Election Year or Fear!

[ramAnag]

Wrong again, just logically wrong - If they've paid ? hundreds of millions for those rights, which they have, they they and by extension you clearly HAVE contributed to 'the situation we have today'. Your virtue signalling (lapped up by rA) is just cheapskating really

Oh God, here we go again. ‘Your virtue signalling (lapped up by rA) is just cheapskating really’.

…and your personal comments, point scoring, cheap shots and sad attempts at division are exactly what was being criticised by another poster recently.

On topic. Clearly licence payers are not to blame for the current situation, but those, including myself, who do pay a monthly amount to Sky (and others) specifically in order to have direct access to high quality coverage of live sport, do have to take a proportion of the blame.

[Andy_Faber]

blame.

Sorry to continue the discussion, but what are you 'blaming' yourself for? a product is being offered, you're buying it at the market rate, what's the issue? the point I'm incidentally making about Swale and your adorationof it is that neither subscribing to a sports TV package nor not subscribing are actions to be proud about, they are just one of many decisions about what to do with disposable income. I don't currently watch road cycling because its gone behind a pay wall but I'm not looking for sainthood for the decision

[ramAnag]

Sorry to continue the discussion, but what are you 'blaming' yourself for? a product is being offered, you're buying it at the market rate, what's the issue? the point I'm incidentally making about Swale and your adorationof it is that neither subscribing to a sports TV package nor not subscribing are actions to be proud about, they are just one of many decisions about what to do with disposable income. I don't currently watch road cycling because its gone behind a pay wall but I'm not looking for sainthood for the decision

Why are you ‘sorry’ to continue a discussion? It’s your hypocritical personalised point scoring and evasiveness that pisses me off, never discussing.

I’m not blaming myself at a personal level, but it is a fact that the contributions millions of us make to Sky has led to inflated costs in terms of players wages, transfer fees and ticket prices etc, where as the licence fee just goes to fund all aspects of the BBC and it’s payment is a legal requirement for most.

Who is looking for a ‘sainthood’ and what am I meant to be adoring? Sadly I honestly think you’ve lost the plot lately.

[Andy_Faber]

Back on the ACTUAL subject of the Thread.

Shouldn't you be ranting about the latest crooked activities of a member of the country's leadership group? You and your buddy used to delight in it. Double standards perchance?

[swaledale]

Oh God, here we go again. ‘Your virtue signalling (lapped up by rA) is just cheapskating really’.

…and your personal comments, point scoring, cheap shots and sad attempts at division are exactly what was being criticised by another poster recently.

On topic. Clearly licence payers are not to blame for the current situation, but those, including myself, who do pay a monthly amount to Sky (and others) specifically in order to have direct access to high quality coverage of live sport, do have to take a proportion of the blame.

Just for the record RA, I have no view on whether one should or should not pay for SKY, personal choice, and at least you recognise that personal choice has a cause and effect.

Still its good to be informed that paying the licence fee is also responsible, and this person supposedly works or worked in finance?

[ramAnag]

Just for the record RA, I have no view on whether one should or should not pay for SKY, personal choice, and at least you recognise that personal choice has a cause and effect.

Still its good to be informed that paying the licence fee is also responsible, and this person supposedly works or worked in finance?

It hadn’t occurred to me that you were evangelising, Swale. I just recognise it takes a bit of sacrifice to go without the live sport that Sky do a very good job of offering when you’re a sports fan, and accepting that I’m not ‘good’ enough to resist it. Tbh I also use Amazon which, given where we live, probably ticks the ‘Green’ box but earns reproach from other quarters and the other night when we had visitors round, I knew he’d be driving so did the responsible thing and got some Brewdog in, but apparently that’s now unethical too.
Can’t do right for doing wrong it seems, but I was just admiring your stance - never to the point of adoration - and agreeing that it is clearly ridiculous trying to extend the (football) blame to licence fee payers.

[Andy_Faber]

it is clearly ridiculous trying to extend the (football) blame to licence fee payers.

Explain why? Its not compulsory to have a TV license.

[MadAmster]

Explain why? Its not compulsory to have a TV license.

According to AI... you need a TV Licence in the UK if you watch or record live TV broadcasts on any channel or service, or use BBC iPlayer, on any device. Failure to pay when you need one can result in legal action, including prosecution, a fine of up to ?1,000, and court costs. However, you do not need a TV Licence if you only watch catch-up TV on other services like Netflix or YouTube, or listen to radio broadcasts.

So. no, it's not compulsory to have a TV licence if you don't watch live TV but it is if you do watch live TV.

[Andy_Faber]

According to AI... you need a TV Licence in the UK if you watch or record live TV broadcasts on any channel or service, or use BBC iPlayer, on any device. Failure to pay when you need one can result in legal action, including prosecution, a fine of up to ?1,000, and court costs. However, you do not need a TV Licence if you only watch catch-up TV on other services like Netflix or YouTube, or listen to radio broadcasts.

So. no, it's not compulsory to have a TV licence if you don't watch live TV but it is if you do watch live TV.

Correct, I have to go through the rules regularly wrt empty properties. Perversely one doesn't need a license to watch pirate broadcasts because they don't officially exist, but of course one could be sanctioned (I guess more severly) under other laws. Watching UK terrestrial broadcasts in, for instance, Spain is also illegal, easily identifiable by a) massive satellite dishes and b) people being British (!) but I know the Spanish authorities aren't right bothered about rounding up the 200,000 or so perps on behalf of UK

[ramAnag]

Explain why? Its not compulsory to have a TV license.

Because, for the vast majority of people it is compulsory to have a TV licence in order to watch TV (not necessarily football on TV) legally and because the licence fee is used to fund a wide variety of BBC services, whereas people choose to separately watch and pay for Sky and an infinitely greater part of their business/income is directly related to football.