Tv licence has "10 years left"

[bigsexydoug 10]

Regarding your first comment, you are having a laugh. Sky, the only service I know that cuts out when it rains or if a bird lands on your dish. They treat their customers like rubbish and the majority of the stuff they put on their channels is either crap or repeated crap.

 

With regard to your second comment, if you simply don't pay Sky simply cut your service and then pursue you for funds owed.

 

really, so in your opinion sky is rubbish fair enough, dont subscribe to sky then, fair point, now i dont watch a single channel on the bbc , so YOU get a subscription to the bbc and i get a subscription to sky, what could be fairer ?

 

can you not simply see that other people dont like the things you like ?

 

if the bbc is SOOOOOOOO good people will still subscribe to it at £12 per month nothing changes except a few people who should never have gone to jail dont go to jail, if it isnt as good then YOU Have to pay a fair price to support the bbc to make i think poor programmes, in fact the price might even come down as they wont have to hire people to chase for non licence payers !

 

the freeview service also cuts out in bad weather, been a few posts in the tech section when bad weather has come down.

 

why doesnt sky get to send people to jail for non payment...we both know why...becuase its completly unjustified locking someone in jail for watching tv without a licence, end of story, yet the bbc still get to do this with its remit, in 2015 people are being sent to overcrowded jails for watching a tv, just let that sink in....today someone might have been sent to jail for watching cash in the attic or countdown, its so wrong, sent to jail for watching countdown.

 

to the other person who said about sky and repeats ......really.....the bbc still shows dads army ffs.....and somehow repeats that poor comedian miranda hart into lots of its programmes, apart from the fact she is a poor actor and a comedian that isnt funny.

Edited June 22, 2015 by bigsexydoug

[crookedspire 10]

Its time for the BBC to pay for itself like the other channels do. The thing I dislike is you are forced to pay for BBC regardless if you want it or ever watch it in short no choice. We should have a choice its only fair . If you do want it and quite happy to pay for it , fair enough. If you don't want any BBC channels their should be no charge.

[bigsexydoug 10]

Its time for the BBC to pay for itself like the other channels do. The thing I dislike is you are forced to pay for BBC regardless if you want it or ever watch it in short no choice. We should have a choice its only fair . If you do want it and quite happy to pay for it , fair enough. If you don't want any BBC channels their should be no charge.

 

Agreed, I don't see why some posters can't see this argument, it's completely fair and yet somehow they can't see it !

Why are they so against a fair system ?

[GLASGOWOODS 10]

Agreed, I don't see why some posters can't see this argument, it's completely fair and yet somehow they can't see it !

Why are they so against a fair system ?

 

Yep I agree.

 

It's only a bargain if you actually need it.

[I1L2T3 10]

The BBC needs to go on its own. It's disgraceful that in a supposedly democratic country, public money is used to pay for a hugely biased news service. And yet we laugh at the media output of countries like North Korea.

 

Most countries in western Europe have TV licence or media fees and/or central grants from the state to public service broadcasters.

 

Nothing disgraceful about it at all. It's pretty normal.

 

The licence fees here are actually cheaper than in some of the other countries, and out service is way superior.

[Vague_Boy 10]

So because you can't find anything worthwhile on BBC radio and television the payment system has to change.

 

Given that it's a compulsory system policed by doorstepping goons from CAPITA, I think the current funding system is certainly worthy of scrutiny.

 

It's a system that might have worked in 1928 but in the Space Year 2015, it looks a tad antediluvian.

 

SKY don't automatically assume that I'm using their services and send a jumped up bailiff to my door demanding payment. Or threatening letters through the post.

 

 

People complain about the BBC, yet happily throw 50 a month at Sky to watch crap, full of adverts and lining the pockets of scum like Murdoch.

 

Any you know what? That's their choice. It's their money after all. They can choose to get a SKY subscription or they can choose not to.

 

Choice. A lovely thing.

 

Now I can choose (and indeed have done so) not to have a TV, not to watch or record live TV as it is broadcast and according to the BBC's own web site [LINK] that means I don't need a TV licence.

 

The trouble is, the BBC and their sub-contracted goons at CAPITA don't believe me. "Guilty until proven temporarily not guilty" is their approach.

 

Letters ever month (threats more like) and visits from jumped up bailiffs are what's in store if you dare to exercise your choice not to use BBC services.

 

You can tell them that you don't need a license. That might work for a while but after a year or so, they'll stop believing you (again).

 

So I think we should put licence evaders in jail. We'll have to empty the jails of murderers, rapists, kiddie fiddlers etc., but this "heinous" crime of watching TV without a state imposed tax must take priority over such piffling indiscretions.

[I1L2T3 10]

Its time for the BBC to pay for itself like the other channels do. The thing I dislike is you are forced to pay for BBC regardless if you want it or ever watch it in short no choice. We should have a choice its only fair . If you do want it and quite happy to pay for it , fair enough. If you don't want any BBC channels their should be no charge.

 

YOU pay for the other channels or don't you realise that the costs of the adverts comes out of the marketing budgets of the companies that advertise. The cost of the marketing budget is passed to consumers.

 

I read somewhere that when the cost of the marketing revenue for ITV is divided by the number of households it comes to £8 per household per month.

 

Channel 4 is something like £3 a month per household. Channel 5 is £2 per month.

 

The cheeky devils at Sky, not content with your £50 a month, pull in a load of advertising revenue too, just to top up how much people effectively pay them. Suckers.

[bigsexydoug 10]

YOU pay for the other channels or don't you realise that the costs of the adverts comes out of the marketing budgets of the companies that advertise. The cost of the marketing budget is passed to consumers.

 

I read somewhere that when the cost of the marketing revenue for ITV is divided by the number of households it comes to £8 per household per month.

 

Channel 4 is something like £3 a month per household. Channel 5 is £2 per month.

 

The cheeky devils at Sky, not content with your £50 a month, pull in a load of advertising revenue too, just to top up how much people effectively pay them. Suckers.

 

You do realise the BBC is allowed product placement, so you have just called yourself a sucker lol

[Happ Hazzard 10]

If you don't buy the advertised products, you don't pay a pennY!

[mimic 10]

The choices were a bit limited for me.

 

I emailed the BBC and canceled my renewal. Main reason is that I only watched about 5-10 minutes of news per day. The rest of my viewing is on my timetable via my own collection, Netflix or things like iplayer. To be charged nearly £150 for this is way out of line for me. What really annoys me is the line "any live broadcast" I know it's just another tax but to have you pay twice for paid services like sky is a bit OTT.

 

Each to their own, if you like watching live TV... go and pay the fee. If not, don't buy one.

[I1L2T3 10]

If you don't buy the advertised products, you don't pay a pennY!

 

Challenge yourself to do it. To not buy a single product from a any company that advertises on ITV.

 

Be an interesting experiment. Don't know what you'll do for thrush cream though.

 

---------- Post added 22-06-2015 at 20:17 ----------

 

The choices were a bit limited for me.

 

I emailed the BBC and canceled my renewal. Main reason is that I only watched about 5-10 minutes of news per day. The rest of my viewing is on my timetable via my own collection, Netflix or things like iplayer. To be charged nearly £150 for this is way out of line for me. What really annoys me is the line "any live broadcast" I know it's just another tax but to have you pay twice for paid services like sky is a bit OTT.

 

Each to their own, if you like watching live TV... go and pay the fee. If not, don't buy one.

 

Sky is crazily expensive for what it is.

[mimic 10]

 

Sky is crazily expensive for what it is.

 

I agree. I wouldn't pay for that either.