BBC News is independent and unbiased (as much as is possible). This keeps Sky etc in line and they in turn, stay pretty unbiased to compete.
This is rubbish, all UK broadcasters are required to be unbiased in News by Ofcom otherwise they sanctioned. Russia Today has been threatened - see [url= http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/nov/10/russia-today-ofcom-sanctions-impartiality-ukraine-coverage ]here[/url]
Keep it and also charge those who watch iplayer on their tablets, laptops etc. six television channels, six radio stations that include R4 R6 Music and R4 Extra not forgetting R5. All this and no adverts, I would pay more.
Wolf Hall was absoulutely fantastic as a piece of drama. I have no doubt someone else has the completely opposite view re. Mrs. Brown's Boys. Fair enough, both of us enjoyed something. That's how public service broadcasting should work.
Haven't seen Wolf Hall and can't stand MBB but I totally agree. They should be spending the licence fee on original dramas, comedies, documentaries, quality childrens' programs, etc as well as news/current affairs - not shit like Bargain Hunt, quiz/reality/talent shows and imported tv series/films (except in exceptional circumstances).
Agree almost entirely (I like MBB and haven't watched Wolfhall).
I think they should avoid bidding for major sporting events though, I know some fans really like some commentators, but is there really any need for a bidding war between ITV and the Beeb over stuff like the Olympics? If there was a danger of some sports getting no coverage at all (track cycling), not being really suited to add breaks (F1) or being entirely on Sky (Darts?) then maybe it's justified, but there's no reason to even bid on the World cup etc is there?.
And some drama bought in probably wouldnt get shown in the UK except on the beeb (the Bridge, the killing etc) as they just don't get big enough audiences.
And some drama bought in probably wouldnt get shown in the UK except on the beeb (the Bridge, the killing etc) as they just don't get big enough audiences.
ITV3 showed "Those who kill", the very good Irish series "Love/Hate" was on Channel 5, I am sure there are more. Buying foreign series is much cheaper than producing your own on the whole and they all have a lots of channels to fill.
It should move to a subscription-based model. The "You might have a TV so we'll threaten you until you give us some money" system is antiquated and annoying. I'd happily pay a fee for Radio 4, but that's about the only BBC content I use. The news is middling to bad, the TV shows are generally middling to awful with the occasional gem.
I'd happily pay a fee for Radio 4
How would that be enforced beyond "You might have a radio so we'll threaten you until you give us some money"?
Would you be happy to replace all your radios with new ones that accepted subscription cards?
The main problem with the licence fee is that a lot of people use BBC services without paying anything for them. Paying it from general taxation seems logical to me, spread that burden. I'm not as much a fan of the BBC as I once was but on balance it's still a good thing.
scotroutes - MemberIf we really want some form of Public Service Broadcasting then it should be fully costed, fully funded and farmed out via competitive tender.
Why?
"[i]and so apart from a few grumpy old buggers who dont watch TV lest their minds are warped by lizardnews, and another couple of dozen with de-tuned TVs, a pile of DVDs and claim that they only watch stuff on iplayer,[/i]"
I resemble that remark!
Haven't paid it, or watched live TV for 5 years now.
BTW no one seems to have mentioned that the license the BBC holds and collects money for has nothing to do with content - that's covered separately in the BBC charter - its for the right to watch live TV content of any description from any provider on any equipment within the UK. This is why the 'but I only watch ITV/SKY/C4 etc' argument against paying doesn't work in law. Which, if you think about it is very antiquated. Hence also why many people living abroad get the benefits for free - the BBC has no similar remit in Holland for instance yet broadcasts there. Crazy.
How would that be enforced beyond "You might have a radio so we'll threaten you until you give us some money"?
Giant faraday cages dropped over any houses that don't have a license?
For me the regressive nature of the TV licence is the strongest argument against it. It's not surprising however that STW has a good lot of "I'd happily pay more" types given we tend to be a middle class lot and often have the disposable income to afford multiple expensive bikes. 🙂 Compared to the average price of the bikes showed off on this forum the licence fee is chump change. (I'm not excluding myself from that generalisation, BTW!)
On the other hand, one alternative funding mentioned in the BBC article was a compulsory levy applied to all households. While it solves the oddity of people who only access the BBC through things like iPlayer not needing to pay anything towards the cost of those services it hardly seems like a progressive step forward.
Funding the BBC through taxation sounds more promising but some problems with that idea have already been stated in this thread, e.g. more political pressure on the BBC as politicians have a tighter control on its income, and the risk of "hospital beds vs BBC funding" arguments being further used to attack it.
Personally, I'm not sure what the solution is. It may end up being the case that the licence fee is one of those typically British less than ideal bodges that end up sticking around because they are the least worst solution anyone's managed to think of. That's probably why it's survived this long already.
he BBC has no similar remit in Holland for instance yet broadcasts there
No it does not broadcast in Holland. It can be received in Holland (or at least some parts). There is no responsibility for the BBC to support a signal there. But to get it as part of you cable/satellite package I thought you had to pay for as in the Republic of Ireland.
Of course if the Government stopped getting the licence to fund Government activities it would help. The licence fee has to fund the BBC World Service, which used to be funded by the FCO, the fee has funded the move to digital, the fee has funded the retuning of TVs/VCR when C5 came along. None of those are BBC core activities.
I'd be happy for a reduced fee and let the BBC subsidise themselves by introducing Adverts and of course cutting Programming back and also offering subscription services only.
So long as they don't cut BBC 4 and Radio 4 I'll be fine.
[quote=scotroutes ]Funny how nobody mentions that you can choose to pay a subscription for Sky, but you still get bombarded with adverts.
So out of the two ways you can choose to pay to watch live TV, it's only the far more expensive one which pays for a broadcaster who still intersperses their programming with adverts. Good point, well made.
I would happily pay the licence fee for Radio 4 alone. I listen to around 8 hours a week which multiplied over the year is an absolute bargain.
The BBC is a classic case of you won't appreciate just how good it is until it's gone.
[url=
reminder of what the BBc has done. [/url]
The BBC can kiss my peachy little arse. Can't stand the bias that their news reporting shows, or the antiquated lavish lifestyle of some of the employees that it sustains. I don't pay for a license any more.
Oh, and their sports coverage is a string of montages, shown instead of actual competitors. I'm thinking athletics here. Example -long jump, I want to see all the athletes jumps, the Ugandan girl that finishes 7th, the no jump that the 4th place athlete took etc. not just the brit athletes jumps plus the winners jumps. It's useless. When ch4 used to cover it they were much better. The BBC would have you believe that events comprise entirely of British competitors. It's awful.
Oh, and their sports coverage is a string of montages
Stop watching the highlights and watch the main program maybe ?
Yip C4 are much better than the BBC at covering sport 😆
The only problem with the licence fee is the lack of enforcement.
The sense of entitlement shown by the parasites and spongers who regard the fee as optional whilst using BBC services is breathtaking.
I class non payment the same as I class benefit fraud or tax evasion.
footflaps - Member
BBC News is independent and unbiased (as much as is possible). This keeps Sky etc in line and they in t
About half the population of Scotland would disagree with that.
The fee should be dumped. We shouldn't have to pay for a state propaganda service.
[quote=Northwind ]
scotroutes - Member
If we really want some form of Public Service Broadcasting then it should be fully costed, fully funded and farmed out via competitive tender.
Why?Because some folk think Public Service Broadcasting is still a thing. Personally, I reckon it reached a peak with the Green Cross Code man and has never got back even to the dizzy heights of the Royal Observer Corps ads.
I'm sure that even the most avid TV watcher/radio listener doesn't need umpteen channels of PSB at a cost of £4.7Bn per year.
3 quid a week? Outstanding value, I'd happily pay more. Where do we sign?
Bbc is our viewing of choice here in Germany. Its way better than anything terrestrial. No sky or Netflix subs, just UK stuff via a clever bit of software.
I think the BBC produces a lot of good content. However the news coverage in Scotland particularly is very patchy due to a lack of resources. What coverage there is is often unquestioning and biased. For that reason I no longer pay the licence and don't watch "live tv"
For that reason I no longer pay the licence and don't watch "live tv"
But you'll happily watch stuff on iPlayer? Read the BBC news website? Maybe listen to BBC radio?
I would happily pay the licence fee for Radio 4 alone. I listen to around 8 hours a week which multiplied over the year is an absolute bargain.The BBC is a classic case of you won't appreciate just how good it is until it's gone
THIS
It has its moments where it lets you down but overall it is fantastic value for money and the range of programmes, and overall content across various platforms, is a joy to behold.
The BBC is the safest place the country has to keep dangerous, over-educated Left wingers from doing any real damage.
Indeed imagine what a left winger like Clarkson would get up to were it not for the BBC
For what its worth I don't rate the news website and therefore don't use it the only radio stations I can receive are Radio Scotland/Radio Nan Gaidheal and Radio 4 so there's no alternative to BBC radio but still don't rate the news coverage with the possible exception of Radio4 which I listen once or twice a week. Yes I watch maybe one or two programmes per week on iplayer. Once they bring that into the licence fee I'll have to pay up if BBC Scotland has radially improved its news coverage or stop using iplayer if they have not. My issue is not the expense or even the regressive nature of the licence fee. It is the poor service in what I see as the most important function of the BBC
Indeed imagine what a left winger like Clarkson would get up to were it not for the BBC
Hes a plant JY, all part of the bigger plan, why do you think they moved to Salford ?
Stoner - Member
It's the single most regressive tax in the UK. There's nothing else like it.
Football?
At least there are some things where paying to avoid the ads makes sense!!!! Although reeves v Schapps on QT tonight may make me change my mind.
I'd pay it just for the radio stations alone...radio 4/6 music are my constant companions!
[quote=myti ]I'd pay it just for the radio stations alone...radio 4/6 music are my constant companions!
And here's the thing. If they did away with the license fee, you'd still have the option of subscribing to that service 😆
And here's the thing. If they did away with the license fee, you'd still have the option of subscribing to that service
Really or would the less commercial stuff just be canned, would 6 music have existed if the BBC was not funded the way it is?
What radio station can you "subscribe to "?
Surely it would depend on how much/many people were willing to pay for it. There's myti up there happy to pay £145 a year just for two radio stations.
[quote=Junkyard ]What radio station can you "subscribe to "?
Here's one
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/uks-first-subscriptiononly-radio-station-launches-with-comedians-like-richard-herring-aboard--and-its-promising-to-be-completely-uncensored-9150184.html
I think you mean only one rather than one but I have not googled.
Fubar Live is being made available for download on iOS via the App Store, with an Android app following next month. The station promises to be advertisement free.
IMHO if you cannot get it via a radio I dont think you can call it a radio show.
Surely it would depend on how much/many people were willing to pay for it. There's myti up there happy to pay £145 a year just for two radio stations.
OK so a what you are willing to pay system, honesty box type thing. Hard to set a pricing structure and that sort of thing limits future developments to "What will people pay for" part of the appeal of the BBC is the ability to try and do things that may not be considered commercially viable but are valuable in many other ways.
Living in somewhere that has a smaller scale national broadcasted that is getting the same hammering as the BBC (mostly coming from a number of large media organisations operated by Rupert the Media Baron - no conflict of interest there) the value of a non commercial, non ad chasing broadcaster that does not need to follow the political lead/whims of it's shareholder/owner is a refreshing change.
Stoner - Member
It's the single most regressive tax in the UK. There's nothing else like it.
This is absolutely true, but it is also pretty much the only "service" that caters to "taste" rather than "need". It doesn't absolutely obviously fit into the paradigm of "from each according to means, to each according to need".
I'm not completely sure that a shared platform for culture that is accessible to everyone would be improved if higher rate taxpayers felt that they could claim that they contributed more to the BBC and therefore it should give them more than it gave those who contribute less.
That may be the start of an answer to the objection, anyway. 🙂
Have the bbc suffered massive cuts recently?
I have been hanging out with a R4/6 listener of late, and so have got into the habit of turning on R4 when I'm in the kitchen..
Eeerrr... is it just me or is it almost utterly moronic?
I thought it was aimed at the more intellectual audience but it's bafflingly repetitive and about as informative and thought provoking as R1 just without all the crap music
I've been around a bit over the years and I'm yet to find anything close to the BBC for quality and content.
Great value IMO
Has anyone an example of a country that has a better system resulting in better TV and radio?
The technology is there to make it pay per view/encrypted, if its as good as everyone on here thinks it would soon recoup its money and more.
You could also setup up 'bundles' so people could pay for the services they actually want to use as opposed to subsidizing content they don't, my point being that the BBC is probably got to bloated in terms of content, how many TV channels does it actually need, I would say 2 were sufficient to cover a wide base of interests?
