His precious "10 p in the pound" Leicester can't beat us so he goes for the patronising card.


Gary Lineker
‏Compte certifié @GaryLineker
6 hil y a 6 heures

"Stay strong Arsenal fans. Still feel you’re capable of finishing above Burnley."

He's obviously taking the pish out of Arsenal. Nothing wrong with that tweet.

I think the fact he played for Spurs might be a part of the reason for his mockery. And so what if he patronises us? Whiney bitch!

Ex spurs player maybe just maybe taking the ****?

Aimed at Gooners that.

I would get rid of him as soon as his contract expires and save the tax payer the £2 1/2 million we pay for his bbc salary.

Yep,he's taking the **** out of the Gooners.

Vino blanco wrote:I would get rid of him as soon as his contract expires and save the tax payer the £2 1/2 million we pay for his bbc salary.

*licence fee

It isn't a tax.

Who pays for the licence fee? It's still coming out of tax payers' pockets.

Spiral wrote:*licence fee

It isn't a tax.

It's not a salary either. It's a tax avoiding dividend payment no doubt channeled through the caymens...

He has changed over the last couple of years. He used to be an excellent presenter on MOD, but as his ego grew his personality nose dived. He does come across as an arrogant **** at times, not counting this episode as I haven't seen it, he needs to go back to being a presenter instead of a 'personality'.

We’re coming for you,
We’re coming for yoooouuuu,
Woolwich Arsenal,
We’re coming for you.

I don't believe you, but if that were true it would be a tax avoiding dividend payment, which the license fee paying public should not be paying for.

Vino blanco wrote:Who pays for the licence fee? It's still coming out of tax payers' pockets.

Insofar a we all coincidentally happen to be tax payers, yes, but the licence fee isn't a tax.

Glad you agree with me, Spiral.

Colburn_Claret wrote:He has changed over the last couple of years. He used to be an excellent presenter on MOD, but as his ego grew his personality nose dived. He does come across as an arrogant **** at times, not counting this episode as I haven't seen it, he needs to go back to being a presenter instead of a 'personality'.

I doubt he's changed much over the years; probably more a case of twitter allowing him to expose to the public a side of him which they probably hadn't seen before. Not that that's an inherently bad thing, but he's certainly opinionated.

Spiral wrote:Insofar a we all coincidentally happen to be tax payers, yes, but the licence fee isn't a tax.

But many non-tax payers still pay the license fee, don't they? (So why concede the point?)

I'm a bit drunk and I'm now backing out of this one. Enjoy yourselves, lads!....

Great finisher when he played now he should know it's time to finish.

Right, so we've established that the licence fee is definitely not a tax and that Lineker wasn't being patronising towards us. Why is he a freeloader?

I quite like him and having opinions shouldn't be confused with being opinionated.

UTC!

Yep, obviously extracting the michael.

Still, Arsenal fans must be used to it now.

Spiral wrote:*licence fee

It isn't a tax.

Baring in mind it's not dependent on people's actual ability to pay it and a millionaire is expected to pay exactly the same as some one in minimum wage. All, ultimately, under threat of prison for non payment.

What would you call It?

Of course it's a tax.
Read the court files of any local paper and you will see the names of those who avoid paying it.
You won't see the name of anyone who refused to pay their sky bill

RingoMcCartney wrote:Baring in mind it's not dependent on people's actual ability to pay it and a millionaire is expected to pay exactly the same as some one in minimum wage. All, ultimately, under threat of prison for non payment.

What would you call It?

I guess you don’t have to watch or listen to the bbc or probably more important, not have some sort of receiver in your house.

So therefore not a tax, just down to personal choice.

Hozz wrote:I guess you don’t have to watch or listen to the bbc or probably more important, not have some sort of receiver in your house.

So therefore not a tax, just down to personal choice.

I have a washing machine in my house. I'm not obliged to pay, through threat of prison, a tax to one particular washing powder manufacturer whether I use their product or not.


I have a microwave. I'm not obliged to pay, through threat of prison, a tax to one particular food manufacturer whether I use their product or not.

I have a television. Why should I be obliged to pay one particular broadcaster, through threat of prison, whether I watch their product or not?

In 2018, with subscription, pay to view and multi channel options, its its an indefensible, regressive poll tax, that punishes those least able to afford it.

It's not a "tv licence" it's the BBC tax.

RingoMcCartney wrote:Baring in mind it's not dependent on people's actual ability to pay it and a millionaire is expected to pay exactly the same as some one in minimum wage. All, ultimately, under threat of prison for non payment.

What would you call It?

You have described a 'price' which is quite common in the thing that we call a 'shop'. If you don't want it don't pick it up.

UTC!

Hozz wrote:
So therefore not a tax, just down to personal choice.

Yes, and thats fine as far as it goes.
However, income tax IS a tax (as its name suggests).

But you can avoid it by not working and not having an income.
(not really practical, of course, but true.)

So thats just like choosing not to have a telly.

RingoMcCartney wrote:Baring in mind it's not dependent on people's actual ability to pay it and a millionaire is expected to pay exactly the same as some one in minimum wage. All, ultimately, under threat of prison for non payment.

