|
|
Adrian wrote:
We didn't have *broadcasts* before the BBC existed. ***** Peter Eckersley ... 2MT Writtle ... Depends on what you mean by 'broadcasts', I suppose ... André Couatnche |
"Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message
... 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. One would hope that it wouldn't have any political leanings at all. 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 Actually, I did say that it could come out of general taxation - you were the one suggesting (or asking about) a direct link between the TV Licence fee and tagging, I merely suggested a more appropriate hypothecation. 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. Fine, so spend your money on those non-TV advertised products which will, according to your claims, be only 30% of the cost of those products you are currently wasting your money on. Does tagging cows really cost £2.8 billion pounds? No, its a lot more expensive than that If the BBC were to do it, it doubtless would be. Regards, Arfur |
"Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message
... 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 BBC seems to think that there is a direct correlation between who collects it and who spends it. You might like to take a look at http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/. snip Regards, Arfur |
In article , Arfur Million
writes "Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message ... 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. Fine, so spend your money on those non-TV advertised products which will, according to your claims, be only 30% of the cost of those products you are currently wasting your money on. As you are no doubt fully aware, that is not an option that is available to anyone in this country, since virtually all products have a significant advertising levy applied to them at some point in the delivery chain, whether to advertise that particular item or to fund the advertising of another product by the same company. Does tagging cows really cost £2.8 billion pounds? No, its a lot more expensive than that If the BBC were to do it, it doubtless would be. Where is your evidence that the BBC is particularly expensive for the service it provides? To obtain countless channels of sh!t on Sky I would not only pay a subscription fee which is vastly more expensive than the TV license *and* the advertising levy on all of the products and companies that feature at regular intervals throughout their broadcasts. If you want to talk about an expensive service which actually charges you at least twice over for the privilege of burning their logo into your screen, Sky is a far more appropriate target! -- 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) |
"Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message
... In article , Arfur Million writes "Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message ... 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. Fine, so spend your money on those non-TV advertised products which will, according to your claims, be only 30% of the cost of those products you are currently wasting your money on. As you are no doubt fully aware, that is not an option that is available to anyone in this country, since virtually all products have a significant advertising levy applied to them at some point in the delivery chain, whether to advertise that particular item or to fund the advertising of another product by the same company. Hmmm, really. There would be a big commercial advantage for products that didn't have this "levy" applied, wouldn't there? Surprising some entrepreneurial types don't spot the potential market ;-) As for this idea of a "levy", there is nothing to stop people or companies spending their income on what they want. If I buy something at Tesco's, that money will be spent on all sorts of things that I don't like and no doubt a few that I disapprove of quite strongly. That's because the money will be spent by Tesco's on some such things. and because they will pay their employees money. Some of their employees no doubt belong to all sorts of political organisations that I despise; or go to evening Media Studies classes so they can work for the BBC; some money will go to advertising (both for Tesco and indirectly for the company's products I've bought) - there's not really much I can do about it. But, so what? That's just the way money works - the important thing is that if I wasn't happy with the purchase I wouldn't have made it. Certainly if companies directly fund activities that our conscience would not allow us to support, then we would want to withdraw our custom from that company. I can see that if companies that advertise on TV fall within this bracket from your point-of-view then it would be difficult to achieve this, but I don't think that's the point you're making (?). Suppose someone feels this way about the BBC? Why should they have to forego watching television in order to make such a boycott? Does tagging cows really cost £2.8 billion pounds? No, its a lot more expensive than that If the BBC were to do it, it doubtless would be. Where is your evidence that the BBC is particularly expensive for the service it provides? From the BBC's annual review. Their expenditure in 2004 financial year was a tad over £4 billion. In contrast, C4's was £770 million (taking Adrian's figures posted elsewhere in this thread). I would certainly swap the BBC for 5 C4's! To obtain countless channels of sh!t on Sky I would not only pay a subscription fee which is vastly more expensive than the TV license *and* the advertising levy on all of the products and companies that feature at regular intervals throughout their broadcasts. *And* the TV licence! If you want to talk about an expensive service which actually charges you at least twice over for the privilege of burning their logo into your screen, Sky is a far more appropriate target! -- I can't say I've been particularly attracted to the Sky package either, but for the life of me I can't see why people who want Sky's channels (and not the BBC ones) should have to contribute to the BBC - whether it's out of general taxation or not. Regards, Arfur |
In article , Adrian
wrote: We didn't have broadcast receiving licences before the BBC existed. We didn't have *broadcasts* before the BBC existed. True, but you seem to have missed the point I was trying to make. A new licence fee was introduced when the BBC started. No new licence fee was introduced when ITV started. No new licence fee was introduced when Channel 4 started. No new licence fee was introduced when channel 5 started, or satellite broadcasting, or cable broadcasting, or when home recording machines became available (though the record industry would have liked this). In fact, no new licence fee has been introduced, and as far as I know, no alteration has been made to the existing one, in response to the introduction of anything to do with broadcasting - with the exception of the BBC. This is why I didn't understand the assertion in an earlier post that the licence had "nothing whatsoever to do with the BBC", when it was instituted for the sole purpose of funding it. Rod. |
ad wrote:
In article , says... http://www.dtg.org.uk/news/news.php?...ass=193&id=578 seems to me quite logical -;) Of cause it is, to the BBC and this poxy government. It is just another stupid thing thought up by a load of over paid dingos in whitehall. The DCMS (which looks after media affairs on a governmental level) is based on Cockspur Street, not Whitehall. |
In article , Arfur Million
writes But, so what? That's just the way money works - the important thing is that if I wasn't happy with the purchase I wouldn't have made it. So its OK to take the view "that's the way money works" when it comes to advertising supporting the media, but not OK to take the view "that's the way money works" when it comes to taxation. You seem to have a number of standards, exceeding one, to suit any particular circumstance. Suppose someone feels this way about the BBC? Why should they have to forego watching television in order to make such a boycott? Why should I have to forego buying products on the British market simply because I do not watch ITV? That same swords cuts in many different ways and just because you don't like the license fee doesn't make it any less justified. From the BBC's annual review. Their expenditure in 2004 financial year was a tad over £4 billion. In contrast, C4's was £770 million (taking Adrian's figures posted elsewhere in this thread). I would certainly swap the BBC for 5 C4's! You might, I wouldn't. I rarely watch much C4 output, perhaps an hour or so per week - in fact I can't think of a single C4 programme I would go out of my way to watch or even watched in the past week. C4 (& C5 for that matter) are still very minority channels whose own management openly admit they can barely support their operating costs and are incapable of expanding into the new medium of digital broadcasting without license fee support. So they are hardly comparable with the organisation that has been obliged to step and rescue DVBT - all out of the funding it receives from money raised by the license fee! Without the BBC (and the license fee!) there would be no DVBT today at all, following the OnDodgy fiasco. To obtain countless channels of sh!t on Sky I would not only pay a subscription fee which is vastly more expensive than the TV license *and* the advertising levy on all of the products and companies that feature at regular intervals throughout their broadcasts. *And* the TV licence! No, the comparison was expense of the BBC versus Sky. Your argument has been that the BBC should pack up and the license fee be abolished because the BBC is far too expensive for what it provides - abolishing the license fee would not make Sky's subscription any less. In addition to a subscription much greater than the license fee, Sky are also funded by advertising - shafting its users at both ends. I can't say I've been particularly attracted to the Sky package either, but for the life of me I can't see why people who want Sky's channels (and not the BBC ones) should have to contribute to the BBC - whether it's out of general taxation or not. Because it isn't a BBC fund - it is a tax on operating a TV receiver. I don't see why I should pay for a state education system, whether in general taxation or not, since I don't make any use of it or a state health service when I pay my own private medical insurance, but I don't have a choice in either of them, if I earn an income in this country then I have to pay for things I don't want or use - didn't someone just say "that's the way money works"! -- 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) |
"André Coutanche" wrote in message ... Adrian wrote: We didn't have *broadcasts* before the BBC existed. ***** Peter Eckersley ... 2MT Writtle ... Depends on what you mean by 'broadcasts', I suppose ... How about the average, everyday meaning that people think about when talking about radio/TV stations in the UK? |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:01 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com