What your TV licence money goes on..

[KevM]

Left wing rant? I was simply asking for the evidence to support your claim, methinks the lady doth protest too much.
edit: interestingly I just did your suggested Google, it came back with "phil.p is a paranoid fantasist" - spooky how accurate search engines can be these days.

 

[KevM]

Anyway, this becoming futile. Good night. On this thread, anyway.

Translation : I've got no evidence to support my assertions, so I'm going to pretend to be above this.[fx: sound of chicken squawking] :lol:

 

[Paddywack]

If people aren't happy with the way the licence fee is applied why not lobby an MP or write in to the BBC and complain, I haven't seen many posts on here from the Director General so it's hardly likely he will know how unhappy you are. My personnel view is Radio 4 is worth every penny of my licence fee and the rest I treat as a bonus.

 

[RogerS]

If people aren't happy with the way the licence fee is applied why not lobby an MP or write in to the BBC and complain, I haven't seen many posts on here from the Director General so it's hardly likely he will know how unhappy you are. My personnel view is Radio 4 is worth every penny of my licence fee and the rest I treat as a bonus.

It is a nice idea...if only the BBC actually paid any attention to what people are saying. They outsource their complaints handling to Capita and you get a standard bolierplate reply that basically says 'thank you for your comment blah blah blah'. I also know that that naff institution called the BBC Trust also ignore very valid comments and complaints. They truly redefine the idea of 'ostrich head in the sand'.

 

[MMUK]

If people aren't happy with the way the licence fee is applied why not lobby an MP or write in to the BBC and complain, I haven't seen many posts on here from the Director General so it's hardly likely he will know how unhappy you are. My personnel view is Radio 4 is worth every penny of my licence fee and the rest I treat as a bonus.

More to the point, it would be a better idea to send your license back and don't subscribe to the Beeb at all. After all, we don't NEED television, it's a luxury item. If they lose subscribers they would have to change their ways.

In any case, as long as you don't watch a program while it is being broadcast, you don't need a TV license. Just use iPlayer or YouTube instead. Assuming you can wait that is :wink:

You'd be surprised how much of TV you won't miss at all.....

 

[RogerS]

That's an interesting point. If you wanted to watch something effectively 'live' then most PVR's let you pause live tv. So you pause for five seconds....then start watching. It's no longer live ergo no licence !!

 

[LeeElms]

I think the legal interpretation of 'live' includes you recording it to a PVR or whatever. Why that should be different to a catch up service is a mystery ...

 

[RogerS]

Ah..you're right..

Q: When do you need a licence? Do you need one for watching TV using an iPlayer?

A: You need a TV Licence to watch or record TV programmes as they are being shown on television, irrespective of what channel you're watching, what device you are using (TV, computer, laptop, mobile phone or any other), and how you receive them (terrestrial, satellite, cable, via the internet or any other way).

You do not need a TV Licence if you are watching TV after it has been shown on television, eg TV programmes downloaded or streamed after broadcast.

 

[wellywood]

Interesting thread this. My experience of the Beeb is almost 40 years old when it was an institution and broadcast 'quality' programmes. It sounds as though it's gone the way of much modern media (including that here in NZ) and is now aiming largely at the lowest common denominator - those with a 10 minute attention span.
Unfortunately, the suggestion that pressure could be brought to bear on them by discerning viewers/listeners rescinding their licence or scrapping their TV would just leave them broadcasting to the audience they are already aiming at.

 

[AndyMenz]

True, but the BBC does actually produce something positive (Sherlock, Luther, The Thick of it, endless Attenborough docs, QI, most of BBC four, Radio 4, Radio 6 Music etc.). I'd rather pay £3 a week for that than £60 a month for Sky and endless adverts, but I appreciate that many do not agree.

The Daily Mail is just a black hole of negativity and bigotry, whose main aim appears to be to terrify people so that they daren't set foot outside their front door, but again many will not agree with that either!

Very true - the Daily Mail are often calling for the BBC (in this time of commone we-are-all-in-it-together, belt tightening) to shut down a whole load of the outposts of the World Service. Surely we could looking at cutting things like BBC 1Extra or 4Extra, or all these damn 'Extras' that appear to offer nothing more than a watered down version of the original.

It is not on the 'Extras' that we find Sherlock, Luther, The Thick of it, endless Attenborough docs, QI, most of BBC four, Radio 4, Radio 6 Music ...