Ensuring that minority interests are covered could still fall in that scope, I mean with iPlayer content is generally available 24/7 so doesn't have to have dedicated channel just for specific content.
Using pay services would also mean that those who currently get it free (i.e. Ireland, parts of Europe etc) could also contribute to its coffers.
With the change in how people now watch TV it would make sense to attempt to commercialize the on-line aspects, in fact it would be interesting to see the breakdown in how the BBC gets its money i.e. general license fee against on-line/overseas sales?
For better examples, people make the US TV but in the last 10-15 years its drama and comedy output has far outweighed the UK's (sad to say).
There is some great US TV
The down side with watching it in the US is the almost continuos 'male erectile problem' adverts that show every 10 minutes.
I'm another firmly in the 'cherish it' camp.
I do wonder if they should just concentrate on national broadcast services though, and leave any regional broadcast TV and radio to the commercial stations. I'm sure it's a considerable expense and for most (sweeping assumption) people it's becoming less and less needed/valued.
Can we open this thread up to give some thought to what YOU would change or cut or indeed improve..
I'll start..
Pull out of Salford. I'm sick of all this Northern Bias 😆 Everyone they interview these days is either from Sheffield or Liverpool or Manchester.
Bring in regional Dialect interpretors 😆
Pull BBC 3 (I know it's for the chop) and make the Head of BBC at the time of it's inception pay back all the wasted money *cough* invested in what is a crap channel.
Get rid of that "sports" bloke on BBC News Mike Bushell (It's all about ME! don't you know) 🙄
Cut BBC Local News. It's Ok folks I don;t really want to know about traffic jams nor how many Bus drivers we "need"
Make Radio 1 subscription and Internet only.
Get rid of Steve "it's also all about ME!" Wright off Radio 2 and his cronies,
All the support crew and producers that manage the above and I reckon I've saved about £14bn.
😀
Yeah, lets privatise the BBC! After all its worked out so well with utilities/trains/care/prisons/hospitals/royal mail. Oh...
What the BBC does that subscription channels don't, is provide huge breadth. Take away the license fee and the range of output will drop dramatically.
More importantly, once you privatise the BBC you can't go back. It's not like a rail franchise you can take back after the contract ends. We can't do that to future generations.
Stoner - Member
It's the single most regressive tax in the UK. There's nothing else like it.
The lottery is worse.
if its as good as everyone on here thinks it would soon recoup its money and more.
No it wont it will clearly lose money if it is subscription/fee based and there is no method to subscribe to a radio station for example* . Digital TV was essentially bankrolled by the Beeb when the commercial sector failed for example and they were heavily involved in digital roll out.
Some things need to be state provided to deliver scope and "social goals" as the private sector only deliver what it can make money from- ie operates only for the benefit of its shareholders not stakeholders. The funding method gives it scope to deliver things the commercial sector cannot.
I also never knew how many of you right wing folk here were so committed to redistributive taxation and fairness. Commendable 😉
I would not object to it being funded by direct taxation to remove the regressive nature of the flat rate fee but i doubt that is what was meant
* I think its nature also keeps wages down - i know some are very high- but some of the BBC top stars could earn more if they moved to commercial stations but they stay because they care and /or prestige.
scotroutes - Member
If we really want some form of Public Service Broadcasting then it should be fully costed, fully funded and farmed out via competitive tender.
Northwind
Why?
scotroutes - Member
Because some folk think Public Service Broadcasting is still a thing. Personally, I reckon it reached a peak with the Green Cross Code man and has never got back even to the dizzy heights of the Royal Observer Corps ads.
I'm sure that even the most avid TV watcher/radio listener doesn't need umpteen channels of PSB at a cost of £4.7Bn per year.
You know, I had interpreted Northwind as asking why Public Service Broadcasting should be put out to tender, not why Public Service Broadcasting should be a thing.
You know, I had interpreted Northwind as asking why Public Service Broadcasting should be put out to tender, not why Public Service Broadcasting should be a thing.
And the irony being that it already is put out to tender.
I can't remeber what the %s are but a significant proportion of BBC programming is made by the private sector and BBC production units have to compete with their private rivals for a lot of stuff.
The BBC do do stuff in house but like every other channel that shows original programming they are primarily a commisioning body. It's just the shows they commision are done purely on a ROI basis like a comercial channel.
Spot the difference between the recent BBC and C4 coverage around diet and weight loss. The BBC covered and important scientific study that shows different people respond to diets in a different way, followed it up with an online story and tool for you to use. C4 just roll out endless "point and laugh" at the fatties programs where they came up with the name of the show before the content.
Laughing at fatties can be entertaining but it isn't in a publlic service.
The BBC should move towards the Netflix/Amazon type of subscription service.
rene59 - Member
The BBC should move towards the Netflix/Amazon type of subscription service.
Any reasoning? As new and shiny as the netflix/amazon service is how does it provide a public service? How does it provide minority interest programs, cater for low demand?
Pay to View leads to populist offerings.
Almost everything they offer are repeats/shows done elsewhere with almost zero commissioning....is sky not the same [ aware they have recently done some new stuff]
Not sure how another one helps tbh.
mikewsmith - MemberPay to View leads to populist offerings.
While I don't disagree with your general point, tell this to HBO.
[quote=bikebouy ]Pull BBC 3
How will I get my fix of Family Guy and American Dad?
online as they are pulling it [ both good shows IMHO]
I would quite happily pay the whole fee for R4 alone. If I had to listen to a station with adverts my bike wouldn't get any work done on it.
£12 a month to be able to switch the radio on any time and listen to advert free music, a steady stream of worth watching programmes, access to iplayer and so on.
That'll do me.
i think the BBC is mostly great.
i'm in Germany. radio is generally proper shite here. there is some decent tv broadcasting, but by and large it is mostly regurgitated/rehashed versions of British shows. here we have "deutschland sucht das supertalent" (BGT), "Hölle der Löwen" (Dragons Den), "wohnzimmer helden" (Gogglebox), "Firmen Retter" (like Polizzi/Fixer).
they show quite a few of BBC wildlife stuff here. i'll watch it thinking "i've seen this before" and then as the credits roll see that it was a BBC production, just very heavily edited. i remember there being a big hoo-har about a wildlife programme. maybe it was Africa, but was a whole series condensed into a 2 hour programme.
(strangely, i recently saw a poster for a 2 hour show, along with live orchestra, for the Life Stories series..... Life Stories... a 6 or 7 part series condensed into 2 hours with a live orchestra.... odd, IMO)
even the GF chooses to watch UK output over German stuff.
if i could, i would happily pay to watch the BBC here in Germany. as it is i watch it online via some trickery.
i think that the majority of what the BBC puts on TV is crap. cheap tv filler.
i remember reading something saying that TV should be for the betterment, benefit and education of the masses.
lose BBC3. it's crap. show Family Guy on one of the other channels if you must. no one needs Snog, Marry, Avoid or any of the other crap on there. cannot remmeber tha last time i watched something on BBC3.
stop sending camera crews to auctions, be that house auctions or who-the-****-is-going-to-buy-that-shite auctions.
get rid of any presenters that use yoot speak - this goes for radio, too, so that is most of the R1 presenters out of a job.
ban the BBC from doing any kind of cheap "reality" tv. this includes Fannying About on Ice, Strictly Can't Dance, Noise (think it's the Voice i'm thinking of... and on that note, don't give Will I Am (what a chunt... his name is William - you clever funny funk. ****) any more air time). why compete on that level? leave that sort of LCD* programming to ITV/C4.
more documentaries, even if it is stuff like that (incredibly tedious) Tying a Fly prog that was on BBC4 recently. i don't mind fly-on-the-wall type stuff, just prefer it if the BBC left the point-and-larf stuff to C4 (someone picked up on that earlier).
more original comedy (Detectorists, Office etc). please note that dressing a guy up as a woman, ala Mrs Brown's Boys, does not make something funny.
no day-time soaps. Doctors or WPC 56, for example. never watched it, never will.
kill Eastenders. it offers nothing other than LCD, dregs viewing.
*LCD... lowest common denominator
So once again, get rid of everything you don't watch (but millions do)?
I have no interest in BBC West Midlands - the BBC could save money by getting rid of it.
get rid of any presenters that use yoot speak - this goes for radio, too, so that is most of the R1 presenters out of a job.
So isolate any young people and tell them that the must speakath the royal majesty's finest English, to be honest anyone moving on from Shakespeare or Chaucer is speaking yoof english...
new figures from TV Licensing reveal today that over 28,000 homes across the UK are still enjoying their programmes in black and white.
A colour TV Licence currently costs £145.50. A black and white TV Licence currently costs £49.00.
just throwing that in there
to be honest anyone moving on from Shakespeare or Chaucer is speaking yoof english...
Verily. you say it wearies you, It wearies me
u no wot i mene, blud. get me?
and yeah, get rid of regional stuff. don't know what it costs to run BBC Midlands, BBC East etc, but i always used to turn off or switch over when the regional news came on.
ban the BBC from doing any kind of cheap "reality" tv. this includes Fannying About on Ice, Strictly Can't Dance, Noise (think it's the Voice i'm thinking of... and on that note, don't give Will I Am (what a chunt... his name is William - you clever funny funk. ****) any more air time). why compete on that level? leave that sort of LCD* programming to ITV/C4.
That's probably the only thing in your list I agree with. This category is already well covered on other channels.
The BBC do a lot of rubbish day time tv, yes it's mostly crap, but I bet it's pretty cheap to make and gives retired folk and other stay at home types something to watch. I wouldn't be too fussed if they didn't broadcast after 9am and before 5pm, but I bet there's an audience that would be upset.
Bring back the test card. Hours of cheap tv
[img] 
[/img]
rene59 - Member
The BBC should move towards the Netflix/Amazon type of subscription service.
That presupposes that everyone with a TV has the means to do so. How do you propose that it's rolled out to the entire country?
get rid of the TV licence! it should be funded by subscription by the people who WANT the bbc, just like those who want sky or virgin, its simple basic commerce.
if you don't want it then don't buy it.
Scrap it, either let them advertise or make it a subscription service.
I am more than happy to pay the licence fee for the quality of programming the BBC produces & the lack of adverts.
I watch the BBC daily, listen to BBC radio daily, all other TV channels are inferior.
the You should pay for it by Subscription! I on the other hand really don't like their threatening letters of £1000 fines (unlawful) or jail.
buy it if you want it and don't if you don't! there should be NO force or threats.
[quote=Lawmanmx ]get rid of the TV licence! it should be funded by subscription by the people who WANT the bbc, just like those who want sky or virgin, its simple basic commerce.
Yay for commerce - we should do everything that way. TV, trains, water, post, doctors...
[quote=Lawmanmx ]I on the other hand really don't like their threatening letters of £1000 fines (unlawful) or jail.
So do you watch live TV or not? If you do then you should be paying, which stops the letters, if you don't then tell them which also stops the letters.
and report them as its unlawful
You cannot have subscription radio services you can have the BBC or commercial services.
you wont like this either
The BBC World Service is the world's largest international broadcaster,[1][2] broadcasting news, speech and discussions in 28 languages[3] to many parts of the world on analogue and digital shortwave platforms, internet streaming, podcasting, satellite, FM and MW relays. The World Service was reported to have reached 188 million people a week on average in June 2009.[4] It does not carry advertising, and the English language service broadcasts 24 hours a day.
Impartial news to the world..its comendable
I don't have a TV and ive tried all that telling them crap, but the letters start again soon after, so I say Again, buy it if you want it!
don't make Everyone else pay for what You want tho, Fair I think.
issuance of fine Without due process IS unlawful.
then the fine will be unenforceable as its unlawful
don't make Everyone else pay for what You want tho, Fair I think.
Have you noticed how this website is not free and some folk pay Singletrack and some dont...guess which side you are on whilst telling us all how unfair it is to make others pay for what you want.
Aye but those who don't pay have to put up with adverts. It's not like we take money off everyone that's ever viewed a website on the off-chance they might look at this one.
I don't have a TV and ive tried all that telling them crap
It's not a problem. Tell them you don't have a TV.
yea, I do, then the letters start all over again 🙄
We bought an old terraced house in town recently and we're gutting it and doing it up. We have a licence for the house we live in but we keep getting really nasty threatening letters at the doer-upper from the licensing people. I've been ignoring them. The last one was particularly nasty. It starts by saying "You have not responded to our previous letters. We want to ensure you have the information you need before a hearing is set at your local court".
In other words they are trying to imply that we are to be prosecuted. For not having something we don't need. I've been waiting to see this escalate but unfortunately Mrs BigJohn chickened out and emailed to say the property is unoccupied. No doubt we're in for another type of threat now.