In article , ad
writes
In article ,
says...

It is as much a TV signal as DTV or Sky - and you still need a license
for those. The means of delivery is irrelevant - it is a broadcast
signal that the phone network is redistributing. How they do that is
irrelevant - just as a communal aerial on a block of flats still
requires the residents to obtain a separate TV license for each
dwelling.

It is a lot different, for a start, how many full programmes are going
to be transmitted on mobile phones?
Most things are just clips.

At the moment that may be the case, in the future it certainly won't be
and that is the stated aim of the services providing TV by phone. So
there is no difference.


Grow up - the imposition of the TV license is no different from a car
tax or many other taxes. The unique issue of the TV license is its
hypothecation, not its collection or imposition. Even if the BBC folded
tomorrow, you would still be taxed to operate a TV and the money would
be spent elsewhere, probably promoting Two Jags to Four.

Car tax is suppose to go and pay for the raods, the point that not all
the money do is not relavant.

The point is that investment in the road system is under the influence
and control of the government of the day. The BBC has an obligation
under its charter to remain independent of government influence.

The T.V licence goes to pay for the BBC, not every one wants to watch
the BBc and in this day and age, we should have a choice.

As pointed out previously and by others, the license has nothing
whatsoever to do with the BBC - it is a tax on the operation of a TV
receiver. The expenditure of that tax by hypothecation to fund the BBC
is completely independent of the existence of the tax. If you want a
meaningful discussion then ask why other TV services do not benefit as
much as the BBC from the TV licence. Elimination of the BBC will not
eliminate the TV license, no matter how much choice you think you have.


The real issue isn't why the BBC are funded by a hypothecated tax, but
why other organisations, which ought to have an obligation to be
independent of government interference and political pressure, are not.
When the police arrest Tony B Liar's son for being drunk and disorderly
I want to see him prosecuted under the full remit of the law, not just
given a lift home in the back of a squad car because daddy can influence
the Chief Constable's budget next year and he wouldn't want to upset
him! Similarly, when the government impose and unjust tax or invite
human rights abusers and/or war mongering Heads of State here for
visits, the police should not be put under pressure to break up or block
peaceful protests - or incite them to become violent so that they then
justify intervention.


What the hell have this got to do with the T.v licence?

Absolutely everything - the fact that you cannot understand it has
little to do with this thread other than to signify your political
ignorance to all who might be reading it.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

"Adrian" wrote in message
. 1.4...
ad ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they
were saying :

Car tax is suppose to go and pay for the raods

No, it isn't.

Car Tax doesn't exist, and hasn't for 20 years. It was a (10%?) duty
on the
list price of a new car. You mean what used to be Road Fund
Licence - which
has been called Vehicle Excise Duty for years, and goes into
government
central funds, as does fuel duty.

Roads are paid for out of government central funds. There is no
relationship between VED or fuel duty and road funding. None
whatsoever.

Get it right - there's some on here who have never heard of these
things.

When vehicle usage was taxed - I think it started after WWII - it was
called the Road Fund Licence and it's intention was that it would pay
for repair of damaged roads and the building of new ones to accomodate
the rising car ownership. It always went to central government
coffers, but that was nominally its purpose.

It was called RFL until the '90's when the nomination was changed to
show it as it really is and always has been - another (now called
stealth) tax on anyone who owns a vehicle or bike.


--
Woody

harrogate2 at ntlworld dot com

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 22:40:33 -0000, ad
wrote:

Oh come on, you can still see almost everything on a 14inch screen, you
need a magnifying glass to see some of the screens on these mobiles.

That doesn't alter the content being provided, your choice of platform
is immaterial.

I must admit, that when I had my 14 inch T.v, I did not pay a licence
fee.

So as well as being stupid you are also a thief. *plonk*
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

"Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message
...
In article , ad
writes

I tell you what, you pay your £121 for your BBC, I will jsut watch non-
BBc channels and not pay it.

