BF2S Forums Can someone explain to me the point of TV licensing?

TheEternalPessimist wrote:

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

... Johnathon Ross getting like £2.2 million a year for doing what? One fucking Friday show or something, even then he doesn't do anything he just sits and talks with his fucked up accent.

He's one of the few shows they have that still gets half decent ratings, he could ask triple that and still get it because if they lose him they've got almost nothing left, plus he works on BBC radio, if BBC TV pisses him off they lose him on the radio too and yet again he's one of their highest rated shows on radio too.

Jonathan Woss is a legend.

And I hate adverts so I don't mind paying it.

It should be included in the tax instead of a separate license fee.
Problem solved.

teek22 wrote:

Sambuccashake wrote:

It should be included in the tax instead of a separate license fee.
Problem solved.

WRONG! What about people who do not have a television in their house? There are many people who live without a TV. So if it is included in tax people will be forced to pay it even if they do not have a TV!

And also if they did this students would get away with not paying for TV license at Universities as they do not pay taxes.

Not everyone uses the road in front of your house, but they pay for that too.

IMHO they should call it a "Multimedia tax" (since TV is becoming kinda obsolete when it comes to multimedia) and let ALL taxpayers share the cost.
More payers, lower costs. (in an ideal world that is.)
And if you're a student with limited funds, you pay less than those with jobs.

@Teek22
I don't watch our public service channels all that much (although they are rather good) but I think it's important to have free media who isn't kept
alive thanks to shitloads of advertisment.

Braddock wrote:

teek22 wrote:

Sambuccashake wrote:

It should be included in the tax instead of a separate license fee.
Problem solved.

WRONG! What about people who do not have a television in their house? There are many people who live without a TV. So if it is included in tax people will be forced to pay it even if they do not have a TV!

And also if they did this students would get away with not paying for TV license at Universities as they do not pay taxes.

What about all the people who disagree with the war on Iraq and who have no choice but to pay the portion of their tax that goes on military spending? I don't mean to derail the thread into another Iraq debate but tax is a thorny issue when it comes to deciding what it should and should not cover.

fair point, but recently channel 4 said that wanted a piece of the license fee as they are struggling, if they do get a bit, where does it stop, Itv would want some along with Murdoch's channel Five.

But in fairness if you get a satellite box/aerial that is capable of receiving BBC channels thats when you need to pay the license fee, why not make it an option, if you don't want the BBC network then you shouldn't be forced to paying the T.V license

PureFodder wrote:

rammunition wrote:

Braddock wrote:

What about all the people who disagree with the war on Iraq and who have no choice but to pay the portion of their tax that goes on military spending? I don't mean to derail the thread into another Iraq debate but tax is a thorny issue when it comes to deciding what it should and should not cover.

fair point, but recently channel 4 said that wanted a piece of the license fee as they are struggling, if they do get a bit, where does it stop, Itv would want some along with Murdoch's channel Five.

But in fairness if you get a satellite box/aerial that is capable of receiving BBC channels thats when you need to pay the license fee, why not make it an option, if you don't want the BBC network then you shouldn't be forced to paying the T.V license

Personally I wouldn't mind giving some license money to channel 4, but ITV can kiss my ass. I seriously cannot recall the last time I watched it.

True, Channel 4 is pretty good when it's not showing Big Brother but ITV is a complete waste of space.