The person has actually written
You are obsessed with whether things are tax-funded or not. I think your reference to tax-funded TV must refer back to your item on the BBC. It is not tax-funded. It is funded by a license fee which is an important distinction. It’s optional (if you don’t have a TV you don’t have to pay it) and it goes straight to the BBC which gives the BBC its independence.
So, commenter, lemme get this straight: If I were a Brit, I’d have to fund the Beeb just in order to even have a working TV and get the channels I want?
And the money goes straight to the BBC? – which could be using it for any purpose? Oh yeah, independence.
And the commenter does not think there is anything the matter with that? Hold that thought, people.
So it’s really like this: If I were a Jew, I’d have the right to go to shul—as long as I also contribute to the Church of England?
The Beeb could be supporting anti-Semitism and the Jewish person wouldn’t have the right to do a thing about it? Unless she could persuade some utter stupe Brit toff that anti-Semitism is a problem for her?
Meantime, she’d still have to pay if she wanted communications at all?
So … a forbidden thought from Canada: Why can’t the Jewish person just use all her media-directed money for what she thinks is worthwhile?
Look, we have similar ripoffs in Canada. There is now a big move to defund the Ceeb (Canadian version of the BBC).
And kick its fat [horse] onto the sidewalk (but you didn’t hear that from News, right?).
Skinny: In an age when even homeless people have cells, no one needs “public broadcasting” anyway. It is a relic of a former age, and now just a platform for authoritarian-directed views, and supported by people who think that way.
Follow UD News at Twitter!