Political Crossfire Forums

JDnCoke · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 1153 Location: Oxford, Queen's

John Galt wrote: Dude, that's where it starts. The Tea Tax your government forced on us actually made tea cheaper. We just didn't like the whole principle of the thing and threw a party.

And what was that tax for in the first place? Oh yeah to pay for the 10,000 British Troops protecting your colonial arses from Indians and the French!

Oh Holy, Holy Beeb
You are infallible
Every year we have this license to offer
as a sacrifice to your eternal greatness
I am but a mere mortal, but only say the word, and i shall serve you
Oh Holy, Holy Beeb

Good God! :lol:

John Galt · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 21641 Location: Minnesota

JDnCoke wrote: John Galt wrote: Dude, that's where it starts. The Tea Tax your government forced on us actually made tea cheaper. We just didn't like the whole principle of the thing and threw a party.

And what was that tax for in the first place? Oh yeah to pay for the 10,000 British Troops protecting your colonial arses from Indians and the French!

Since when have any Americans ever needed protection from the French? Just because you gave it doesn't mean we needed it.

And the point was we disagreed on principle with it all.

Achilles The Myrmidon · Joined: 20 Nov 2004 Posts: 4649 Location: Hellas

Well you needed the French to kick the British out the colonies...

John Galt · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 21641 Location: Minnesota

Achilles The Myrmidon wrote: Well you needed the French to kick the British out the colonies...

Yes, but we didn't need protection from them.

thundertaker · Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 9:02 am Post subject:

John Galt wrote: Achilles The Myrmidon wrote: Well you needed the French to kick the British out the colonies...

Yes, but we didn't need protection from them.

You did before the 7 years war (French and Indian war to you) after that, the British Army and American militias effectively destroyed them as a viable threat to the colonists. That was when they started to wonder why the redcoats were needed to garrison the colonies.....

John Galt · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 21641 Location: Minnesota

thundertaker wrote: John Galt wrote: Achilles The Myrmidon wrote: Well you needed the French to kick the British out the colonies...

Yes, but we didn't need protection from them.

You did before the 7 years war (French and Indian war to you) after that, the British Army and American militias effectively destroyed them as a viable threat to the colonists. That was when they started to wonder why the redcoats were needed to garrison the colonies.....

That was my point -- we didn't need the help for that something what was why your governemnt levied taxes upon us...

Anyway, I'd throw a TV Party on the Thames.

Robin Hood · Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 3295

Quote: Anyway, I'd throw a TV Party on the Thames.

:lol:

thundertaker · Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 10:47 am Post subject:

John Galt wrote: thundertaker wrote: John Galt wrote: Achilles The Myrmidon wrote: Well you needed the French to kick the British out the colonies...

Yes, but we didn't need protection from them.

You did before the 7 years war (French and Indian war to you) after that, the British Army and American militias effectively destroyed them as a viable threat to the colonists. That was when they started to wonder why the redcoats were needed to garrison the colonies.....

That was my point -- we didn't need the help for that something what was why your governemnt levied taxes upon us...

Anyway, I'd throw a TV Party on the Thames.

The British government had expended quite a lot of money removing the french and indian threat to the colonists though, why wasn't it fair for the colonists to contribute towards something that benefitted them more than anyone else?

John Galt · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 21641 Location: Minnesota

thundertaker wrote: John Galt wrote: thundertaker wrote: John Galt wrote: Achilles The Myrmidon wrote: Well you needed the French to kick the British out the colonies...

Yes, but we didn't need protection from them.

You did before the 7 years war (French and Indian war to you) after that, the British Army and American militias effectively destroyed them as a viable threat to the colonists. That was when they started to wonder why the redcoats were needed to garrison the colonies.....

That was my point -- we didn't need the help for that something what was why your governemnt levied taxes upon us...

Anyway, I'd throw a TV Party on the Thames.

The British government had expended quite a lot of money removing the french and indian threat to the colonists though, why wasn't it fair for the colonists to contribute towards something that benefitted them more than anyone else?

It was the principle of the thing... like I said the taxes actually made things cheaper in some instances... but it was the rallying cry of no taxation without representation that had us dress up like indians and end once and for all that crazy tea time from this side of the pond with one big bash late at night.

Achilles The Myrmidon · Joined: 20 Nov 2004 Posts: 4649 Location: Hellas

No taxation without representation ?Now i wonder where i hear that again?

Achilles The Myrmidon · Joined: 20 Nov 2004 Posts: 4649 Location: Hellas

Oh ,yeah,now i remember.I read it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_voting_rights

Achilles The Myrmidon · Joined: 20 Nov 2004 Posts: 4649 Location: Hellas

I think I'd throw a Vote Party in Potomak... :lol: 8) :owned:

victor the cleaner · Joined: 05 Sep 2005 Posts: 2 Location: birmingham

i think the beeb has made itself indispensable for its quality of programing, especially since the advent of bbc 4 which is simply fantastic. but on the other hand, the liberal in me recognises the autocratic implications of TV licensing. i think people should have the choice of what services they decide to pay for, even though i think the bbc is great value for money even with the hike. just consider, £180 a year, works out to about £3. 20 a week. now be honest, if sky sports cost that we'd ll have it. and we wouldn't watch it as much as the beeb.

an interesting moral dilemma awaits though. with the advent of digital tv the beeb may have the power to switch off your signal if you do not pay the licence fee, rather than taking you through the courts. if you pay a subscription to a satellite provider, can you claim a breach of consumer interest under the human rights act?

Robin Hood · Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 3295

Quote: i think the beeb has made itself indispensable for its quality of programing, especially since the advent of bbc 4 which is simply fantastic.

Example?

Quote:
just consider, £180 a year, works out to about £3. 20 a week. now be honest, if sky sports cost that we'd ll have it. and we wouldn't watch it as much as the beeb.

Doesn't it cost quite a lot less? The BBC wants 15 GPB per months, and after a little research I have found out that on Sky you can get between 6 and 8 channels a month, all of them guaranteed to be of a lot higher quality than BBC 3.

Robin Hood · Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 3295

Sorry for the same cost you can get:

Adventureone; Biography channel; Discovery channel; Animal Planet; 3 other discoveries; History channel; National Geographic Channel; UKTV documentary; UKTV history; UK tv people; SkyOne; E4; Paramount one; paramount 2; SkyMix; Fox; Hallmark; Bravo; LivingTV; LivingTV2; E!; Challenge; Sci Fi; Ftn; TCM; Sky Vegas Live; UKTV Gold; UKTV Drama; UKTV G2; RTE One; RTE 2; TG4.

and all these channles again but delayed but one hour.

This is quite a lot......I don't have a TV at the moment because I was away for ages but I think that this list is better than the BBC provides. Plus you get free installation and 3 months half price subscription and for 3 pounds extra can get a whol lot more, and can choose other things

http://www.sky.com/ordersky/channelpackages

Or for 43 GBP you can get everything...if you so want it.

Kenna · Joined: 14 Mar 2005 Posts: 189 Location: Manchester

It seems that my point has been missed, so I will repeat it.

The £180 figure the BBC have been touting, is the price they want it to be in 2013. Not next year, or the year after but 2013. They want increases yes, in stages so that by the year 2013 it will reach £180.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4328514.stm

Why is there not a similar outcry in response to the rises in utility bills, and the council tax? I wonder what they will be by the year 2013.

Robin Hood · Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 3295

Quote: The £180 figure the BBC have been touting, is the price they want it to be in 2013. Not next year, or the year after but 2013. They want increases yes, in stages so that by the year 2013 it will reach £180.

I wouldn't be suprised if those Sky channels were cheaper by 2013, but even if not the better value for money through private and non-coercive measures is obvious.
Code:

Why is there not a similar outcry in response to the rises in utility bills, and the council tax? I wonder what they will be by the year 2013.

Council tax rises are horrific and there's been a far bigger outcry over those....including a geriatraic old CofE reverend being imprisoned after his civil disobedience in not paying, and a similar thing happening to a female OAP.

As for utility bills, they can raise them if they want but British Gas (a private company) has pledged, and if they break their pledge they are liable for fraud, to not raise their prices.

Kenna · Joined: 14 Mar 2005 Posts: 189 Location: Manchester

"Council tax rises are horrific and there's been a far bigger outcry over those"- said Reason

Ok, yes admittedly, out there in the real world. But I was talking about this forum.
And why would British Gas raise their prices, when they are already the most expensive. They have promised not to raise their prices, above the raises they have already set out, until 2010.
http://www.uswitch.com/ppc/british-gas.htm?ref=gotoast~gtuk~british+gas+pr

Oh, and British Gas is only a trading name by the way. Centrica own and run British Gas, shareholders and everything.

Robin Hood · Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 3295

Quote: Oh, and British Gas is only a trading name by the way. Centrica own and run British Gas, shareholders and everything.

Exactly, they are private and if a private company annoys me I move to mone of their competitors.

Kenna · Joined: 14 Mar 2005 Posts: 189 Location: Manchester

Reason wrote: Quote: Oh, and British Gas is only a trading name by the way. Centrica own and run British Gas, shareholders and everything.

Exactly, they are private and if a private company annoys me I move to mone of their competitors.

Not so simple in "real life". Especially if you are tied in via a contract.

But this is beside the point. My point was that the original post had omitted the fact that the £180 figure was meant for the year 2013. An exercise in scaremongering because of their personal dislike of the BBC.
I for one hope that the BBC will still be around by then.