Bliss Roots Cbd Gummies™ Exclusive...
Food & Drink16 mins ago
TV Licence
�180 for a TV licence!! Are they serious i dont see why we should have to pay anyway as it only goes to the BBC and noone watches that channel exclusively. With people getting more channels and going to digital it should be abandoned and they should advertise like the rest of them
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by AliFlump. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Jake-The-you are a snob. ITV not good enough for you? The BBC is not worth �180. What i object to is non funnies like Little Britain, endless repeats of Dads Army. Only fools and Horses and so on then paying over ratred presenters �100,000s a year when this couldbe used for better programmes. And it's very biased towards England.
AliFlump - you are clearly not going to listen to a word I say, so just forget it. I'd love to know what your problem is with me. Perhaps it's because I failed instantly to agree with you. My bad. Or you're just enjoying splitting hairs because you can see that your case basically only has one point, and others are making it more eloquently than you while you try to make a huge deal out of one arguement that, if presented on its own would be so much stronger than when coupled with these daft sideline points.
January Bug i do not have a problem with you at all, you have presented a good arguement and yes you are right about the aerial. I was just putting across points that i knew about, eg my friend in the council flat and caravans which use indoor aerials which contradicted your point. Im not sure what the daft sideline points are.
The overall point i was trying to make was what portocat said about having to have a licence in the first place.
This question was bound to raise different opinions in everyone some agreed with the TV licence some dont.Everyone has their own opinion and in the same way that you didnt agree with my point, i didnt agree with yours. This site is all about debating peoples questions and that is all we have done.
Again i do not have a problem with you, i respect you for giving a good debate and sticking to your guns.
The only points I've really tried to make are that:
- No one is OBLIGED to have a licence as they can disconnect the ariel and use the TV for DVDs only if they choose. That point was only accepted when older users backed it up.
- The BBC does more than run 2 TV channels. There are many other free services we can make use of if we so desire.
To me, the whole arguement comes down to whether or not we should have to have a licence for TVs where we only EVER watch ITV/C4/C5. My arguement there is that to introduce and enforce a BBC only licence, and allow others to have their TVs disabled for BBC viewing would be so prohibitively expensive that it would not be of benefit to society to do so.
For people who feel it's all so unfair, from a rather flippant perspective I could say "be grateful you have a TV - think of the people in New Orleans and/or Bali and/or Pakistan who no longer have homes at all". However, on a more helpful note, I advise either disconnecting the TV and watching DVDs only, as one ABer so eloquently suggested, OR go out there and make better use of BBC services so that you really get your money's worth. :-)
I didn't mean my point to be so lairy before AliFlump by the way, sorry. I'm just getting a little bit sick of people (i.e., not just you) seemingly ignoring totally the point I make, and then heartily agreeing with an older user who goes on to make exactly the same point a few posts down the thread. It really does begin to feel like people think I need a "proper grown up" to verify what I'm saying.
Re ariels, I know that it's more complicated than I said, but I'm not the only one in the thread to have made simplistic suggestions. My point still remains that if you have a TV that is not capable of receiving a signal, you don't have to pay a licence for it. As I said before, this is the same as a car that is not roadworthy and not driven. Doesn't need tax and MOT etc if it's just in a museum/the back of someone's drive/yard/garage etc.
Anyway - I didn't mean to be such a cow, just feeling a bit frustrated. I do believe that the original points made in this thread would number perhaps 20, rather than 40 odd posts (some of my posts could be removed, but this is an observation rather than a request!!!) and that people have weakened the arguement with silly comments about not liking certain programmes, or, I actually feel, your own comment about caravans. I just feel thatthe whole debate would be strengthened (on both sides) if it were summarised in some way.
Perhaps if I went through the posts and made bullets of the points in favour of the licence, and you did the same for arguements against it, we could all have our memories refreshed and we could put it to the vote!?! :-) I'm up for it if you are! :-)
January Bug, i would be up for that but in all honesty i dont think i would be able to get enough points. Some of the arguements have made me think twice about the licence fee, i buy a paper everyday and see that it isnt much more for the licence fee. i wonder why we have to have a licence for watching TV but understand where it goes and must admit that i do enjoy many BBC services .
Answebank has done what it is there for, got different opinions from different people and made me think about the question i asked,
I thank you all for you arguements especially January Bug who is an ABer of principles.
I also agree with the what you said about being thankful we have a tv there are much bigger things i life!
You know I think it all comes down to silly legal terminology. The ABer who pointed out that a TV is not like a gun or a car - so why do we need a licence? makes a good point. However, it could be renamed TV tax and could be added to the price of TV units bought in the shops at a rate of say, �160/yr for every year that the unit is expected to last - so 10 years @ �160 is an extra �1600 on the price of a TV. Somehow, I suspect that then the licence becomes even more attractive!
Anyway - I don't mean to witter further when you want to wind this thread up! I'm sure you know that you can switch off the email alerts and just let the thread run its course!! :-)
PS - Kinda glad you don't want to do the summary thing, I think I'd have really regretted the offer if you'd taken me up on it!!! :-p
Just happened upon this debate, and I really don't know what all the fuss is about. All you have to do is wait till you are 65 or over (like me !) and then you get a free licence! And for anyone who objects to shelling out for Sky, there are lots of satellite channels available without a Sky subscription - try removing your viewing card and have a search around.
