Total Chaos Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fatrueindependentscotland.com%2Ftory-government-and-bbc-to-introduce-new-tv-poll-tax%2F&ei=Ojz3VO3MCcm_PN7WgNAI&usg=AFQjCNHnS129aVXaUPitMH5U5LQhrR0DZA&bvm=bv.87519884,d.ZWU Oh dear, another unlawfully forced tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 (edited) "Do you want to pay for a service you do not want or require?" I wonder how many people would say yes to that question, regardless of whatever the service was? The rest is a manic rant with very little substance or facts to back it up. "The government and the BBC do not want to go to a subscription service like SKY because they know the general public would not buy the old BBC tosh that has never been value for money from day one." Couldn't disagree more with that statement, the BBC is self evidently outstanding value for money. You only have to look at the cost of a Sky subscription to see that, and you still get adds! One thing's for sure, if the BBC didn't exist or wasn't funded by the public, decent TV would cost a lot more, either directly (Sky) or indirectly (ITV). Mildly amused about the site name though: http://atrueindependentscotland.com. They were wrong on that one too Edited March 4, 2015 by Magilla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliceBB Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 (edited) To call it a poll tax is very dim. It is nothing of the sort. I agree with the previous poster that the BBC (in all its forms) is excellent value for money, but it cannot continue to make such varied and high quality programmes unless everyone who watches them (whether live or via catch up media) pays for it. I've always thought it was ridiculous that people can exploit the 'not live TV' loophole so easily. I suspect it was simply because TV detector vans couldn't pick it up, but the technology exists now, and the vast majority of the population does either listen to the radio or watch TV. Bring it on, say I. Edited March 4, 2015 by aliceBB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Total Chaos Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 You have totally missed the whole point! you don't have to pay for a license anyway and now they are going to force the public to pay for a TV license even if you just sit at home listening to a radio or when you are doing your gardening or just sat their starring at the walls.you will still have to pay £150ish for no reason lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubermaus Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 Never paid for a license. Never will. Not obliged to either. ---------- Post added 04-03-2015 at 19:39 ---------- "Do you want to pay for a service you do not want or require?" I wonder how many people would say yes to that question, regardless of whatever the service was? The rest is a manic rant with very little substance or facts to back it up. "The government and the BBC do not want to go to a subscription service like SKY because they know the general public would not buy the old BBC tosh that has never been value for money from day one." Couldn't disagree more with that statement, the BBC is self evidently outstanding value for money. You only have to look at the cost of a Sky subscription to see that, and you still get adds! One thing's for sure, if the BBC didn't exist or wasn't funded by the public, decent TV would cost a lot more, either directly (Sky) or indirectly (ITV). Mildly amused about the site name though: http://atrueindependentscotland.com. They were wrong on that one too No it wouldnt. Tv shows are paid by advertisers. Or dont watch Tv! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 You have totally missed the whole point! No, I haven't. It's a public service organisation that offers outstanding value for money and caters to the widest possible audience. Worth every penny and long may it continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 No, I haven't. It's a public service organisation that offers outstanding value for money and caters to the widest possible audience. Worth every penny and long may it continue. Agreed, the BBC isn't without its faults, in fact, it has many, but as far as value for money is concerned, it is definitely worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 No it wouldnt. Tv shows are paid by advertisers. Or dont watch Tv! Where do the advertisers get their money, and the end of the chain me and you! So we pay for the TV either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Total Chaos Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 (edited) Never paid for a license. Never will. Not obliged to either. Same here,not paid for years.But if this goes ahead it will probably be attached to council tax,so won't have a choice. Edited March 9, 2015 by esme quote tags Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 No it wouldnt. Without a shadow of doubt it would. Tv shows are paid by advertisers. You don't say, do you think they magic the money out of thin air? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now