TV Licence increase

[wibbles 10]

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...

[mega_monty 10]

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"

[wibbles 10]

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.

[Lickszz 10]

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?

[mega_monty 10]

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.

 

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.

[wibbles 10]

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"

[nick2 10]

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...

 

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.

[cosywolf 10]

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: 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:

[mega_monty 10]

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 http://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 ?

[Bikertec 12]

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.

[wibbles 10]

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.

[pinemarten 10]

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.