TV licensing (Capita) impersonating police officers?
Discussion
PF62 said:
AdeTuono said:
BertBert said:
AdeTuono said:
I've just received an invoice from a restaurant down the road, for a meal I didn't eat. When I questioned them, they said that it was there if I wanted it.
Should I pay?
Again, not a very good analogy. If you ate it then yes, if not, then no.Should I pay?
And, AFAIK, you don't require a licence to listen to a radio, irrespective of how it's funded.
chunder27 said:
Something to do with a by law, and that is if anyone presumes you have broken the law with no proof that you HAVE, no sort of judgement can be made.
That is conveniently forgotten about.
This is what I was questioning earlier in the thread.That is conveniently forgotten about.
As TV evasion is a criminal offense then evidence put forward for attempted conviction must be of a "criminal level" (if that makes sense) - ie. beyond reasonable doubt. Rather than the evidence level in civil cases whereby its a case of "balance of probability".
If there is no sufficient level of evidence then there shouldn't be a criminal conviction.
Also, if evidence is fabricated (as as been reported a few times with Crapita goons), then such evidence should be scrutinised at the same "criminal level".
Which lead me to wonder how the numbers are so high on conviction rates in the UK ?
Are they all caught in the act - so therefore have to plead guilty? (which of course is the right thing to do)
Lord Marylebone said:
Most of the very left wing friends I have absolutely hate the BBC as they all say it is just a right wing mouthpiece, the voice of the Tories, all that kind of thing.
They aren’t alone either. There are numerous left wing commentators and journalists that are furious over the right-wing bias show by the BBC.
On the other hand, many people are annoyed by the apparent left-wing bias of the BBC.
If you have both the left and the right accusing the BBC of bias, then they probably aren’t too far from being impartial.
This is not a logic step.They aren’t alone either. There are numerous left wing commentators and journalists that are furious over the right-wing bias show by the BBC.
On the other hand, many people are annoyed by the apparent left-wing bias of the BBC.
If you have both the left and the right accusing the BBC of bias, then they probably aren’t too far from being impartial.
All that it demonstrates is that the BBC are biassed. (Either left or right on particular issues). But on the basis that it seems MANY MORE people acknowledge that the BBC is left biassed (including a number of its own employees), the pendulum is very much on the left.
But I think this aspect is covered on another thread dedicated to BBC bias.
Lord Marylebone said:
ChocolateFrog said:
While not as blatant as some broadcasters there can't be anyone left who truly believes the BBC is impartial.
Atleast the others don't try and pretend they're not politically biased.
Most of the very left wing friends I have absolutely hate the BBC as they all say it is just a right wing mouthpiece, the voice of the Tories, all that kind of thing.Atleast the others don't try and pretend they're not politically biased.
They aren’t alone either. [b]There are numerous left wing commentators and journalists that are furious over the right-wing bias show by the BBC.
On the other hand, many people are annoyed by the apparent left-wing bias of the BBC.[/b]
If you have both the left and the right accusing the BBC of bias, then they probably aren’t too far from being impartial.
Labour and their acolytes might make a lot of noise but clearly it's all bluster - for example YouGov have the Tories 7 points ahead of Labour in the opinion polls and Corbyn's approval ratings have fallen to an all-time low according to Ipsos MORI - despite the Tories doing everything they can to shoot themselves in both feet at every opportunity and making a general pig's ear of Brexit etc.
Even with all the Momentum (sorry!) they seemed to have at the last election Labour still couldn't convert that into a win.
Edit:
Atomic12C said:
This is not a logic step.
All that it demonstrates is that the BBC are biased. (Either left or right on particular issues). But on the basis that it seems MANY MORE people acknowledge that the BBC is left biased (including a number of its own employees), the pendulum is very much on the left.
But I think this aspect is covered on another thread dedicated to BBC bias.
I agree with this.All that it demonstrates is that the BBC are biased. (Either left or right on particular issues). But on the basis that it seems MANY MORE people acknowledge that the BBC is left biased (including a number of its own employees), the pendulum is very much on the left.
But I think this aspect is covered on another thread dedicated to BBC bias.
cb1965 said:
oyster said:
A whole year’s access to the widest range of multi-channel programming for the price of a nice meal out.
It’s the best bargain in most peoples’ lives.
Except it's a tax levied not on what you watch or now much you watch, but on the fact you have equipment capable of receiving a broadcast. It's like being fined for speeding becuase you own a car capable of breaking the speed limit.It’s the best bargain in most peoples’ lives.
It also funds the BBC, one of the most corrupt and biased organisations in the world.
Aside from that it's a bargain
Or a tax on income that goes towards paying for a million things you may never use or get benefit from.
To suggest the BBC is biased and/or corrupt is an insult to the hundreds of millions of people in the world who DO live with day to day corruption and bias. Get a grip.
Atomic12C said:
Which lead me to wonder how the numbers are so high on conviction rates in the UK ?
Are they all caught in the act - so therefore have to plead guilty? (which of course is the right thing to do)
The vast majority of convictions are based on a confession obtained by the completion of a Record of Interview form TVL178.Are they all caught in the act - so therefore have to plead guilty? (which of course is the right thing to do)
Like the letter blizzard it is structured on the premise that the interviewee has to be guilty.
The idea that anyone could (legally) be only watching catch up services (other than iPlayer) is completely outwith the BBC's comprehension.
'TV licence' is a misnomer. It is actually a broadcast receving licence (and always has been). It is also a form of taxation which is why evasion is currently criminalised.
A system which incentivises employees of a private company with a target for collection and bonuses for achieving it is deeply flawed.
When I first started watching TV the BBC was the only game in town. Even when ITV arrived on the scene, 'Auntie' was a revered and valued national institution.
Not any more. The decline started many years ago. And if you believe the BBC was unaware of Savile's antics you're living in fantasy land.
John Reith must spinning at the red line.
Red Devil said:
Atomic12C said:
Which lead me to wonder how the numbers are so high on conviction rates in the UK ?
Are they all caught in the act - so therefore have to plead guilty? (which of course is the right thing to do)
The vast majority of convictions are based on a confession obtained by the completion of a Record of Interview form TVL178.Are they all caught in the act - so therefore have to plead guilty? (which of course is the right thing to do)
Like the letter blizzard it is structured on the premise that the interviewee has to be guilty.
The idea that anyone could (legally) be only watching catch up services (other than iPlayer) is completely outwith the BBC's comprehension.
'TV licence' is a misnomer. It is actually a broadcast receving licence (and always has been). It is also a form of taxation which is why evasion is currently criminalised.
A system which incentivises employees of a private company with a target for collection and bonuses for achieving it is deeply flawed.
When I first started watching TV the BBC was the only game in town. Even when ITV arrived on the scene, 'Auntie' was a revered and valued national institution.
Not any more. The decline started many years ago. And if you believe the BBC was unaware of Savile's antics you're living in fantasy land.
John Reith must spinning at the red line.
AdeTuono said:
PF62 said:
AdeTuono said:
BertBert said:
AdeTuono said:
I've just received an invoice from a restaurant down the road, for a meal I didn't eat. When I questioned them, they said that it was there if I wanted it.
Should I pay?
Again, not a very good analogy. If you ate it then yes, if not, then no.Should I pay?
And, AFAIK, you don't require a licence to listen to a radio, irrespective of how it's funded.
PF62 said:
AdeTuono said:
PF62 said:
AdeTuono said:
BertBert said:
AdeTuono said:
I've just received an invoice from a restaurant down the road, for a meal I didn't eat. When I questioned them, they said that it was there if I wanted it.
Should I pay?
Again, not a very good analogy. If you ate it then yes, if not, then no.Should I pay?
And, AFAIK, you don't require a licence to listen to a radio, irrespective of how it's funded.
I know the PH demographic has changed in recent years, but the level of t
ttery you're showing doesn't become someone who's been here for the best part of a decade. AdeTuono said:
PF62 said:
AdeTuono said:
PF62 said:
AdeTuono said:
BertBert said:
AdeTuono said:
I've just received an invoice from a restaurant down the road, for a meal I didn't eat. When I questioned them, they said that it was there if I wanted it.
Should I pay?
Again, not a very good analogy. If you ate it then yes, if not, then no.Should I pay?
And, AFAIK, you don't require a licence to listen to a radio, irrespective of how it's funded.
I know the PH demographic has changed in recent years, but the level of t
ttery you're showing doesn't become someone who's been here for the best part of a decade. KungFuPanda said:
He’s only a freeloader if he watches TV and doesn’t oay the licence fee. If he doesn’t watch tv, why should he pay for the licence?
Agree. Could also be he doesnt watch live tv as he cant afford a licence. That doesnt make him a freeloader, just a poor person..nothing wrong with that btw..A1VDY said:
KungFuPanda said:
He’s only a freeloader if he watches TV and doesn’t oay the licence fee. If he doesn’t watch tv, why should he pay for the licence?
Agree. Could also be he doesnt watch live tv as he cant afford a licence. That doesnt make him a freeloader, just a poor person..nothing wrong with that btw..Lord Marylebone said:
Most of the very left wing friends I have absolutely hate the BBC as they all say it is just a right wing mouthpiece, the voice of the Tories, all that kind of thing.
They aren’t alone either. There are numerous left wing commentators and journalists that are furious over the right-wing bias show by the BBC.
On the other hand, many people are annoyed by the apparent left-wing bias of the BBC.
If you have both the left and the right accusing the BBC of bias, then they probably aren’t too far from being impartial.
This. So much this.They aren’t alone either. There are numerous left wing commentators and journalists that are furious over the right-wing bias show by the BBC.
On the other hand, many people are annoyed by the apparent left-wing bias of the BBC.
If you have both the left and the right accusing the BBC of bias, then they probably aren’t too far from being impartial.
The BBC is big, and a public company, so it's easy to attack with significant personal bias.
Google results:
BBC "right wing bias" = 17k pages
BBC "left wing bias" = 30k pages
While one is higher than the other, both are of the same order of magnitude. Anyone accusing the BBC of open and inherent bias is revealing more about themselves than the BBC.
I raised this topic at work today, and I was quite surprised at how many people expressed their annoyance at having to pay for a TV Licence.
Most of them cited ‘never watch BBC’ and also the fact that most of their TV consumption is Netflix, Sky, Prime, commercial channels, and YouTube.
The general consensus was along the lines of: TV licence should be scrapped and the BBC should make their channels subscription only, and if too few people subscribe to their channels, that’s the BBC’s problem.
The other thing that was mentioned a lot was the TV watching habits of their children. Namely, that they almost don’t know what TV is, and certainly never watch it in the conventional sense.
Under 25’s these days watch a lot on YouTube. Anything beyond that is streamed from subscription services such as Netflix, Prime etc. They don’t even bother with more tailored services such as Sky.
Many of them only own a TV so that they can use it for a games console.
There will come a point fairly soon, where there will be a steady collapse in TV Licencing as young people simply will not be interested in any form of live TV and probably won’t even know what a TV licence is.
But don’t worry, I fully believe that the BBC will find a way to bully a law change though meaning that watching any form of internet video or subscription service will require you to have a ‘licence’.
Most of them cited ‘never watch BBC’ and also the fact that most of their TV consumption is Netflix, Sky, Prime, commercial channels, and YouTube.
The general consensus was along the lines of: TV licence should be scrapped and the BBC should make their channels subscription only, and if too few people subscribe to their channels, that’s the BBC’s problem.
The other thing that was mentioned a lot was the TV watching habits of their children. Namely, that they almost don’t know what TV is, and certainly never watch it in the conventional sense.
Under 25’s these days watch a lot on YouTube. Anything beyond that is streamed from subscription services such as Netflix, Prime etc. They don’t even bother with more tailored services such as Sky.
Many of them only own a TV so that they can use it for a games console.
There will come a point fairly soon, where there will be a steady collapse in TV Licencing as young people simply will not be interested in any form of live TV and probably won’t even know what a TV licence is.
But don’t worry, I fully believe that the BBC will find a way to bully a law change though meaning that watching any form of internet video or subscription service will require you to have a ‘licence’.
