symyjym
Banned
If you have a TV more often than not you would have a TV package whether Sky, Virgin or Freeview etc, so unless you haven't got TV box you have access to the TV channels, or you can lie about it.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Are you happy to pay for a tv licence?
- Thread starter Guinness Boy
- Start date
If you have a TV more often than not you would have a TV package whether Sky, Virgin or Freeview etc, so unless you haven't got TV box you have access to the TV channels, or you can lie about it.
I'm glad I don't sit next to you at the Amex.
Tubby-McFat-Fuc
Well-known member
Read my question?
How would you feel if you HAD to pay for SKY?
You're happy to pay the price of half a Mars Bar or a tin of baked beans or a bottle of Morrisons' fizzy flavoured water (not chilled) to watch BBC, so would you be happy to pay for a full Mars Bar or a tin of heniz baked beans or a bottle of Morrisons' fizzy flavoured water (chilled) to enable you to watch hrough choice just the BBC, if you knew half the payment was for sky and you had no intention of using their service?
You keep going on about the cost! I'm lucky. £145 is nothing to me. I can afford to pay it with ease, that's not the point here. Why should people who can ill afford it be forced to pay for a service, that is provided free by a number of different companies?
You obviously use the BBC, and are happy with it. Therefore you see £145 a small price to pay.
I like many others, do not watch it, yet would be happy to pay for a subscription service of choice, or just use commerical TV channels. Why should we be forced to pay for a service provided free from others?
So, would you be happy to fund Sky TV, even if you had no intention of using it?
Tubby-McFat-Fuc
Well-known member
Five years ago maybe. Not today though. NOW TV, services through PS3/4 X Box, PC's. So although you never answered the question, you DO NOT need a TV license to watch TV programmes on a TV. (unless you are watching them as the are broadcast to the masses) Catch up TV, Netflix, BBC iplayer, or any streamed (not broadcast, there is a difference) but streamed content, does not require a TV license to view, whether you view on your smart phone, PC or TV.
Tubby-McFat-Fuc
Well-known member
Sky news is broadcast free. So we will call it 20p day??
Raleigh Chopper
New member
With the entire BBC sports department on a month long free jolly (including radio presenters!) to Brazil at the licence payers expense its a big fat NO from me, that's really taking the p*** that is.
Most of it could be done from Blighty and it would make no difference.
Oh and stop funding the Eurovision Song Contest as well.
Most of it could be done from Blighty and it would make no difference.
Oh and stop funding the Eurovision Song Contest as well.
Sky news is broadcast free. So we will call it 20p day??
Sounds a good deal, if you can show me how to get Sky for 20p a day I'd be most grateful.
Tubby-McFat-Fuc
Well-known member
Oh, no no no you don't get to watch it. You just have to fund them.
- Thread starter
- #150
Sky is funded by its sponsors. If it wasn't then I'd definitely punt a few pence a month on it as, to be honest, its output could only improve.
And you NEVER use the BBC?? Absolute horseshit. If England get to the quarter final of the World Cup and it's exclusively on the BBC you'll be watching it somewhere. If someone posted an interesting link about the Albion on here that was to the BBC you'd click on it. You're a cheapskate chock full of excuses. And you're artless.
Oh, no no no you don't get to watch it. You just have to fund them.
With the sweetheart tax deals arranged by successive governments for Murdoch's empire we are funding them.
CorgiRegisteredFriend
Well-known member
Happy to pay it just for Six Music and University Challenge.
nwgull
Well-known member
That's not a paid for commercial trying to sell the viewer something though is it. It's to let the licence payer know what shows are coming up to give them an idea of what channel they might want to watch next.
seagull_in_malaysia
Active member
Tubby-McFat-Fuc
Well-known member
Yes, and as I will be watching down the pub, and as you do not need a license to view the internet what is your point? Because they provide it, why should people be forced to pay for it.
I take it if you ever find yourself watching an Albion game on Sky down the pub, you'd send Sky a payment?!? If someone posted an interesting link about the Albion on Sky.com you'd link on it, even if you didn't pay for Sky. So I guess that would make you a cheapskate chock full of excuses as well!?!?!
Worthingite
Sexy Pete... :D
I reluctantly pay it, but I think that the money that they waste on "golden handcuff" deals for the likes of Graham Norton, Jeremy Clarkson, Gary Lineker, Sue Barker, Robbie Savage etc is WAY too much. If they were to pump the millions that they squander on dishing out massive salaries to mediocre light entertainers, and put it into their programming they would be much better. I think a lot of the output is fantastic - BBC Four for instance is an absolute gem of a channel, Radio 2 is my station of choice, and programmes like Sherlock have literally blown me away. I just think it could be better value for money, by taking out the bloated salaries.
nwgull
Well-known member
It's not paid for but it's still an advert by definition.
By the dictionary's definition, yes it is. But when most people talk adverts they mean commercials, as in those annoying 4-5 minute breaks in programmes trying to sell us car insurance. This is why I like the BBC (TV and radio) and am more than happy to pay the licence fee: a bargain.
kevo
Well-known member
- Mar 8, 2008
- 9,178
Ignore him. Tubby is a wind-up merchant, and is completely FULL of it.
He's posted massive threads on here before viciously slating BOTH Poyet and Garcia, but when asked who he wanted to manage the Albion couldn't come up with an answer.