Tv Licence Rip Off, Time To Stop.

the bbc charges us an amasing £132.50 a year to watch crap, then there is freeview? freeview i think not cause you still pay tv licence, ,so i have no terrestial aerial but sky, now i still have to pay ba****s asociation a fing fee so most off you if not all, are we being taking for a ride, i think we are and should refuse to pay this lurches.
nando.

 

Then don't watch or do you wish to look at whatever you wish for free yet still remain legal?

 

Your TV licence funds the BBC as a whole, so as well as paying for trash TV you can take some comfort in knowing that you're also paying for half decent radio and a truly world class news organisation

 

i do not mind paying for radio licence but it does not exsist, had a chat with nick f. at lbc, issue to be broadcast, but my arguement is that if most of us have no analogue aeriels but digital recievers witch we pay for and terrestial is going digital why then should we pay twiece? every thing as i can see is tax for nothing untill they realise they can no longer get blood out of the stone,
nando

 

quete

how wrong you are! view or not you still have to pay, what ever source you have either free box or sky dish and for soon digittal will be a must, my issue is that we pay for dig.. ie free box and pay sky, then why shoould we pay the bbc and the crap they show?as for legal, yes you got a case to debate and win,
nando

 

So your argument appears to be that we if we pay for the TV receiving hardware we shouldn't also be paying a TV license? Or vice-versa?

Guess what - people have always had to buy their own TVs and freeview is just the same, most TVs now come with Freeview tuners built in.

So its OK to pay Rupert Murdoch hundreds of pounds a year in subscription to Sky, and get his seven hundred channels of absolute utter shit - AND still get to watch adverts too? Wonderful.

One single channel of BBCs output is worth 100 times more than everything on Sky + ITV + Channel 5 and all the gazillions of trash TV stations now available. I'll make a partial exception for Channel 4.

 

Tax

My understanding, is that the TAX is on the technology and not the ability to see or hear the programs.

I know of cases were people have had a screen with no tuner who want to watch video/dvd (these people, have been Christians who want to watch material about their faith and not the as they would put it the wickedness of the world. Fair point). They have had to pay tv licence fee regardless of whether or not the screen has a receiving tuner within it.

So the Tax is on the technology and it does not need to have a tuner for its use to be illegal. Technically the LCD monitor attached to this PC needs a licence. No doubt PC world will submit my details at some point soon.

All shops who sell any type of video gear(regardless of type ) must send a report with names and details to TV licensing. Not to do this is against the Law.

So if you watch or listen to any BBC output or not this is not the point. You could try and argue that but you would still be fined, for operating a TV/monitor without a licence.

Sorry Nando, but and while I agree with your points, it is however having a monitor which is what you are paying for. The TV detector Van and mobile units are able to detect a TV even if its not on (apparently).

Regards D Louth 77

Happy New year to you and Indra.

 

In the UK, you are only required to have a TV licence if you have equipment that is able to receive a television broadcast signal.

This will include TV sets, video recorders and DVD recorders connected to an aerial as well as satellite and cable decoders.

This does not include TV sets that are only used to watch videos and/or DVDs (and these are therefore exempt from the TV licence).

As for computers, you are allowed to watch television that is not streamed live (i.e. you can use the BBC iPlayer without a licence as that is not streamed at the same time as terrestrial broadcast). If you were to watch live TV on your PC, that would require a licence

 

TV detector vans are a total joke. There's 27 of them in the whole country, and they're mostly seen in supermarket carparks, and they don't usually have anything inside.

I don't have a tv license.

 

HI lbr

I have just done a bit of internet snooping.

You are correct, but the Licencing authority only changed the wording to their website recently after the Government forced them to correct the impression that having any stuff not even hooked up required a licence. So the impression was given that even if you did not watch programs or record such owning of a VCR etc though only used to watch videos required a licence.

So many people have paid when they did not have too.

There was also some debate about using lcd monitors to watch broad band too on this website, but I did not go into reading it.

The impression I had was given while working in the TV retailing business. Official propaganda from the group who have the licencing franchise perhaps. Put forward as fact.

