BoxRec

The Dark Destroyer wrote:No they shouldn't.

And the BBC has nothing to do with the tax payer. You can opt out of the BBC at any time and have no television or radio, you're taxes wouldn't go down any.

How many people in Britain do that? It is essentially a tax. It is disingenuous to deny it.

The Dark Destroyer wrote:I'm sure quite a few do.

A very small minority of people in the U.K. don't have a television set. Do you deny that?

The Dark Destroyer wrote:Taxes are not optional, the licence fee is, to deny the difference is disingenuous.

A person can also not pay VAT if they don't buy anything. A person shouldn't have to finance the BBC just because they want to watch a television set.

Gotta have license even if you don't have/watch/care much for the BBC. I know first hand that you need a license if you watch any TV. I so wish it was optional; I'd get Sky Sports if it was.

The Dark Destroyer wrote:

Dioufy wrote:Gotta have license even if you don't have/watch/care much for the BBC. I know first hand that you need a license if you watch any TV. I so wish it was optional; I'd get Sky Sports if it was.

I can't believe there isn't a way around it by now so those who don't want the BBC could get SKY or Freeview and not be able to view the BBC's channels.

I tried that reasoning in court. A £400 fine stated that my excuse was invalid.

There went my trip to Braga.

He looked through my window - cheeky fornicate.

The Dark Destroyer wrote:Do I deny it? I never said anything different, I just said I'm sure a quite a few do. And I am sure some do, I agree that they're going to be in a tiny minority though.

It is basically a tax then, isn't it? If the government got other companies to collect all of the other taxes, would you not consider those "fees" to be taxes either?

The Dark Destroyer wrote:A person shouldn't have to finance the BBC, you're right, that's why you can choose whether you do or you don't. I wish there were a way people could watch the channels they want and to not be able to watch the BBC, that would stop the fuckers moaning for a start, I also wish they'd come down really hard on the pudenda who would still try to watch it for free.

Why would you want that?

The Dark Destroyer wrote:I do wonder how long they would last though with the poor quality throughout most of the free channels. ITV is shit, channel four is mostly shit and Five is an abortion, the rest of the free to air channels aren't much cop either.

The BBC is awful, I doubt most people would be willing to pay £150 a year for the BBC service.

The Dark Destroyer wrote:The BBC being awful is your opinion.

Why would I want them to come down hard on people who try and watch it for free? Because if they want to watch it they should pay like everyone else, if you watch it for free you're essentially stealing from every single person who does pay. I don't expect people on the dole to pay for it, or the elderly, or people who can't work, but anyone in work who can afford a television and wants to watch BBC programming should have to pay.

What do you mean by coming down hard? Prison time?

Someone watching a television channel that they have not payed for is not one of the first "crimes" that comes to mind when I think of crimes that should be cracked down on. Do you really feel strongly about people not paying for the right to watch television channels?

Do you think people who watch boxing matches over the internet that they haven't payed for should be "come down hard on"?

The Dark Destroyer wrote:What company collects it has nothing to do with it, a tax is NOT OPTIONAL, the licence fee is OPTIONAL. That is a huge difference, and the only one that really matters in whether or not it is a tax or even similar to a tax. You are paying for a service, if you do not want that service you do not have to pay for it.

VAT is also optional. Do you not consider that to be a tax either?

The Dark Destroyer wrote:Is VAT optional? Wouldn't the company still have to pay it to the government even if they didn't charge it to you? I'm not really up on VAT to be honest.

Companies don't have to pay that tax if they don't do any business here. It is optional.

The Dark Destroyer wrote:I didn't say that it should be cracked down on, I originally stated it should be if the licence fee became optional and the BBC was encrypted and only available to the people who pay for it. You're right to point out boxing, I watch lots of boxing I don't pay for, that makes me a hypocrite, to be fair most of it is things that I wouldn't be able to watch in this country by other means.

I watch some boxing over the internet as well and I don't think that we deserve to have law enforcement come down hard on us, it is only television.

The Dark Destroyer wrote:I'm just sick of people moaning about the BBC, it costs eff all and is far better than SKY, I genuinely wish it was optional, and I still think that if it was the people who stole it should be dealt with strongly (by fines, I'm not advocating prison time), even if I am a hypocrite. They'd be stealing from me personally then.

I don't believe we should have copyright laws, so I am obviously going to be a lot softer on the issue. But with so many genuine scumbags out there, who are willing to stamp a person's skull in if they think it benefits them in a small way, I think coming down hard on people who don't pay to watch television channels is rather harsh.

The Dark Destroyer wrote:As I said, by harsh I'm not talking about prison time, but under those circumstances they should be able to be identified and fined for their crime.

Do you think that you should be identified and charged for your "crime" of watching boxing on the internet?

The Dark Destroyer wrote:No company has to pay any tax here if they do no business here.

The point is that television is a normal part of people's lives and to charge them for it is a "fee" that almost everyone is going to have to pay, just like the "tax" of VAT is a fee if someone wants to buy something.

We don't seem to disagree very much about the general issue. I don't really see the point of arguing about definitions, it seems a bit pedantic.

magnus wrote:
Why was it disgusting? Not having a pop, just not sure what you're getting at!

The fact they don't recognise nor cover professional boxing as a sport, yet have had Hatton, joe, Haye and Tomato listed year in, year out.

The feel obliged to bid millions on rowing between oxford and Cambridge, which illustrates what a bunch of self-indulgent pompous pricks they are.

The tv licence is a totally outdated and wouldn't be out of place in North Korea the way they enforce it through the courts - for what? A sodding tv channel.

G0mez wrote:

magnus wrote:
Why was it disgusting? Not having a pop, just not sure what you're getting at!

The fact they don't recognise nor cover professional boxing as a sport, yet have had Hatton, joe, Haye and Tomato listed year in, year out.

The feel obliged to bid millions on rowing between oxford and Cambridge, which illustrates what a bunch of self-indulgent pompous pricks they are.

The tv licence is a totally outdated and wouldn't be out of place in North Korea the way they enforce it through the courts - for what? A sodding tv channel.

Don't disagree with your last two points. However, it can't have been bad for the sport to have the likes of Hatton and Calzaghe nominated for the award, even if the BBC don't show boxing, it would be worse if they ignored them.

magnus wrote:
Don't disagree with your last two points. However, it can't have been bad for the sport to have the likes of Hatton and Calzaghe nominated for the award, even if the BBC don't show boxing, it would be worse if they ignored them.

It is good exposure for boxing, but also a slap in the face of the license payer.

They acknowledge the importance and popularity of our sport, yet never show it. They take our money and blow it on filming a rain forest shrew with diarrhoea that dies, then time-lapse ants munching the corpse.

I'd just like the voice to say where my loot gets spent, loot that is taken by force.