It could happen with any household item, a mirror, a sink, a cupboard, wardrobe, but you don't need a liscence for those... Besides a huge monitor doesn't class as a TV, but it sure can do just as much damage as one, and you don't need a lisence for a PC, it's all bullshit.
You're right, I do have an opinion. Sadly that's the only bit of your post that is right. Just think as well.. more items that we licence that don't kill us:
LFS.
Most software has some sort of licence that you pay for, even free software has a licence we agree to
Fishing
Boating
Hunting
Yeah, you could die hunting.. but pretty much all of those things are things that require a paid licence to participate in them. And if you do them, without paying.. you go to jail.
(Also, I love your presumption that I've never lived in the UK.. I haven't.. but it's interesting how you can attempt to hold that against me when I've never indicated anything of the sort).
Paying for goods doesn't change how it can be used, if that was the case then you couldn't take a gift from someone as you didn't pay for it, therefore hadn't contributed to licensing personally. You're logic is flawed.
Technically you are paying for a license, but most licenses are a once only thing, or renewable over a few years. It's effectively a permit. A license for fishing is a collateral amount of money to suggest you aren't just some vagabond that will destroy the fish and that you are serious about fishing as you have paid money to do so. but TV isn't something that needs to be taken seriously, paying for channels isn't what the problem is about (which is what you seem to think Intrepid is winging about) the problem is you need a TV License to watch TV anyway, regardless of what channels you have, it just so happens that BBC are funded by the TV license. Also, your TV License money goes towards the bloody Eurovision song contest. A definate reason to be annoyed! You need a license to just use a TV, if you don't have a license and you have a TV in your property, the authoroties can seize the TV and fine you. How about that for bullshit?
You haven't indicated you've even been in the UK but when you are paying TV license and all you do is use the TV for gaming, or even hook it up to your PC for stuff, you would complain too. Now-a-days it's not so bad as standard channel list is about 50, 30 of those are useless, but once upon a time not so long ago there were only 5 channels, before that only 4, before that only 3 and before that only 2 which were BBC1 and BBC2.
Technically you are paying for a license, but most licenses are a once only thing, or renewable over a few years. It's effectively a permit. A license for fishing is a collateral amount of money to suggest you aren't just some vagabond that will destroy the fish and that you are serious about fishing as you have paid money to do so. but TV isn't something that needs to be taken seriously, paying for channels isn't what the problem is about (which is what you seem to think Intrepid is winging about) the problem is you need a TV License to watch TV anyway, regardless of what channels you have, it just so happens that BBC are funded by the TV license. Also, your TV License money goes towards the bloody Eurovision song contest. A definate reason to be annoyed! You need a license to just use a TV, if you don't have a license and you have a TV in your property, the authoroties can seize the TV and fine you. How about that for bullshit?
You haven't indicated you've even been in the UK but when you are paying TV license and all you do is use the TV for gaming, or even hook it up to your PC for stuff, you would complain too. Now-a-days it's not so bad as standard channel list is about 50, 30 of those are useless, but once upon a time not so long ago there were only 5 channels, before that only 4, before that only 3 and before that only 2 which were BBC1 and BBC2.
If you drive without a licence, the police have the power to seize your car and fine you.
If you use software without a licence, the developers have the power to have you fined.
If you possess a firearm without a licence, the police have the power to seize them and fine/jail you.
If you hunt without a licence, the police can jail you/fine you.
See what I'm getting at? Sure it's silly to have a TV Licence, but it's not unreasonable. I don't think I should haffto pay for a drivers licence or a boating licence, because I already bought the car (which is your point.. I own it so I should be able to use it). But no.. I haffto licence myself as well every 5 years to drive. If I drive without a licence, and I get caught.. I get my car impounded and get fined... sounds a lot like what happens when you channel surf without the appropriate licence.
If you use software without a licence, the developers have the power to have you fined.
If you possess a firearm without a licence, the police have the power to seize them and fine/jail you.
If you hunt without a licence, the police can jail you/fine you.
See what I'm getting at? Sure it's silly to have a TV Licence, but it's not unreasonable. I don't think I should haffto pay for a drivers licence or a boating licence, because I already bought the car (which is your point.. I own it so I should be able to use it). But no.. I haffto licence myself as well every 5 years to drive. If I drive without a licence, and I get caught.. I get my car impounded and get fined... sounds a lot like what happens when you channel surf without the appropriate licence.
License makes sense if you have to sit an exam in order to prove to the authorities that you know what you are doing with the object in question. A TV does not require any kind of intelligence to watch.
Wow you just waffle a load of crap most of the time. The licenses you've quoted aren't really comparable tbh
The BBC is funded by tv licensing, you have to pay this license by law and that in turn pays for the bbc's content throughout all of the media they produce. Every other channel on terrestrial television is funded by advertising and not by this mystical tv license.
The only thing i watch on bbc is top gear and that's about it, so for me personally its a rip off considering none of that money goes to other sources that are of interest to me.
Why should we have to pay a tv license that doesn't really license the tv, it just funds the bbc's executives rediculous flat rate pay packets, a few just as examples:
Mark Thompson Director-General BBC £838,000*
Jana Bennett Director, Vision BBC £517,000*
Mark Byford Deputy Director-General BBC £488,000*
Tim Davie Director, Audio & Music BBC £452,000*
Zarin Patel Chief Financial Officer BBC £434,000*
Caroline Thomson Chief Operating Officer BBC £419,000*
Erik Huggers Dir. Future Media & Tech. BBC £407,000*
Sharon Baylay Director, MC&A BBC £345,000*
Lucy Adams Director, BBC People BBC £328,000*
Helen Boaden Director, BBC News BBC £327,800
The BBC has to cover ALOT of media content to keep each segment of it's viewers happy aswell, we should atleast be able to pay for what we want to watch.
The BBC can die in a fire for all i care.
It's like the UK's road fund license (car tax) this is meant to pay for the upkeep of roads etc. Yet lower polluting car's are cheaper to tax - how's that work?? Do lower emissions vehicles do any less damage to the roads they travel on? I think not, but that's a whole new thread
The BBC is funded by tv licensing, you have to pay this license by law and that in turn pays for the bbc's content throughout all of the media they produce. Every other channel on terrestrial television is funded by advertising and not by this mystical tv license.
The only thing i watch on bbc is top gear and that's about it, so for me personally its a rip off considering none of that money goes to other sources that are of interest to me.
Why should we have to pay a tv license that doesn't really license the tv, it just funds the bbc's executives rediculous flat rate pay packets, a few just as examples:
Mark Thompson Director-General BBC £838,000*
Jana Bennett Director, Vision BBC £517,000*
Mark Byford Deputy Director-General BBC £488,000*
Tim Davie Director, Audio & Music BBC £452,000*
Zarin Patel Chief Financial Officer BBC £434,000*
Caroline Thomson Chief Operating Officer BBC £419,000*
Erik Huggers Dir. Future Media & Tech. BBC £407,000*
Sharon Baylay Director, MC&A BBC £345,000*
Lucy Adams Director, BBC People BBC £328,000*
Helen Boaden Director, BBC News BBC £327,800
The BBC has to cover ALOT of media content to keep each segment of it's viewers happy aswell, we should atleast be able to pay for what we want to watch.
The BBC can die in a fire for all i care.
It's like the UK's road fund license (car tax) this is meant to pay for the upkeep of roads etc. Yet lower polluting car's are cheaper to tax - how's that work?? Do lower emissions vehicles do any less damage to the roads they travel on? I think not, but that's a whole new thread
So you expect all software to be free? I don't think LFS required me to sit and prove that I can simrace without wreckless endangerment. Windows doesn't require me to prove that I'm able to handle a mouse. All things that require a licence, that I pay for... some annually (iRacing).. that don't require me to prove that I'm competent with an object.
I think America should have a TV licence, that requires weeks of training.
My licences I pay go padding someones pocket as well.. LFS pad's the Devs pockets, iRacing pads Dave Kaemmer's pockets, Windows pads Bill Gates/ Steve Ballmer's pockets.. My Drivers licence pad's ICBC's pockets... etcera.
I think America should have a TV licence, that requires weeks of training.
My licences I pay go padding someones pocket as well.. LFS pad's the Devs pockets, iRacing pads Dave Kaemmer's pockets, Windows pads Bill Gates/ Steve Ballmer's pockets.. My Drivers licence pad's ICBC's pockets... etcera.
The biggest ball ache is that you pay for the BBC's staff salary (Chris Moyles' mainly and then he complains when he doesn't get paid, even though hes on 500k a year) even if you don't watch any BBC programs at all. Or listen to the radio, or visit the website. Even with all those factors excluded, as Deja Vu partly mentioned, you still have to pay the full license fee. It's really stupid. Also I agree with Deja Vu about car tax, but the reason they are doing it, is because the government are using enviromentalism as a way to get more money, they make fickle people feel guilty about polluting so that they don't complain or riot about paying more money.
£130 of TV license or watch British commercial TV, which consists of X-factor, Jeremy Kyle, the GoCompare man, Sky News or a talking Meerkat?
I'll take the license fee thanks, and yes I am paying for one. If you enjoy putting up with shit quality sensationalist TV and repeating annoying adverts every 10 minutes thats fine by me, the rest of you can be happy with your party with Mr Murdock and shut up 'k thanx bye'.
Theres no reason not to watch the BBC other than you're own tory self importance, its no more poltically corrupt than any other network and the entertainment is better overall.
I'll take the license fee thanks, and yes I am paying for one. If you enjoy putting up with shit quality sensationalist TV and repeating annoying adverts every 10 minutes thats fine by me, the rest of you can be happy with your party with Mr Murdock and shut up 'k thanx bye'.
Theres no reason not to watch the BBC other than you're own tory self importance, its no more poltically corrupt than any other network and the entertainment is better overall.
However in a way.. a lower emission car does cause less damage to roads.
Think about somethng that's bad for roads.. Semi's (Lorry's).. big, heavy.. wreak havok on roads.. and of course they get taxed more.
Something good.. a Smart car.. small, light.. and guess what.. cuase less damage and are taxed less.
Makes logical sense.
Think about somethng that's bad for roads.. Semi's (Lorry's).. big, heavy.. wreak havok on roads.. and of course they get taxed more.
Something good.. a Smart car.. small, light.. and guess what.. cuase less damage and are taxed less.
Makes logical sense.
Unless you have children, or legs that you don't want to lose in a collision!
I just went to opposite ends of the scale, there is a lot of intermediate steps!
I'd say if you give
1 point for win
2 points for 2nd
3 points for 3rd
4 points for 4th
and so on to 24th place.
then the guy with LEAST points wins.
1 point for win
2 points for 2nd
3 points for 3rd
4 points for 4th
and so on to 24th place.
then the guy with LEAST points wins.
Except in the case of TV licensing, the £145.50 goes to the BBC and no other channels - like buying a computer to play LFS, rFactor, F1 2010 and RACE07, but having pay for iRacing or you're breaking the law. But if you use none of the services that the licence is paying for, unlike your examples, you are still required to pay the £145.50. Or having to buy a licence to use a mobile phone, which pays for only 1 of the providers even if you don't use that one.
And Joe, if you want to pay £145.50 to the BBC that's up to you, maybe the BBC should go to a subscription service like Sky - that'd really show how many people like it eh?
funny thing is everyone loves the fact that the BBC's sport coverage, especially F1 , has no commercial breaks yet they complain about the fact that it doesn't need commercial breaks like the other channels
sure in an ideal world we wouldn't have the licence fee (and yes i agree the BBc waste a lot of money) but at least the BBC don't leave the grand prix every 15 mins for adverts or miss a goal in the world cup to show adverts.
sure in an ideal world we wouldn't have the licence fee (and yes i agree the BBc waste a lot of money) but at least the BBC don't leave the grand prix every 15 mins for adverts or miss a goal in the world cup to show adverts.
Hey kids!
Once upon a time, this thread used to be about the 2010 Formula One Season
Once upon a time, this thread used to be about the 2010 Formula One Season
i suspect the BBC would have more subscribers for it's 4 channels plus it's radio channels than ESPN have for their sports channels at £144 per annum or £122 per annum if you are a sky sports subscriber or for premier sports at £72 per annum for one channel that shows irish sports, australian rugby and conference football.
Larger LPG converted cars, hybrids, older registered and classical vehicles that come under the same tax classes could majorly outsize their current "eco" tax band equivalents - size isn't always the deciding factor. Ford focus estate 1.6 tdci is around £85 per annum but a 2.0 ford fiesta is probably £200+, countless other examples aswell
"We are Red Bull, we are in a unique position again this year and we are horny - can you say that in English or does it not make too much sense? "
Sebastian Vettel gets a little bit too excited about his title chances
Ive lost interest to know now what goes on in that Red Bull garage......
Sebastian Vettel gets a little bit too excited about his title chances
Ive lost interest to know now what goes on in that Red Bull garage......
I'd say he's probably talking about the team for constructors, and webbers position for drivers 
although he has a slight chance himself
although he has a slight chance himselfIf we would still be running the old point system this would be the standings:
Mark webber 80
Fernando Alonso 77
Lewis Hamilton 75
Sebastian Vettel 74
Jenson Button 72
Can this championship get any closer?
Mark webber 80
Fernando Alonso 77
Lewis Hamilton 75
Sebastian Vettel 74
Jenson Button 72
Can this championship get any closer?
Ha imagine if Vettel's move on Button had only taken Seb out and Jenson had come 2nd. 
I think the current point system hides how epic this championship is.
Yeah, waste other people's money like it's nothing? who cares right? Not like they have to pay for food to put on the table right?
F1 without ads (though F1 is pretty much a 2 hour billboard procession anyway) is not a price to pay for having a public funded broadcasting company that is clearly holds a political agenda. If the current set of BBC strikes that coincidently fall exactly at the time of the Tory conference (while Labour has had wall to wall coverage) is not a clear sign of institutional bias I do not know what is. This coming after Mark Thompson admitted a massive left-wing bias as well. And the less said on their climate change reporting the better.
But yes, some of what the BBC do is fantastic, but I would like the choice to pay for those services if I so wish. I would happily subscribe to some of the BBC's services. If the BBC was sold off it's not as if all their genuinely talented staff would disappear into the abyss. Quality programmes will still be made.
In regards to the future of F1 broadcasting, it is clear TV broadcasting is not a sustainable medium for the future. I certainly don't think Bernie Ecclestone should have his industry subsidised by a tax levied on the owners of TVs regardless of income. We are talking about a multi-billion pound industry that receives MASSIVE public subsidies. It's absolute insanity that hard working low earning people in this country have to pay money so a bunch of insanely wealthy people can play silly beggers with toy cars.
Anyway, thats that. It appears some are coming round to this point of view anyway in the real world. My point is pretty clear on this. In the words of Jeremy Paxman (a conflicted gent it appears) "The idea of a tax on the ownership of a television belongs in the 1950s. Why not tax people for owning a washing machine to fund the manufacture of Persil?"
So... F1.... Alonso's gonna win yh?
Formula One Season 2010
(1980 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG