Just had a visit from the TV Licensing people. For those who don't know (that is my non-English readers), in England you are required to pay a TV licensing fee of £135.50 per year to watch television. Just remember - every one of 65 million households that have television sets pays this.
Now this is more than a thorn in my side. It's more like I getting raped monthly with a big ol' iron bar, and a rusty one at that.
Imagine I pay £110 for a television set. Now long ago, a decent TV like a Sharps' might last you 15 - 20 years with some minor repairs (I know, I use to repair them). Now, you could expect 5 to 8 years service.
So a television set cost me £110, and over the course of a year, I pay more than the cost of the set in TV licence. So multiply by the amount of years your TV hold out for... you realise you pay more than if you buying shares in CTC Electronics, or starting a fowl farm in Caparo.
So as a mark of protest, I decided I not paying one damn penny to something so undoubted a ripoff. Why is it a ripoff? Because the money from this fee allegedly goes to the BBC (something I rarely watch and from comments made by other people, they rarely watch also). So my question is, since the BBC can give £4M annual bonuses to their managers and £20M contracts to their presenters, why the hell do they need us to fund it?? Man, go compete like everyone else!
I called up the Authority and told them I only use my television for watching DVDs and I don't require a licence as I do not watch BBC anyway. And so they sent round a chappie (Jamaican no less) to see whether it is true. Go figure. In case you wondering, I really don't watch TV. And I don't pay licence fee.
Now I would not have minded a small fee of about £15 to £20 a year, but that £135.50 (colour TV) is ridiculous. The BBC better start competing for advertising revenue, else more people will protest this rape.
Now this is more than a thorn in my side. It's more like I getting raped monthly with a big ol' iron bar, and a rusty one at that.
Imagine I pay £110 for a television set. Now long ago, a decent TV like a Sharps' might last you 15 - 20 years with some minor repairs (I know, I use to repair them). Now, you could expect 5 to 8 years service.
So a television set cost me £110, and over the course of a year, I pay more than the cost of the set in TV licence. So multiply by the amount of years your TV hold out for... you realise you pay more than if you buying shares in CTC Electronics, or starting a fowl farm in Caparo.
So as a mark of protest, I decided I not paying one damn penny to something so undoubted a ripoff. Why is it a ripoff? Because the money from this fee allegedly goes to the BBC (something I rarely watch and from comments made by other people, they rarely watch also). So my question is, since the BBC can give £4M annual bonuses to their managers and £20M contracts to their presenters, why the hell do they need us to fund it?? Man, go compete like everyone else!
I called up the Authority and told them I only use my television for watching DVDs and I don't require a licence as I do not watch BBC anyway. And so they sent round a chappie (Jamaican no less) to see whether it is true. Go figure. In case you wondering, I really don't watch TV. And I don't pay licence fee.
Now I would not have minded a small fee of about £15 to £20 a year, but that £135.50 (colour TV) is ridiculous. The BBC better start competing for advertising revenue, else more people will protest this rape.
