It's still the same misunderstanding on your part. All public expenditure is funded. What sets the size of the budget is what is being spent.
It's where the whole macro-economic issue of privatisation vs. public service comes from. If nationalisation was a viable option for everything and anything, then why not nationalise everything?
No misunderstanding.
The point is that no new money has to be found.
I have absolutely no idea why you are talking about nationalisation with reference to the BBC. You clearly do have a misunderstanding, or at the very least a very odd way of looking at it.
It is already in effect nationalised, albeit with the odd quirk that you do have the ability to opt out. However considering that only 3% of the population do, it is in efffect a tax for providing public service TV.
Nice spin. Someone (iain) once had a habit of perpertually asking how much better off we would all be without the BBC. My answer (factually and ironically) was £145.50 per year.
Wrong! £145.50/year/household who had a licence, not per person.
i'm not pushing anything on to anybody. i'm simply expressing the opinion that i believe a great number of people will be perfectly reasonable and prepared to be cooperative.
On what basis do you make that claim? And why are you implying that someone who wishes the law to operate by its fundamental principles, rather than according to the will of the BBC, is somehow unreasonable or unco-operative?
whereas you seem to want to insist that anybody, aware of the fact that they don't have to cooperate would almost certainly choose to be uncooperative.
It's my opinion, based on reports of literally 1000s of people's experiences and attitudes, that many people, when they know the full truth, will feel that they owe "TVL" nothing.
you're still missing my point. i have no problem whatsoever with those forums, and respect people's rights to start any forum they like, and express any opinion they like.
Good.
the thing i'm having trouble with is your accusation that myself and other, who are perfectly polite and reasonable, are the ones somehow stifling debate, whilst other people who are clearly rude, paranoid and actively out to shit stir are conducting themselves in a perfectly worthwhile manner.
Because one person can be polite and obstructive, whilst another can be rowdy but open-minded and communicative.
well, what you said was this :
"I think he's a "sophisticated troll" - someone who's disruptive to debate".
Well, you'll have to forgive me for not remembering exactly what I said 18 months ago on a different forum to the one you appeared to be talking about.
But it makes for an interesting issue of web etiquette, I guess?
The number is irrelevant. Someone had previously stated (as a fact) that no one ever bought a licence they didn't need. We now have proof that that is not true.
Let's just say that most people don't but licences they don't need, and leave it at that.
No,the number is very relevant when you use the information to try and portray/imply the problem as much larger than it really is.
Some would say spin.
Or perhaps we could leave it as very few, or hardly any, r almost none......
Then why keep coming back to your deliberate misrepresentation of what I have said? If not to try to discredit, unfairly, something that you disagree with?
If your representation of my views was accurate, you might have a point. You lose that the minute you decide to systematically misrepresent me.
.
It's not a misrepresentation. Your previously stated views are there for all to see.
It is accurate, however I can understand why you don't like it being highlighted.
[/I]
Nice spin. Someone (iain) once had a habit of perpertually asking how much better off we would all be without the BBC. My answer (factually and ironically) was £145.50 per year.
.
Considering your overall position, clearly your statement was not just regarding financial and the context of the discussion on that thread certainly was not just regarding the cost.
No - I didn't say that. I think my post was pretty clear, and what it meant was that I didn't see it as my responsibility to come up with solutions to the mess that the BBC has created.
No - I didn't say that, either.
.
I didn't say you did.
However, you just want to ignore the downside to your plan. Thats not responsible either.
You then seem to find pretty weak excuses for claiming that GT is not really a viable option.
Seems very much like you don;t want a solution, just a particular outcome.
You certainly do use info like this to imply a more serious issue. Just like the 4 cases you previously mentioned......over how many years and how many contacts was that?:rolleyes:
It's my opinion, based on reports of literally 1000s of people's experiences and attitudes, that many people, when they know the full truth, will feel that they owe "TVL" nothing.
Experiences like the woman you cited who clearly and irrationally over reacted?
I have absolutely no idea why you are talking about nationalisation with reference to the BBC. You clearly do have a misunderstanding, or at the very least a very odd way of looking at it.
It is already in effect nationalised, albeit with the odd quirk that you do have the ability to opt out. However considering that only 3% of the population do, it is in efffect a tax for providing public service TV.
The BBC was nationalised, not to provide public service radio (and later tv) but to stop it being independant.
nope - you made it literal when you came out with your formula.
that's how formulas work - they don't work for figures that suit one person, but magically become too literal with other figures.
On what basis do you make that claim? And why are you implying that someone who wishes the law to operate by its fundamental principles, rather than according to the will of the BBC, is somehow unreasonable or unco-operative?
i am not implying that that someone one who wishes the law to operate exactly how you feel it should is unreasonable.
i'm saying that irrespective of whether it is or not, many people are perfectly reasonable, capable of understanding what tvl are doing, and able and wiling to act in a grown up, cooperative way.
It's my opinion, based on reports of literally 1000s of people's experiences and attitudes, that many people, when they know the full truth, will feel that they owe "TVL" nothing.
and are these 1000s of people's experiences representative of the whole, or are they skewed, having been sourced almost exclusively from people who have had problems?
Good.
Because one person can be polite and obstructive, whilst another can be rowdy but open-minded and communicative.
i can't speak for others, but i take exception to your implication that i am obstructive.
and i would disagree that the attitudes of some posters that i have described above can in any way, shape or form be described as 'open minded and communicative'.
Well, you'll have to forgive me for not remembering exactly what I said 18 months ago on a different forum to the one you appeared to be talking about.
But it makes for an interesting issue of web etiquette, I guess?
that its incredibly rude to mouth off about people on other forums behind their backs?
the council send me a form asking me to confirm my circumstances,ie a single person household. I fill it in and send it back and then I don't hear anymore from the council for at least a year.
I've just received my third Council Tax Bill for this address, and have not (neither on this occasion, nor previously) been asked/instructed to re-confirm my single occupancy status.
The council are prepared to take someones word that they are a single person household,but tvl don't seem prepared to take peoples word that they don't have a television.
You would think that would be the other way around, given that I'm currently benefiting, from being a single occupant, to the tune of £242+ per year, whereas not having a TV Licence saves me nearly £100 less.
I suspect the B&W licence is much more likely to go - there haven't been any new B&W sets made commercially for years, and indeed I don't think any have been on sale in the UK (as new) for quite a few years (I don't think you can even get black and white CCTV monitors that easily now as it's cheaper to just us a colour tube etc).
Comments
No misunderstanding.
The point is that no new money has to be found.
I have absolutely no idea why you are talking about nationalisation with reference to the BBC. You clearly do have a misunderstanding, or at the very least a very odd way of looking at it.
It is already in effect nationalised, albeit with the odd quirk that you do have the ability to opt out. However considering that only 3% of the population do, it is in efffect a tax for providing public service TV.
Wrong! £145.50/year/household who had a licence, not per person.
No, other posters also agree with me.
I don't know and I am sure you don't either, however that won't stop you trying to portray it as a much larger problem than it is.
On what basis do you make that claim? And why are you implying that someone who wishes the law to operate by its fundamental principles, rather than according to the will of the BBC, is somehow unreasonable or unco-operative?
It's my opinion, based on reports of literally 1000s of people's experiences and attitudes, that many people, when they know the full truth, will feel that they owe "TVL" nothing.
Good.
Because one person can be polite and obstructive, whilst another can be rowdy but open-minded and communicative.
Well, you'll have to forgive me for not remembering exactly what I said 18 months ago on a different forum to the one you appeared to be talking about.
But it makes for an interesting issue of web etiquette, I guess?
No,the number is very relevant when you use the information to try and portray/imply the problem as much larger than it really is.
Some would say spin.
Or perhaps we could leave it as very few, or hardly any, r almost none......
It's not a misrepresentation. Your previously stated views are there for all to see.
It is accurate, however I can understand why you don't like it being highlighted.
Surely there is a significant difference between per person and per household? Maybe not to single people.
Considering your overall position, clearly your statement was not just regarding financial and the context of the discussion on that thread certainly was not just regarding the cost.
No, I think it is important to understand individuals motives.
Well the comments you keep coming out with like "rejoicing" at the BBC cuts seem to paint a different picture.
I didn't say you did.
However, you just want to ignore the downside to your plan. Thats not responsible either.
You then seem to find pretty weak excuses for claiming that GT is not really a viable option.
Seems very much like you don;t want a solution, just a particular outcome.
You certainly do use info like this to imply a more serious issue. Just like the 4 cases you previously mentioned......over how many years and how many contacts was that?:rolleyes:
Experiences like the woman you cited who clearly and irrationally over reacted?
The truth eh?
Indeed there is, hardly "pedantry"!:)
So, if i'm contributing to this debate, how come I'm "Stifling" it??!!
The BBC was nationalised, not to provide public service radio (and later tv) but to stop it being independant.
nope - you made it literal when you came out with your formula.
that's how formulas work - they don't work for figures that suit one person, but magically become too literal with other figures.
i am not implying that that someone one who wishes the law to operate exactly how you feel it should is unreasonable.
i'm saying that irrespective of whether it is or not, many people are perfectly reasonable, capable of understanding what tvl are doing, and able and wiling to act in a grown up, cooperative way.
and are these 1000s of people's experiences representative of the whole, or are they skewed, having been sourced almost exclusively from people who have had problems?
i can't speak for others, but i take exception to your implication that i am obstructive.
and i would disagree that the attitudes of some posters that i have described above can in any way, shape or form be described as 'open minded and communicative'.
that its incredibly rude to mouth off about people on other forums behind their backs?
yes, i agree.
Iain
I've just received my third Council Tax Bill for this address, and have not (neither on this occasion, nor previously) been asked/instructed to re-confirm my single occupancy status.
You would think that would be the other way around, given that I'm currently benefiting, from being a single occupant, to the tune of £242+ per year, whereas not having a TV Licence saves me nearly £100 less.
To allow free B&W viewing?
I suspect the B&W licence is much more likely to go - there haven't been any new B&W sets made commercially for years, and indeed I don't think any have been on sale in the UK (as new) for quite a few years (I don't think you can even get black and white CCTV monitors that easily now as it's cheaper to just us a colour tube etc).