I'm trying to engage in a measured debate; with the greatest respect, calling my opinion "bollocks" is hardly constructive. Licence fee/taxpayer money...it's a very grey area and in truth the two are almost interchangeable. Perhaps 'selective tax' is the best way to describe what a government regulated licence fee actually is, as it is still a million miles away from commercially driven revenue. i.e. the private individual can decide if they want to pay this tax, but it is determined by the Govt in direct agreement with the BBC, without any consultation with the electorate or individual. So it sounds like a tax, looks like a tax, the only (granted: significant) difference is that I can choose not to pay it (which I personally don't as the vast majority of stuff on regular TV is complete ****e nowadays). As for "grooming" Lineker, I'm not sure I agree. He was given the helm of an already hugely popular programme at a time when social media didn't exist in any meaningful form. As the years passed, he grew into his new role as you say and simultaneously his voice began to carry much further than it had ever done, thanks to the proliferation of social media form the late noughties onwards. I don't see it as a one-way relationship as you have cast it, it is closer to being symbiotic wherein both parties have gained from each other but being honest, I feel Lineker has gained disproportionately more - both financially and influentially. His previous popularity is not relevant, firstly for the reason I've explained above (social media didn't exist when he started as a pundit) and secondly because he was hardly the only English-speaking popular ex-pro in the world at the time. In fact, being an ex-pro also wasn't relevant. Des Lynam wasn't and he was a fantastic presenter (whose opinion is now irrelevant as he missed the social media wave by a solid 8 years!). Conversely, plenty of globally popular ex-pros faded into insignificance precisely because they weren't for whatever reason given a similar platform. Does anyone care what his former team-mates David Platt or Nicky Barmby have to say for themselves?
Sorry CK I didn't intend to be offensive to you with my bollocks comment I just don't see it as a tax and I think it should be in that form. The licence fee is bollocks IMO mainly because of the many dozens of threatening letters I receive threatening me because I don't buy a license. It's a sore point.
Thanks for clarifying, appreciated But I think that's my point and why I and many people I know look at it as a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is negotiated and set directly by the Govt and then pursued quite aggressively by agencies on behalf of the Govt. It is a tax in all but name imo. Calling it a "licence fee" is just a ploy to dupe the elderly and vulnerable who aren't able to stand their ground and give in when obnoxious bailiff-like jobsworths come knocking on their doors illegally demanding entry to a private domain without a search warrant.
@Citizen Kane. I understand the Trossard hype now. He’s been an unreal signing. Didn’t think he’d be this impactful.
Oh thanks that makes me feel sooooo much happier, cheers. Meanwhile we signed Danjuma on loan and leave him on the bench every game.
sorry, wasn’t trying to make you feel bad, but I never understood why you rated him so highly initially and I wasn’t that enthused with the signing, particularly in the aftermath of the Mudryk saga. However, watching him up close and seeing his qualities for my team, he’s been a superb signing for £20m.
Just seen he has a hat trick of assists already today. Marvellous. Such a shame our offer of a £50 Boots voucher and a multipack of Wotsits wasn't accepted by Brighton.
The BBC "licence fee" is based solely on the fact that incumbent TV (signal receiver) sets cannot disable the conversion of a signal received on the radio frequency bands that the BBC broadcast on. As the payer may never watch the BBC or uses their TV set merely as a display for another signal source (DVD player etc) , they are therefore paying a tax (the state is taking the money from a citizen who has no choice on it) .
ITV is commercial TV (not state funded) . Therefore I should be tree to watch ITV "live" as I see fit, The fact that a TV set can receive and convert a "live" signal from BBC transmitters is simply not my problem (re my remarks on the "Politics thread" regarding BBC hubris on tech) .
I agree but in law you will lose if you watch ITV live. I wrote to TV licensing a few years ago and told them they had no right to send threatening letters to the (at the time 5% of people) who did not watch television. They actually apologised and thanked me for letting them know. 2 years later the threatening letters started again so I have kept them all (Over 100) and if it ever came to court I will sue the bastards for intimidating behaviour towards a poor defenceless pensioner.