 

[renderer01]

I am probably quite wrong but if memory serves me, you are required to hold a TV licence if you have equipment capable of receiving TV or radio signal on your property.
My attitude has always been its irrelevant how good or bad the beeb is, its the compulsory charge that is the problem if it was truly great all would want it anyway and be prepared to pay the asked price. But to remove in effect the right to watch other channels without funding the BBC is at best encouraging the prospect of a perpetual gravy train setup and at a time when everything else has to fight for survival
Rend.

 

[MMUK]

I am probably quite wrong but if memory serves me, you are required to hold a TV licence if you have equipment capable of receiving TV or radio signal on your property.

The law was changed several years ago when TV was made widely available on the internet. It would mean that anyone who owned a PC with internet would need a TV license even if they didn't have a TV set. It was unenforceable anyway.

Another thing is the detector vans. Remember those? They were a con, they didn't work. There was no way that they could detect if you were receiving anaolgue signals in your household. I have that on very good authority from an expert in radio communications.

 

[renderer01]

Thanks MMUK
Lol I read this once around 40 years ago.

Rend.

 

[KevM]

I suspect the TV detector vans had a kernel of truth, once upon a time. There were special efforts made with radio receivers on warships during WWII to prevent 're-broadcasting' of their local oscillators which could (potentially, although hard to imagine in a steel ship...) lead to detection, early TVs were pretty crude beasts so who knows. I heard an interesting observation a while back that may give a clue. Do you remember the last time you saw a TV detector van ad on TV? In 2004, regulation of UK TV ads was passed to the Advertising Standards Agency; their mission statement is "to ensure that advertising in all media is legal, decent, honest and truthful, to the benefit of consumers, business and society", coincidence?

Another piece of possibly (in)correct information that used to get thrown about was that the operating techniques and performance of TV detector vans was covered under the Official Secrets Act. It all feels a little bit Keyser Soze to me...

 

[RogerS]

This is an interesting website

http://tv-licensing.blogspot.co.uk/2012 ... r-van.html

 

[Jacob]

Support the BBC. It's run by the state. *
In a democracy we are the state. It's ours.
It doesn't belong to Murdoch, or any other dodgy commercial cartels, or advertisers.
It's also trusted worldwide and is good for foreign policy etc.


* one of the weirdest bit of right wing b***x nowadays is popular support for "rolling back the state". In a democracy this means giving up our control of these things. Like turkeys voting for christmas.

 

[bugbear]

This is an interesting website

http://tv-licensing.blogspot.co.uk/2012 ... r-van.html

It's an obsessed person who thinks he's ever so important. "Anouncing" stuff etc.

BugBear

 

[RogerS]

This is an interesting website

http://tv-licensing.blogspot.co.uk/2012 ... r-van.html

It's an obsessed person who thinks he's ever so important. "Anouncing" stuff etc.

BugBear

What ARE you on about?

 

[MIGNAL]

I am probably quite wrong but if memory serves me, you are required to hold a TV licence if you have equipment capable of receiving TV or radio signal on your property.
My attitude has always been its irrelevant how good or bad the beeb is, its the compulsory charge that is the problem if it was truly great all would want it anyway and be prepared to pay the asked price. But to remove in effect the right to watch other channels without funding the BBC is at best encouraging the prospect of a perpetual gravy train setup and at a time when everything else has to fight for survival
Rend.

But it's ALL compulsory. No such thing as free TV or indeed free Radio. Commercial stations aren't free. It's simply that their costs are gathered indirectly but make no mistake you, I, everyone pays for it. Try going into Tesco and asking for a small discount because you don't want to contribute to their advertising budget. Then do the same with every company who advertises on the TV and radio. I don't watch commercial TV but I have no option, I pay for it. The only practical way to avoid the 'commercial TV licence' would be to totally opt out of society altogether. There might be a 3 or 4 people who have done that. 3 or 4 out of 60 million. I don't think I'll bother thanks. I'll just carry on contributing to their advertising budget.

 

[renderer01]

Hmm its a hostile reposte I recieve for expressing an opinion about not very much frankly, the difference being im free to shop where I choose for whatever food whatever price wherever it may be and choose how much to spend and if I wish to change where thats ok as well. Its a world of free enterprise or its not and the double standards of this shortened vision or total lack of vision disturbs me just a very little.
At the end of the day its supposed to be a free society that is perfectly entitled to hold opinions no matter how deluded they may appear to others its why we vote and choose to adopt a democracy such as it is.
I guess if the cap fits wear it but dont force or attempt to force others to wear it.
If anyone chooses to continue contributing to whatever thats fine too.

Rend.