Actually you’re not. There is no requirement for everyone to have a TV licence. Plenty of people choose not to watch or record live TV or BBC iPlayer and therefore don’t need to pay the licence fee.
Your argument would apply better to one of the UK’s 5.8 million public sector workers, whose wages you are forced to pay for through taxation, and which illustrates how absurd it is for you to think you should have an individual veto on the personal conduct of each one of them.
I can’t watch live TV without a TV license. Even if I don’t watch the BBC, I have to pay for it. If Sky started hiring sexual predators, I could stop watching and paying for Sky. I can’t with the BBC unless I want to stop all broardcast television.
@Ace_of_spades
In various Wireless Telegraphy Acts for the UK the licencing of reception and transmission, control of permitted bands, for both, and exceptionally reception or transmission of certain signals in certain bands has been regulated since shortly after it became feasible.
No you’re not. You are, however, forced to pay for Ant & Dec, Nigel Farage and Piers Morgan since they all work on commercial channels paid for by the products you buy every day. License Fee by a million cuts.
Feel free to stop paying for the BBC if you like - it’s always been your choice - but if you find a way to stop paying for ITV, Sky, GB News, Capital Radio, Metro and Talk TV please do let me know.
I cannot watch ITV without a TV license. Nor can I watch Dave or any other channel. You’re being disingenous. Ant and Dec and the like are paid for by companies in order to advertise their products. If Ant or Dec got caught noncing around, they’d lose all sponsorship and relationships with their sponsors. They wouldn’t be getting protection from all their other noncey mates like countless BBC hosts and employees.
You shouldn’t have to lie if you have a valid point to make.
I don’t pay for GB News, Metro or whatever and I have a choice not to support their sponsors. The BBC is only allowed to pump out its shite because the state forces me to pay for it. ITV don’t send detector vans around or get court orders to break into people’s homes. The BBC does.
Now you’re arguing about straw men. The police have looked into the matter and publicly stated there’s no evidence that merits any investigation of law-breaking, so I don’t know where your ‘caught noncing around’ straw man is coming from.
If there was illegality at play then people would be looking at this situation differently.
Your resolution to do no business with any company who have ever employed a criminal, even if modified to specify a restricted class if crimes, is interesting, but I think you will starve, unamused, and self-unemployed.
If of course any crime is shown to have been committed, and you may have implies, if employment then continues.
Had this been a Tory MP, the responses would be very different here.
By virtue of them being an MP though, not a Tory.
I am forced to pay Huw Edward’s wages under the threat of state sanctioned violence. Just like I am with an MPs.
Actually you’re not. There is no requirement for everyone to have a TV licence. Plenty of people choose not to watch or record live TV or BBC iPlayer and therefore don’t need to pay the licence fee.
Your argument would apply better to one of the UK’s 5.8 million public sector workers, whose wages you are forced to pay for through taxation, and which illustrates how absurd it is for you to think you should have an individual veto on the personal conduct of each one of them.
I can’t watch live TV without a TV license. Even if I don’t watch the BBC, I have to pay for it. If Sky started hiring sexual predators, I could stop watching and paying for Sky. I can’t with the BBC unless I want to stop all broardcast television.
@Ace_of_spades @theinspectorst
You can stop watching the BBC
Also listening to it.
(As long as you don’t aspire to command an RN SSBN)
I can stop watching it. I still need a TV license if I want to watch Dave, QVC or even Sky. Even if I stop watching the BBC.
Dave is owned by the BBC pretty sure
@Ace_of_spades
In various Wireless Telegraphy Acts for the UK the licencing of reception and transmission, control of permitted bands, for both, and exceptionally reception or transmission of certain signals in certain bands has been regulated since shortly after it became feasible.
There are reasons.
However the BBC thing is a small part of it.
That doesn’t disprove what I said. I don’t need a license fee in other countries, despite all these laws.
No you’re not. You are, however, forced to pay for Ant & Dec, Nigel Farage and Piers Morgan since they all work on commercial channels paid for by the products you buy every day. License Fee by a million cuts.
Feel free to stop paying for the BBC if you like - it’s always been your choice - but if you find a way to stop paying for ITV, Sky, GB News, Capital Radio, Metro and Talk TV please do let me know.
I cannot watch ITV without a TV license. Nor can I watch Dave or any other channel. You’re being disingenous. Ant and Dec and the like are paid for by companies in order to advertise their products. If Ant or Dec got caught noncing around, they’d lose all sponsorship and relationships with their sponsors. They wouldn’t be getting protection from all their other noncey mates like countless BBC hosts and employees.
You shouldn’t have to lie if you have a valid point to make.
I don’t pay for GB News, Metro or whatever and I have a choice not to support their sponsors. The BBC is only allowed to pump out its shite because the state forces me to pay for it. ITV don’t send detector vans around or get court orders to break into people’s homes. The BBC does.
Now you’re arguing about straw men. The police have looked into the matter and publicly stated there’s no evidence that merits any investigation of law-breaking, so I don’t know where your ‘caught noncing around’ straw man is coming from.
If there was illegality at play then people would be looking at this situation differently.
@Ace_of_spades @rmuk
Your resolution to do no business with any company who have ever employed a criminal, even if modified to specify a restricted class if crimes, is interesting, but I think you will starve, unamused, and self-unemployed.
If of course any crime is shown to have been committed, and you may have implies, if employment then continues.