Oh I forgot, I can not do that, because we are made to pay for the BBC,
even if we do not watch it.

No, you are forced to pay a tax for the operation of your TV receiver.

Which is collected by the BBC and the same amount spent by the BBC. Hardly a
coincidence, is it?

How the money raised through that tax is spent is totally irrelevant to
your argument.

If it was spent on tagging cows would you have any less objection to the
license fee?

That would be a strange ear-marking (boom-boom) of the tax, it would make
more sense to fund that out of general taxation; or if it were to be
hypothecated then perhaps a tax on meat/milk products would be more
appropriate. But in answer to your question: yes, of course I would be
happier if the money were spent on a real public service instead of light
entertainment. Does tagging cows really cost £2.8 billion pounds?

Regards,
Arfur

In article , Harrogate2 wrote:
It was called RFL until the '90's when the nomination was changed to
show it as it really is and always has been - another (now called
stealth) tax on anyone who owns a vehicle or bike.

Not quite. Provided you can keep a car off the public road, you don't
need to pay the tax just to own one. This suggests to me that it is
intended to pay for road usage rather than car ownership.

Rod.

In article , Kennedy McEwen wrote:
As pointed out previously and by others, the license has nothing
whatsoever to do with the BBC - it is a tax on the operation of a TV
receiver.

The licence fee is used to fund the BBC. I don't understand how that can
be said to have "nothing whatsoever to do with the BBC".

The expenditure of that tax by hypothecation to fund the BBC
is completely independent of the existence of the tax.

We didn't have broadcast receiving licences before the BBC existed. It was
the BBC that made the licence necessary. It was *only* the BBC that made
it necessary, as nothing similar was applied with the introduction of any
commercial service. This doesn't seem to make it "completely independent
of the BBC" - rather the reverse I would suggest.

If you want a
meaningful discussion then ask why other TV services do not benefit as
much as the BBC from the TV licence.

First of all I would like to ask which services other than the BBC benefit
*at all* from the TV licence, as I wasn't aware that there were any.

Elimination of the BBC will not
eliminate the TV license, no matter how much choice you think you have.

Why not? If for some reason the BBC were closed down or obliged to support
itself by advertising, what possible justification could there possibly be
to require the entire nation to pay for something that was already paid
for?

Rod.

Roderick Stewart ) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying :

We didn't have broadcast receiving licences before the BBC existed.

We didn't have *broadcasts* before the BBC existed.

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:51:46 -0000, ad
wrote:


This country gets worse, have you ever5 heard anything so flaming
stupid. I am so glad my mobile is just a standard phone, that I make and
recieve calls on and nothing else.

Congrats ad - you have, at last, caused an effect in this world,
albeit a virtual world.

There surely cannot be many paranoid zanies who achieve as much.

Beats risking getting caught doing graffiti don't it !!!!!!!!!!

In article , Arfur Million
writes
"Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message
...
In article , ad
writes

I tell you what, you pay your £121 for your BBC, I will jsut watch non-
BBc channels and not pay it.

Oh I forgot, I can not do that, because we are made to pay for the BBC,
even if we do not watch it.

No, you are forced to pay a tax for the operation of your TV receiver.

Which is collected by the BBC and the same amount spent by the BBC. Hardly a
coincidence, is it?

How the money raised through that tax is spent is totally irrelevant to
your argument.

If it was spent on tagging cows would you have any less objection to the
license fee?

That would be a strange ear-marking (boom-boom) of the tax, it would make
more sense to fund that out of general taxation;

That depends on whether the agency responsible for the tagging had an
obligation to remain independent of the political leanings of the
government - and given government handling of the recent BSE and foot
and mouth incidents that would seem to be a sensible precaution.

or if it were to be
hypothecated then perhaps a tax on meat/milk products would be more
appropriate.

But you are assuming that it *should* have some connection between the
raising and expenditure mechanisms - it doesn't have to

But in answer to your question: yes, of course I would be
happier if the money were spent on a real public service instead of light
entertainment.