What would you call It?

Licence fee. Everyone else calls it that, too. If you object, disconnect your aerial, problem solved.

Spiral, you were going to bed an hour ago. Don't tell me this nonsensical discussion about the licence fee is keeping you up!

Duffer_ wrote:You have described a 'price' which is quite common in the thing that we call a 'shop'. If you don't want it don't pick it up.

UTC!

The "price" is what you pay for the television.

The television receives various broadcasters output.

I only have to pay for one of those broadcasters output.

That's the BBC in the form of a poll tax. If I don't pay the BBC, whether I'm a millionaire or unemployed, I go to prison.

The "licence fee" is a BBC poll tax.

Spiral wrote:Licence fee. Everyone else calls it that, too. If you object, disconnect your aerial, problem solved.

Trying to defend the indefensible!

Get to bed.

Problem solved.

Vino blanco wrote:Spiral, you were going to bed an hour ago. Don't tell me this nonsensical discussion about the licence fee is keeping you up!

Ha! Never said I was going to bed! And...er... my sleep patterns are none of your concern. (This has gotten very, very weird very quickly). I'm channelling my inner Rowls.

RingoMcCartney wrote:Trying to defend the indefensible!

Get to bed.

Problem solved.

Why are you all so interested in me getting into my bed.

I mean, I'm flattered, like, but I'm not interested, boys.

RingoMcCartney wrote:The "price" is what you pay for the television.

The television receives various broadcasters output.

I only have to pay for one of those broadcasters output.

That's the BBC in the form of a poll tax. If I don't pay the BBC, whether I'm a millionaire or unemployed, I go to prison.

The "licence fee" is a BBC poll tax.

A TV? OK, so if I buy a car should I expect to get the petrol for free?

The thing that I struggle with re. the licence fee is that you cannot watch other channels, i.e. non-BBC channels, without paying the licence fee. You should be able to prove that you don't take advantage of the service to avoid the licence fee, unless the BBC can demonstrate that the fee is essential to the infrastructure of watching TV.

However, in the world of fragmented digital experiences, I think it is a price worth paying for some form of social cohesion.

UTC!

RingoMcCartney wrote:The "price" is what you pay for the television.

The television receives various broadcasters output.

I only have to pay for one of those broadcasters output.

That's the BBC in the form of a poll tax. If I don't pay the BBC, whether I'm a millionaire or unemployed, I go to prison.

The "licence fee" is a BBC poll tax.

If you want to receive a TV broadcast or watch a TV broadcast on catch-up, you need to pay the licence fee. Although the BBC's TV and radio programming is funded by the licence fee, it isn't a "BBC fee", otherwise it would be called the "BBC fee". You can buy a television and use it as a display monitor without paying a licence fee, but if you want to watch a television broadcasts you need to give Gary Linaker £150 every single year of your life and he is going to spend it all on hookers and coke (and who can blame him) and he's going to run little old Burnley into the ground on twitter and ram a six-pack bag of cheese & onion down your throat until you spew up the tonne and a half hiding in your piggy bank.

Duffer_ wrote:A TV? OK, so if I buy a car should I expect to get the petrol for free?

The thing that I struggle with re. the licence fee is that you cannot watch other channels, i.e. non-BBC channels, without paying the licence fee. You should be able to prove that you don't take advantage of the service to avoid the licence fee, unless the BBC can demonstrate that the fee is essential to the infrastructure of watching TV.

However, in the world of fragmented digital experiences, I think it is a price worth paying for some form of social cohesion.

UTC!

If you want to compare it to a car, would you think it was fair to only pay fuel duty to Texaco, whether or not you used their petrol/diesel or not?

That's what the BBC poll tax is.

Spiral wrote:If you want to receive a TV broadcast or watch a TV broadcast on catch-up, you need to pay the licence fee. Although the BBC's TV and radio programming is funded by the licence fee, it isn't a "BBC fee", otherwise it would be called the "BBC fee". You can buy a television and use it as a display monitor without paying a licence fee, but if you want to watch a television broadcasts you need to give Gary Linaker £150 every single year of your life and he is going to spend it all on hookers and coke (and who can blame him) and he's going to run little old Burnley into the ground on twitter and ram a six-pack bag of cheese & onion down your throat until you spew up the tonne and a half hiding in your piggy bank.

Come back tomorrow when you're sober!

Spiral, you said you were 'backing out on this one' i.e. tv licence fee discussion, an hour and a half ago. Could you please make your mind up once and for all, my friend, otherwise I shall have to start to worry about your mental wellbeing.

Vino blanco wrote:Spiral, you said you were 'backing out on this one' i.e. tv licence fee discussion, an hour and a half ago. Could you please make your mind up once and for all, my friend, otherwise I shall have to start to worry about your mental wellbeing.

When there's nothing left to say, Spiral is still saying it.

Im up early tomorrow. Sleep well gents.

RingoMcCartney wrote:If you want to compare it to a car, would you think it was fair to only pay fuel duty to Texaco, whether or not you used their petrol/diesel or not?

That's what the BBC poll tax is.

Post 26 and the first paragraph of post 34 were simply pointing out the deficiencies within your reasoning. I have explained my issue with the licence fee which may or may not be different to yours. You decide.

UTC!

Can someone tell me how I avoid paying for commercial tv (non subscription), I don’t watch it.

I'd love to see a venn diagram of all the people bitching and whining about Lineker for sharing (quite lefty) political opinions and complain that he's overpaid, along with all the people who defended Clarkson for his (very not lefty) jokes and opinions and demanded that he should never have been threatened with firing for sharing those - all while being paid 3 or 4 times as much. I bet there'd be quite a bit of overlap.

Apart from his Spurs connection he has an ongoing social media hatred of that Gooner twohat Piers Morgan.
It's probably aimed squarely at him.

martin_p wrote:Can someone tell me how I avoid paying for commercial tv (non subscription), I don’t watch it.

Don't listen to me because apparently I'm so utterly drunk I can't be reasoned with, but if you were to, for instance, cancel your TV licence direct debit and a bailiff were to knock on your door, you'd merely have to show him/her that your TV aerial is disconnected. (You're also legally well within your rights to tell him/her they aren't allowed to enter your property, but I'm not sure if the courts then might then get more involved pursuant the licence fee). Subscription platforms (Sky etc) still require a licence fee because you're receiving a TV broadcast. Online platforms, e.g. iPlayer, now require log-in (meaning the service providers know you're using their service) but if you don't use iPlayer/4OD/itvHub ect, don't use a subscription service, e.g. Sky, and don't watch live TV, you have no legal obligation to pay the licence fee, despite RingoMcCartney's paranoia. It isn't a tax on receiving a broadcast, it's the price of it.

I like Lineker. Understated in the century of overstatement.

Spiral wrote:Don't listen to me because apparently I'm so utterly drunk I can't be reasoned with, but if you were to, for instance, cancel your TV licence direct debit and a bailiff were to knock on your door, you'd merely have to show him/her that your TV aerial is disconnected. (You're also legally well within your rights to tell him/her they aren't allowed to enter your property, but I'm not sure if the courts then might then get more involved pursuant the licence fee). Subscription platforms (Sky etc) still require a licence fee because you're receiving a TV broadcast. Online platforms, e.g. iPlayer, now require log-in (meaning the service providers know you're using their service) but if you don't use iPlayer/4OD/itvHub ect, don't use a subscription service, e.g. Sky, and don't watch live TV, you have no legal obligation to pay the licence fee, despite RingoMcCartney's paranoia. It isn't a tax on receiving a broadcast, it's the price of it.

I don't buy the argument that it's not a tax just because you choose to buy a TV. By choosing to buy a TV you're also choosing to pay VAT, so what's the difference, really? One is recurring, the other isn't. It's like saying that a subscription fee isn't "buying" something.

That said, so what if it's a tax? It's one of the best value taxes in the world (probably). And these people who want to get rid of it and the BBC, and have entirely commercial broadcasting what are they going to do when all their favourite protected sports are no longer free-to-watch channels like BBC and ITV? You're gonna have to pay Sky, or Virgin, or BT to be able to watch any football. And there'll be no signing up for a month just to watch the tournament every two years, you're locked in for 18 months (with sky) at £40/month + £20 Sky sports package. And that price will go up when the BBC are out of the way because Sky/Virgin/BT aren't going to be getting these tournaments for free, and also since there's less price-retarding competition around they can charge you what they want.

So let these fools complain that they're paying the government about £13/month to watch TV and listen to radio and that they'd rather pay a tax-dodging corporation £40+/month instead to watch TV that has 15 minutes of adverts every hour.

Spiral wrote:If you want to receive a TV broadcast or watch a TV broadcast on catch-up, you need to pay the licence fee. Although the BBC's TV and radio programming is funded by the licence fee, it isn't a "BBC fee", otherwise it would be called the "BBC fee". You can buy a television and use it as a display monitor without paying a licence fee, but if you want to watch a television broadcasts you need to give Gary Linaker £150 every single year of your life and he is going to spend it all on hookers and coke (and who can blame him) and he's going to run little old Burnley into the ground on twitter and ram a six-pack bag of cheese & onion down your throat until you spew up the tonne and a half hiding in your piggy bank.

The licence fee goes to the BBC you imbecile. We should be given the choice to opt of the BBC channels when we purchase cable etc.

Clarinetclaret wrote:The licence fee goes to the BBC you imbecile. We should be given the choice to opt of the BBC channels when we purchase cable etc.

Nah. All free-to-air channels. And if you want to ever opt back in it has to be by paying for 12 months.

Oh, and look at you calling someone an imbecile bravely behind a keyboard. (yes, i'm mocking your hypocrisy with this. I don't actually care what you call people)

Hes a crisp eatin p rick

Damo wrote:Of course it's a tax.
Read the court files of any local paper and you will see the names of those who avoid paying it.
You won't see the name of anyone who refused to pay their sky bill

No you won’t
But if you don’t pay sky bill then they are able to withdraw the service that they provide, so you wouldn’t be able to use it

BBC aren’t capable of doing that