Discussion
we have a licence at home, but it annoys me that we have to pay for the bbc.
i have no issues paying for services such as the nhs, emergency services, armed forces, dustbin men etc, they are the things that (i hope i don't) i might need in the future.
but the bbc, i get that people are proud of it, but although I pay I barely watch it, and being on virgin I tend to watch the news channel rather than 1 & 2 etc.
I have also had the threatening letters, the licence is in the wife's name and when I first moved in a few years back we got them because I bought a new telly in my name and they never made the connection (different surnames at the time), so weeks of aggressive letters, they wouldn't talk to me about her licence, just wanted me to pay for a 2nd at the same address, and yes i phoned and wrote etc. even getting my other half to phone was a torrid affair as they were funny about her talking about me at the same address. it was a crazy situation and we only got it resolved when we refused to speak to the person who answered and asked for a manager to call back, even that took 3 calls before someone called back.
it's not a service anymore it's a business and they have had to cut their cloth in recent years as they squandered our money, yet they still achieve this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/worldwide/2015/bb...
i don't like having to pay to watch about 3 programmes a year when they make money. they should stand on their own 2 feet like other businesses. they make a big thing about being independent of gubbermint, but they run quickly enough to westminster when someone is being nasty to them.
oh and i don't expect the nhs etc to make a profit and i'm happy to pay for them.
i have no issues paying for services such as the nhs, emergency services, armed forces, dustbin men etc, they are the things that (i hope i don't) i might need in the future.
but the bbc, i get that people are proud of it, but although I pay I barely watch it, and being on virgin I tend to watch the news channel rather than 1 & 2 etc.
I have also had the threatening letters, the licence is in the wife's name and when I first moved in a few years back we got them because I bought a new telly in my name and they never made the connection (different surnames at the time), so weeks of aggressive letters, they wouldn't talk to me about her licence, just wanted me to pay for a 2nd at the same address, and yes i phoned and wrote etc. even getting my other half to phone was a torrid affair as they were funny about her talking about me at the same address. it was a crazy situation and we only got it resolved when we refused to speak to the person who answered and asked for a manager to call back, even that took 3 calls before someone called back.
it's not a service anymore it's a business and they have had to cut their cloth in recent years as they squandered our money, yet they still achieve this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/worldwide/2015/bb...
i don't like having to pay to watch about 3 programmes a year when they make money. they should stand on their own 2 feet like other businesses. they make a big thing about being independent of gubbermint, but they run quickly enough to westminster when someone is being nasty to them.
oh and i don't expect the nhs etc to make a profit and i'm happy to pay for them.
I really don't get these anti licence people who go on and on about not allowing access, against rights etc.
I don't watch TV so I fill in the online form to tell them, it took 1 min and I do it every 2 years. It really isn't a drain on my time and then I get on with my life. I've never had anyone a knock at the door either.
I don't watch TV so I fill in the online form to tell them, it took 1 min and I do it every 2 years. It really isn't a drain on my time and then I get on with my life. I've never had anyone a knock at the door either.
HantsRat said:
I really don't get these anti licence people who go on and on about not allowing access, against rights etc.
I don't watch TV so I fill in the online form to tell them, it took 1 min and I do it every 2 years. It really isn't a drain on my time and then I get on with my life. I've never had anyone a knock at the door either.
It's great that you're happy with that.I don't watch TV so I fill in the online form to tell them, it took 1 min and I do it every 2 years. It really isn't a drain on my time and then I get on with my life. I've never had anyone a knock at the door either.
There are some of us who fundamentally disagree with what are effectively state-sanctioned threats-by-proxy and presumptions of guilt.
There is no legal requirement to have any contact with Capita. They bully people into doing so either by obfuscation, misdirection or plain fear-mongering. There is a well-documented case where a guy let them into his home to inspect his equipment. He filmed the whole thing and put it on YouTube.
TVL then doctored the footage to make it appear as though he had been watching live TV.
http://www.thurrockgazette.co.uk/news/9867463.Man_...
http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/forum/index.ph...
It went to court and he was able to show that the image they'd put on the TV was from a transmission that hadn't yet occurred - therefore it was impossible he was watching it at that time and TVL were lying. No action was taken against TVL for falsifying evidence either. The whole thing stank.
The best course of action is to not engage at all. Don't confirm who you are to a stranger at the door without knowing who they are. As soon as you know it's TVL, don't talk to them - shut the door. Ignore all threatograms.
Silence is the best - and legal - policy.
Edited by Funk on Friday 29th April 10:11
Pip1968 said:
Without reading all your "f##king" posts do you watch or listen live, or post broadcast?
You're conflating something you need a licence for, and something you don't.Pip1968 said:
Look at the services in southern Europe (1st world countries) and then the other extreme the 3rd world then come back to me with "Is it though?". You and others need to wake up and open your eyes to what we get here compared to elsewhere and stop complaining about what you are NOT getting from the NHS and look at what you DO get.
Some would argue southern Europe is second world, but either way it's got bugger all to do with the TV licence and I'm trying to keep this on topic. More than happy to discuss spending v health outcomes somewhere else.Pip1968 said:
As for you last point not watching live is no excuse for not paying up.
Eh? That is the whole crux of the issue. Not live = no licence. Pip1968 said:
Lastly you did not mention anything on my point on devolution.
Because it's got nothing to do with the TV licence.DDg said:
Devil2575 said:
I'm amazed at how many people on PH claim to not watch TV.
I don't, and having told the Authorities once, I'm not inclined to do it again - why should I? TV hooked up solely to an Xbox and a Netflix subscription. An evening schedule and a 'route to midnight' seems such an anachronism these days. Do people still settle down after dinner for two or three hours in front of a TV? Give me an episode of Arrested Development for my pre-bed wind down, at a time of my choosing, thanks.eccles said:
Devil2575 said:
I'm amazed at how many people on PH claim to not watch TV.
Same here.The future will be all online, it will be streamed and it will have advertising in it you don't even notice (much like in-game advertising).
DDg said:
What I'm trying to say, as others have, is that viewing patterns have changed completely, and not only for the young. Live, scheduled TV is simply not required these days.
Yes but does that mean we shouldn't have to pay for it?I rarely watch TV when it is sceduled any more, I record it or I use the Iplayer/on demand services. I even download podcasts rather than listen to the radio live most of the time.
I consume a lot of BBC output through various forms and very little of it is the obvious stuff that on prime time BBC1 and 2 and almost none of it is live. The BBC makes some excellent programs, most of which are shown on BBC4.
I don't see how this is a reason for there not to be a TV license though.
Edited by Devil2575 on Friday 29th April 12:22
Pip1968 said:
technodup said:
nother one who spectacularly misses the point, twice over.
The BBC could be the best broadcaster in the world. Or the worst, It doesn't matter. The point is we are forced to pay for it through it's 'unique' model.
But not only that, even if we prefer to opt out of BBC programming and only watch advertising funded or (voluntary) subscription services we still have to pay to fund the BBC. So it's not as simple as not watching the BBC, we cannot watch ANYTHING from any provider if we opt not to pay for Jimmy Saville & Co.
You only have to look anywhere else in the business world to see that good, fair, popular or profitable ideas are copied very quickly. And yet, after 100 years or so the BBC model is still unique...
No, nothing spectacular being missed. You are complaining about being made to pay for something you do not use. In this case a public service. I too pax taxes for things I do not use and a lot more than a piddly £150.The BBC could be the best broadcaster in the world. Or the worst, It doesn't matter. The point is we are forced to pay for it through it's 'unique' model.
But not only that, even if we prefer to opt out of BBC programming and only watch advertising funded or (voluntary) subscription services we still have to pay to fund the BBC. So it's not as simple as not watching the BBC, we cannot watch ANYTHING from any provider if we opt not to pay for Jimmy Saville & Co.
You only have to look anywhere else in the business world to see that good, fair, popular or profitable ideas are copied very quickly. And yet, after 100 years or so the BBC model is still unique...
I'm not a BBC hater. The Corporation commissions some very good programming amongst the general dross. However the current funding model is archaic and needlessly convoluted. It simply isn't fit for purpose in the 21st century, so why won't the government change it? It wouldn't perchance have anything to do with the government's pet private sector outsourcer losing a revenue stream and jobs being lost. Perish the thought.
The few TV programmes that I watch are on catch-up which is currently a legally licence-free activity. In the highly unlikely event of that situation changing to watching live broadcasts I would buy a licence and remain legal. In the meantime I am under no obligation to respond to threatograms. So I don't. They are junk mail AFAIAC and get treated accordingly. If Capita send round one of its doorstep salespersons they can take a hike as I have no need for their product.
One thing that does irritate me about the BBC is its arrogance. It has stated (in writing) that it considers everyone to be a customer including all those who do not need a licence for whatever reason. It is unable to accept the concept of a non-customer. You couldn't make it up.
Devil2575 said:
No, he's an idiot for not simply informing them that he doesn't need a license.
Do you inform the CAA that YOU don't need a pilots license?Do you contact your council to tell them YOU don't need a license to sell alcohol?
Do you inform the police that YOU don't need a firearms license?
WHY on earth do YOU think anybody should inform CAPITA that they don't need a TV license when they are not legally obliged to do so, simply to prevent them harassing you by post, and making intimidating threats against them?
Do you actually think it is OK to send out threatening letters, or is it that you would just rather give in to them for an easier life?
Mill Wheel said:
Devil2575 said:
No, he's an idiot for not simply informing them that he doesn't need a license.
Do you inform the CAA that YOU don't need a pilots license?Do you contact your council to tell them YOU don't need a license to sell alcohol?
Do you inform the police that YOU don't need a firearms license?
WHY on earth do YOU think anybody should inform CAPITA that they don't need a TV license when they are not legally obliged to do so, simply to prevent them harassing you by post, and making intimidating threats against them?
Do you actually think it is OK to send out threatening letters, or is it that you would just rather give in to them for an easier life?
It's common for people to watch live TV without a license and it's also something that is quite easy to conceal, hence the different approach.
DDg said:
Under the current law, yes. Hence the plan to introduce the licence for iPlayer usage. If / when that happens, I'll consider my response, but realistically, unless they stipulate that the licence is required for BBC radio listening I can see myself saying goodbye to the BBC.
But look, my original post was in response to your "I'm amazed how many people claim not to watch TV" post (I'm wondering if, between the lines, you might be questioning the truthfulness of these people), and I just wanted to say I don't, because it doesn't suit my lifestyle and also because the output is, with some exceptions, poor quality. In addition, I don't think I stand out from many people, so if I don't watch the BBC any more, I can believe that many others genuinely don't.
My point is that most of these people do watch TV, just not live scheduled programming. I have known a couple of people who genuinely didn't own a TV and didn't watch any TV at all, but they really are in the minority. One lad used to sit round the radio on a Sunday and listn to the Archers omnibus with the whole family.But look, my original post was in response to your "I'm amazed how many people claim not to watch TV" post (I'm wondering if, between the lines, you might be questioning the truthfulness of these people), and I just wanted to say I don't, because it doesn't suit my lifestyle and also because the output is, with some exceptions, poor quality. In addition, I don't think I stand out from many people, so if I don't watch the BBC any more, I can believe that many others genuinely don't.
I can believe that some people don't watch the BBC anymore, there are certainly plenty who seem to resent the fact that it produces programming on scientific subjects that contradict their own world view.
Devil2575 said:
My point is that most of these people do watch TV, just not live scheduled programming. I have known a couple of people who genuinely didn't own a TV and didn't watch any TV at all, but they really are in the minority. One lad used to sit round the radio on a Sunday and listn to the Archers omnibus with the whole family.
I can believe that some people don't watch the BBC anymore, there are certainly plenty who seem to resent the fact that it produces programming on scientific subjects that contradict their own world view.
It is possible to own a tv and not have anything to do with the BBC. I do it myself. Never watch iPlayer, ITV or C4 catchups. Most of my content I view comes from Netflix, iTunes or YouTube. The rest is movies on dvd and playstation.I can believe that some people don't watch the BBC anymore, there are certainly plenty who seem to resent the fact that it produces programming on scientific subjects that contradict their own world view.
I also ignore the letters, I don't like the tone and I'm not legally obliged to send them any details. I value my privacy and contact details and only share them with people who need to know them such as people providing me with a service, the rest of people I don't want to hear from.
With these feet said:
Joeguard1990 said:
Call bulls
t on that one. First of all he failed the 1st test and let them in. 2nd of all he failed the 2nd test and allowed them to use his equipment. Finally you don't need a TV license if you have the Internet.
If you can stream live tv on the internet you do.t on that one. First of all he failed the 1st test and let them in. 2nd of all he failed the 2nd test and allowed them to use his equipment. Finally you don't need a TV license if you have the Internet.http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one...
If you CAN stream Live TV (which every single internet connection is capable of doing if you visit the right website), you dont need a TV License.
It's only if you DO stream live tv then you need one.
Having the equipment to be able to do something is very different from doing it.
I own a car that will do more than 30mph, doesn't mean I can automatically be prosecuted for speeding.
Devil2575 said:
DDg said:
Under the current law, yes. Hence the plan to introduce the licence for iPlayer usage. If / when that happens, I'll consider my response, but realistically, unless they stipulate that the licence is required for BBC radio listening I can see myself saying goodbye to the BBC.
But look, my original post was in response to your "I'm amazed how many people claim not to watch TV" post (I'm wondering if, between the lines, you might be questioning the truthfulness of these people), and I just wanted to say I don't, because it doesn't suit my lifestyle and also because the output is, with some exceptions, poor quality. In addition, I don't think I stand out from many people, so if I don't watch the BBC any more, I can believe that many others genuinely don't.
My point is that most of these people do watch TV, just not live scheduled programming. I have known a couple of people who genuinely didn't own a TV and didn't watch any TV at all, but they really are in the minority. One lad used to sit round the radio on a Sunday and listn to the Archers omnibus with the whole family.But look, my original post was in response to your "I'm amazed how many people claim not to watch TV" post (I'm wondering if, between the lines, you might be questioning the truthfulness of these people), and I just wanted to say I don't, because it doesn't suit my lifestyle and also because the output is, with some exceptions, poor quality. In addition, I don't think I stand out from many people, so if I don't watch the BBC any more, I can believe that many others genuinely don't.
I can believe that some people don't watch the BBC anymore, there are certainly plenty who seem to resent the fact that it produces programming on scientific subjects that contradict their own world view.
The way things are going is changing - traditional broadcast TV will die. If the BBC is such a beloved institution then it will be fine as a subscription service won't it? We are in a world where it is absolutely possible to 'pay for what you use' (water, electricity, data on mobiles, Sky packages etc) so I don't agree with this 'let's all fund it collectively' approach, especially where some of us consume none of the BBC output at all.
Devil2575 said:
It's common for people to watch live TV without a license and it's also something that is quite easy to conceal, hence the different approach.
So because it is in your opinion, common for people to break a law, it is OK to harass law abiding citizens, and threaten them with pseudo legal action because they have (legally) NOT notified CAPITA that they are law abiding, and don't need a license?Mill Wheel said:
Devil2575 said:
It's common for people to watch live TV without a license and it's also something that is quite easy to conceal, hence the different approach.
So because it is in your opinion, common for people to break a law, it is OK to harass law abiding citizens, and threaten them with pseudo legal action because they have (legally) NOT notified CAPITA that they are law abiding, and don't need a license?Even if I did I would still play ball because life is too short.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff