Discussion
Devil2575 said:
I don't think it is unreasonable for them to ask you to confirm that you do not need a TV license.
Even if I did I would still play ball because life is too short.
Which is an argument to ignore them completely rather than waste some of that time playing their game.Even if I did I would still play ball because life is too short.
The licence fee is dead in the water, anyone who can't see that is well behind the curve. My concern is they opt to include it in general taxation rather than force a subscription/advertising model on them.
technodup said:
The licence fee is dead in the water, anyone who can't see that is well behind the curve. My concern is they opt to include it in general taxation rather than force a subscription/advertising model on them.
My concern is that the BBC is lost and we end up with a situation like in the US where the media is basically political propoganda.I'm sure some would say that the BBC is just that, but I wouldn't share that view.
DDg said:
Devil2575 said:
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?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?Devil2575 said:
My concern is that the BBC is lost and we end up with a situation like in the US where the media is basically political propoganda.
I'm sure some would say that the BBC is just that, but I wouldn't share that view.
Losing the BBC wouldn't concern me in the slightest.I'm sure some would say that the BBC is just that, but I wouldn't share that view.
Others make as good if not better drama, certainly sports coverage, comedy etc.
Yes we might end up with 'Daily Mail TV' or whatever, but equally without the BBC taking the dominant position across all media other smaller providers would emerge. During the Scottish referendum any number of 'new' media outlets sprang up in opposition to the perceived anti agenda of the BBC. Wings of Scotland being the most well known but there are several others, online, on Youtube and in print. Now obviously they all have an agenda, but if you come from the belief that impartiality is impossible then what you have is choice.
I'd far rather take my pick of Guardian TV, Guido, Bella Caledonia or whatever and draw my own conclusions than be force fed the BBC line at every opportunity, whilst they attempt to extort money from me for the privilege.
The ubiquity of the BBC and it's 'unique funding model' discourages competition and variety of opinion. Level the playing field and things would be quite different.
mph1977 said:
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?
month when going about my lawful business.As it happens I did have a conversation with one back in March (for the first time in at least 25 years). A further difference is that he was polite which is more than can be said of the manner in which Capita phrases its correspondence. The assumption in its very first letter after I moved into my current residence that I must be an evader because there is no licence in force at my address is what I find wholly unacceptable.
The BBC goes to extraordinary lengths to distance itself from the collection process. Why it does so, when it is its responsibility under statute, can only be in order not to be sullied by it. If those letters had the BBC logo on them instead of the fiction that is 'TV Licensing' I bet its corporate image/reputation would take a massive hit. It's nothing more than a cynical damage limitation exercise.
shakotan said:
With these feet said:
Joeguard1990 said:
Call bullst 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.
mph1977 said:
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?CAPITA's demands are not, despite their implication that they are, so not only is the request unwarranted, but it is made in a deliberately deceitful manner.
Devil2575 said:
I don't think it is unreasonable for them to ask you to confirm that you do not need a TV license.
I do. You shouldn't have to continually tell a company you don't want what it sells, only to then have it threaten you on a monthly basis.If they were serious about it, they'd make it subscription-only. It's not like the tech isn't there.
technodup said:
The licence fee is dead in the water, anyone who can't see that is well behind the curve. My concern is they opt to include it in general taxation rather than force a subscription/advertising model on them.
I agree.Mill Wheel said:
mph1977 said:
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?CAPITA's demands are not, despite their implication that they are, so not only is the request unwarranted, but it is made in a deliberately deceitful manner.
Well, that escalated quickly!
Not sure what I thought would happen, but there you go.
To be fair, I guess I was just a little bit annoyed that the TV licence hired heavies kept sending me st. It doesn't keep me up at night, and should anyone (although it's HIGHLY unlikely) call while I am home, I would have no trouble politely asking them to vacate my premises - they were not invited, and have no business to attend at my property.
Very UN-Pistonheads - no violence, death-threats, murder, frozen sausages or 6'9'' powerfully built Ferrari-driving company directors here!
No rhetoric or quasi-freeganist speech from me either. All I want is to be not harrassed! And yeah, I bring a percentage of that by NOT communicating with them. But even still, it isn't a great business proposal to send out very cleverly worded letters, which, to the un-initiated, un-intelligent, or ill-informed, would seem to be a pre-runner for a court summons. Scary stuff!
Had it been less malicious - even from the start - I may have called or wrote in response. However, with red-inked letters demanding(!!!!!) that I let their inspectorate in to my home to pry into my personal life, down to my own corn hole (or so it would seem) for un-licensed broadcast-viewing devices..... Stuff 'em!
Not sure what I thought would happen, but there you go.
