States ‘should debate islanders having to pay UK TV tax’
Thursday 18th February 2010, 2:29PM GMT.
THE need for local viewers to have TV licences should be debated in the States, Housing minister Dave Jones has said.
He made the comments on the Guernsey Press sister website, www.thisisguernsey.com.
They followed George Elkington, 59, challenging TV Licensing to prosecute him after using the UK’s Freedom of Information Act to confirm that the licence fee had been reclassified as a tax in 2006.
Mr Elkington said that a European Court of Justice ruling that no citizen of one state should be responsible for the public services of another, should provide him with an adequate defence.
Deputy Jones (pictured) said he had originally taken up the issue three years ago with the Law Officers.
‘I was given an assurance that when time allowed they would investigate the validity of what I was saying about the licence fee and the fact that we are not subject to UK taxes, which is a hugely important constitutional point.’
- Read the full story in the Guernsey Press. See below for subscription details.
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Island Life
All about Guernsey
Ambassador of the Year 2011
History & Heritage
Visitor Information
Guernsey's government
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Useful Links
If you are not prepared to pay a contribution towards a service you are using then that is fine by us in the UK. We will save money by turning off the transmitter and cease to subsidise you.
U.K tax payer
Report abuse
Is Mr Elkington also forgetting the U.K is providing him with a radio service. FM is soon to be discontinued, if he thinkks he should not be making a contribution towards BBC radio and TV services he will not be too bothered if the UK does not provide a digital radio ser4vice.
It has always been common knowledge in the UK that the TV licence was a tax payable when using a radio a TV receiver. Mr Elkingtons revelations are not exactly ground breaking news.
Report abuse
As a Guernsey resident I am right with you on this Marconi and so are the 98 per cent plus of my fellow islanders who are happy to pay the licence fee for a fabulous BBC service including a great little radio station dedicated to serving our Bailiwick.
Elkington, Jones and their supporters are, by and large, a small bunch of UK hating, tightwad local chavs who are giving the rest of us a bad name on your side of the water.
Report abuse
I don’t mind paying the TV licence, but I do wish that the people who run the thing would stop sending letters almost monthly threatening to prosecute me for not having a licence when I do have one!
Report abuse
Martino, 98% !!! where do you get your figures? Make them up as you go along no doubt. Very few people that I know and I bet a majority of UK people believe the licence fee is nothing more than a rip off. Yes we would be worried if we could not access ANY TV or ANY radio but as we are well served by numerous other providers there is no problem with not receiving BBC services.Most of us wouldn’t even notice. Just look at everyday headlines in UK newspapers to see how bloated and unpopular the BBC is.
Report abuse
Martino
I dont think Deputy Jones has ever said we should get the service for free but more about us paying a tax to the UK which has not been passed in Guernsey? and he is from the UK aswell.
I doubt there are many in the UK who are aware of the situation here so i wouldn`t worry too much about the bad name, i would think they have probably got enough licence dodgers of their own to worry about.
Report abuse
Obviously I don’t mix in the same chavvy circles that you do Paul the Philistine. The vast majority of the people I know believe that the much maligned Beeb, despite its faults, remains an absolute cut price gem that enriches the culture of our island and that, without it, we would all be much the poorer.
Carry on spending hundreds a year on Murdoch’s lowest common denominator crappy, overpriced, advertisement strewn viewing if you want to but please don’t lower yourself any further by trying to argue that the BBC is not superb value for money.
Now Sky? That really is a rip off and it’s mugs like you and Elkington that fall for it.
Report abuse
I had to laugh when someone claims that swtching of the transmitters here would save money.
How exactly?
They would still be making the programmes.
By that logic some shows should be cancelled. 20 years ago programmes used to regulally have 20 – 30 million viewers.
Today a good figure is 2 million.
That suggests to me that a bloated broadcaster and producer is using ever increasing revenue to make less and less popular programmes.
Lets be honest 90% of BBC tv output is total dross.
I can only think of 2 or maybe 3 programmes that I would miss. I would get over it in a week.
Bin the tv service and charge £50 pa for a radio licence. Id be well happy.
Report abuse
I’d happily pay some sort of fee/tax to have Dave Jones and his soap box locked in the cupboard under the stairs and never let out.
As we’ve all previously discussed at length, whether the fee/tax is a fee or a tax is semantics. Our obligation to pay it is happily enshrined in law.
And what’s the alternative?? Like every other country that broadcasts BBC programming (and don’t say you can live without it. Tell me that when the World Cup is on, or Miss Student Bob wants to watch Eastenders and Strictly) We’d have to buy in BBC programmes. And how much is that going to cost?? More than we pay now I can guarantee – the bulk of BBC profits come from the worldwide distribution of programming NOT the licence fee!!
Report abuse
Matt Fallaize – glad I’m not the only one!
I had a number of letters threatening court action because we changed the name of a house we bought and they didn’t update their records, despite me telling them. In the end I just threw them in the bin thinking that if they decided to prosecute I’d be happy to stand up in court, wave my TV licence, explain the situation to the magistrate and demonstrate the incompetence of the TV Licensing service!
Report abuse
Have to agree with you Martino – although there is plenty dross out there like Eastenders, the BBC still makes some quality programmes.
Their natural history documentaries are second to none for a start – I’ve yet to watch one produced on another channel that comes close – they’re also now in HD if you get a FreeSat HD box, no tenner a month to watch BBC HD. I’d also rather watch BBC News than Sky News.
Then there is their sports coverage: Football is better on the Beeb than Sky or ITV – no adverts, Andy Gray and endless analysis seals the deal on that one!
OK you get live Premiership on Sky, but you can go down the pub and watch the game in a decent atmosphere for the cost of a pint instead of paying Sky’s rip-off prices – alternatively just watch Match of the Day and see the good bits. Oh, and Formula One coverage knocks spots off ITV too…
Sure there’s good programmes on Sky too, but they’re not worth the money IMO.
Report abuse
Here we go again!
The BBC is recognised throughout the world as being a fantastic organisation producing some excellent viewing, listening, and now online services too.
You don’t want to pay for the TV licence? Well I wish food was free too, and if I could get someone else to pay for my petrol I’d be over the moon!
Come on Dave, you live in a fantasy land. And Martino, I agree, I don’t think I know a person who thinks we should not pay for BBC services. Makes me wonder about the social circles of those who think it should be free.
Report abuse
Why don’t we just call this forum ‘lets save my comfy BBC job as it allows me to spend all day telling Guernsey how great the BBc is!’
Report abuse
I haven’t waded into this argument much, but I am happy to pay it as I love the many BBC services that are provided to me. I also don’t know of anyone who objects.
The license fee, compared with the £600 (estimate)a year I pay for Sky, is a bargain.
Did Mr Elkington mention if he claims back his VAT on the cost of his Sky?
Report abuse
Steve says he has to laugh at some one who suggest that shutting down transmitters wiil save money I have to laugh at Steve who must be a trifle dim if he didn’t know that transmitters consume large amounts of electricity and a labour force to maintain them.
Report abuse
Paul:
Go on, admit it on this forum. You work for commercial TV don’t you?!
Report abuse
Its impossible to make a point in a thread such as this when people are coming out with “cut price gem that enriches the culture of our island” which is quite possibly the most ridiculous comment I’ve ever read on here.
I read it 5 or 6 times hoping to god it was meant to be sarcastic.
When I want culture I’ll watch Sky Arts, or the classics channel, not Eastenders, Phil Mitchell arguing with Peggy (again), or some old granny arguing about the cost of a family heirloom in some leisure centre in bath.
Or maybe I’ll watch any number of the quality documentary channels that feed you the same information in an unbiased manner, rather than the panorama british government spin.
Or perhaps I’ll watch Bloomberg to see how my portfolio is getting on whilst you sit through a re-run of DIY SOS.
Say what you want about murdoch, but what a lot of people fail to grasp is that he actually gives you the oppurtunity to edit out all of your own adverts if you have the ability to use technology, and to plan your life a little in advance.
And I’d happily pay the £40 a month just for the History & Military History Channels which I’ve probably watched more in the last month that I’ve seen of the beeb in about a year.
If you want to stick in the dark ages, fine, just dont accuse us of being mugs for enjoying decent, high budget entertainment, not the same old actors, arguing in the same old pub 10 years on.
Or maybe I’m missing out by not watching some “has been” sports stars attempting to ballroom dance, clearly my cutural core is losing integrity missing out on these gems.
Football better on the beeb???
Seriously??
They do a good job with the highlights with Hansen Lawro and Lineker and 5 hours to edit the game, but live its just way below par compared to sky.
And good grief the commentry makes me want to put it on mute.
And whilst I’m on my BBC sports soapbox…….
99% of the other sports coverage in general on the BBC is dire (Tennis probably being the only exception although I’d sooner watch it Eurosport), the winter olympics is a great example, the play by play commentators to a large extent have absolutley no idea whats going on, with the experts constantly having to correct them.
Having said that, I’ll pay my licence fee just to keep Alan Hansen in a job, and stop some of you whinging about “Chavs”.
Report abuse
I think the argument is not wether you like the BBC or not, but we are paying a UK Tax. If we are an independant country as the politicians keep on telling us, then why are we paying for another countries taxes? I think this should be debated, because if we are paying for this, then what other taxes are we subject to?
Report abuse
A simple solution is to make the BBC a subscription only service. The price of which would be equal to the current licence fee. Those that want it lose nothing. Those that support freedom of choice and don’t want to subsidise a government that is actively against our own way of life can do so.
Does this not make sense?
Report abuse
Dear Dave, you are displaying all the signs of an ideological, irrational hatred of the BBC in your semi coherent ramble in which you take me to task for describing the Beeb as a ‘cut price gem that enriches the culture of our island’.
I wasn’t being sarcastic but deadly serious so I’ll say it again. “The BBC is a cut price gem that enriches the culture of our island.” The same cannot be said of Sky, which, despite offering lots of good stuff, is piled high with commercial dross, and offers nowhere near the vfm we get from the BBC.
Just look at what we get from the BBC. Two brilliant mainstream TV channels, BBC1 and BBC 2, plus (for those of us with Freesat) two wonderful new minority interest channels, BBC 3 and BBC 4, plus a dedicated children’s channel, CBeebies.
As another poster has pointed out, the BBC is also worth half the licence fee for the peerless BBC national radio stations alone – Radios 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 live. Then there is our own brilliant little local community radio station, BBC Guernsey, plus the excellent early and late evening BBC Spotlight CI bulletins.
On top of all that there is a brilliant BBC online service, both a local one and the national/international one, together with the super BBC player facility that enables us to catch up on what we may have missed.
With all of this for a mere £142 a year there is no way that the BBC is anything other than sensational value for money – certainly by comparison with Sky.
Those arguing to ‘opt out’ or that the licence fee is an unfair tax should be honest about their agenda. They know that what they are calling for would destroy the BBC, which, along with the NHS, remains one of the great British institutions.
Oh, and Dave, I totally agree with Paul’s earlier post that sport in general and football in particular is always superior on the BBC, not least for the absence of the 12 minutes of adverts we have to put up with at half time when we go to the pub to watch the odd game.
Rather than put up with the hysterical, annoying Mr Andy Gray telling us the obvious, I much prefer most of the time to listen to the real football experts on 5 live taking us through the big matches, followed up by watching the highlights on Match of the Day.
Long live the BBC and long live the brilliant service that is, indeed, an important part of our social fabric on these islands as well as on ‘the mainland’.
Report abuse
Martino
Here you go, everyone who criticises automatically hates!!
You do realise that there are more opinions than Love (which you obviously have) and Hate (which I don’t as it happens)
Sorry to break it to you Martino, if that is your real name, but it’s possible to be critical without being a “hater”.
I don’t hate the BBC, I use their web service frequently and I enjoy Radio’s 2-6 and locally I listen to BBC Guernsey over Island FM.
I, as it happens, am also happy to pay my Licence fee (talk of tax is nonsense really), for the beeb services that I do use.
I just accept the BBC as a maker of TV programs for what they are, a producer of programs for the majority; therefore they have to be dumbed down, more accessible and aimed at the lower end of the IQ scale.
This in itself isn’t a complaint of the beeb as such; it’s a perspective marker for someone who classes this as a “cultural gem”, a comment which you stick by oddly enough. Fine if your culture is 2 pints of lager and a packet of crisps or Adrian Childes (sp) aborted beard, but not if you actually want to refine or better yourself culturally.
This is why I prefer more choice, I don’t subscribe to sky for the explosions and dog the bounty hunter. I subscribe for the choice; I don’t watch a massive amount of TV, so when I do watch TV I want to watch exactly what I feel like, not what happens to be on at the time. If I want something that feeds my mind on an intellectual level I can have it. Or if I am in a rootin tootin mood and want some explosions, I will gladly take the high budget kind offered by the best TV programs and films that are currently on offer.
If I want to watch “who can catch the biggest bass” I will do.
Also you also seem to have completely missed my point by again mentioning commercial dross. Try watching any numbers of BBC programs closely, see if you can spot the adverts, worry not, they are there, they are just not crammed into a 3 minutes slot every quarter of an hour, but then this has probably all gone completely over your head too eh?
And again, sky offers you the chance to not watch the adverts at all, so your commercial comments automatically fall down.
You mention freesat, but you fail to mention that freesat over here is actually an inferior service to what the mainland receives, were you aware of this also, probably not??
Actually probably yes you are, you appear to be a dogmatic stuck in your ways afraid to embrace change kind of chap, more channels might just freak you out, give me your address and I’ll send you a snuggle blanket for you to better enjoy cBeebies.
And if you think that the beeb sports coverage is good, then clearly you do not understand most sports.
Although that doesn’t overly surprise me either.
Report abuse
Dave Haslam
This isn’t a dig but a genuine question. I’m curious about your claim that the Freesat service is inferior here than the mainland.
I’ve got a FreeSat HD recorder box that I sourced from the mainland and it does me pretty well. I receive the same satellite signal that the UK do. How is it different?
The only thing I can think of is that when I enter my postcode it restricts the channels. In which case surely entering a UK postcode would circumvent such things?
Would appreciate your feedback…cheers.
Report abuse
Turn it off we will watch Sky at least the UK propaganda machine will be reduced.
Report abuse
P Le P:
I think Dave (is that his real name?) Haslam is getting his freesat and his freeview muddled up.
Report abuse
Oh dear, I seem to have touched a nerve with you Dave. Some of the points you make are worth addressing, some aren’t.
If I have wrongly identified you as one of the BBC haters I am sorry but you only have to scan through this thread to see there are plenty of them here.
You outline the BBC services you use and say you are happy to pay for them through the licence fee, which you rightly acknowledge is not a tax, but you still don’t seem to appreciate the great vfm provided by good ol’ Aunty Beeb in comparison to Murdoch. So Dave you tell me, as someone who finds all the choice he needs from terrestrial TV providers (including ITV, 4, 5 and Freesat), just how much you would get as a Sky subscriber if you were limited to spending just £142 or whatever the licence fee is now? My guess is that your Sky signal would be cut off within two months if you limited it to that amount.
And yes, the BBC is a cultural gem and I’m talking about brilliant lowbrow culture (EastEnders and the like) and the highbrow culture it does so well (the artsy stuff you get on BBC 4).
As for your contention that I can’t understand sport if I prefer the BBC’s sports coverage, that’s plain ridiculous. Are you telling me you can ‘edit’ out all the ads between over in a test match and replace it with the brilliant between overs analysis and replays you used to get when the Beeb enjoyed test match coverage?
Are you saying I can edit out the 12 minutes of half time advertising we have to endure when we watch a Premiership match on Sky or ESPN in the pub?
Finally, yes I am/was/always have been aware of the slightly inferior Freesat services we get here. I am also aware that there is not much prospect of us getting the DAB radio signal here (I think it’s because of the French), which is a shame but is one of the understandable little penalties we have to pay for choosing to live on a small island in the middle of the Channel.
Report abuse
Paul LP
Sorry for the delay in response, I turned my TV on this morning and it was on BBC1 and before I managed to get to the remote control the exposure caused me to have a serious episode.
I have an MRI booked for tomorrow, hopefully theres no permanent damage but i have developed a nasty twitch.
In answer to your query, I dont have any first hand experience of Freesat, only information I read on the Digital Spy forums. It was my understanding that there were less channels accesible over here to the layman easily through the EPG. However I do beleive it is possible to get some of these channels, but its not very obvious initially how to do it. And even than, I’m still not 100% sure you’d get the full mainland services.
Dot Comma, nice try, any relation to Dot Cotton??
Martino
Can I ask, do you actually own sky?? (and by Sky I mean the newer PVR operated units)?
I’m also interested to know why you are using Cricket as an analogy, given that the BBC have dismissed cricket as an “A-List” sport.
Surely to compare the coverage, you must actually give an example of a sport that the BBC are actually currently willing to show on their primary channels, ball by ball, for the whole test, rather than the website or TMS.
You cannot argue that their coverage USED to be better! Because its non-existent now, which kind of proves my point that Sky has better sports coverage.
Also regarding your half time adverts in the pub, personally I use that time to buy a pint, and drain the main vain, by the time I’ve done that the program is back on. No issue there.
Report abuse
Thanks Dave – from your post it appears that there isn’t really any difference – or at least not one that you can directly point out. From a technical point of view I can’t really see how there could be. A UK standard box receiving a signal from the same satellite as a mainland customer. Unless the boxes can somehow work out that they are on a different island, I can’t possibly fathom how they’d do it….
Anyway, enough of that – I wish you a speedy recovery from your traumatic encounter with the BBC! ;-)
Report abuse
Hi again Dave, I’ll try to draw a line under this by saying that I regret the fact that the rights to many major sporting events, including live premiership football and test matches, have been bought out by satellite TV but I recognise this as a fact of life that I must live with.
I don’t own Sky and have no plans to own Sky – not so much because I’d resent supporting Murdoch’s empire but because I am pretty much happy with what we have from terrestrial TV and now Freesat. My only frustration was not having any Tour de France coverage for a few years but now ITV have come up with the goods on that front.
What I am saying too is that when the BBC does get the rights to show a major event, such as this year’s World Cup, they are IMO superior in every way when put against Sky or ITV showing the same live match. Better commentators, better presenters, better pundits, better analysis and to cap it all no pesky ads!
Report abuse
Paul
I didnt think you were having a dig ;-p
Did I not point out that there ARE regional differences?? Can you answer that Paul please? Because I did. I can only assume you must have read my post wrong.
There has to be regional variation despite it all coming from the same source, a very obvious example springs to mind.
The “local” news………
Martino
We’ll have to agree to disagree then, you stick to your sub par service and I’ll get the bloody good service that I happily pay for.
Report abuse
Dave – it wasn’t a dig mate, unless you’re of a very sensitive disposition of course! :-)
Freesat deals with the different regional variations by postcode. When I plugged in my Freesat box I was asked for my postcode – that gave me ITV Channel Islands. If I really wanted to watch the regional news for West Yorkshire I could simply change the postcode – although quite why I’d want to do that I’m not sure!
As for the BBC all the different BBC regional variations are listed on my TV guide – the same as Sky I believe.
All in all I am still able to receive a service equivalent to that on the mainland.
Report abuse
The BBC provides an excellent service through a range of mediums, and is revered throughout the world for its work. No other channel comes close to producing the quality the BBC manages for its minimal fee. Except for Eastenders – it would be far more at home on a Sky Channel.
Report abuse
In my view, most of this thread is silly, juvenile and picky, in that most of you have regressed into the point scoring arena. I do not know of a facility or utility which comes free of licence or charge. For example, on the UK charge issue, if we book a flight on shall we say Easyjet, and want to take a case for inflight hold, there is a charge of, I think £20, do we quibble, no, we don’t, since we want to be able to have a choice of what we chose to wear, etc. If I chose to watch some TV and some Sky then I take the same choice.
Report abuse
Paul
I’m not 100% sure, I dont have it, and I dont intend to. I just remember some Crapaeux’s moaning about that issue on a forum a while back and saying it was the same in Guernsey, havent got time to dig it up.
Truth Man, try to multiply the amount of Television holding households in the UK by the amount of the annual licence and adding in product placement monies and text income from voting shows before smugly judging the cost effectiveness of their programming.
Although I expect your pathetic clearly pointed comments have some other motivation, sad really.
Report abuse
Dave Haslam:
Through reading your responses to Paul Le P and your response to my post, I have formed the impression that you are incapable of entering into adult debate – perhaps you are simply too sensitive? The BBC are an excellent service provider. Whether or not you agree with that is irrelevant to me. You need to stop taking differences of opinion so personally. If you at some stage develop the ability to converse properly and politely then I will happily continue the debate on the TV licence issue.
Report abuse
Truth Man ? As you want to use this title, would you confirm that you are not employed by the BBC or that you have no connection to the BBC?
Perhaps then we could all have a meaningful debate on wether a UK tax is correctly being collected in the Channel Islands rather than your very personal comments on the very debatable quality of programming the BBc provides.
Report abuse
Paul:
The quality of BBC services have been debated on this thread and other threads relating to the licence fee by many posters, myself included.
My opinion is that the BBC provide a good service, and I am therefore happy to pay for my TV licence. I assume from your post that your opinion differs?
The “it’s a tax” argument is irrelevant as far as I can see, unless you NEVER use BBC’s services, or unless you want something for nothing. Simply put, the BBC are funded by the licence. Without it there will be no BBC. Some might be happy with that, but I would not be! Again, just my opinion.
With regards to your first paragraph, I do not understand the motivation behind it. Do you hate the BBC so much that you think only a person employed by the BBC would support it?! In which case, you will need to address that question to every person who has expressed satisfaction at what their licence payment has provided them with!
Finally, could you please confirm that you do not work for commercial television or Rupert Murdoch?! By the way, isn’t that an odd question to be asked just because you support/don’t support something!
Report abuse
That’s a yes then!
Report abuse
Paul:
No, it’s not a yes (god only knows how you drew ‘yes’ from my response). I do not work for the BBC and have never done so. Aside from paying my licence fee and using BBCs services I have no connection to them whatsoever.
However, assuming you are judging me by your own standards am I to draw the conclusion that you do work for commercial television or Rupert Murdoch?!
What a ridiculous conversation.
Report abuse
Paul:
I also notice you swerved my question to you of February 22, 2010 at 6:04 pm. Is this yet more evidence that you work for commercial TV?!!?
Report abuse
Truth Man
Given that you accused me of not being able to enter into adult debate, I have found your subsequent conversation with Paul highly ironic.
Pot kettle black??
Then again you constantly appear to judge people by standards you do not uphold yourself.
Report abuse
Dave Haslam:
Thank you for pointing out how my last post came across. It obviously did not translate through the written word that I was writing with tongue firmly in cheek in a bid to save the conversation from becoming too serious on this peripheral issue (hence over the top use of exclamation mark).
I hope now I have pointed that out you will see that your final paragraph is rather out of place.
Report abuse
Todays announcements of BBC cuts in local radio are interesting. At this stage it doesn’t mention Jersey/Guernsey individually, however a question raised did mention the possibility of combining the 2 stations. Between the lines though with a combined income from the islands of ? £8 million the channel islands will be very much a profit centre for the UK taxman, further reason for us not continuing with funding the UK taxman, keep the money in the islands.
Truthman (sorry I can’t help but laugh) I do not work for any commercial communications, I just believe the islands should not be subject to any external taxation.
Report abuse
Truth Man
Again, how ironic, now you accuse me of not being able to interpret a tongue in cheek post……
Did you read what I wrote to scarlett on the bike helmet thread, yet you still carry on!!
Now that should have put all of your replies to me in perspective, but evidently not *shakes head in dismay*
Report abuse
Paul:
If a different service was supplied to us by the UK government – for example if they collected our refuse, would we object to being charged a tax to pay for the binmen?
Report abuse
This is getting silly now, you choose an essential service as an example, the BBC is far from being an essential service. Also presumably the binmen would have to submit a competetive tender against local competition, again the BBC does not.
Report abuse
Is it getting silly?
You are quite right, the BBC is not an essential service, and you can opt out by not owning a TV, in which case you would not need a licence. On the basis that anyone who owns a TV and plugs it in to satellite/terrestrial TV will use a BBC service at some point you have firmly opted in to what you call a non-essential service. Therefore, you need to pay for what you receive.
Tender is not relevant in this case – my point was hypothetical to illustrate a point and the question whether or not we would be so miserly over fees for another service paid for by a tax.
Therefore this time without making up a hypothetical scenario to highlight the point, I will simply ask: Would we be so miserly over fees for another service paid for by a tax? (Airport taxes for example).
Report abuse
Dave, I am not on here to argue about whether or not you interpreted my tongue in cheek comment. I apologise if I have offended you, or if you did interpret my tongue in cheek post correctly. I don’t see the relevance in continuing that conversation, as I thought it was clear that I was thanking you for pointing out how my post had come across! Again, you are very defensive and I am not sure why.
You comment to Scarlett on the other thread is irrelevant. Our first conversation on that thread began with you addressing me with “If some idiot knocks someone off their bike because of lunatic driving, then they deserve to be affected by it.”. I simply responded, and our conversation has continued from there.
It is obvious that our communications are going rapidly downhill, and I reiterate that I am not on here to argue over semantics. Perhaps we can simply agree to disagree on this and the cycle helmet issue!?
Report abuse