Forum menu
Fair enough though, there’s some quality content there. Why not lump the fee into income tax instead of the current sinister method of collection?
Because then it becomes really political.
Imagine Nadine Dorries if she actually thought she had a mandate to defund the BBC, and the ability to act on it, because it would almost certainly end up in their manifesto.
Do you use the fire brigade
Nope. Isn’t that paid out of council tax anyway? Which is means tested…
Worst. Analogy. Ever.
The BBC should be independent and able to call our politicians and their policies to account.
Anyone who doesn't believe that in last few years there has been a right wing "coup",(that's quite a charge) just needs to listen to the Emily Maitlis speech she gave a few months after resigning from the BBC.
Ironically, it was Tony Blair who made the changes that allowed the government to meddle in the senior management.
It means left handed? *scratches head*
Oh behave tj. You’re not from the 17th century and neither is Binners. Or are you just showing how clever you are because you watched QI last night 😉
I for one am happy to buy a license fee and for all of it to go to the BBC. On a per hour basis it's a ridiculously small amount of money for the use I get out of it and that's just relative to their radio output.
I could quite happily see the back of Mrs Brown's Boys and East Enders but there's some gems in the output and I love iPlayer's functionality and the lack of adverts throughout.
It would be a shame for this to precipitate a sell off and ruin it.
🙂
I havent watched the bbc in years, live or recorded, or listened to their radio stations, find them incredibly boring, but according to the licencing website :
''If you watch or record TV on any channel via any TV service (e.g. Sky, Virgin, Freeview, Freesat), you need to be covered by a TV Licence. If you watch live on streaming services (e.g. ITVX, All 4, YouTube, Amazon Prime Video, Now, Sky Go), or use BBC iPlayer*, you need to be covered by a TV Licence.''
So according to that because I pay to have now tv & netflix i need to pay the bbc..., hows that work..??
@bigdawg I know nothing about Netflix and Now tv but are you using the on demand function ie streaming as opposed to watching live?
From website:
Subscription channels like Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Now TV, Disney Plus and Sky Go are television services that are normally paid for on a monthly basis via cable, satellite or the internet.
You will need a TV Licence if you watch live TV on a subscription channel.
But you don’t need a TV Licence if you only watch on demand programmes (other than those on BBC iPlayer) on paid-for subscription channels.
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">I binned my TV license off 2 years ago and I don’t miss it.</span><span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">
some good information here. </span>
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/broadband-and-tv/tv-licence/
''cinnamon_girl
Full Member
@bigdawg I know nothing about Netflix and Now tv but are you using the on demand function ie streaming as opposed to watching live?''
no just streaming even the 'live' channel is just streaming
Nope. Isn’t that paid out of council tax anyway? Which is means tested…
Worst. Analogy. Ever.
It's partly paid for by council tax.
Point is, you're paying for something you don't personally use because (at least in part) it benefits someone other than yourself. "The greater good," if you like. If everyone could pick and choose not to pay for services they didn't want, there wouldn't be enough money left to fund the ones that they did. Over half of my council tax goes to social care; I don't need that, why should I be paying for it?
I pay for a TV licence. I actually watch very little live TV. Only Connect, Doctor Who, Death in Paradise (don't judge me) and that's about it. Couldn't give a toss about football, if it disappeared totally from TV and radio it would make me happy. My entire sports viewing consumption is the Superb Owl once a year.
But.
Without the funding from people wanting to watch sportsball, or Strictly, or Bellenders, or whatever, then (frankly astonishing) programmes like Attenburough's documentaries wouldn't exist. And that, I think, would be a crying shame.
Paying only for the programmes you care about is a very Tory notion, and is a fast-track to ensuring that the only thing ever created in future is cheap but lucrative shite like new episodes of Mrs Brown's Boys.
So according to that because I pay to have now tv & netflix i need to pay the bbc…, hows that work..??
If you watch or record live as-broadcast TV then you need a licence regardless of medium or provider. If you're streaming live TV then it still counts, pulling it over the Internet rather than down a regular terrestrial aerial is not a loophole.
If you don't watch live TV then you don't need a licence. On-demand viewing via Netflix or anything else other than iPlayer does not require a TV licence.
Honestly, this licensing model is surely on borrowed time. There's going to come a point where (aside from live events) the notion of scheduled TV broadcasts will seem as alien as having to rush home to catch your favourite show back in pre-VCR days seems today.
We know what commercially funded TV looks like, we have lots of it already. BBC is worth it.
That said. Their license collection monkeys can do one.
I don't mind paying the licence fee. I think it offers value for money.
I never watch live TV anymore. Don't see the point.
I started watching Wild Isles the other night, live through the iPlayer. Then turned it off, as I could watch it in UHD on catch up.
Aye, you’re right of course Cougar. And it’s well worth the money. Can’t argue with the value. R3 or 6M would be worth it on their own. It’s actually worth it just for the World Snooker Championship coverage which is better than going to see it in the flesh, not to mention cheaper than a couple of tickets. My issue is with the method of collection. Should be added to general taxation or something and means tested. Or if not, knock off the default stance of ‘guilty until proved innocent’ (for a while) with the use of sinister goons trying to intimidate vulnerable people.
The scourge of the merciless jackboot of our authoritarian state broadcaster is truly one of the great challenges presently facing democracy
I'm happy paying the fee for the radio content I enjoy, plus the odd bit of TV - even watched live sometimes, though rare. Except the snooker - that's best watched live!!
I love iPlayer’s functionality
Except fast forward/rewind...dreadful 😂
with the use of sinister goons
Who knew there were so many left-handed goons?? 🤷♂️ 🤣🤣
If you want a vision of the future Binners. Imagine a boot stamping on a human face. Forever.
- British Broadcasting Corporation
Merely can’t understand why anyone wouldn’t be prepared to pay for it.
Maybe because I don't use it! I don't listen to radio and 99% of BBC TV output is shite. I would happily just the few things I do watch with adverts. I watch all other channels with adverts so not a big deal.
My issue is with the method of collection.
No arguments there.
I think it partly stems from the notion that "everyone has a TV" therefore everyone needs a licence. It would be considered weird to not have a TV these days. The only person I know who doesn't have one is TJ and, well, QED. 😁 Conclusion: if you don't have a licence then it's highly likely that you're breaking the law.
This presumption might have held water twenty or thirty years ago. But it falls down today because there are so many alternatives to broadcast television. Netflix, Prime, Disney+ et al, there's a new on-demand streaming provider (with an associated cost) popping up every week; movies and box sets on shinydisc; games consoles etc.
Licence enforcement via fear is nothing new, I remember the almost certainly fictitious threat of "detector vans" back in the 1970s. But these days we really shouldn't have to endure Guilty Until Proven Innocent. They just cannot make that assumption any more (and arguably they never should). It makes little more sense than knocking on your door asking why you haven't got a shotgun licence (though is likely slightly less hazardous😁).
I watch all other channels with adverts so not a big deal.
Then you're doing so illegally, you need a licence.
A truly poisonous and vitriolic article about Lineker by julie burchill in the Spectator's online lunchtime update.
Will post link later.
Then you’re doing so illegally, you need a licence.
Off to prison with you!
I think you probably need to reappraise your understanding of the word ‘sinister’
It means left handed? *scratches head*
I'm sure the wokerati must have something to say about the current usage of that word.
@ roughly £3 per week, less than a manky petrol station sandwich or half a pint in town centre pub the licence fee is astonishing value. Don’t watch much but it’s worth it.
where was I? I distantly recall that it was far from obvious for a while that AliG wasn't playing a light skinned black guy. Wasn't it only in a clip of him as a goth (poss in that film ^^) that it was made fully apparent? I would say prob to sidle away from blackface accusations. I think it's hazy territory once you get into people criticising Pacino for playing someone jewish, south asian herritage actors being hard on themselves for playing itallians, that guy in the hangover going between mexican/chinese etc etc. These things change over time and I'd personally just go with the flow.
49 years old and never owned a tv nor ever had need for a licence yet I used to get the goons at my door every so often. I pointed out to them that I don’t own a wild animal yet I have never had the wild animal licensing board at my door to check, same for the fact that I don’t own a firearm/drive an HGV etc…. Always had nice hifi equipment though and I used to listen to the radio a lot back in the day before internet stations and streaming came online.
Grew up in the wilds of Argyll and from the age of 7 through to 15 we never lived in area available to receive broadcasts due to having no signal so it never really figured in my upbringing but we did have a vcr. I have Netflix/Amazon/Apple TV these days on my iMac/iPad but I’d say 90% of the time I choose to listen to music through Tidal/Apple Music.
Having no tv is not as uncommon as many consider, quite a few of mates up here in Galloway don’t bother with one.
I don't have a tv. I was only watching news and weather (get these off t'internet), Question Time (stopped watching it as I'd have put my foot through the tv) and cycling (just get the results later). Can't say I've missed it, tbh.
Maybe because I don’t use it! ... ... 99% of BBC TV output is shite.
How do you know that if you don't watch it?
Do you use the fire brigade
Nope. Isn’t that paid out of council tax anyway? Which is means tested…
Worst. Analogy. Ever.
OK, the NHS then, you pointlessly argumentative little person not quite worth the ban hammer for.
Bit ironic. What are you all excited about?
you pointlessly argumentative little person not quite worth the ban hammer for.
If you feel like that why on earth are you engaging? I don't see how comments like that contribute anything of value.
You’re not from the 17th century and neither is Binners.
Latin is considerably older than C17. Sic transit gloria mundi
gloria mundi
Think she's off The One Show.
If you feel like that why on earth are you engaging? I don’t see how comments like that contribute anything of value.
Because I live in the forlorn hope that the folks (plural) to whom it might apply still have an ounce of self awareness.
I've not clicked the link I saw but it would appear Farage has criticised Lineker for encouraging hatred.....
towards home secretaries ?
towards home secretaries ?
Yup, and "senior figures in government". According to Nigel Farage Gary Lineker compared them to "Goebbels and the gang" which Farage claims amounts to hate speech.
Maybe Nigel Farage is a bit miffed that the Tories were alledgedly compared to the Nazis because he likes to see himself as standard bearer for the far-right?