Regards D Louth 77

 

It seems to me that in times like these, economic downturns etc that to impose a tax such as a TV license is a complete nonsense. We take billions of pounds out of the economy to fund a public broadcasting service that is not required. I'd like to see the BBC compete in the marketplace with other media and support themselves by advertising. Ads must work otherwise they would not be used and therefore must stimulate the economy. A further recession busting stimulus would come from all that license money being spent on the High Street!

 

Paying a reasonable amount to fund public broadcasting is fair enough.

My objection is that those in receipt of this money then pay it out in such a profligate way. Excessive fees to "performers" - bidding competitions for professional sport and the like.

There is a self-interested and self-serving circle at work here.

 

There is a whole 'can of worms' to be opened here, if the discussion includes relative quality of programming, adverts etc.

It is not strictly true to say that the BBC has no adverts - it is just that they are adverts for themselves. After every programme there are two or three minutes of adverts for other programmes. On the highly-rated news24, for example, after the 'news' item has been covered you often hear that the item is the subject of a documentary to be shown on BBC1 at xxx. In other words, the 'news' was an advert.
Instead of news we are treated to a 90second advert for the news, showing their correspondents all around the world - every 30 minutes!

As for licensing, it is true that if you do not use the equipment you have for watching live tv, then a license is not required. There are interesting discussions on this subject, and websites devoted to the subject - most notably showing that the tv licensing authority is a pernicious scam operating on lines which, if it were a normal company, would lead to their closure. Where else are you presumed guilty of an offence and have to prove your innocence?

 

You don't half talk bollocks nando.
The BBC is a total bargain compared to rip off Sky/Virgin.
If you really are such a miser just watch everything a day later on BBC iplayer, ITV catch up. TV catch up or 4oD and you don't need a licence.

 

I have no objections with the BBC as such there are a lot of good quality programs on the BBC. I've watched a lot of good stuff by Ian Hyslop and Andrew Marr on BBC4 and it is high quality programming.

Then there is the very talented presenters such as James May who really knows his stuff.

My are objection is why are paying J Ross £2 a million? He is just a very crude avery presenter - in my opinion lawyers.

I know TopGear also has a huge budget but they export it all around the world and make a fortune from it.

 

I agree with Bob McC. Bearing in mind the quality of programmes the BBC license money is much better VFM than what Sky demand. Of course it all depends on what sort of programmes you like.

 

BBCIplayer looks a winner and some would suggest a model for others who wish to distribute content. I have no objection to this being financed directly from the public purse although I moan about attached DRM control over saving downloads I'll put up with it. Some conflict exist between BBCIplayer users who use this tool to times shift or view again content when they realise that their unlimited broadband allowance sold to them by the ISP is not quite what they were lead to expect.

Lots of talk on this topic with I expect a lot more to follow.

 

TV Licence - absolute bargain - TV, Radio, wonderful website. Watching programs without the interruption of advertisments is wonderful. After spending time in the US - where it seemed to me that often there was more than 30mins ads per hour. That's a little hyperbolised but...

 

Tv license vehicles have never worked. All they need is the fact you like somewhere and are you/are you not paying a license. If you are not you will get hundreds of letters a year.

You have no obligation to let people who visit into the house, they have no warrant to do that. You can also ask them not to approach your property either (apparently there is a law which prevents people entering your land, this is exempt for deliveries)

 

"Detector Vans" don't exist, it's simply scare tactics. They seem to have dropped the detection rubbish from their adverts (hopefully because they got in trouble over them) in favour of going on about their big database which contains every address. Given that anyone can access the PAF, I always find that makes me chuckle.

The only TVL vans you will see are empty ones parked in supermarkets and similar to try and scare people and ones they use for dropping off door to door callers.

TVL officers can obtain a warrant if they have evidence to suggest you are receiving broadcasts without a licence. Not having a licence is not sufficient evidence, nor is refusal to co-operate with TVL staff.

They generally rely on people who are unaware of their rights incriminating themselves when TVL staff visit properties.

"Implied right of access" to your letterbox, front door, door bell etc. Easily removed with a quick letter.