Jump to content

TV licence


eddoakley
 Share

Recommended Posts

Following on from another thread what's the general opinion on TV licence fee?

As far as I am concerned I do not wish to use any of the BBC services and pay (or at least used to) other providers (sky)

I do not listen to BBC radio, watch any BBC channels etc so why should it be that I am breaking the law and potentially facing jail time if I do not pay towards a service I do not want or use?

I really don't understand how this blackmail has been allowed for so long.

 

Opinions?

 

 

Edd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You don't need a TV license, it's not compulsory.

This is a direct quote from the BBC's web page.

 

"You need to be covered by a TV Licence if you watch or record programmes as they're

being shown on TV or live on an online TV service.

This is the case whether you use a TV, computer, tablet, mobile phone,

games console, digital box, DVD/VHS recorder or any other device."

 

You only need one, if you're watching a live broadcast, news etc.

If you're watching a non-live broadcast, you don't need a TV license.

 

Just so you know, the only way the BBC can prosecute you in a court

of law, is to provide video evidence of you, in your own home, watching

a live broadcast from the BBC.

This in it's self is highly unlikely.

The vast majority of prosecutions through the courts, happen as a result

of ill educated people 'with regard to the law' admitting to things that the

BBC door to door licensing people couldn't even prove.

I haven't paid for a TV license, ever, and never will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the risk of repeating myself following on from the previous...

 

Cards on the table I earn my living from Auntie so do have a vested interest to declare up front.

 

The BBC is a fantastic broadcaster, constantly fighting a battle to provide something for everyone and in the process making some truly world class television. Not all of it will be for everyone but much of the drama, comedy, natural history, news and children's telly is made by some of the best people in the industry and at a fraction of the price of the commercial rivals.

 

Both sides of the political divide claim the BBC is biased against them, perception is unfortunately biased by the observer so no point trying to argue with this.

 

The license fee might not be popular and there may well be a better way of funding, but a state broadcaster, free of commercial influence is surely vital?

 

The BBC is incredibly cheap for what it provides, look at the cost of sky per month for comparison.

 

The impression of this sprawling financial black hole old boys network is just not true, most buildings I work in are well past their prime but we just don't have funds to maintain them. People working for the BBC earn less than their commercial colleagues, much like NHS staff earn less than private medical staff. For creative people there really is nowhere better and I've been lucky enough to work with some of the best people in the business for a company recognised world wide as a brand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think in this day and age the BBC should be made to stand or fall by the quality of its output.

 

The only realistic way is for them to do that is to move to a subscription based system.

 

If they're good enough (as they tell us they are) they'll survive. If not, they won't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think in this day and age the BBC should be made to stand or fall by the quality of its output.

 

The only realistic way is for them to do that is to move to a subscription based system.

 

If they're good enough (as they tell us they are) they'll survive. If not, they won't.

This approach would make it too commercial with ever popular **** being churned out leading to an evermore commercial output. I would argue that It does stand or fall from the quality of its output but that quality is measured using objectively rather than through cash.

 

The BBC provides a fantastic service and quality of broad cast unmatched the world over (or at least in the bits i have been to). It sets a standard of television that is reflected in the quality of the commercial competitors. When i travel to Europe and see the standard of broadcast, ever chasing the next income receipt and the number of bbc repeats I value the service even more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This approach would make it too commercial with ever popular **** being churned out leading to an evermore commercial output. I would argue that It does stand or fall from the quality of its output but that quality is measured using objectively rather than through cash.

 

The BBC provides a fantastic service and quality of broad cast unmatched the world over (or at least in the bits i have been to). It sets a standard of television that is reflected in the quality of the commercial competitors. When i travel to Europe and see the standard of broadcast, ever chasing the next income receipt and the number of bbc repeats I value the service even more.

 

I very seldom watch the BBC, in fact I very seldom watch tv, and I listen to the radio even less.

 

I can see no reason to pay for a service I don't use. I choose not pay for Sky, and I would choose not to pay for the BBC. If you and others enjoy its content by all means pay for it and watch/listen to it, Maybe the BBC could make up any shortfall in subscriptions from those who use the world service?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I very seldom watch the BBC, in fact I very seldom watch tv, and I listen to the radio even less.

