forestboy Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Wouldn't mind so much having to pay the licence fee if we could receive the FULL range of Freeview channels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Good. Serves the cheapskates right. Hope they got the liars who say they never use BBC services as well. And the scum who say "I haven't got a telly" but watch BBC programmes on catchup or netflix or read the BBC web pages or listens to BBC radio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GD4ELI Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Wouldn't mind so much having to pay the licence fee if we could receive the FULL range of Freeview channels. You can, just get a cheap FTA satellite receiver. Simples... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Wouldn't mind so much having to pay the licence fee if we could receive the FULL range of Freeview channels. That's nothing to do with the licence fee even in the UK. They get exactly the same public service channels. The additional freeview channels are provided as a commercial enterprise from the few main transmitters and cover 90 odd percent of the population. The businesses involved are not prepared to pay to broadcast on over a hundred small relay transmitters to reach the few remaining percent as it isn't cost effective. Not like you are missing a great deal though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_terrestrial_television_in_the_United_Kingdom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 read the BBC web pagesThat particular argument only holds water if the viewing of it was in some way restricted to actual license payers, as opposed to the license payers subsidising a completely open service that's used worldwide without any restrictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Border Terrier Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 And the scum who say "I haven't got a telly" but watch BBC programmes on catchup or netflix or read the BBC web pages or listens to BBC radio. There's no requirement nor mechanism to pay for non-live broadcasts be they television or radio. So until that alters, the BBC must accept that they're subsidising those not paying but receiving...or charge all those paying to receive live broadcasts a little bit extra. Incidentally the recent radio series on John Buchans' novels was excellent. As is Hancocks' 1/2 hour etc. etc. TBT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Round and round we go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonnieD Posted October 24, 2013 Share Posted October 24, 2013 The BBC as a whole makes such an inordinate amount of money that the licence fee payers should be shareholders and should share in the profits. The executives, especially over the past few years and in particular when that shyster (I can think of no better word just now) Mark Thompson was at the helm, have been taking the piss and pocketing the licence fee payers' £millions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tournesol Posted October 24, 2013 Share Posted October 24, 2013 Just had a TV Licence inspector on the doorstep. Apparently when we moved they did not update our details properly. We were fine as we had still been paying by direct debit so they confirmed the bank details on the phone and then updated the records there and then. So...if you are not in possession of a paid up licence get one. Did check his ID but forgot to ask for his work permit though... I'd love to see an end to the TV licence. The Freeview system isn't working properly, so what the hell am I paying for exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted October 24, 2013 Share Posted October 24, 2013 Just loop this thread. Start about here: http://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/36303-tv-licence-inspector-on-the-iom/page-8 Then just spend the rest of your life reading it. Sorted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Border Terrier Posted October 24, 2013 Share Posted October 24, 2013 Just loop this thread. Start about here: http://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/36303-tv-licence-inspector-on-the-iom/page-8 Then just spend the rest of your life reading it. Sorted. The shadows lengthen on your arguments; so easily resisted it's childs play. Neither you nor the BBC have the wit nor will to succeed - 500 non-licence payers 'caught', what complete and utter f****ing nonsense. Your frustration now, as then, is palpable. I'm just waiting for the 'fluoride debate' to rear it's ugly head once again. It'll receive the same dismissals. TBT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted October 24, 2013 Share Posted October 24, 2013 Just loop this thread. Start about here: http://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/36303-tv-licence-inspector-on-the-iom/page-8 Then just spend the rest of your life reading it. Sorted. The shadows lengthen on your arguments; so easily resisted it's childs play. Neither you nor the BBC have the wit nor will to succeed - 500 non-licence payers 'caught', what complete and utter f****ing nonsense. Your frustration now, as then, is palpable. I'm just waiting for the 'fluoride debate' to rear it's ugly head once again. It'll receive the same dismissals. TBT No TBT. I'm saying you are just rolling out the same old shit time after time so I'm saving you the trouble. Just read them from the earlier pages instead of going through posting it all again. And what has fluoride got to do with it, and what dismissals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Border Terrier Posted October 26, 2013 Share Posted October 26, 2013 Just loop this thread. Start about here: http://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/36303-tv-licence-inspector-on-the-iom/page-8 Then just spend the rest of your life reading it. Sorted. The shadows lengthen on your arguments; so easily resisted it's childs play. Neither you nor the BBC have the wit nor will to succeed - 500 non-licence payers 'caught', what complete and utter f****ing nonsense. Your frustration now, as then, is palpable. I'm just waiting for the 'fluoride debate' to rear it's ugly head once again. It'll receive the same dismissals. TBT No TBT. I'm saying you are just rolling out the same old shit time after time so I'm saving you the trouble. Just read them from the earlier pages instead of going through posting it all again. And what has fluoride got to do with it, and what dismissals? I doubt many men would be fool enough to instigate an argument with their mother-in-law; and doubtless there’d be no less than 100% of us that would only be too happy to respond to any ‘argument’ said MiL would care to start. Was it Roosevelt that advocated "speaking softly, but carry a big stick"? Same principle applies to the BBC and their bully boy tactics; and the same goes for the likes of you and your ilk who refer to non-licence holders as freeloaders, scum, liars, cheats etc. I've heard it all before, comical it is. Irrespective of the ‘download vs live broadcast’ discussion. I’ve not had a tv licence for over 2 decades and haven’t watched live (in my own home) for the same period. Now understand this if nothing else, the same BBC tactics applied then (pre-download) as now. Like I said in my last post, there isn’t the will nor legal precedent to make anyone buy a licence; and the "500 caught without licence" is utter drivel. I doubt even you believe that. > And what has fluoride got to do with it, and what dismissals? Oh come come now...never heard of some ‘expert’ wanting the IoM to add fluoride to the water? They’re over every couple of years marketing their crap even though they’ve been dismissed before. The Water Board have even installed kit at Holmfield Road capable of addivating the water with fluoride; so how much did that cost me the consumer? Conversely, bullying non-tv licence holders, how much is that costing YOU? TBT (always ready to respond to the tv licence debate) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted October 26, 2013 Share Posted October 26, 2013 Just loop this thread. Start about here: http://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/36303-tv-licence-inspector-on-the-iom/page-8 Then just spend the rest of your life reading it. Sorted. The shadows lengthen on your arguments; so easily resisted it's childs play. Neither you nor the BBC have the wit nor will to succeed - 500 non-licence payers 'caught', what complete and utter f****ing nonsense. Your frustration now, as then, is palpable. I'm just waiting for the 'fluoride debate' to rear it's ugly head once again. It'll receive the same dismissals. TBT No TBT. I'm saying you are just rolling out the same old shit time after time so I'm saving you the trouble. Just read them from the earlier pages instead of going through posting it all again. And what has fluoride got to do with it, and what dismissals? I doubt many men would be fool enough to instigate an argument with their mother-in-law; and doubtless there’d be no less than 100% of us that would only be too happy to respond to any ‘argument’ said MiL would care to start. Was it Roosevelt that advocated "speaking softly, but carry a big stick"? Same principle applies to the BBC and their bully boy tactics; and the same goes for the likes of you and your ilk who refer to non-licence holders as freeloaders, scum, liars, cheats etc. I've heard it all before, comical it is. Irrespective of the ‘download vs live broadcast’ discussion. I’ve not had a tv licence for over 2 decades and haven’t watched live (in my own home) for the same period. Now understand this if nothing else, the same BBC tactics applied then (pre-download) as now. Like I said in my last post, there isn’t the will nor legal precedent to make anyone buy a licence; and the "500 caught without licence" is utter drivel. I doubt even you believe that. > And what has fluoride got to do with it, and what dismissals? Oh come come now...never heard of some ‘expert’ wanting the IoM to add fluoride to the water? They’re over every couple of years marketing their crap even though they’ve been dismissed before. The Water Board have even installed kit at Holmfield Road capable of addivating the water with fluoride; so how much did that cost me the consumer? Conversely, bullying non-tv licence holders, how much is that costing YOU? TBT (always ready to respond to the tv licence debate) TBT, We pay for a licence every year and it pisses me off no end when I hear knobs like you bragging that you don't have to and have not paid for one for 20 years. You are indeed a cheapskate and true to your dogs breed, an ankle biter, full of shit and a complete waste of space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade Runner Posted October 26, 2013 Share Posted October 26, 2013 TBT, Forget Fluoride being added to the water, with the advances in biological toxins that can be targeted at specific sections of the population I would be worried if I was you. The BBC may be planning a dose in the water that only worked on licence fee dodgers. I mean, you must have some form of gene marker that makes you think not paying your way is ok.............................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.