Discussion
For me, it's about choice. If I want to watch a certain sport on TV then I either pay to watch it or I don't. I would like that choice with the BBC too.
When I was building my house the carcass was built but it had no roof, windows or doors and I was receiving threatening letters. I eventually rang them to say as such so they would stop harassing me.
When I was building my house the carcass was built but it had no roof, windows or doors and I was receiving threatening letters. I eventually rang them to say as such so they would stop harassing me.
mph1977 said:
Mill wheel
Capita are not the people making the demand
once again your lack of understanding of the issues is showing
Au contraire, it is YOU showing your lack of understanding of the issues!Capita are not the people making the demand
once again your lack of understanding of the issues is showing
The TV Licence Management Team, is part of the Finance and Business division of the BBC, and oversees the TV Licensing system.
The TV Licence Management Team is based at the BBC White City buildings in London. The majority of TV licensing administration and enforcement activities are carried out under contract by private companies.
The major contractor is CAPITA, which specialises in outsourcing for government projects. CAPITA is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the TV licence fee.
CAPITA's TV Licensing operations are based in Darwen, Lancashire.
The services carried out by CAPITA on behalf of the BBC include dealing with TV licence queries, processing TV licence applications and payments and the maintenance of the licence database.
CAPITA's enforcement tasks include visiting addresses to identify people watching TV without a licence, taking statements of the same and making prosecutions of licence evaders.
TV Licensing debt collection is carried out by Akinika, which is a debt collection agency also owned by CAPITA.
Akinika also chase debts on behalf of HMRC, and are another bunch of cowboys with little regard for the laws under which they claim to operate!!
They telephone you and claim to be acting on behalf of the court, with a legal mandate to force you to provide them with information "to identify yourself for security reasons".
I called their bluff and played with them on the phone for 15 minutes the first time, before they gave up. Their record so far is six calls in one day.
Meanwhile (on behalf of the BBC) CAPITA are running a campaign to persuade caravaners and mobile home operators that they need a license, but in response, Martin Spencer, technical manager, The Caravan Club said:
"As caravanners across the UK look forward to a spring getaway, it's wise to check that you are correctly covered by a TV Licence if you plan to watch TV while you are away. The good news is that you may already be covered by your home licence if holidaying in a touring caravan or motorhome so it's worth taking the time to brush up on the licensing requirements.
No licence is needed for a touring caravan so long as a valid TV Licence is held for the main home address."
That is in spite of what CAPITA would have caravaners believe!
It is hard to believe that CAPITA bought out PARKING EYE isn't it!! CAPITA really are just a legalised Mafia, with evil tentacles stretching out into many areas of society.
technodup said:
ut 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...
Listen I agree that the method may be a little 'last year' for you and others but it is a means to an end ie to pay for service that benefits everyone. Please do not however praise commercial enterprises that pay little to no tax. HMRC constantly put plasters on the tax system but new loopholes are found. Most companies would be successful if they did not have to pay tax.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...
Do you think the super rich should collect a Government pension or get a free tv licence (red rag)??? It is legal, they have paid in but is it MORALLY right ??? Legislate for every factor and situation and then it becomes expensive to administer. Pay per view will likely mean the poor will lose out on educational programmes.
You are probably related to the girl I met at the independant service station whilst coming down from Scotland. She would not serve me with x2 bacon sandwiches and x2 cups of tea because the till was broken. I offered to pay cash and maybe even a little over if i did not have the right amount. She was as she informed me a 'Supervisor' and they had 'cash handling procedures'. So I pointed out that her manager/the owner would be paying three members of staff x3 wages for a day but they would collect NO money for the business. I ask you as I asked her "Is that right?" Was it within the rules....... YES. But is it RIGHT?..
Would you be happier if a straight £150 was taken out from you PAYE/ self assessment and then you had to apply for a refund if you did not have a television? I am guessing probably not. I think that you are more of a 'freerider'. Living within the rules of course.
Pip
Ps sorry for caps - not shouting I just cannot be messing with the bold or underline to reinforce the words
Pps You also omitted to mention the EU's fine for their restrictive practices which stifled competition. Why overtly make people pay when you can do it via stealth - ???? So it depends on how you define "compel"
Edited by Pip1968 on Sunday 1st May 14:44
Hackney said:
They moan and moan about being forced to pay a subscription, then go off to watch Super Sunday on their 42 inch plasma having chosen to pay the equivalent to the annual licence fee in under 8 weeks.
FTFY. Choice.Pip1968 said:
Please do not however praise commercial enterprises that pay little to no tax. HMRC constantly put plasters on the tax system but new loopholes are found.
It is one of government's most fundamental tasks, to collect taxes. The fact they are spectacularly bad at it is not my concern, nor Google's. The longest tax code in the world is going to create 'opportunities', and the more they tinker with 'fixing' it the more it will create. Start again.Pip1968 said:
Do you think the super rich should collect a Government pension or get a free tv licence (red rag)??? It is legal, they have paid in but is it MORALLY right ???
I don't think it's morally right to punish success, so yes they should. Pip1968 said:
Pay per view will likely mean the poor will lose out on educational programmes.
I'd love to see the demographic breakdown of viewers of Attenborough documentaries v Jeremy Kyle, just to see how many poor will be missing out.
Hackney said:
Others may make better sports coverage but is that available as "free to air"? No. It isn't.
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 STFU
Jeez... you wake up on the wrong side of your cage today or something? Ha!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 STFUI started this whole topic because I was a little steamed about some aggressive letters I got through the mailbox, more as a s
t rant than anything else. Well, that, and to actually make sure I wasn't breaking some rule or other which stated that I HAD to let enforcement agency in to my home. Which now I'm beyond confident that I don't. Just about the only programmes on the Beeb that I'd actually watch are QI, the F1 (although C4 / Sky have this now) and Top Gear (the old codgers have moved to Amazon, waiting to see the new series). So, I'm going to pay £150/year to watch what? Nowt now! So no, I think I'll be giving that a miss.
To those that have Sky / Virgin / other subscription TV service, it's unlucky that you have to pay the licence on top. But as a serious question - if you are paying for a subscription service, why do you have to pay for a licence? Surely the network operator should pay the Gov't to air it directly, leaving you only with their subscription? Bah, common sense has no place that high up in the food chain!
Finally - to the geezer (or girl!) who complained about the SS or Nazi's or whatever.... WHAT?! This is a few quids to a perfectly legal company to watch TV. Not exactly comparable to the atrocities that were committed when their illustrious leader tried to wipe out an entire race from Europe is it? So naturally, because I am an adult, my response is proportional and appropriate - I don't need to demonstrate, rally and whip the masses into an up-rising over that do I!
technodup said:
Hackney said:
They moan and moan about being forced to pay a subscription, then go off to watch Super Sunday on their 42 inch plasma having chosen to pay the equivalent to the annual licence fee in under 8 weeks.
FTFY. Choice."having to" is the same as "being forced"
rich888 said:
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?
You are aware that there is a thing called the "internet"? And on this "internet" you can tell them that you don't have a TV for free?Flibble said:
have a TV for free?
When taken out of context anything is possible In the meantime, I resent the aggressive nature of the letters from TV Licensing, what happened to good old fashioned manners. If I dared to send out similar hostile toned letters to my customers or anyone else for that matter I would have plod knocking on my door for harassment.
They certainly aren't particularly civil, though that wasn't always the case. Here's one from 1974, much better: http://www.bbctvlicence.com/Comparison%20with%2019... (apologies if this has already been posted, I only skimmed the thread).
TobyLerone said:
Just about the only programmes on the Beeb that I'd actually watch are QI, the F1 (although C4 / Sky have this now) and Top Gear (the old codgers have moved to Amazon, waiting to see the new series). So, I'm going to pay £150/year to watch what? Nowt now! So no, I think I'll be giving that a miss.
To those that have Sky / Virgin / other subscription TV service, it's unlucky that you have to pay the licence on top. But as a serious question - if you are paying for a subscription service, why do you have to pay for a licence? Surely the network operator should pay the Gov't to air it directly, leaving you only with their subscription? Bah, common sense has no place that high up in the food chain!
Because the government decreed many years ago that a licence be required for the privilege of receiving any broadcast irrespective of provider or channel. When it was introduced that's all there was: you tuned in to live TV. The technology for doing anything else (even the humble VCR)* was in the future.To those that have Sky / Virgin / other subscription TV service, it's unlucky that you have to pay the licence on top. But as a serious question - if you are paying for a subscription service, why do you have to pay for a licence? Surely the network operator should pay the Gov't to air it directly, leaving you only with their subscription? Bah, common sense has no place that high up in the food chain!
The money is in effect a hypothecated tax used to fund one particular free-to-air broadcaster. The government is on record as saying that it is the 'least worse' option. Given that 95% of the population (according to TV Licensing's estimate) are paying the fee, the argument that it should not be funded out of general taxation is very weak. For one thing it would resolve the need for the BBC to hire CAPITA to do its dirty work in order to protect its image as a fine upstanding national institution (remind me which one was responsible for giving Mr Savile such a high profile in the first place and allowing him to go about his sordid activities unchecked). It would also stop the unnecessary (imo) criminalisation of over 200 thousand citizens, 70% of whom are female. Both of these can only be a positive result.
* Recording programs while they are being transmitted requires a licence. Something that a surprising number of people still don't get.
so what's to stop me from :
1. setting-up a legitimate, licensed, company, broadcasting on a subscription basis
2. writing threatening letters to every household that i believe may be able to receive my broadcasts, promising visits/court/imprisonment/death if they don't pay my fees
3. laughing at the fools who diligently write back telling me that they don't receive my broadcasts
4. laughing all the way to the bank at the fools who do pay me ?
<-- indicates not too serious, but you get my drift
1. setting-up a legitimate, licensed, company, broadcasting on a subscription basis
2. writing threatening letters to every household that i believe may be able to receive my broadcasts, promising visits/court/imprisonment/death if they don't pay my fees
3. laughing at the fools who diligently write back telling me that they don't receive my broadcasts
4. laughing all the way to the bank at the fools who do pay me ?
<-- indicates not too serious, but you get my driftandrew said:
so what's to stop me from :
1. setting-up a legitimate, licensed, company, broadcasting on a subscription basis
2. writing threatening letters to every household that i believe may be able to receive my broadcasts, promising visits/court/imprisonment/death if they don't pay my fees
3. laughing at the fools who diligently write back telling me that they don't receive my broadcasts
4. laughing all the way to the bank at the fools who do pay me ?
<-- indicates not too serious, but you get my drift
That would be illegal. Bribe a few MPs and get the law changed to make it legal. 1. setting-up a legitimate, licensed, company, broadcasting on a subscription basis
2. writing threatening letters to every household that i believe may be able to receive my broadcasts, promising visits/court/imprisonment/death if they don't pay my fees
3. laughing at the fools who diligently write back telling me that they don't receive my broadcasts
4. laughing all the way to the bank at the fools who do pay me ?
<-- indicates not too serious, but you get my driftPip1968 said:
- 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'.
-
Well Pip, that (writing to TVL suggesting that they write nicer letters to everyone) would be a complete waste of my time and the price of a stamp and envelope and achieve nothing - I'm quite surprised that anyone could be so naive as to think it will achieve anything. -
So, son number 1 has been away at University for three years, and moved each year - from Halls to a flat and back to halls.
He made sure that each time, he had a TV license - despite not finding anyone else with one in Halls or the other flats.
He has now returned home, and is back living with us and our TV license.
So now he has not renewed the license he had in his final year, TV Licensing's highly efficient money extortion scheme has swung into action.
In February, they sent a letter to his old address, pointing out his license had expired (it hadn't, it still had days left to run).
So he goes online to inform them of his change in circumstances and address.
Mid March he gets another demand, so he telephones the number, and points out he has changed his address with them, AND registered the fact he no longer needs a license.
Today, I pick up the post... and there is one of the envelopes I recognise from the ones I get at work, written in a threatening tone.
Curiously they have written to his NEW address, and are threatening to prosecute him for watching TV without a license at his OLD address! Both are clearly identified in the letter!
No mention of who it is from, but the postman probably knows we have a fugitive from the law living under our roof by now!
Ah.. the old "Unlicensed property" ploy.
And WHICH property?
And they are determined that you HAVE to pay - or let them know something they HAVE been told - they even updated the address remember...
Knock yourself out Jane Jeffers, you are welcome to send an officer - but WHICH address are you going to send him/her to?
Better put the license fee up to pay for all this fkwittery!
He made sure that each time, he had a TV license - despite not finding anyone else with one in Halls or the other flats.
He has now returned home, and is back living with us and our TV license.
So now he has not renewed the license he had in his final year, TV Licensing's highly efficient money extortion scheme has swung into action.
In February, they sent a letter to his old address, pointing out his license had expired (it hadn't, it still had days left to run).
So he goes online to inform them of his change in circumstances and address.
Mid March he gets another demand, so he telephones the number, and points out he has changed his address with them, AND registered the fact he no longer needs a license.
Today, I pick up the post... and there is one of the envelopes I recognise from the ones I get at work, written in a threatening tone.
Curiously they have written to his NEW address, and are threatening to prosecute him for watching TV without a license at his OLD address! Both are clearly identified in the letter!
No mention of who it is from, but the postman probably knows we have a fugitive from the law living under our roof by now!
Ah.. the old "Unlicensed property" ploy.
And WHICH property?
And they are determined that you HAVE to pay - or let them know something they HAVE been told - they even updated the address remember...
Knock yourself out Jane Jeffers, you are welcome to send an officer - but WHICH address are you going to send him/her to?
Better put the license fee up to pay for all this f
kwittery!creampuff said:
Don't worry Mill Wheel, just take the advise of Pip earlier on this thread and write a letter in to TVL saying you don't need a licence and could they please send nicer letters out to your son and the 5-million odd other addresses who don't need a licence.
I wonder what an "enforcement officer" gets paid... even one that cannot see that the address they sent the demands to does not match the address they seem to wish to enforce.
It also seems to indicate that the present occupier of the Halls address does not have a TV license - or if they do not have a TV, have failed to record the fact with the TV licensing authority that they do not actually require a TV license... or perhaps like my son they DID, bu the clowns failed to record the fact!!
A decent enforcement officer would have noticed I think!
Mill Wheel said:
Stuff
I find it humorous that a few years ago the adverts aimed at uni students were draconian and threatening explaining that every person in halls MUST have their own licence. Now they're all sweetness and light extolling the virtues of being able to watch tv live. How times change.court said:
Mill Wheel said:
Stuff
I find it humorous that a few years ago the adverts aimed at uni students were draconian and threatening explaining that every person in halls MUST have their own licence. Now they're all sweetness and light extolling the virtues of being able to watch tv live. How times change.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff