As of April 2005 the colour TV licence fee will be increaed to £126.50. This is an increase of £5.50.

Many people already know my views on this as I've mentioned this elsewhere on this forum. People have no choice but to pay the licence fee, even though the quality of programming on the BBC persistently falls, and there are numerous other channels now, as well as video/DVD, so many people such as myself hardly ever watch the BBC, but are still required to pay for it.

As for the licence fee going up, well what's the big surprise? Governments of both parties have always ensured that the licence fee goes up at or above the rate of inflation. :mad:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4022873.stm

glady take away my bbc and let me keep my money!!!

really bloody annoying

you even have to pay if your just watchin blackadder dvd's ??? its such a mess of a system. i watch less and less tv and more and more videos / dvds because id rather re-watch something clever and funny then the dross on bbc.

a friend of mine said he never paid for 8 years.... i cudunt do that coz id get caught, i always do if i do anything slightly dodgy lol

:( rubbish

I agree totaly, enough to sell my tv remove my tv card from my computer bought a 20" monitor and now if I want to watch anything I buy dvd's or rent them from my video shop. But because I live alone I can do this if you have a family you carn't realy do this.8)

Radio 6, Radio 4, Little Britain, Top Gear, QI, Later with Jools Holland, Saturday Kitchen, Match of the Day, Jonathan Ross, Question Time, John Peel (RIP), Adam Hart-Davis, Radio Sheffield, Fred Dibnah, bbc.co.uk, David Attenborough, Mastermind, University Challenge, Stuart Hall, Radio 5, Michael Palin.

And that's just the bbc stuff I like off the top of my head. Ok, I do get a sharp pain in my wallet every year when it's time to pay up but when I think about it it's cheap at half the price!

I dont get why if you're a Sky owner that you have to pay for a TV licence?

I mean- I already pay £45+ for my Sky+ system which includes the BBC channels.. why should we have to pay out for a seperate licence as well to the robbing ***** at the BBC?

Or maybe its to pay for all the Only Fools and Horses repeats.... SOOOOO exciting.... zzzzzzzzz

If you cancel your Sky subscription you can still get all the BBC channels for free through your box - that Sky subscription doesn't go to them.

Its still a big con though innit?

Well £100+ quid a year is for 2 sodding normal BBC channels anyway!

It's not 2 channels though is it?

It's BBC1, BBC2, BBC3, BBC4, Radio 1 - Radio 7, News 24, Local Radio, the World Service, www.bbc.co.uk, CBeebies etc.

I admit that the licence fee is not completely fair but it goes a long way. It's less than 35p a day, you pay more for a newspaper.

But people don't require a licence to own a radio.

Somebody could own a radio, but not a TV, and listen to BBC stations all day long. Whereas somebody else might own a TV but never watch BBC or listen to BBC radio stations. The second person is paying for a service which they don't use, but which is used by the first person who doesn't pay a penny for it. Is that fair?

Originally posted by Phantoms
It's not 2 channels though is it?

It's BBC1, BBC2, BBC3, BBC4, Radio 1 - Radio 7, News 24, Local Radio, the World Service, www.bbc.co.uk, CBeebies etc.

I admit that the licence fee is not completely fair but it goes a long way. It's less than 35p a day, you pay more for a newspaper.
But arn't we the only country to charge a licence and by the way every one else gets our programs free.

No, and I've already said I realise it's not completely fair. But I think the general principle is sound and I would dread to have the kind of tv and radio I've come across in other parts of the world!

Originally posted by Fantomas
It's not 2 channels though is it?

It's BBC1, BBC2, BBC3, BBC4, Radio 1 - Radio 7, News 24, Local Radio, the World Service, www.bbc.co.uk, CBeebies etc.

I admit that the licence fee is not completely fair but it goes a long way. It's less than 35p a day, you pay more for a newspaper.
I for one enjoy my 35p newspaper more than the BBC! I do not see why we should be made to pay for a service we do not use ie: BBC Radio, BBC3,BBC4,News24 and the world service.

Originally posted by Bikertec
But arn't we the only country to charge a licence and by the way every one else gets our programs free.

Well individual stations will pay the bbc for the content, which is funded for them in turn by their advertisers.

I think the point I'm making is that if the licence fee system didn't exist then there is an enormous amount of good quality and minority programming that just wouldn't get made anywhere else. I think it's important that we have a system in place that means programs can get made that aren't motivated purely by the need to attract advertisers.

Maybe we should setup a pole but I would guess every one would be against the tv licence but 1, I carn even store a tv in my flat or else I could be finded for not having a licence.

Originally posted by vidster
I for one enjoy my 35p newspaper more than the BBC! I do not see why we should be made to pay for a service we do not use ie: BBC Radio, BBC3,BBC4,News24 and the world service.

But if a newspaper costs 35p and I never read the sports pages do you think I should get it for 25p?

Originally posted by Bikertec
Maybe we should setup a pole but I would guess every one would be against the tv licence but 1, I carn even store a tv in my flat or else I could be finded for not having a licence.

I'm sure a poll would come out against the licence fee - not many people vote for over 100 quid coming out of their wallet.

But I think the repercussions would be enormously bad for the quality of our tv and radio.

Anyway enough - I'm off to bed to fall asleep watching Children in Need, on BBC1!

Originally posted by Fantomas
But if a newspaper costs 35p and I never read the sports pages do you think I should get it for 25p?

If you want a paper for 25p buy the Sun!. You are obviously happy with just snippets of quality once every so often?.

Originally posted by Fantomas
I'm sure a poll would come out against the licence fee - not many people vote for over 100 quid coming out of their wallet.

But I think the repercussions would be enormously bad for the quality of our tv and radio.

Anyway enough - I'm off to bed to fall asleep watching Children in Need, on BBC1!
Obviuosly BBC is that good it sends you to sleep great £125 sleeping tablet lmao8)

Originally posted by vidster
You are obviously happy with just snippets of quality once every so often?.

No, but it's better than total crap all of the time which the majority of commercial channels are!

Originally posted by Fantomas
No, but it's better than total crap all of the time which the majority of commercial channels are!

The BBC could'nt even keep you away from your pc for 5mins!!!
Chalk one for the commercial stations:thumbsup:

Originally posted by ANGELUS

I mean- I already pay £45+ for my Sky+ system which includes the BBC channels..

Sky's great marketing con fools everyone doesn't it, even the people who use it. How come the BBC licence fee is £120 but Sky is only £45. Let's put it another way.....
The BBC licence fee is £10 but Sky costs £540. I can play around with the figures just like Murdoch's propaganda machine can.

Long live the BBC. Worth every penny.

Yes but for £45 you get 100s of channels and a choice to reduce your subscription. With the BBC you get what your given and no choice. Why don't the BBC break down the licence fee in to packages?, then we can pay for what we want at a reduced rate!

Originally posted by vidster
Yes but for £45 you get 100s of channels and a choice to reduce your subscription. With the BBC you get what your given and no choice. Why don't the BBC break down the licence fee in to packages?, then we can pay for what we want at a reduced rate!

When TV goes fully digital (within next 10 years, max?) we should be given the choice to exclude the BBC channels and not pay the licence fee, if we so wish. There will be no excuse as you won't be able to receive 'free to air' (and thus, hard to monitor), analogue reception.

I think if you think the government is going to abolish the licence just because were going digital you must be crazy no offence.

Originally posted by Bikertec
I think if you think the government is going to abolish the licence just because were going digital you must be crazy no offence.

None taken.

Was merely pointing out that the technical difficulties in segregating license payers and none license payers, with regard to their access to BBC channels, will be removed once anologue is turned off.

If you don't watch it, why should you pay for it?

We should be given the choice.

Do I think we will? Ofcourse not.

Originally posted by Ginner

If you don't watch it, why should you pay for it?


I'm very pro-BBC so here's an alternative viewpoint. Commercial TV is paid for by advertising. Why should I, who never watch commercial TV, have to pay a supplement on everything I buy every day of the week. I bet the advertising "tax" I have to pay every year comes to more than the BBC's £120 license fee. So if you think it's unfair to pay the license fee, I think it's unfair to pay advertising fees. The thing is that you can stop watching telly but I can't stop buying food, clothes, petrol, beer etc.

I've said this before on another thread. The money is well worth it not to get hammered with endless sodding adverts.

The BBC channels are by far and away the best. Sure you get loads of stuff on SKY but as COLS said it's loads more expensive (and to be honest most of it is total rubbish).

We cancelled our SKY subscription ages ago and just watch the free to air stuff.

P.S. If you've got kids then CBBC and Cbeebies are a godsend !!

Whilst I would agree that the licence fee is perhaps an outdated method of funding the BBC, it works in a similar way to presecription fees. To turn it into a purely commmercial enterprise would be a mistake, as that would mean concentrating all the BBCs efforts into profitable TV, when the BBC is so much more than TV.

We need a national broadcasting corporation, and no-one comes close to the bbc. If you don't want to pay the licence fee, because you never use any BBC services, then I sympathise with your feelings of being hard done by to the tune of a hundred odd pounds a year (unless you qualify for a free licence).

I hate TV advertising and as such very rarely watch commercial channels, because I am not in the habit of letting salesmen into my house every 15 minutes. £100 odd pounds a year to get some TV without adverts is worth every penny, even though I pay for these adverts every day in the inflated costs of the products I use.

The problem is the licence fee has to be collected in such a way it does not pass through central government, in order that the BBC can remain independent of the state. State TV sucks. Commercial TV sucks - the BBC has hit the sweet spot in between and requires a special kind of funding to retain that status. So do any unwilling licence payers have an alternative?

Originally posted by vidster
Yes but for £45 you get 100s of channels [...]
Its ironic that the best shows on Sky television are the repeats of old BBC shows.

Chris.

Advertising is not necessarily the only alternative. We now have the technology to make the BBC a subscription-only service. The signal can be scrambled, and you would need a set-top box, which you would need to rent at, well let's say £126.50 a year, to unscramble it.

Alternatively, pay for the BBC out of general taxation.

This would be a lot cheaper than collecting the licence fee, which is quite an expensive tax to administer, with all those officials and detector vans swanning around checking for people using a TV without a licence.

The objection is that it would mean people who don't have a TV, have to pay for the service. There are two answers to this.

(1) Many people are already in a position where they have to pay the licence fee, even though they never watch BBC.

(2) The justification advanced for (1) is that the BBC provides a public service. Well, if this is so, it can be paid for out of general taxation, like any other public service. Taxpayers have to pay for many other public services which they may never personally use.

The truth is that all the arguments in favour of the licence fee, in my experience, melt away on any rational analysis, like the snow in the sun.

Originally posted by Chris_Sleeps
Its ironic that the best shows on Sky television are the repeats of old BBC shows.

Chris.
I think you live in cuckoo land:loopy:

Originally posted by Lickszz
Advertising is not necessarily the only alternative. We now have the technology to make the BBC a subscription-only service. The signal can be scrambled, and you would need a set-top box, which you would need to rent at, well let's say £126.50 a year, to unscramble it.

Alternatively, pay for the BBC out of general taxation.

This would be a lot cheaper than collecting the licence fee, which is quite an expensive tax to administer, with all those officials and detector vans swanning around checking for people using a TV without a licence.

The objection is that it would mean people who don't have a TV, have to pay for the service. There are two answers to this.

(1) Many people are already in a position where they have to pay the licence fee, even though they never watch BBC.

(2) The justification advanced for (1) is that the BBC provides a public service. Well, if this is so, it can be paid for out of general taxation, like any other public service. Taxpayers have to pay for many other public services which they may never personally use.

The truth is that all the arguments in favour of the licence fee, in my experience, melt away on any rational analysis, like the snow in the sun.

Surely its obvious that to fund it from general taxation would undermine the last vestiges of independence it has.

It's a publically funded and governed service that covers much more than TV, and in the spirit if public service I believe it's position is one worth maintaining. The question is, whether to fund this t hrough general taxation, where the government of the day holds the pursestrings, or through a statutory mechanism (such as the charter) which ringfences the money for the BBC.

I would say a more flexible licencing system and a bit more appreciation of the greater good rather than just noticing personal defecits, will see the BBC into the next century. Perhaps all licence payers could get access to the BBC archives video on demand service, or some other enhancements that would help them make the decision to support public service broadcasting, or maybe a dividend system, so that all of us who are "stakeholders" enjoy a share in BBC worldwide.

Originally posted by vidster
I think you live in cuckoo land:loopy:
I just love watching 'Is Harry On The Boat?'. :P

Chris.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Surely its obvious that to fund it from general taxation would undermine the last vestiges of independence it has.

It's a publically funded and governed service that covers much more than TV, and in the spirit if public service I believe it's position is one worth maintaining. The question is, whether to fund this t hrough general taxation, where the government of the day holds the pursestrings, or through a statutory mechanism (such as the charter) which ringfences the money for the BBC.

I would say a more flexible licencing system and a bit more appreciation of the greater good rather than just noticing personal defecits, will see the BBC into the next century. Perhaps all licence payers could get access to the BBC archives video on demand service, or some other enhancements that would help them make the decision to support public service broadcasting, or maybe a dividend system, so that all of us who are "stakeholders" enjoy a share in BBC worldwide.

We can have a publically-funded broadcaster, I just feel that the licence fee is now an anachronism. If it is regarded as a public service, then we can pay for it through normal taxation, which is cheaper to collect and more equitable because it is more oriented to people's ability to pay. Alternatively, we have the technology to make it a subscription-only service.

Of course, the latter option will be strongly resisted by the government, as they quite like the lever of public funding to keep the BBC in line, and not become too independent.

Originally posted by Lickszz
We can have a publically-funded broadcaster, I just feel that the licence fee is now an anachronism. If it is regarded as a public service, then we can pay for it through normal taxation, which is cheaper to collect and more equitable because it is more oriented to people's ability to pay. Alternatively, we have the technology to make it a subscription-only service.

Of course, the latter option will be strongly resisted by the government, as they quite like the lever of public funding to keep the BBC in line, and not become too independent.

The problem with a subscription based service is that it then puts the BBC wholly in the commercial sector, whereupon it must compete or die. And if it is to increase subscriptions, ads or no ads, the productions will sink to the LCD in no time.

By ensuring a relatively invariable source of income that is independent of government, the BBC can remain independent of government and commercial interests - two of the governing factors in our lives. I agree with you, to a certain extent, that the premise of the licence fee (A licence to own and operate a television) is an anachronism in a world of umpteen delivery devices for broadcast media.

Subscription is not a realistic prospect. Neither is general taxation unless we want "state TV" (we don't).

It seems sad that the real value of the BBC seems to be undermined by this discussion. I feel that it is something to be admired, supported and protected. What is required is a more visibly consultative approach to spending the money collected, and a more modern, but equally stabilised form of income that does not rely upon handouts from the exchequer.

The BBC really is a beacon in a fog of vested interests, and as far as I know, unique in its constitution and remit. It more to commend it than to condemn it IMHO.

Its even more painful for students:

Every individual room in a flat has to have a licence (if they have a TV), so in a flat of 5 thats over 600 pounds. Now multiply that by however many flats there may in a hall/complex. For a typically small one of 50 flats thats £30,000.

Some landlords don't install proper aerials so you're paying for often only being able to receive one or two channels. Other landlords install a communal TV in the living area so even if no-one watches it a licence still has to be paid for (by the students).

Originally posted by Twiglet
Its even more painful for students:

Every individual room in a flat has to have a licence (if they have a TV), so in a flat of 5 thats over 600 pounds. Now multiply that by however many flats there may in a hall/complex. For a typically small one of 50 flats thats £30,000.


Thats just sheer greed, you would have thought one licence per household would cover. What happens in hospitals with the new bedside LCD patient entertainment centres, is that a licence per hospital bed ?

Originally posted by Twiglet
Its even more painful for students:

Every individual room in a flat has to have a licence (if they have a TV), so in a flat of 5 thats over 600 pounds. Now multiply that by however many flats there may in a hall/complex. For a typically small one of 50 flats thats £30,000.


I thought that if the students' parents paid for their licence, then the student did not have to pay?

Otherwise, I think the only legal way to get out of paying is to get some over-age-75s to move in ;)

Originally posted by Abdul
I thought that if the students' parents paid for their licence, then the student did not have to pay?


No, that is definately not the case Abdul. My daughter has to pay for her own licence because it relates to the individual property. The only way the student wouldn't have to pay is for the student to live at home. The way it works with the halls is that it is based on whether or not they have an individual lock on their room door - if they do they have to buy a separate licence. It is grossly unfair, but then I don't agree with the licence fee anyway.

A few years ago, I kept getting letters from the TVLA, stating that if I didn't have a TV licence I would be taken to court and handed a heavy fine.

The only trouble was, I didn't have a TV!

So I phoned them up and told them "If I receive one more letter from them demanding money, I would take legal action for harrassment & demanding money with menace, as I had no TV set".


Strange how they stopped mailing me after the call.


The BBC has us over a barrel. They (the BBC - big BIG C****) are a private company who are able to persecute (sorry, prosecute) individuals in a criminal court, rather than the normal county court route followed by all other businesses.


Totally unfair!


Even though I now have a TV and licence, I still find it extremly difficult to find anything remotely interesting on any station owned by the BBC - even the Beeb's news channel is carp compared with Sky News (mind you, the Beeb's news is carp comapred to CH4's news....).


Thank god for the Sci-Fi channel.

I had the same problem when I sold my TV I was getting a letter nearly every week informing me they were sending people around, could take me to court for not having a license, and general harassment. Finlay I had someone come to the house asking general questions no ID was produced until he had Finnish fishing about weather I had a TV saw I invited him in and showed him around. A week later another person came around and I showed her as well. not heard anything since.

I watch alot of channel 4 and 5 because they have a lot of cop and hospital shows and also scifi which I love. I do not mind one bit paying for the BBC because it sets a standard. If we did not have the Beeb and had all commercial television you would see standards fall like a pound of lead from the top of Blackpool Tower.

Pop Idol 24 hrs a day, No thank you!!!!!!!

I might not watch documentaries all the time, but I like Mastermind, University Challenge and I like knowing programmes like that will always be there. They would not on a commercial station.

We should count our blessings for the BBC. What is there on Sky that is worth paying much more for. Another chance to see, Classic and Gold are all euphemisms for Repeats which people grumble about on the BBC but seem happy to pay through the nose for.

Well done Beeb I say.

My son who did research, in Oz, on TV programmes throughout the world says BBC came out as the best there is.
You only have to go abroad and watch their TV to find this out.

Tho I must say they have slipped behind ITV just lately.
Hazel

Originally posted by hazel


Tho I must say they have slipped behind ITV just lately.
Hazel

You must be joking??
I would be extremely angry if I had to pay to watch tripe like Abbamania2 and the Planets Funniest Animals everyday.
There's no denying the 'repeat factor' of BBC programming but if you look deeper there are a hell of a lot of quality programmes available. You only have to look back over the last two months to get a glimpse of the gulf between ITV and BBC for quality of programming.
On BBC we get Natural History of Britian which is one of the most interesting documentries I've seen in a long time along with the very recent docu-drama showing the journey from Earth to Pluto and back. Compare that with the trash that ITV wheel out on a regular basis..Abbamania, An Audience With???..X Factor..Love on a Saturday Night.....need I go on??.
I will happilly pay license money as long as BBC maintain the quality.

Well said wibbles. Hear! Hear!:thumbsup: :clap:

there are some good arguements pro and con but the major point here is choice.

why cant the bcc have adverts?

why do i choose to pay for sky sports (because i want to watch football etc)

but have no choice over paying for bbc1 2 cbbeebies etc, i cant watch and listen to everything im paying for!

and finally, the bbc make millions selling the programs we pay for to other countries!

im pro choice! ;-)

I don't mind paying a licence fee if it means I can watch (and tape) a film all the way though without having ads every 10 minutes and the news stuck in the middle.

The number of ad breaks on Sky is a joke now, last night there must have been 5 ad breaks in the first half hour of "The 4400", it might have been an interesting program, but I lost interest after only seeing it in 5 minute chunks.

Originally posted by nick2
I don't mind paying a licence fee if it means I can watch (and tape) a film all the way though without having ads every 10 minutes and the news stuck in the middle.

The number of ad breaks on Sky is a joke now, last night there must have been 5 ad breaks in the first half hour of "The 4400", it might have been an interesting program, but I lost interest after only seeing it in 5 minute chunks.

In the states it's even worse.

Watching the film "Heat" over there one night when I was in florida- something between 20-30 adverts. I kid you not!

I went to Portugal this summer and on a rare rainy day was chuffed to find Lethal Weapon on in the afternoon...swearing and all (with portugese subtitles). film had been on about 45 minutes without an advert ,when they finally came on and lasted for about 20 minutes...:loopy:

Originally posted by sccsux
A few years ago, I kept getting letters from the TVLA, stating that if I didn't have a TV licence I would be taken to court and handed a heavy fine.

The only trouble was, I didn't have a TV!

So I phoned them up and told them "If I receive one more letter from them demanding money, I would take legal action for harrassment & demanding money with menace, as I had no TV set".

Strange how they stopped mailing me after the call.

The TV licence people are absolute B******s once they get their claws into you they never give in. What annoys me most is that they treat everyone as a criminal right from day one, even if you genuinely dont have tv receiving equipment.

I have a property that doesnt have TV equipment as its unoccupied, the very first letter that I recevied from TV licence was very nasty and abrupt, treating me as a criminal. Personally I refuse to communicate with these people until they communicate with me in a proper manner, any nasty correspondance from these people goes straight back into the post box marked "return to sender"

Originally posted by mega_monty
The TV licence people are absolute B******s once they get their claws into you they never give in. What annoys me most is that they treat everyone as a criminal right from day one, even if you genuinely dont have tv receiving equipment.

I have a property that doesnt have TV equipment as its unoccupied, the very first letter that I recevied from TV licence was very nasty and abrupt, treating me as a criminal. Personally I refuse to communicate with these people until they communicate with me in a proper manner, any nasty correspondance from these people goes straight back into the post box marked "return to sender"

Or you could just rise above it and act in a polite and educated way by stating the facts. If there is nothing to hide then nothing will happen to you. Why is everyone so quick to over-react??
By not communicating you are merely escalating the problem and making it harder to resolve. :D

Please forgive my editing your post

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
The problem with a subscription based service is that it then puts the BBC wholly in the commercial sector, whereupon it must compete or die. And if it is to increase subscriptions, ads or no ads, the productions will sink to the LCD in no time.

This is the argument that the BBC provides a "public service" including highbrow programmes, which would all disappear if it had to compete in the private sector. This seems to me specious, given that many good quality programmes are also produced by the commercial channels.

The only difference is that with a subscription-only service, people can choose whether to pay for the BBC or not. By your reasoning, you are tacitly admitting that it is perfectly right for people who never watch BBC, to have to pay for it.

If we accept that, then it would be much cheaper and more equitable to pay for it out of normal taxation.


Originally posted by Phanerothyme
By ensuring a relatively invariable source of income that is independent of government, the BBC can remain independent of government and commercial interests - two of the governing factors in our lives.

I thought the government did set the licence fee. Therefore it does determine the level of income the BBC receives. In what way, therefore, does this guarantee the BBC's independence, in a way that funding from general taxation doesn't?


Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Subscription is not a realistic prospect. Neither is general taxation unless we want "state TV" (we don't).

We do have state TV.


Originally posted by Phanerothyme
It seems sad that the real value of the BBC seems to be undermined by this discussion. I feel that it is something to be admired, supported and protected. What is required is a more visibly consultative approach to spending the money collected, and a more modern, but equally stabilised form of income that does not rely upon handouts from the exchequer.

So people aren't entitled to express their views about the BBC and the questionable quality it provides, and whether it is right in this day and age that people should need a licence to own a TV set, when they may hardly ever watch BBC?


Originally posted by Phanerothyme
The BBC really is a beacon in a fog of vested interests, and as far as I know, unique in its constitution and remit. It more to commend it than to condemn it IMHO.

You seem to have a great and uncritical admiration for the BBC. Do you work for them, by any chance?

Originally posted by wibbles
Or you could just rise above it and act in a polite and educated way by stating the facts. If there is nothing to hide then nothing will happen to you. Why is everyone so quick to over-react??
By not communicating you are merely escalating the problem and making it harder to resolve. :D

I have been polite, I've not broken any laws, I certainly have no objections to TV licence people visiting the said property to verify the situation and have never stopped them visiting.

What I do object to is been called a criminal from the very first letter I ever received from TV licence people, now if they went about it in a polite and civilized manner then I would have no objections in corresponding with them.

Im pretty sure you would find it offensive if someone had sent you correspondance hurling abuse at you and stating that you're a criminal.

Originally posted by mega_monty
I have been polite, I've not broken any laws, I certainly have no objections to TV licence people visiting the said property to verify the situation and have never stopped them visiting.

What I do object to is been called a criminal from the very first letter I ever received from TV licence people, now if they went about it in a polite and civilized manner then I would have no objections in corresponding with them.

Im pretty sure you would find it offensive if someone had sent you correspondance hurling abuse at you and stating that you're a criminal.
I'd be very suprised if the letter said "You are a criminal..give us some money"

Originally posted by wibbles
I went to Portugal this summer and on a rare rainy day was chuffed to find Lethal Weapon on in the afternoon...swearing and all (with portugese subtitles). film had been on about 45 minutes without an advert ,when they finally came on and lasted for about 20 minutes...:loopy:

Thats would be ok, sort off, if you knew you had 20 minutes to make a cuppa and a scooby snack, then you get a few hours uninterupted.

It wouldn't be done though as the whole point of adverts is to interupt what you want to watch so you have to watch them.

LOL my chance to rant about one of my truly aggravating niggles...

As long as the BBC persists in airing the inane, unfunny, insultingly imbecilic My Hero:gag: :gag: :gag: and/or any other programmes so completely aimed at the braindead, they do not deserve a penny of my money. You cannot look at that and argue convincingly for the BBC's dedication to quality.
Makes me want to throw up just thinking about it. And why should a tv programme I don't have to watch annoy me so much? Because I bl**ding well have to pay for it and it's sick, runty littermates.

LOL. I really took against it, you think?

Cosy:loopy:

Originally posted by wibbles
I'd be very suprised if the letter said "You are a criminal..give us some money"

OK then heres a typical letter from TV licence people:-
TV licence letter
Dear Owner / Occupier

OFFICAL WARNING THIS PROPERTY IS UNLICENSED

You are hereby notified that we have authorised officers from our Enforcement Division to visit your home and interview you under caution, as our records show there is no TV Licence at this address.

Your statement will be taken in compliance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and is the first step in our action to prosecute if we find evidence that you watch or record television without a valid licence.

I feel it is my duty to inform you that if found guilty, you could receive a maximum fine of £1000, and your name will be added to our National Enforcement Database. We take this offence very seriously and last month we prosecuted 14,886 people.

To avoid an appearance in court before a magistrate I would strongly advise you to call 0870 240 3210 or buy a TV Licence online at www.tvlicensing.co.uk

A TV Licence currently costs £121 for colour and £40.50 for black and white.

So is that not an example of You are a criminal, give us some money ?

Originally posted by mega_monty
OK then heres a typical letter from TV licence people:-


So is that not an example of You are a criminal, give us some money ? Yep then after a couple of months sending these letters they then send someone around to check your house. If they have all this advanced technology eg tell you what channel your watching in what room then they should know you haven't a TV.

Originally posted by Bikertec
Yep then after a couple of months sending these letters they then send someone around to check your house. If they have all this advanced technology eg tell you what channel your watching in what room then they should know you haven't a TV.
What advanced technology??
They don't have the ability to know what channel you are watching and in what room. Its only people who have the special boxes installed and use them properly that have their viewing patterns recorded.

the tv licece costs 34.65 pence a day--- a lot of money for people for whom it is a lot of money and well worth endless debate and getting hot under the collar about.

You do actually have a choice...don't have a TV. would your life be so empty without a television???
It has to be paid and there is absolutely no way around it so just pay it or stop watching it....simple.
You could save that 34.65 pence a day in many other ways if it bothers you that much. Switch off lights, switch of appliances when not in use, use less water etc etc. That would save you enough money to pay for your TV license.

The issue is not whether you watch TV or not it is whether you pay for the BBC in order to watch other channels

For your information, we live in a democracy, where people are entitled to question the justice of the taxes they are required to pay, and change them if enough people agree with them.

The issue IS whether you watch tv or not - it is a tv licence not a bbc watchers licence, you just happen to get a state funded station 'thrown in for free' - ( politically handy but bye the bye ).
Do you want to own and watch tv? then buy the licence - simple as that - the choices are quality of product over cost. Without paying 'more' you can watch advertising based staions or government based stations - for extra cost you can pay for sky, cable etc. Still all viewable leisure entertainment just different 'brands'
Choice of entertainment, go skating, to the pub, read a book, get a playstation - your choice. For access to tv entertainment the government wants your hard earned - just like cigs and cars -
the sad thing is that car tax isn't used to fund road maintenance etc.
(personally I dont have a licence because the amount of progs I would watch in a year doesn't justify the cost of the licence - I spend a bit of time on forum instead :) for my entertainment - the rest of my time is to precious to waste glued to the tv)

Just because people decide to own a TV, doesn't mean that they watch the BBC. In addition to the many commercial terrestial channels, there are Sky, cable, video, DVD, and games.

I'm afraid I do not think that people should be required to pay for a service that they do not use. If the argument is that the BBC is providing a 'public service' (which it seems to be), I believe that this argument is highly questionable for the reasons I have already stated.

Originally posted by Lickszz
I'm afraid I do not think that people should be required to pay for a service that they do not use.

If that's the case then I shouldn't be paying for schools, old peoples homes, social services, libraries, sports centres, railways, universities, defence. I've also never needed the police and the fire service so they can go as well.
Is there anything you don't use that you are happy to pay for ?

Col S
___________________
Long live the BEEB

Originally posted by Cols
If that's the case then I shouldn't be paying for schools, old peoples homes, social services, libraries, sports centres, railways, universities, defence. I've also never needed the police and the fire service so they can go as well.
Is there anything you don't use that you are happy to pay for ?

Col S
___________________
Long live the BEEB

Those services are funded through general taxation. I've already covered this above. The licence fee IS NOT funded out of general taxation so I can't see why you are trying to compare it to those services. I've stated that it would be much fairer if it was funded out of general taxation if it is to be claimed that the BBC operate a 'public service'.

If we scrapped the licence fee and replaced it with funding through general taxation, what adverse consequences do you foresee?

Originally posted by Lickszz

If we scrapped the licence fee and replaced it with funding through general taxation, what adverse consequences do you foresee?

That people like yourself would then moan about having to pay for the BBC through your pay packet.

Col S
_________________
Long live the BEEB

Originally posted by Cols
That people like yourself would then moan about having to pay for the BBC through your pay packet.

Col S
_________________
Long live the BEEB

I suggest you read the other posts as to why I have illustrated the current TV licence is outdated and unfair. From this you will note the other methods that I have suggested which could be used as an alternative to fund the BBC.

Unfortunately I've not seen anything constructive from yourself to support the idea of keeping the status quo. In addition to this I think you'll find that the majority of the population would like to see the TV licence abolished and you are in the minority here.

Originally posted by Lickszz
I suggest you read the other posts as to why I have illustrated the current TV licence is outdated and unfair. From this you will note the other methods that I have suggested which could be used as an alternative to fund the BBC.

Unfortunately I've not seen anything constructive from yourself to support the idea of keeping the status quo. In addition to this I think you'll find that the majority of the population would like to see the TV licence abolished and you are in the minority here.

Agreed, I also object to being bullied into the purchase of a TV licence and also the constant harassment from TV licence people when I dont even have TV receiving equipment!

The BBC should be privatised or at the very least be made to stand up for its self like other companies / business organisations have to, why should they be so unique, especially when fat cat BBC bosses were found to be spending money on marble toilet seats etc.

The BBC is already being challenged, the licence fee contravenes article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which stipulates the individual's right "to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers".

So who do they prosecute ? the poor and the needy of course,
its said that 80 per cent of the people they do prosecute are single mothers on benefits.

Why do people want to cough up £121 pounds a year after year ? Surely with the cost of living rising year after year, council tax, road tax, fuel, food, clothes etc, dont people think they already have enough to pay out ?

Would'nt £121 be better spent on your family, like shoes / clothes, books / school equipment for your kids or even put towards a holiday so you can spend quality time with your family.

Originally posted by Lickszz
.... you are in the minority here.

Of course I am. That must make you right and me wrong then ;)

Here's a link for you to get off on....

http://www.tvlicensing.biz/

Not necessarily but I have provided reasons why I think the TV licence is unfair and I have also provided suitable alternatives which could be used. I'm still confused why you are not willing to even consider a reform of this regressive tax.

Because the alternatives offered all lead to one thing. Reduced funding and ultimately the end of the BBC. Is this what you're really after ? And then what. We'd all have to pay Murdoch £500 + for 200 channels of repeats, imports and utter, utter drivel :gag:
This is akin to BUPA subscribers not having to pay for the NHS or people with children in private school not having to pay for state education. Same argument really - if I don't use it why should I pay for it.

Funding out of General taxation instead of the licence fee would not be likely mean reduced funding.

I am in no way advocating that the BBC be abolished or commercialised, merely a change in its method of funding.

If the argument is that my licence fee is actually paying for something I watch, consider that my cable company pays Discovery to show its programmes; I then pay the cable company to watch them. So in effect I am paying twice over for these programmes. Fair? I don't think so.

"no other viable and credible alternative":

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4101335.stm

Originally posted by Lickszz
Just because people decide to own a TV, doesn't mean that they watch the BBC. In addition to the many commercial terrestial channels, there are Sky, cable, video, DVD, and games.

If you're just using your tv for videos, DVDs, and games then they cant prosecute you. Just detune the terrestial channels and unplug your aerial.

basshedz

oh what joy more to pay out an even more joy if your paying out for sky/cable as well

If the government decides the BBC is worth preserving then they should pay for it out of general taxation (as it wouldn't be preserved if they opted for pay-per-view as most people don't think the BBC is worth paying for).

Why is it any fairer to force a Sky viewer who never watches the BBC to pay for the BBC than to force someone who has no TV to pay? You might as well say someone who has a Blades season ticket should pay an extra £10 per month (and rapidly rising) to the BBC.

The technology is there now to make TVs which can put a block on the BBC channels for people who don't want to pay to watch them.

The license fee has played a very important role in providing us with broadcasting that is the envy of the world.

The BBC is a world renowned and respeted organisation (unless you happen to be in the government!)

If we go down the road of pure commercialisation in TV then I believe we would be the poorer for it. If people want to abolish the license fee then fair enough, but they should first appreciate what the long term effect would be.

Originally posted by Patchy
If the government decides the BBC is worth preserving then they should pay for it out of general taxation (as it wouldn't be preserved if they opted for pay-per-view as most people don't think the BBC is worth paying for).

Why is it any fairer to force a Sky viewer who never watches the BBC to pay for the BBC than to force someone who has no TV to pay? You might as well say someone who has a Blades season ticket should pay an extra £10 per month (and rapidly rising) to the BBC.

The technology is there now to make TVs which can put a block on the BBC channels for people who don't want to pay to watch them.

The whole point of a licence fee is to stop the government from having total control of the state TV station. It was an inspired solution at the time. A modern alternative is now required.

And at risk of sounding like a broken Record, the BBC is more than just television. The BBC has a unique position that will be tricky to maintain, but I would argue that where it sits - between commercial enterprise and state enterprise, gives it an important perspective that no other international media conglomerate has.

As licence payers we all own the BBC and I think we would do well to seek to defend it against being overtaken by either the state or commercial enterprise.

Unlike SKY or any other broadcaster, we can play a very active role in what the BBC does, precisely because of its public service remit.

The trouble is that everyone has had it worn into them through repetition that we should always think of ourselves as consumers.

Everything should be jusged on what it will do for us personally against how much it is going to cost us personally.

It is very difficult to quantify in financial terms what the BBC has given me. The majority of what I know about the way the world works has come from the BBC, not from our Education System.

I imagine there are those among you who think its probably brainwashed me into socialism (or whatever other ideaology you think the BBC's ulterior motive is)

But if it wasn't for the BBC I would not think it worth owning a television.

Originally posted by basshedz2
If you're just using your tv for videos, DVDs, and games then they cant prosecute you. Just detune the terrestial channels and unplug your aerial.

basshedz


Interesting, can you tell us more about this?

If you have a TV which isn't connected to an aerial, what's to stop you connecting it to an aerial when the TV licencing people aren't around?

My understanding was that any device capable of receiving TV signals (whether or it is not used for this purpose) requires a TV licence.

I've heard of a court case where a man used a TV as part of a CCTV security system on his house, I believe he lost the court case and was required to pay the licence fee.

One of my friends wanted a tv exclusively for watching videos on. She showed the TV licence people that she had stuck sticky tape over the aerial conection, and they didn't bother her any more!

there is nothing on tv to watch anyway so i really dont see why i have one

Or you could all move over here to Canada, TV,s free

Originally posted by fireball
Or you could all move over here to Canada, TV,s free

It's also free in Australia and the USA, but believe me, in both those countries the quality of TV is unspeakably awful. From what I've seen, I suspect it's the same in Canada.

In most countries in the world, the only* good TV programmes are bought in from the BBC and (sometimes) ITV. So yet again we're back to the licence fee being money well spent.

*The Simpsons being the exception that proves the rule

I wonder how many people like me still have a black and white set,I have never had a colour set the licence is not worth it, and all those same old programms, anyone know how may black and white sets are used today in the country.

Originally posted by chrisg
I wonder how many people like me still have a black and white set,I have never had a colour set the licence is not worth it, and all those same old programms, anyone know how may black and white sets are used today in the country.

One,lol

Originally posted by basshedz2
If you're just using your tv for videos, DVDs, and games then they cant prosecute you. Just detune the terrestial channels and unplug your aerial.

basshedz

This is true. it's what we're doing. We've rang TV licensing, they came round to check and it's fine - although do note that you're not allowed to watch videos recorded from the TV - even if you had a TV license when you recorded them!

Funding through the taxpayer is a terrible idea. Surely people should be able to choose whether they subscribe to an expensive and luxury service or not?!

Originally posted by mojoworking
It's also free in Australia and the USA, but believe me, in both those countries the quality of TV is unspeakably awful. From what I've seen, I suspect it's the same in Canada.

In most countries in the world, the only* good TV programmes are bought in from the BBC and (sometimes) ITV. So yet again we're back to the licence fee being money well spent.

*The Simpsons being the exception that proves the rule

I disagree. On the whole, I think Americans make much better TV programs than the BBC. Spooks may be good, but I can't think of anything else worth watching on the BBC in recent years.... apart from some American programs they show.

I still hold with my view that if people want the BBC they should be given the option of paying for it, but those who don't want the BBC should be able to opt out without being fined for watching Sky which they are subscribing to.

Its really the lack of choice. The choice i have is buy one or go to prison? Ok let them charge but why should the law enforce it. Is part of the Licence fee spent on paying their solicitors? If it is i want a refund because i can get legal aid. TV licence and car insurance both the biggest cons of the last century.