And I would be a lot happier if the 70% of my weekly supermarket bill
that currently goes towards advertising and the needless processes and
regulations they impose on their suppliers to deliver the claims of that
advertising was instead spent on real cost savings and life benefits for
the production workers instead of increasing the wealth and power of an
Australian megalomaniac.

Does tagging cows really cost £2.8 billion pounds?

No, its a lot more expensive than that
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

In article , Roderick
Stewart writes
In article , Kennedy McEwen wrote:
As pointed out previously and by others, the license has nothing
whatsoever to do with the BBC - it is a tax on the operation of a TV
receiver.

The licence fee is used to fund the BBC. I don't understand how that can
be said to have "nothing whatsoever to do with the BBC".

The is a significant gulf between imposition or collection of a tax and
its expenditure. Does the job you do, as opposed to how much you earn,
dictate what you spend your income on?

The expenditure of that tax by hypothecation to fund the BBC
is completely independent of the existence of the tax.

We didn't have broadcast receiving licences before the BBC existed. It was
the BBC that made the licence necessary. It was *only* the BBC that made
it necessary, as nothing similar was applied with the introduction of any
commercial service. This doesn't seem to make it "completely independent
of the BBC" - rather the reverse I would suggest.

We didn't have a fuel tax and duty before the internal combustion engine
existed, or tobacco tax before cigarettes became popular but if you
think for one minute that the government would cancel those taxes and
duties if cars became obsolete and cigarette sales plummeted then you
really have your head stuck somewhere dark warm and rather smelly!

As another poster has pointed out, before the BBC there was,
essentially, no broadcast! Thus it would have required an unusually
foresighted, if not totally unique, government to have considered taxing
something that did not exist. Even Gordon Tightarse Brown hasn't
thought of that... yet! However, whilst there were indeed limited
broadcasts prior to the BBC being set up, these were to all intents and
purposes experimental broadcasts by the Marconi Company, which had its
broadcast license revoked on more than one occasion because it
interfered with other, non-broadcast services.

If you want a
meaningful discussion then ask why other TV services do not benefit as
much as the BBC from the TV licence.

First of all I would like to ask which services other than the BBC benefit
*at all* from the TV licence, as I wasn't aware that there were any.

Well Channel 4 get a cut at the moment because they are unable to fund
their digital transmission services economically. Furthermore, since
DTVB would not have been viable without the BBC support, given that it
had already collapsed, all of the companies currently broadcasting on
that medium are essentially being supported by funds derived from the
license fee.

Elimination of the BBC will not
eliminate the TV license, no matter how much choice you think you have.

Why not?

Because the tax is collected independently of the expenditure and is
specifically a tax on the reception of broadcast television signals.
Those would still continue if the BBC closed down and the government
would simply direct the money into its central coffers as they currently
do with most other taxes and duties. As has been widely publicised
recently, tax and duty on the alcohol and drinks industry currently pays
the government enough to fund 2 and a half police forces in the UK. If
the industry suddenly added a chemical that pacified drinkers and turned
them into perfectly law abiding citizens while under the influence, such
that the policing of drink and its related crimes and problems was
unnecessary, do you really think that the government would remove the
tax and duty on alcohol? Of course they wouldn't - and the license fee
would be no different.

Under Tony B Liar's government, a post BBC license fee would probably
fund thousands of Westminster spin merchants, under Howard's Tories it
would fund rent boys and suckling pigs whilst under Kennedy's Liberals
it would increase the stock of Commons bar - and under all of them the
residue would be swept up in increases in MPs expenses! ;-)

If for some reason the BBC were closed down or obliged to support
itself by advertising, what possible justification could there possibly be
to require the entire nation to pay for something that was already paid
for?

What possible justification is there for the entire nation paying income
tax to permit the treatment of fat slobs, smokers, alcoholics and drug
addicts and other so called victims of self harm? But we do, are
required to by law - and it amounts to one heck of a lot more than £2b
raised by the license fee!
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)