TV licensing (Capita) impersonating police officers?
Discussion
PF62 said:
The government has decided the UK needs a public service broadcaster. Turning the BBC into a subscription model means it would no longer be a public service broadcaster.
Anyway, you are not forced to pay for it - just don't watch live TV and don't buy a licence.
Except, unlike any other optional service or product, you don't get people knocking on your door demanding proof you aren't using it and threatened with jail if you are.Anyway, you are not forced to pay for it - just don't watch live TV and don't buy a licence.
PF62 said:
The government has decided the UK needs a public service broadcaster. Turning the BBC into a subscription model means it would no longer be a public service broadcaster.
Anyway, you are not forced to pay for it - just don't watch live TV and don't buy a licence.
Or watch iplayer.Anyway, you are not forced to pay for it - just don't watch live TV and don't buy a licence.
A Winner Is You said:
Except, unlike any other optional service or product, you don't get people knocking on your door demanding proof you aren't using it and threatened with jail if you are.
So lobby your MP for it to be paid for through general taxation rather than the government passing the buck for collection to the BBC.PF62 said:
A Winner Is You said:
Except, unlike any other optional service or product, you don't get people knocking on your door demanding proof you aren't using it and threatened with jail if you are.
So lobby your MP for it to be paid for through general taxation rather than the government passing the buck for collection to the BBC.Graveworm said:
His tax money pays his salary.
You sure?https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk...
Shuvi McTupya said:
PF62 said:
So which group do you want to be in - The one which gets a small amount of resource dedicated to letters and visits, or the group which gets almost all the resource?
I want to be in the group who are not hassled and bullied into financially supporting the state broadcaster under threat of imprisonment.Oh, that's not an option, sorry
Btw, the Scots have a rather more enlightened approach - https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-201900001045...
PF62 said:
Don't like it then lobby your MP to do away with the TV licence and fund the BBC from central taxation.
Completely pointless. The politicians have already set their face against it. When the BBC's Charter expired in 2016 it just got rolled over for another 10 years.The BBC exists with the specific approval of the reigning monarch supported and advised by the government. You can't get any more Establishment than that.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170806225843/http://...
The inclusion of the word independent in that document does not make it so.
Graveworm said:
psi310398 said:
What’s wrong with subscription? If people value the BBC’s output, they’ll pay for it. If enough people pay, it will be viable. If enough don’t why on earth should we be forced to pay for it?
Same as all public services, many have commercial offset and a commercial side. Everyone pays regardless of use. However they are centrally funded to allow them to deliver services that are not cost effective and to remove commercial influence. The TV Licence is, of course, designed to keep it independent of government as well. it's a government decision what is and isn't a public service and how it's funded. Lot's I disagree with I happen to agree with the BBC, I think the majority do as well. The Royal Charter, the BBC Trust, it's replacement the BBC Board, etc, etc. are an ongoing charade. Smoke and mirrors designed to allow the Corporation to maintain the illusion.
The money collected goes into the government's Consolidated Fund and the DCMS is responsible for dishing it out.
It's a state broadcaster wearing a mask. A state broadcaster, ipso facto, is not independent. To think otherwise is a fantasy. Comforting it may be but it's still a fantasy.
PF62 said:
Anyway, you are not forced to pay for it - just don't watch live TV and don't buy a licence.
I do exactly that. The BBC (aka TVL/C*apita) still keeps my postie busy though. However, unlike some folk, I'm not intimidated by its free bog roll. A pity it isn't softer, but you can't have everything. 
PF62 said:
Anyway, you are not forced to pay for it - just don't watch live TV and don't buy a licence.
But you are forced to prove you do not need a licence. No-one asks for the BBC to send its signal to us, it chooses to do so and then comes after you because it did so.Meaning you have to pay to the BBC for the right not to watch it when you did not ask for or want it anyhow.
This cannot be right in these days of hundreds of channels out there, all of which know for them to survive we all must pay the BBC too.
PF62 said:
Same as it isn't an option for the BBC not to seek out those who should have bought a licence and didn't.
Don't like it then lobby your MP to do away with the TV licence and fund the BBC from central taxation.
I tried that once. My MP forwarded my Letter to the BBC who responded directly to me with a standard letter justifying themselves and then continued to send me their unsolicited junk mail.Don't like it then lobby your MP to do away with the TV licence and fund the BBC from central taxation.
Shuvi McTupya said:
I tried that once. My MP forwarded my Letter to the BBC who responded directly to me with a standard letter justifying themselves and then continued to send me their unsolicited junk mail.
This is where I have high hopes of Dominic Cummings - given that the BBC is already gunning for him and his master, there is little to lose in dealing once and for all with the BBC. My own view is that the amount of genuine public service broadcasting as opposed to middle class subsidy is pitifully small and Ofcom could cater for it by offering five or ten year concessions under competitive tender. The rest should just be privatised.
Red Devil said:
You'll have to excuse me while I have a giraffe. Independence is a fig-leaf for public consumption.
The Royal Charter, the BBC Trust, it's replacement the BBC Board, etc, etc. are an ongoing charade. Smoke and mirrors designed to allow the Corporation to maintain the illusion.
The money collected goes into the government's Consolidated Fund and the DCMS is responsible for dishing it out.
It's a state broadcaster wearing a mask. A state broadcaster, ipso facto, is not independent. To think otherwise is a fantasy. Comforting it may be but it's still a fantasy.
Just because something or somebody is paid by the “State”, doesn’t mean that they can’t be independent of the “State”.The Royal Charter, the BBC Trust, it's replacement the BBC Board, etc, etc. are an ongoing charade. Smoke and mirrors designed to allow the Corporation to maintain the illusion.
