[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ

I'm as liberal as they come, but your argument would maybe have more sympathy if no one on benefits had Sky or Virgin.

Well I didn't say they all had,I just said if people had sky etc, they would have to pay a monthly subscription to that company.

People on benefits though, they are people too, I don't consider a TV a luxury.
You don't need to have sky that is true, but if you now buy a TV when you need one, it comes with freeview,the BBC is part of the freeview set up.

They may never get sky but they will still have had to buy the TV with BBC included in that,no option not to have it and then still have to pay this pathetic £145 yearly.

Are you suggesting pensioners on low incomes, people genuinely sick or disabled or who are genuinely unemployed because there are only 400,000 vacancies as opposed to 2.6 million people out of work in the UK are 'not' still entitled to have a TV with a sky subscription if they can budget for that. My Dad for instance pays for a friend of his,who is genuinely ill and cannot work, Sky subscription as a Christmas gift.
Maybe the people you say as to benefits have only a modest sky package and they may have someone in the house who works or a member of their family who pays for it too.

The argument of this thread is in the main, why should anyone,mega-rich, rich, well-off,just okay, on benefits or have near hardly any income have to pay every year £145 a year to the BBC for having the privilege to watch a TV in their own home whether they watch or want to watch the BBC or not.

What percentage of available channels do the BBC now transmit in the UK, certainly nowhere near the 50% it was in the 70s and 80s, how come all the other TV companies get by and why should the BBC get all on a plate given to them year on year, decade after decade.