To be fair, I guess I was just a little bit annoyed that the TV licence hired heavies kept sending me s
t. It doesn't keep me up at night, and should anyone (although it's HIGHLY unlikely) call while I am home, I would have no trouble politely asking them to vacate my premises - they were not invited, and have no business to attend at my property. Very UN-Pistonheads - no violence, death-threats, murder, frozen sausages or 6'9'' powerfully built Ferrari-driving company directors here!
No rhetoric or quasi-freeganist speech from me either. All I want is to be not harrassed! And yeah, I bring a percentage of that by NOT communicating with them. But even still, it isn't a great business proposal to send out very cleverly worded letters, which, to the un-initiated, un-intelligent, or ill-informed, would seem to be a pre-runner for a court summons. Scary stuff!
Had it been less malicious - even from the start - I may have called or wrote in response. However, with red-inked letters demanding(!!!!!) that I let their inspectorate in to my home to pry into my personal life, down to my own corn hole (or so it would seem) for un-licensed broadcast-viewing devices..... Stuff 'em!
I would counter various comments individually by quoting but there is too much and we are all probably just repeating the same points. So to try and cover all/most:
- BBC funding may well be out of date but it is the model in use at the moment
- PaulJ555, I have worked in AE and dealt with all the drunks causing fights and wanting to be seen first beacuse they have a head injury and think they are dieing. I shall counter have you been to hospitals abroad - more importantly outside Europe??? If the NHS is so dirty, take on the foreign model and pay to go private. Too many complainers who cannot see the alternatives rather than looking to the positive. Have you personally had a bad experience???
- Technodup again, no conflation au contraire, I believe you should pay for both live or recorded. For me it is no different to paying for things I do not use through taxation although you DO USE it just not live. As said they hope to plug this gap. The "crux" does not seem to be "Not live = no licence". It seems to be harassment and those 'not watching' not wanting to pay. For you it may be the "crux" but possibly because morally you are wrong.
- Technodup, the devolution point was referring to your bad business model and paying for something you 'do not use' but please continue to ignore that if it is easier.
- DDg, let us face it not all the programmes will appeal to all but you are in effect paying for the ones you do watch that you mention
- Creampuff, yes I was being serious. Anyone that can "F##k" as much as you is clearly at meltdown point. I am not asking you to run a marathon or fight ISIS just that you may want to vent to the correct people. Writing letters without "F##k" in them is not rocket science and may get you somewhere. Are you afraid the BBC will catch you if you flag up your complaints??? You have spent just as much time on here writing as you would writing to your MP/BBC/Capita. "Nicer letters" as you wish but was thinking more of 'this is the problem and this is the solution'.
- Mill Wheel, you and others should write to voice your concerns and/or let them know that you have no tv/do not watch it and stop their harassment. No different to being expected to fill in a 'nil' return to HMRC that many have to do. I believe everyone will be going that way soon so watch out AND then expect fines and threats of legal action just as Capita seem to do. My God we are all going to die...............
- I think those worried about writing are more worried about incriminating themselves. 'The court may see exhibit A the accused's claim that he had no television and never watched it'. Is that why nobody wants to write? Providing your own noose.
- To all detractors there is much use of the words 'threaten' and 'harass' and I think they are being over used. Those that have been harassed for real - day in and day out threats of violence or sexual assault may contend your use of those terms. We seem to live in a hypersensitive world where people have gone soft. Sticks and stones and all that ... My lord I was at the end of my tether with the constant threat of legal action hanging over me - WTF? What you actually mean is "I 'do not' watch television but kept getting letters through that I happily put in the bin because I could not be bothered to reply"
- Finally then I personally think that the BBC provide a brilliant service worldwide for the masses as well as some small nuggets of gold for 'the more discerning' (???) and whether you listen live or not if you watch OR listen to BBC Radio OR tv morally you should pay the paltry £150 or write to them saying that you do not. If everyone that has complained here was around when Hitler was trying to rule Europe I think that we may have been speaking German - The SS were being nasty to me so I ignored them !!
Pip
-
- BBC funding may well be out of date but it is the model in use at the moment
- PaulJ555, I have worked in AE and dealt with all the drunks causing fights and wanting to be seen first beacuse they have a head injury and think they are dieing. I shall counter have you been to hospitals abroad - more importantly outside Europe??? If the NHS is so dirty, take on the foreign model and pay to go private. Too many complainers who cannot see the alternatives rather than looking to the positive. Have you personally had a bad experience???
- Technodup again, no conflation au contraire, I believe you should pay for both live or recorded. For me it is no different to paying for things I do not use through taxation although you DO USE it just not live. As said they hope to plug this gap. The "crux" does not seem to be "Not live = no licence". It seems to be harassment and those 'not watching' not wanting to pay. For you it may be the "crux" but possibly because morally you are wrong.
- Technodup, the devolution point was referring to your bad business model and paying for something you 'do not use' but please continue to ignore that if it is easier.
- DDg, let us face it not all the programmes will appeal to all but you are in effect paying for the ones you do watch that you mention
- Creampuff, yes I was being serious. Anyone that can "F##k" as much as you is clearly at meltdown point. I am not asking you to run a marathon or fight ISIS just that you may want to vent to the correct people. Writing letters without "F##k" in them is not rocket science and may get you somewhere. Are you afraid the BBC will catch you if you flag up your complaints??? You have spent just as much time on here writing as you would writing to your MP/BBC/Capita. "Nicer letters" as you wish but was thinking more of 'this is the problem and this is the solution'.
- Mill Wheel, you and others should write to voice your concerns and/or let them know that you have no tv/do not watch it and stop their harassment. No different to being expected to fill in a 'nil' return to HMRC that many have to do. I believe everyone will be going that way soon so watch out AND then expect fines and threats of legal action just as Capita seem to do. My God we are all going to die...............
- I think those worried about writing are more worried about incriminating themselves. 'The court may see exhibit A the accused's claim that he had no television and never watched it'. Is that why nobody wants to write? Providing your own noose.
- To all detractors there is much use of the words 'threaten' and 'harass' and I think they are being over used. Those that have been harassed for real - day in and day out threats of violence or sexual assault may contend your use of those terms. We seem to live in a hypersensitive world where people have gone soft. Sticks and stones and all that ... My lord I was at the end of my tether with the constant threat of legal action hanging over me - WTF? What you actually mean is "I 'do not' watch television but kept getting letters through that I happily put in the bin because I could not be bothered to reply"
- Finally then I personally think that the BBC provide a brilliant service worldwide for the masses as well as some small nuggets of gold for 'the more discerning' (???) and whether you listen live or not if you watch OR listen to BBC Radio OR tv morally you should pay the paltry £150 or write to them saying that you do not. If everyone that has complained here was around when Hitler was trying to rule Europe I think that we may have been speaking German - The SS were being nasty to me so I ignored them !!
Pip
-
Pip1968 said:
I believe you should pay for both live or recorded. For me it is no different to paying for things I do not use through taxation although you DO USE it just not live. As said they hope to plug this gap. The "crux" does not seem to be "Not live = no licence". It seems to be harassment and those 'not watching' not wanting to pay. For you it may be the "crux" but possibly because morally you are wrong.
...whether you listen live or not if you watch OR listen to BBC Radio OR tv morally you should pay the paltry £150
FFS it's not a an issue of morality, it's a clearly stated position of licencing. Live = £150. Not live = £0....whether you listen live or not if you watch OR listen to BBC Radio OR tv morally you should pay the paltry £150
I play within the rules the authorities create. And I don't pay the TV licence just the same as I don't pay 21% VAT when 20% is due. Morals have nothing to do with it.
I find the tone of the TV licensing letters very draconian with plenty of legal threats if I don't reply to their threatening demands, and a bit like the obnoxious and very threatening DVLA car TV adverts from a few years ago threatening to crush your car if you didn't pay for your road tax.
But what really annoys me is that I have to respond to their threats by either putting a 2nd class stamp on the envelope to say no I don't have a telly so f*ck off, or I have to phone their chargeable number to confirm same. Why do I have to pay, why don't they provide the necessary means to reply at their expense?
Nowadays I just post these unopened letters from TV Licensing back in the post box, and mark them 'RTS, no TV at these premises'
But what really annoys me is that I have to respond to their threats by either putting a 2nd class stamp on the envelope to say no I don't have a telly so f*ck off, or I have to phone their chargeable number to confirm same. Why do I have to pay, why don't they provide the necessary means to reply at their expense?
Nowadays I just post these unopened letters from TV Licensing back in the post box, and mark them 'RTS, no TV at these premises'
mph1977 said:
point missed , but as is typical for the TV licencing discussion , the view of what is 'legal' and 'lawful ' can be rather flexible ... Man Overboard !
There is no "grey area" between legal and lawful here. I don't receive these letters at home, because I HAVE a TV license at home.
I get them addressed to my place of work... where I go to work, not watch TV, and I, like many others object to the threatening nature of the letters, AND the implied threat that I am legally obliged to contact them to tell them I don't watch TV at work.
To me, these letters fall into the same category as the chancers that write to tell me my web domain is about to expire and I need to send them money to keep it, or the invoice for including my business in a trade directory that is unsolicited and non existant.
technodup said:
Pip1968 said:
I believe you should pay for both live or recorded. For me it is no different to paying for things I do not use through taxation although you DO USE it just not live. As said they hope to plug this gap. The "crux" does not seem to be "Not live = no licence". It seems to be harassment and those 'not watching' not wanting to pay. For you it may be the "crux" but possibly because morally you are wrong.
...whether you listen live or not if you watch OR listen to BBC Radio OR tv morally you should pay the paltry £150
FFS it's not a an issue of morality, it's a clearly stated position of licencing. Live = £150. Not live = £0....whether you listen live or not if you watch OR listen to BBC Radio OR tv morally you should pay the paltry £150
I play within the rules the authorities create. And I don't pay the TV licence just the same as I don't pay 21% VAT when 20% is due. Morals have nothing to do with it.
Pip
Pip1968 said:
Careful, you are beginning to sound like Google. They too think morals have nothing to do with 'it' hence billions earned and only millions paid. Same with some High Net Worth individuals, no morality involved their either. As long as YOU are happy.
But I'm not particularly happy with the situation, neither the collective funding model nor the methods used to collect it.And Google et al work within the parameters created by the governments we elect. If they are not fit for purpose blame the writers, not the players.
Interesting that you mention Google, with it being less than 20 years old and one of the most successful businesses on earth. And one which not only doesn't compel people to use their services, they don't charge when they do, and they certainly don't send the heavies round if you've been flirting with Yahoo.
Meanwhile in BBC dinosaurland...
Pip1968 said:
Mill Wheel, you and others should write to voice your concerns and/or let them know that you have no tv/do not watch it and stop their harassment. No different to being expected to fill in a 'nil' return to HMRC that many have to do. I believe everyone will be going that way soon so watch out AND then expect fines and threats of legal action just as Capita seem to do. My God we are all going to die...............
<<snip>>
If everyone that has complained here was around when Hitler was trying to rule Europe I think that we may have been speaking German - The SS were being nasty to me so I ignored them !!
Pip
-
Pip...<<snip>>
If everyone that has complained here was around when Hitler was trying to rule Europe I think that we may have been speaking German - The SS were being nasty to me so I ignored them !!
Pip
-
The difference is that HMRC have a legal right for requesting their (tax) form to be filled in, and they are sent out to people who pay taxes, not just any Tom, Dick or Harry whose address is not listed as being a taxpayer.
CAPITA has no such legal right, despite their wording which implies that it does... which also addresses your final point, as CAPITA are acting like the SS, making demands with no legal right and like the SS, we should speak out and get it STOPPED, not simply roll over and do as we are told.
If we all thought along the same lines as Devil2575 and others, THEN we might all have been speaking German! He doesn't just think like that, he urges others to do the same!!
technodup said:
osing the BBC wouldn't concern me in the slightest.
Others make as good if not better drama, certainly sports coverage, comedy etc.
Yes we might end up with 'Daily Mail TV' or whatever, but equally without the BBC taking the dominant position across all media other smaller providers would emerge. During the Scottish referendum any number of 'new' media outlets sprang up in opposition to the perceived anti agenda of the BBC. Wings of Scotland being the most well known but there are several others, online, on Youtube and in print. Now obviously they all have an agenda, but if you come from the belief that impartiality is impossible then what you have is choice.
I'd far rather take my pick of Guardian TV, Guido, Bella Caledonia or whatever and draw my own conclusions than be force fed the BBC line at every opportunity, whilst they attempt to extort money from me for the privilege.
The ubiquity of the BBC and it's 'unique funding model' discourages competition and variety of opinion. Level the playing field and things would be quite different.
Others may make better sports coverage but is that available as "free to air"? No. It isn't.Others make as good if not better drama, certainly sports coverage, comedy etc.
Yes we might end up with 'Daily Mail TV' or whatever, but equally without the BBC taking the dominant position across all media other smaller providers would emerge. During the Scottish referendum any number of 'new' media outlets sprang up in opposition to the perceived anti agenda of the BBC. Wings of Scotland being the most well known but there are several others, online, on Youtube and in print. Now obviously they all have an agenda, but if you come from the belief that impartiality is impossible then what you have is choice.
I'd far rather take my pick of Guardian TV, Guido, Bella Caledonia or whatever and draw my own conclusions than be force fed the BBC line at every opportunity, whilst they attempt to extort money from me for the privilege.
The ubiquity of the BBC and it's 'unique funding model' discourages competition and variety of opinion. Level the playing field and things would be quite different.
Subscription channels have outbid the BBC for several sports and then pass on that cost to their subscribers in either higher charges, new charges or pay per view.
The funny thing is, this doesn't get mentioned by the anti-BBC licence lot. They moan and moan about having to pay a subscription, then go off to watch Super Sunday on their 42 inch plasma having paid the equivalent to the annual licence fee in under 8 weeks.
Instead of b
hing about the licence, screaming "but I don't watch live TV" or moaning about big brother sending you the odd letter until you're blue in the face just pay the bloody licence fee and STFUGassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff