Freedom from TV license oppression

[pcvdriver]

McWigglebum4th said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26623...

Moves are to make it only a civil offence to stop paying for the constant communist output from the BBC

So who is going to stop paying for the 24 hour non stop Labour party broadcast?

though personnally i can't see the huge left wing bias probably because i'm lefty scum

I think we all know that to be a lie of sorts (well a total lie, as we all know that you are in fact a nutty UKIPer) In fact come September 19th of this year paying for the BBC might not be an issue North of the border at all. Or are you still selling up and moving South in the event of a Yes vote?.....or is that all bluff and bluster on your part?

Edited by pcvdriver on Tuesday 18th March 11:59

[onomatopoeia]

AJS- said:

Great idea.

It's not about the level of the tax, it's the principle. Why should everyone who owns a television pay for one particular broadcaster?

They don't have to. It is not ownership of receiving equipment that attracts the licence fee in the UK, as posts prior to yours have already stated. I am curious why you would make this assertion given that it is clearly incorrect.

Still, if you don't like I suggest you move to Denmark. There ownership of an internet connection capable of receiving streaming video attracts the TV licence fee, whether you watch live TV or not. This includes 3G data on mobile phones. This according to a Danish friend.

[AJS-]

Harry
Surely the fact that it relies of legislation to collect it's funding and a government charter pretty much negates the idea of independence anyway? It's like saying BP is independent but you must, by law, pay them £50 every time you fill up at a Shell or Esso station.

Corp
That's good. I consider my favourite restaurant good value for money, and if everyone who eats out pays just £1 a time on top of their bill I could eat there every night. Paypal or bank transfer is best, 3% extra for credit cards.

Onomatopoeia
It's clear to you. Not to the single mothers, old age pensioners and foreign students who end up in court when they "admit" to the heinous crime of watching live broadcasts on the TV.

[AJS-]

There's also the question of how independent the politicians are of the BBC. As mentioned in the article the BBC is currently lobbying MPs to maintain the status quo. It's quite a brave move to go strongly against the BBC given the level of control they have over the news media in the UK.

[onomatopoeia]

AJS- said:

Onomatopoeia
It's clear to you. Not to the single mothers, old age pensioners and foreign students who end up in court when they "admit" to the heinous crime of watching live broadcasts on the TV.

If, like you, any of them were posting on this topic, then it would be "clearly incorrect" as I stated.

I'm surprised you think those classes of people are somehow unable to navigate the internet to the TVL website to learn the situations in which a licence is required. My parents, for example, are both old enough to qualify for a free TV licence, yet they have not yet lost the ability to use a web browser.

[AJS-]

Well there were 155,000 people convicted fof licence offences in 2012, so are they all hardened criminals or bloody minded zealots in your world? Or are they mostly people who simply don't understand it or people to whom £145 would actually leave a big hole in their money?

And for the foreign students (I knew one who was prosecuted) - of all the things you might Google when moving to a foreign country and starting a Masters degree it's easy to see how "do I need to buy a licence to watch live broadcasts on television receiving equipment" might slip through the net.

[gherkins]

onomatopoeia said:

They don't have to. It is not ownership of receiving equipment that attracts the licence fee in the UK, as posts prior to yours have already stated. I am curious why you would make this assertion given that it is clearly incorrect.

Still, if you don't like I suggest you move to Denmark. There ownership of an internet connection capable of receiving streaming video attracts the TV licence fee, whether you watch live TV or not. This includes 3G data on mobile phones. This according to a Danish friend.

Same in Germany - and it costs more than the UK licence for utter crap. I would happily pay double to the BBC if I could legally get it instead of funding oompah oompah music or reruns of MacGyver and Columbo (of course not available in original version as you have to protect your poor dubbing artists).

[AJS-]

You don't actually have to have a TV licence at all, you know.

[anonymous-user]

I long for the days when we will be free of the oppression of those who cannot spell licence. In S, P & L they run rampant over the rights of the literate. How sad to see this happening here in the august and learned purlieus of N, P & E

[onomatopoeia]

AJS- said:

Well there were 155,000 people convicted fof licence offences in 2012, so are they all hardened criminals or bloody minded zealots in your world?

Neither, in the same way that the majority of people that get 3 points and a fine for speeding are usually not hardened criminals or zealots.

[onomatopoeia]

Breadvan72 said:

I long for the days when we will be free of the oppression of those who cannot spell licence.

Perhaps you could advise them of the correct spelling. Or maybe offer them advice.

[anonymous-user]

I need to practise that practice. Can we not devise a device that will offer a defence to those who are defensive about spelling?

[NH1]

Type R Tom said:

First thing I thought was if it became a civil matter the type of companies that would go for the contract would prove to be quite unpleasant for those without a licence.

Personally I think it should be scrapped altogether, however at the moment is is a criminal matter and the burden of proof to convict is "beyond reasonable doubt" so if you are clued up then its quite easy to make the case go away if you are unfortunate enough to get caught.
However a civil case is "on the balance of probabilities" and as we have seen in the parking threads the case can go either way.

Me personally I've not had a licence for at least 10 years as I dont watch live TV. I managed to watch the latest Top Gear episode just fine last night without breaking any laws but on the balance of probabilities I probably watched it on Sunday because everyone watches TV right?

[KingNothing]

Wouldn't be surprised if the cheeky s tried to change it so the "offence" was simply owning a TV instead of the current; using it to recieve live broadcasts.

[Cheese Mechanic]

KingNothing said:

Wouldn't be surprised if the cheeky s tried to change it so the "offence" was simply owning a TV instead of the current; using it to recieve live broadcasts.

Unlikely, Its highly possible that Milli , will slap a tax on the net, using the BBC as an excuse.

After all, he is not goingg to see the public funded media arm of the Labour Party at risk, is he.

[pcvdriver]

onomatopoeia said:

Neither, in the same way that the majority of people that get 3 points and a fine for speeding are usually not hardened criminals or zealots.

There again, speeding (or more correctly, inappropriate use of speed) and watching a television whilst unlicenced do not pose the same levels of risk to members of the general public who happen to be out and about at the time.

[FredClogs]

I've no doubt that the BBC have a roadmap and a plan of how they're going to manage in the 2online" age. Recently when they announced that BBC3 was going online only through the iPlayer a top brass bloke answered several questions on how they were going to manage limiting it to license payers only.

The truth is that the BBC is impartial and that it's very good value for money and is one of Britain's greatest success stories, but some people just don't want to hear that.

[supersingle]

pcvdriver said:

onomatopoeia said:

Neither, in the same way that the majority of people that get 3 points and a fine for speeding are usually not hardened criminals or zealots.

There again, speeding (or more correctly, inappropriate use of speed) and watching a television whilst unlicenced do not pose the same levels of risk to members of the general public who happen to be out and about at the time.

I'm not so sure. There are plenty of dullards out there who receive their knowledge from BBC Breakfast and The One Show. I'd rather take my chances in traffic thank you very much.

[Ozzie Osmond]

FredClogs said:

The truth is that the BBC is impartial and that it's very good value for money and is one of Britain's greatest success stories, but some people just don't want to hear that.

To my mind one of the biggest issues for the BBC is that its traditional "advantage" is evaporating. Namely, being the only channels with "no adverts".

With more and more people watching online or using digital recorders it's become very cheap and easy to suppress the massive amount of ads shown per hour on the live commercial channels. Never takes me anything over 45 minutes to watch a one hour show.

[McWigglebum4th]

Ozzie Osmond said:

To my mind one of the biggest issues for the BBC is that its traditional "advantage" is evaporating. Namely, being the only channels with "no adverts".

With more and more people watching online or using digital recorders it's become very cheap and easy to suppress the massive amount of ads shown per hour on the live commercial channels. Never takes me anything over 45 minutes to watch a one hour show.

I haven't seen an advert for at least 5 years

Oh and ITV is still crap even without adverts

Which is odd as they produced a wonderful program that was shown on BBC2 only

Edited by McWigglebum4th on Tuesday 18th March 18:04