Blimey, that was a pile up!
in [UK Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Am I getting older ...
Next: Top Gear
From: SIRPip on 2 Aug 2010 19:30 Hog wrote: > Champ wrote: > > On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 14:06:17 +0100, "Hog" > ><sm911SPAM(a)CHIPShotmail.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > The licence fee is patently is not a good idea. It puts excessive > > > numbers of people in Court and in jail for non payment of fines. > > > Not to mention the costs of reminders and enforcement. > > > > It's a terrible system. But, for raising money to fund TV > > production, it's better than all the alternatives. > > But the consequences are unacceptable. > Non payment of TV licence fines is the largest group of single parent > females in jail. Post proof of that, please. -- SIRPip : B12
From: steve auvache on 2 Aug 2010 22:01 On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 19:22:35 +0100, ogden <ogden(a)pre.org> wrote: <snip> dire warnings of a cultural winter ahead > We're halfway there already. Man the barricades. -- steve auvache
From: Kevin Gleeson on 2 Aug 2010 22:54 On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 23:09:43 +0100, Champ <news(a)champ.org.uk> wrote: >On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 21:44:06 GMT, Kevin Gleeson ><kevingleeson(a)imagine-it.com.au> wrote: > >>On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 13:27:53 +0100, Champ <news(a)champ.org.uk> wrote: > >>>>Most of the time I think they should be paying _us_ to watch >>>>television. I can't think of any other reason for doing it. > >>>That's easy then - if you don't own a reciever, you don't have to pay. > >>I get free TV here called the ABC. Yes, we pay for it in taxes, no >>advertising. But having to licence the receiver is crazy I reckon. > >So, in your system, even people who don't own a television pay for >ABC. And you think our system is crazy! Yep. For gods sake I could own 12 TVs. I can only watch one at a time. I do not want to pay for 12 licences. Most people (unlike me) watch TV, so a system that spreads it broadly across the population makes more sense to me. --- Kev
From: stephen.packer on 3 Aug 2010 00:20 Kevin Gleeson <kevingleeson(a)imagine-it.com.au> wrote: > On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 23:09:43 +0100, Champ <news(a)champ.org.uk> wrote: > > >On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 21:44:06 GMT, Kevin Gleeson > ><kevingleeson(a)imagine-it.com.au> wrote: > > > >>On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 13:27:53 +0100, Champ <news(a)champ.org.uk> wrote: > > > >>>>Most of the time I think they should be paying _us_ to watch > >>>>television. I can't think of any other reason for doing it. > > > >>>That's easy then - if you don't own a reciever, you don't have to pay. > > > >>I get free TV here called the ABC. Yes, we pay for it in taxes, no > >>advertising. But having to licence the receiver is crazy I reckon. > > > >So, in your system, even people who don't own a television pay for > >ABC. And you think our system is crazy! > > Yep. For gods sake I could own 12 TVs. I can only watch one at a time. > I do not want to pay for 12 licences. You don't have to do that in the UK. The address is licensed not the individual receiver. > Most people (unlike me) watch TV, so a system that spreads it broadly > across the population makes more sense to me. Which is pretty much what we have except the spread is restricted to that group of households owning one or more televisions.
From: ginge on 3 Aug 2010 03:15
On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 02:54:04 GMT, Kevin Gleeson <kevingleeson(a)imagine-it.com.au> wrote: >Yep. For gods sake I could own 12 TVs. I can only watch one at a time. >I do not want to pay for 12 licences. Say you had 4 vehicles, how many driving licences would you need? |