As soon as I moved into our new property I transfered the TV licence over and forgot all about it. 18 months later I receive a letter addressed to the previous tenant stating that the two year "No licence needed" exemption had expired and to apply again.
The previous tenants moved to Australia to avoid £50k of student debt so not surprised they said they didn't need a licence.
Part of me thinks I am a mug for paying it when people clearly get away with it, but on the other hand I am the sort of person who would rather pay £150 than risk an akward knock on the door.....
The previous tenants moved to Australia to avoid £50k of student debt so not surprised they said they didn't need a licence.
Part of me thinks I am a mug for paying it when people clearly get away with it, but on the other hand I am the sort of person who would rather pay £150 than risk an akward knock on the door.....
A1VDY said:
KungFuPanda said:
He’s only a freeloader if he watches TV and doesn’t oay the licence fee. If he doesn’t watch tv, why should he pay for the licence?
Agree. Could also be he doesnt watch live tv as he cant afford a licence. That doesnt make him a freeloader, just a poor person..nothing wrong with that btw..My kids don't watch broadcast TV either. Social media has taken over as their main entertainment platform, followed by spotify. When they do watch TV it's something on demand. Waiting for a specific day and time to watch a program is just alien to them!
Even my mother (80) is hooked to netflix/YouTube/streaming. She mainly watches one of the US news channels (she is hooked on US politics/trump). If it wasn't for coronation street she wouldn't need a licence.
98elise said:
You don't need to be poor. My brothers sky system has just died. In weighing up the options he came to the realisation that he doesn't ever watch live TV, yet he's paying for sky and a TV licence at about £70 per month combined. He already has prime so is adding netflix and dumping sky.
My kids don't watch broadcast TV either. Social media has taken over as their main entertainment platform, followed by spotify. When they do watch TV it's something on demand. Waiting for a specific day and time to watch a program is just alien to them!
Even my mother (80) is hooked to netflix/YouTube/streaming. She mainly watches one of the US news channels (she is hooked on US politics/trump). If it wasn't for coronation street she wouldn't need a licence.
Interesting you should say that, my parents are 70, and in the last year have cancelled their ancient Sky package and I got them a couple of new Freesat boxes, which have Netflix and all the other streaming services built in.My kids don't watch broadcast TV either. Social media has taken over as their main entertainment platform, followed by spotify. When they do watch TV it's something on demand. Waiting for a specific day and time to watch a program is just alien to them!
Even my mother (80) is hooked to netflix/YouTube/streaming. She mainly watches one of the US news channels (she is hooked on US politics/trump). If it wasn't for coronation street she wouldn't need a licence.
I was fairly suprised to see them use streaming as quickly as they did.
Here we are nearly 12 months later, and they cheerfully tell me that they barely watch any live TV anymore, but just watch what they want via streaming when they sit down for a couple of hours on an evening.
They are hooked on various Netflix productions like The Crown.
Joey Deacon said:
Part of me thinks I am a mug for paying it when people clearly get away with it, but on the other hand I am the sort of person who would rather pay £150 than risk an akward knock on the door.....
The private parking ticket thread is that way if you like to just give money away. I'm off to pay EE some money now although I'm with 3. Then I'll give EDF some money even though I'm with Bulb.
Why pay for an archaic service mainly unused?
speedyguy said:
The private parking ticket thread is that way if you like to just give money away.
I'm off to pay EE some money now although I'm with 3. Then I'll give EDF some money even though I'm with Bulb.
Why pay for an archaic service mainly unused?
Not sure if serious, but if you are, then those are really daft things to say as is a lot of this thread.I'm off to pay EE some money now although I'm with 3. Then I'll give EDF some money even though I'm with Bulb.
Why pay for an archaic service mainly unused?
It's clear that the Capita thing is very poor and the whole mechanism of making stuff free on an honour basis, then backed up by daft law is not going to work today.
But if you don't want it, don't use it, don't pay. What can be harder than that?
Yes Capita are a pain in the whatsit, but either tell them you are not using it every 2 years or just ignore the nonsense they write (my approach).
Other than being fun forum fodder it's not a big deal.
Bert
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff