It's not a tax. A tax is based on income. It's a fee that you have chosen to pay because you want to watch TV in your own house. Are you going to tell me your gas bill is a tax as well?
and the site receives a small commission
Happy to see J Ross esq leave the Beeb
- Thread starter Duncan.F
- Start date
It's not a tax. A tax is based on income. It's a fee that you have chosen to pay because you want to watch TV in your own house. Are you going to tell me your gas bill is a tax as well?
Flash In The Pan
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 27,793
- Edit My Images
- Yes
By that definition then the Council Tax isn't a tax, as it's based on the value of one's property, not on income and as for Road Tax.....
Substitute, "licence fee payer's money" for "tax payer's money" if you wish, it pretty much comes to the same thing anyway....
Last edited:
trapper501
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,175
- Name
- Nick
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Why is everyone going on about the public's money? It's not like it's taxpayers' money - it's TV license money. If you don't like your money being spent, don't watch TV
TV isn't pay per view, well not the BBC. In fact even if you never watched a BBC programme you would have to pay for them.
People are more than entitled to question the money thing, because they have very little choice about contributing to it.
TV isn't pay per view, well not the BBC. In fact even if you never watched a BBC programme you would have to pay for them.
People are more than entitled to question the money thing, because they have very little choice about contributing to it.
Flash In The Pan
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 27,793
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I stopped watching Film xxxx when Ross took over, he's no Barry Norman, nor for that matter is he anywhere near in the same league as Parky....
If you don't watch or own a TV you don't have to pay a TV license. It's not that hard to grasp!
I went for a year in halls "never watch[ing] a BBC programme" (or any programme for that matter) and guess what? I didn't have to pay for them. Funny, that.
- Messages
- 34,670
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I see. So let me get this straight. What you are saying is that, if I don't like the way the BBC are spending my money (and every other taxpayer's money) I then shouldn't watch ANY television AT ALL? Hmm, I think that might be a little extreme don't you think?
Not quite, I'm saying if you choose to give them money it's a bit silly to grumble about how they use it. You can't attach stipulations to money you've spent on buying a product! It's a bit like trying to tell Sainsbury's they can only spend the money from your groceries on [insert something silly here].
It's unfortunate that the BBC has a monopoly over the market and you can't switch providers but the fact remains you're buying a product from them at the price they have agreed - if their expenditure is too large for you then that's really not something you have a say in!
It's unfortunate that the BBC has a monopoly over the market and you can't switch providers but the fact remains you're buying a product from them at the price they have agreed - if their expenditure is too large for you then that's really not something you have a say in!
- Messages
- 34,670
- Edit My Images
- Yes
But that's the whole point. You haven't chosen to buy their product, it has been bought via what is effectively a tax. I don't get given the choice of whether I pay for it and watch it or not, unlike with sainsburys where I don't have to pay them any money at all.
Flash In The Pan
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 27,793
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You don't have a choice (legally) as to whether you pay the TV licence or not, therefore your example doesn't work. Also, the BBC don't have a monopoly over the market, there are other TV channels, such as ITV and SKY, what the BBC do have is a unique funding source - the licence fee.
Flash In The Pan
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 27,793
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Eh? :shrug:
Flash In The Pan
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 27,793
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Nobody makes you have a telly.
I suspect you might be old enough to remember "why don't you"
:bang: But if you do decide (free will and all that) to buy one to watch broadcast programmes on legally you need to buy a licence, the money from which is used to fund the BBC and ergo fund Ross...
and yes
Although when it got to the bit in the theme tune when it said "turn off your television set" I did just that
- Messages
- 22,999
- Name
- matt
- Edit My Images
- Yes
you cant buy a telly without the tv license police knowing about it. it doesnt matter if you dont watch the BBC, you still need a tv licence unless in certain circumstances.
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index...n_licences.htm#who_needs_a_television_licence
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index...n_licences.htm#who_needs_a_television_licence
trapper501
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,175
- Name
- Nick
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The whole idea that those who don't want so much money spent on Ross should just stop watching TV altogether is rather odd to my mind.
It doesn't wash to say it is analogous to buying any other product.
You pay a licence fee to the BBC so that you can watch somebody else's output. That simply doesn't happen in any other commercial field. You don't pay tesco so that you can shop in Sainsbury's.
If you did, you would be perfectly entitled to criticise how Tesco spent the money even though you continued to shop in Sainsbury's.
It doesn't wash to say it is analogous to buying any other product.
You pay a licence fee to the BBC so that you can watch somebody else's output. That simply doesn't happen in any other commercial field. You don't pay tesco so that you can shop in Sainsbury's.
If you did, you would be perfectly entitled to criticise how Tesco spent the money even though you continued to shop in Sainsbury's.
Dave Stone
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,382
- Edit My Images
- No
Where does it mention 6 million in my post? I was refering to a previous post mentioning 18 million!
trapper501
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,175
- Name
- Nick
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The £18M was for a 3 year contract, so it is £6M per year.
NorthernNikon
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,032
- Name
- Barney
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Ah, the good old Daily Mail, eh? So Ross earns millions from his production company therefore the BBC must pay him, personally, all those millions? What wonderfully flawed logic.
The fact is that the BBC pay Ross's production company to produce certain shows, just as they would any other production company. Whether you think he's talentless or not, he obivously had the talent required to get the right team around him in order to not only win a substantial contract, but also fulfill it. Now, the fact that he "earn(s) millions" from his production company isn't down soley to his BBC contract, but take a look atthis link and you'll where a lot of the money really comes from.
So you don't like him, millions do though and he'll still be earning millions after his contract with the BBC expires, and you'll probably be still paying for him if you buy the goods and services advertised on the commercial channels his shows are aired on.
NorthernNikon
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,032
- Name
- Barney
- Edit My Images
- Yes
And you'll get a pointless statement. Commercial television is paid for by "tax payers' money". You buy brand X, company Y spend a proportion of its revenue on TV advertising to channel Z. You still pay for it, even if it's indirectly.
Flash In The Pan
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 27,793
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The key word, which you conveniently ignored was "also"
Once again you've taken my words out of context. Nowhere did I say he was talentless, it was a quote from a third party.
So, by that logic, because some other people like him I'm not allowed to voice the opinion that I don't consider him worth the money that he is paid by the BBC?
Another point, Barney, all of the articles relating to this matter refer to Ross' salary being £18million/ (£6 million per year), not the fee paid to his production company (which I'm sure the BBC will be invoiced separately for) but his actual, personal salary.
By that logic anyone who pays taxes must support the BNP as Nick Griffin gets paid a salary by the tax payer to be an MEP........
Last edited:
NorthernNikon
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,032
- Name
- Barney
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The key word, which you conveniently ignored was "also"Not at all. The Mail's wording implies that all the BBC's money goes straight into his pocket.
I didn't take your word out of context at all. You quote the third party to substantiate your argument. If you didn;t concur with the sentiment why quote it in the first place?
Not at all, just as long as the argument is one based on facts rather than tabloid outrage.
First of all, none of know the ins and outs of his contract, but I'll not take anything by the general use of term 'salary' by the media. Salary these days is a catch all term, but it's use with JR is almost certainly incorrect unless he is a BBC employee, which he isn't. You don't pay a contractor a salary, he or she invoices you and you pay that invoice.
That depends on what you mean by 'support'. If you mean financially, then yes, you pay in part for Nick Griffin. If you mean support in the political sense, then of course not, but also I really don't see how you can make the jump given my example. Either way, it's verging on invoking Godwins Law.
Flash In The Pan
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 27,793
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That depends on what you mean by 'support'. If you mean financially, then yes, you pay in part for Nick Griffin. If you mean support in the political sense, then of course not, but also I really don't see how you can make the jump given my example. Either way, it's verging on invoking Godwins Law.
Yeah okay, you win - Ross was an asset to the BBC, the majority of the populace love him and the world will be a much poorer place should he sod off to Chanel 4/America.