BBC could go

[AronSearle]

You are not obliged to watch television or listen to the radio.

Strawman

But didn't you say you'd be prepared to pay subscriptions to watch them?

Nope, I said I would like the choice.

I said if you want it, you pay for it by subscription.

I think that if there was no TV licence you'd have to pay them so that they can pay towards the transmission costs.

Why does this keep getting repeated.

It's a multi billion pound industry, yet you think they can't afford to pay for a transmission network

Is it? I don't know what proportion of the licence fee goes towards transmission costs. Do you have details?

11% transmission and licence fee admin (chasing people for money). So how much of that 11% is transmission and how much admin I don't know.

Anyway, if you did achieve your aim of getting rid of the TV licence don't you thing that the government would find some other tax to make up the difference?

Seeing as the money goes to the BBC and not the government, I don't see the relevance.

 

[JBR]

You are not obliged to watch television or listen to the radio.

Strawman

I keep seeing that response on here when someone doesn't have an answer! Couldn't you be more original and call me a b*****d or something?!

But didn't you say you'd be prepared to pay subscriptions to watch them?

Nope, I said I would like the choice.

I said if you want it, you pay for it by subscription.

OK. Fair enough. Your choice!

I think that if there was no TV licence you'd have to pay them so that they can pay towards the transmission costs.

Why does this keep getting repeated.

It's a multi billion pound industry, yet you think they can't afford to pay for a transmission network

I haven't repeated it. It's the first time I said it!

I don't know, but I'll bet they'd add a few quid to your subscriptions to make sure they don't lose out.

Is it? I don't know what proportion of the licence fee goes towards transmission costs. Do you have details?

11% transmission and licence fee admin (chasing people for money). So how much of that 11% is transmission and how much admin I don't know.

I don't know either.

Anyway, if you did achieve your aim of getting rid of the TV licence don't you thing that the government would find some other tax to make up the difference?

Seeing as the money goes to the BBC and not the government, I don't see the relevance.

I understood that some of it goes towards the transmission network - microwave links and so on. I didn't think the BBC was responsible for this. I don't know who is, though, but I know in the good old days it was the Post Office.

 

[JBR]

Sorry. Double post.

 

[AronSearle]

Nitpick time

I keep seeing that response on here when someone doesn't have an answer! Couldn't you be more original and call me a b*****d or something?!

Because it is a strawman argument, I do assume you know what that means?

You frame the argument that "I am not obliged to watch TV", when the argument is you don't need forced funding for there to be TV.

You don't argue with strawmen.

I haven't repeated it. It's the first time I said it!

Which is why I said "why does it get repeated" and not "why do you" keep repeating it

I really want to know why people think a multi billion pound industry needs a public funding bung.

I understood that some of it goes towards the transmission network - microwave links and so on. I didn't think the BBC was responsible for this. I don't know who is, though, but I know in the good old days it was the Post Office.

But we are splitting hairs here.

The money goes to the BBC or the infrastructure or xxxx, it doesn't go to the government coffers.

 

[JBR]

You don't argue with strawmen.

OK. I accept that you concede the argument to me! It was becoming a bit tiresome, anyway.