The money collected goes into the government's Consolidated Fund and the DCMS is responsible for dishing it out.
It's a state broadcaster wearing a mask. A state broadcaster, ipso facto, is not independent. To think otherwise is a fantasy. Comforting it may be but it's still a fantasy.
jondude said:
PF62 said:
Anyway, you are not forced to pay for it - just don't watch live TV and don't buy a licence.
But you are forced to prove you do not need a licence. No-one asks for the BBC to send its signal to us, it chooses to do so and then comes after you because it did so.Meaning you have to pay to the BBC for the right not to watch it when you did not ask for or want it anyhow.
This cannot be right in these days of hundreds of channels out there, all of which know for them to survive we all must pay the BBC too.
There is no obligation whatsoever for anyone to contact the BBC/TVL/C*apita.
Confirmed in a Parliamentary Written Answer. Difficult to get more authoritative than that.
House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 15 May 2006 said:
Mr. Holloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether those who do not have a television set are required to inform Television Licensing that they do not require a TV licence.
Mr. Woodward: A television licence is required to install or use a television receiver, as defined in regulations made by the Secretary of State, rather than a television set. Members of the public who do not require a television licence are under no obligation to inform TV Licensing of the fact.
.Mr. Woodward: A television licence is required to install or use a television receiver, as defined in regulations made by the Secretary of State, rather than a television set. Members of the public who do not require a television licence are under no obligation to inform TV Licensing of the fact.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmh...
The position has not changed one iota despite what the BBC/TVL/C*apita would have you, or anyone else, believe.
If Parliament (i.e. the government) had considered it necessary it would have legislated for it. It didn't. Finis.
Countdown said:
Red Devil said:
You'll have to excuse me while I have a giraffe. Independence is a fig-leaf for public consumption.
The Royal Charter, the BBC Trust, it's replacement the BBC Board, etc, etc. are an ongoing charade. Smoke and mirrors designed to allow the Corporation to maintain the illusion.
The money collected goes into the government's Consolidated Fund and the DCMS is responsible for dishing it out.
It's a state broadcaster wearing a mask. A state broadcaster, ipso facto, is not independent. To think otherwise is a fantasy. Comforting it may be but it's still a fantasy.
Just because something or somebody is paid by the “State”, doesn’t mean that they can’t be independent of the “State”.The Royal Charter, the BBC Trust, it's replacement the BBC Board, etc, etc. are an ongoing charade. Smoke and mirrors designed to allow the Corporation to maintain the illusion.
The money collected goes into the government's Consolidated Fund and the DCMS is responsible for dishing it out.
It's a state broadcaster wearing a mask. A state broadcaster, ipso facto, is not independent. To think otherwise is a fantasy. Comforting it may be but it's still a fantasy.
The licence fee is a tax. Taxation is a government activity. The government thereby ultimately controls the BBC's purse strings. The ability to control the money supply confers a great deal of power.
Comedy maybe but consider who provided much of the source material for the series - https://vimeo.com/155307641
Getting back on track, let me ask you this. If I were to write to you, a total stranger, in such language* and threatening to doorstep you looking for evidence/proof, I reckon you would say to yourself "who the
does this jerk think he/she is? He/she can right off".* Couched in a manner which conveys a clear pre-conceived assumption that the lack of one means that you must be breaking the law: i.e. a criminal.
Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence? Ayn Rand was right on the money.
jondude said:
No-one asks for the BBC to send its signal to us.
The government did.The government believes the UK needs a public service broadcaster.
Don't like it, then pick another government.
Shuvi McTupya said:
PF62 said:
Same as it isn't an option for the BBC not to seek out those who should have bought a licence and didn't.
Don't like it then lobby your MP to do away with the TV licence and fund the BBC from central taxation.
I tried that once. My MP forwarded my Letter to the BBC who responded directly to me with a standard letter justifying themselves and then continued to send me their unsolicited junk mail.Don't like it then lobby your MP to do away with the TV licence and fund the BBC from central taxation.
t MP - time to pick a better one.
Red Devil said:
I agree. However the key question in this case is whether it is. I don't believe so. YMMV.
The licence fee is a tax. Taxation is a government activity. The government thereby ultimately controls the BBC's purse strings. The ability to control the money supply confers a great deal of power.
MM does indeed V.The licence fee is a tax. Taxation is a government activity. The government thereby ultimately controls the BBC's purse strings. The ability to control the money supply confers a great deal of power.
The influence of Govt over the message pumped out by the Beeb is very small. The Beeb is more accused of being a bunch of lefties rather than some mouthpiece of the State.
PF62 said:
jondude said:
No-one asks for the BBC to send its signal to us.
The government did.The government believes the UK needs a public service broadcaster.
Don't like it, then pick another government.
.
However, if the receiver of the signal (the citizen) does not want the very kind signal the government asks the BBC to send us, why should the citizen have to put up with such harassment?
I do not object to a check but that has to be it. As it is, no matter what you do Capita will come after you like nutters - it starts up again even if you let them in and they can clearly see no television.
It should be Capita write and if I sign a letter back that I do not need a licence that they then leave it.
If no matter what I say they will refuse to believe me and keep threatening to knock at my door and 'speak to me under caution' it is clear to see the pressure being put on people just to pay up so they can relax - even if they do not need a licence.
Red Devil said:
You are not compelled to do any such thing. The applicable legislation contains no such provision.
There is no obligation whatsoever for anyone to contact the BBC/TVL/C*apita.
Confirmed in a Parliamentary Written Answer. Difficult to get more authoritative than that.
..
Good post There is no obligation whatsoever for anyone to contact the BBC/TVL/C*apita.
Confirmed in a Parliamentary Written Answer. Difficult to get more authoritative than that.
..
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff