?
I think not.:p

That's wasn't what I was saying . The law is the law and people cannot be selective in which laws they obey and those they don't . And I repeat why should we subsidise those scroungers who won't pay? they are just parasites.

Count_Dante

trisontana wrote: »

That's wasn't what I was saying . The law is the law and people cannot be selective in which laws they obey and those they don't . And I repeat why should we subsidise those scroungers who won't pay? they are just parasites.

We shouldn't have to pay; privatise the BBC, give license payers a share of the proceeds and let the BBC continue to make the substantially useless programs as it always has done only financed with advertising or pay per view.

Those that don't pay their license are just doing what many of us would do if we had the balls. If people had a choice to pay over £100 a year and get the BBC, or not pay and not get the BBC I know what everyone would choose.

trisontana

Can you explain how you can "privatise" the BBC as it is not a nationalised company. Where would the money come from?

As for financing with advertising, there is not enough advertising revenue to go round the existing channels . Why do you think the commercial channels are so keen to provide those dodgy quiz programmes, except to make up the short fall from advertising ?

If you go the pay-per-view route then you would have to provide everyone with a stand alone box so they would be able to watch the programmes.

I am very happy to pay my licence fee to get all those TV and radio channels completely advert free and with the highest programming standards in the world.

Errata

That Gordon Brown, eh! Won't we be lucky to have a smart PM like him!

BattyBouncer............ please, please tell us how to save money by paying a fine instead of buying a TV licence. After all, this is a moneysaving site and we're all very keen to save money.

sweven

trisontana wrote: »

Not "good for them". They are breaking the law. Why should the rest of us who pay our TV licence subsidise those who don't? I am afraid that we cannot be selective in what laws we want to obey and those we want to ignore.

My feelings entirely - and then you find it's reported that Rupert Murdoch has 'chosen' not to pay income tax in this country! :mad::mad:

maninthestreet

battybouncer wrote: »

My relations are unemployed and smokers,they can't afford a lot of groceries,they don't buy a licence either, they just take their chances of being caught and fined which is what happened three times yet it still works out cheaper than buying a licence.Good for them!:j

The criminal record that goes with this conviction is not something to be proud of.

hollydays

Errata wrote: »

That Gordon Brown, eh! Won't we be lucky to have a smart PM like him!

BattyBouncer............ please, please tell us how to save money by paying a fine instead of buying a TV licence. After all, this is a moneysaving site and we're all very keen to save money.

You cannot be serious...

ckerrd

Count_Dante wrote: »

We shouldn't have to pay; privatise the BBC, give license payers a share of the proceeds and let the BBC continue to make the substantially useless programs as it always has done only financed with advertising or pay per view.

Those that don't pay their license are just doing what many of us would do if we had the balls. If people had a choice to pay over £100 a year and get the BBC, or not pay and not get the BBC I know what everyone would choose.

Eh..... no you don't.

dangeroussports

If it had not been for the BBC we would never of had nature programs as good as David Attenborough. The BBC fund this.

Left to the likes of Sky & ITV we would be so dumbed down with their constant irritating adverts and pathetic programs.

You cannot watch television uninterrupted on any other channel than the BBC. Adverts are irritating, annoying and most of the time really really stupid.

Why would you want you relaxed television experience stopped every 15 minutes so a hair product, breakfast cereal, tampon, aftershave, bank can blab on about how good they are?

Really, come on....if you rented a film from Blockbuster - sat down all relaxed and then watched adverts throughout it wouldnt you be annoyed? No different to SKY....You pay for SKY television and then sit there watching adverts - being interupted!

There was a study done recently regarding television and concentration levels.....watching advert driven channels was a a firm NO NO!