 

I can see no reason to pay for a service I don't use. I choose not pay for Sky, and I would choose not to pay for the BBC. If you and others enjoy its content by all means pay for it and watch/listen to it, Maybe the BBC could make up any shortfall in subscriptions from those who use the world service?

There is currently a system being developed which should go live shortly which will enable the iplayer to be accessed from outside the UK on a micropayment system similar to Netflix. All funds raised go into the pot and help keep license fee down but that is only a small amount of the cash needed to provide such a large output.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hate paying the tv license, i dont listen to any radio as I'm deaf and dont really watch bbc at all plus i dont like all the shady goings on. Internet tv is no good for me as they aren't subtitled

 

What exactly is "live" tv? A live as it happens show or just the shows that come on the tv?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Live means it's being broadcast as you're receiving it.

 

Netflix, iplayer, catchup etc aren't live broadcasts as you stream them when you want.

 

I've never bothered with the tv licence and ignore the letters. Had a goon turn up once asking questions. Soon change their attitude when you start videoing them for youtube, lol. Not had a visit since, that was 3 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the risk of repeating myself following on from the previous...

 

Cards on the table I earn my living from Auntie so do have a vested interest to declare up front.

 

The BBC is a fantastic broadcaster, constantly fighting a battle to provide something for everyone and in the process making some truly world class television. Not all of it will be for everyone but much of the drama, comedy, natural history, news and children's telly is made by some of the best people in the industry and at a fraction of the price of the commercial rivals.

 

Both sides of the political divide claim the BBC is biased against them, perception is unfortunately biased by the observer so no point trying to argue with this.

 

The license fee might not be popular and there may well be a better way of funding, but a state broadcaster, free of commercial influence is surely vital?

 

The BBC is incredibly cheap for what it provides, look at the cost of sky per month for comparison.

 

The impression of this sprawling financial black hole old boys network is just not true, most buildings I work in are well past their prime but we just don't have funds to maintain them. People working for the BBC earn less than their commercial colleagues, much like NHS staff earn less than private medical staff. For creative people there really is nowhere better and I've been lucky enough to work with some of the best people in the business for a company recognised world wide as a brand.

"Incredibly cheap for what it provides"....

What does it provide if I don't want it?

Compared to sky...if I don't want sky I don't pay for it- simple.

Why am I forced to pay or face the threat of prison?

Jus from this thread I am going to make a stand and refuse from this point to pay a TV license. I will do it correctly and make sure that I am within the letter of the law but I refuse to be blackmailed any more.

If I was to send an invoice to everyone stating that I provide a great construction service and spend loads of money doing so and that you all have to pay me, whether you want something built or not, or go to prison if you don't pay how would I ever get away with it?

Simple answer is that I wouldn't, why should the government / BBC??

 

 

Vive la revolution

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the risk of repeating myself following on from the previous...

Cards on the table I earn my living from Auntie so do have a vested interest to declare up front.

The BBC is a fantastic broadcaster, constantly fighting a battle to provide something for everyone and in the process making some truly world class television. Not all of it will be for everyone but much of the drama, comedy, natural history, news and children's telly is made by some of the best people in the industry and at a fraction of the price of the commercial rivals.

Both sides of the political divide claim the BBC is biased against them, perception is unfortunately biased by the observer so no point trying to argue with this.

The license fee might not be popular and there may well be a better way of funding, but a state broadcaster, free of commercial influence is surely vital?

The BBC is incredibly cheap for what it provides, look at the cost of sky per month for comparison.

The impression of this sprawling financial black hole old boys network is just not true, most buildings I work in are well past their prime but we just don't have funds to maintain them. People working for the BBC earn less than their commercial colleagues, much like NHS staff earn less than private medical staff. For creative people there really is nowhere better and I've been lucky enough to work with some of the best people in the business for a company recognised world wide as a brand.

My friend is a bbc DJ, £20,000 for a few hours a week, maybe the buildings are past their prime as the money to maintain them get filtered off elsewhere? Maybe you could enlighten us as to why the BBC's royal charter that allowed them to charge us now allows them to threaten us with prison for watching ITV or channel 5 ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...