[Closed] Has anyone told TV Licensing that they don't need a TV licence ?

I was fined for no licence sometime in the eighties. It was a lovely young lady who turned up un expectedly, talked her way into my flat and caught me watching rentaghost.

At the time it was a fair cop and I did feel a bit silly letting her in but she was very attractive and that sort of made it ok. Now all that seems a bit archiaic
I quite like the beeb though. So whilst you may not need a licence for some output it has to be paid for somehow and a little over £10 a month for R4, R6, the big sporting events, strictly and the news seems reasonable to me.

I'm with Bodgy on this one. I am happy to pay my licence as I do watch TV regularly and I enjoy a proportion of the programmes on BBC TV, certainly enough to think 50p per day is adequate value. Those who genuinely don't watch TV shouldn't pay and indeed don't legally have to.
I don't think it is right at all for all the agressive approaches by the collection agengies, but since it is currently a legal requirement to have a licence if you watch live TV with a criminal rather than civil offence being committed if you don't -although not recordable so not on any DBS check for example-( whether you agree with this as a concept is actually a seperate argument) there does need to be some checking.

I don't think it is right at all for all the agressive approaches by the collection agengies, but since it is currently a legal requirement to have a licence if you watch live TV with a criminal rather than civil offence being committed if you don't...there does need to be some checking.

If you are seen driving and allegedly commit a traffic offence you do have to show a driving licence either then or at a police station. So, yes it is the same. Most people driving do have a driving licence, some don't so checks need to be made. Most housholds have a TV licence and are documented so don't getasked, those households that don't are known so checks are made

Lots of people here who seem to simply want to abide by the law for the sake of it. But none of them seem to have the mind to QUESTION this law. Why just accept something because someone else says so? Why support an archaic organisation that produces a plethora of bottom of the barrel reality/celebrity/talent shows and reports the news in a highly narrow minded way? Plus Top Gear!

Have a look at top staff's severance payments for some sobering reading.

Not having a license doesn't cause danger or a threat to others... it reduces the cash flow to a desperate BBC.

But if you are not seen driving but they presume you do as well most people do, don't they? That would be more in line with the TV licence checks.

Glasgow dan, you may strongly disagree with the law on this. Many others do as well, and question it through the media and parliament etc. That is your right. But it doesn't mean people should break the law as it stands and expect to get away without consequences.
I personally agree with this piece of legistlation because I strongly believe the BBC should be independent and free of commercial interference and this is the current way of that happening, there may be others in the future
So no, I am not simply abiding by the law.

Lots of people here who seem to simply want to abide by the law for the sake of it.

And plenty that think about things objectively and analytically, and make their own minds up.

jimw - Member

If you are seen driving and allegedly commit a traffic offence you do have to show a driving licence either then or at a police station. So, yes it is the same.

That's a shit analogy tbh. If you own a house, indeed if there is a building anywhere that will have people in it there's an assumption (aggressively enforced) that you will own a piece of equipment and be using it illegally.

The equivalent would be a group of inspectors showing up on your 17th birthday demanding to see your driving license.

But it doesn't mean people should break the law as it stands and expect to get away without consequences.

I personally agree with this piece of legislation because I strongly believe the BBC should be independent and free of commercial interference

So do I but i cannot watch say the TdF live on the internet or other channels without a licence so you need to explain to me how this is fair or how me doing this impacts on the BBC

For me the reality is I paid the fee for about 10-20 BBC hours a year and about 30-40 sports events per year on other channels

IMHO it was not worth it but i dont see the link between the two that requires a licence [ beyond its the law]

We cancelled our tv licence for about a year but still used Netflix and an Xbox in that time, which was fine as it wasn't live TV. It'd be a bit trickier now as you need one for iPlayer.

Have a careful read of the rules on TV licences and make sure you comply with them if you do cancel. If they ask you about it, just tell the truth and say what you do watch. If they come knocking then you don't have to let them into your house as they have no right to be there. Simply owning a tv isn't proof you watch live tv any more anyway.

Junkyard, who determines a law is unfair? Should we ignore any law that we personally believe is unfair?

Should we ignore any law that we personally believe is unfair?

Fine, but are you also willing to accept the consequences of doing so? It may be the chances of being caught are very slim.

Fine, but are you also willing to accept the consequences of doing so? It may be the chances of being caught are very slim.

So do I but i cannot watch say the TdF live on the internet or other channels without a licence so you need to explain to me how this is fair or how me doing this impacts on the BBC

The fact that the BBC exists, even if you don't watch it, has a huge positive impact on our culture.

It has changed and lost focus because Cameron and crew were stupid enough to be serious about destroying it.

Even Thatcher recognised the importance of a publicly accountable, transparent and impartial national broadcaster.
even after the Belgrano grilling.

It is something conceived and designed upon sound and decent ideals, even if the current iteration is a shadow of what it was and should be.

If you don't watch it, fine, don't pay.

But if you listen to BBC Radio, or use the website, or understand why it's acclaimed worldwide or even just value it's ideals, then why not?

It has nothing to do with breaking the law, we all make our choices.
But taking for free what others are prepared to contribute to, for the good of everyone, is, to me, a petty, pointless act of selfish entitlement.

Well good for you KM79.i'm glad to hear it, you are making an informed choice and accepting alternative outcomes willingly. But perhaps you can accept that not everyone would applaud your choices, particularly if they had had a negative impact on others.

It's just that others on this thread seem to be willing to break the law as it stands yet not accepting the consequences they are previously aware of just because they think it's unfair and seem to think everyone else should agree with their choice.

Rusty Spanner

The fact that the BBC exists, even if you don't watch it, [s]has[/s] had a huge positive impact on our culture.

Fixed. Feel free to take the time to work out how much of their current output is relatively cheap but highbrow, culturally relevant and educational and how much of it is massively expensive, "star" studded, lowest common denominator visual wallpaper for sofa bound zombies.

The BBC doesn't improve British culture, what a laugh!!! But the £5Bn revenue it runs on could.

But if you listen to BBC Radio, or use the website, or understand why it's acclaimed worldwide or even just value it's ideals, then why not?

I agree the BBC is there with the NHS for thing we should be rightly proud off
However it is also a little conservative[ pro establishment/status quo] with a small c and liberal leftie with two small l's hence it manages to annoy everyone, equally, with its "bias".

I just did not use it enough to justify paying for it

If you value roads and all they have done then why not pay more VED than you have to for your car ?

Why pay VED it's an unfair law.

jimw - Member

If you are seen driving and allegedly commit a traffic offence you do have to show a driving licence either then or at a police station.

Small point of order, you have to show your licence when asked, no offence needs to be committed (it's actually an offence to drive without your licence on you, but a statutory defence to produce later).

dropped license 3 years ago. Didn't receive any threatening letters. Had a visit 2 years ago - happy to show him my setup. He was satisfied. One letter since advising that if a change in circumstances should buy a license. Shame about i player, but all in all don't miss it at all.

The BBC is a paedophile infested propaganda outlet of the British state. Why should we have to pay for it if we don't watch it?

Broadcast tv?
How quaint.

The BBC is a paedophile infested propaganda outlet of the British state.

Of course it is, dear. Whatever you want to believe in order to justify yourself.

Obviously, you're never going to watch it, or any of it's programming/news/online content/radio stations, ever again on principle, right? Because you wouldn't want to be a hypocrite, would you?

Ghah, same old two sides of the argument stuff again.

I pay the fee, to me it's peanuts for the output it gives. Once maybe it was a culture medium, but there are many other streaming services producing in depth knowledgeable programmes that far out way the BBC's output these days. Granted the BBC4 output is worth the £144 alone, I would be gutted if all the Art Programmes were cut or the historical reference and nature programming. I do question the digging the bottom of the barrel Skandi Killer Dramas these days, once they were intriguing but the latter have been hammed up handicam straight out of media school teen dramas (ghah!) butnthe recent Spanish one was very good and now Montalblano is back on so all is well in the bikebouy world and £144 is easily found just for that.

£144 for what they (BBC) put out is good value, so happy to pay it. £3 a week is peanuts. There will always be a few that like to think they are different / special, bless them.

The mechanism for levying the BBC license fee is legacy.

Streaming media allows for 'pay as a service', the Beeb should enter the 21st century and change how they collect their fees.

They should definitely stop broadcasting their slanted 'news' but whilst the masses refer to them as 'the national state broadcaster' they're happy to forcibly take their subs.

And, the sooner their corrosive dominance is smashed the better imo.

bodgy

Obviously, you're never going to watch it, or any of it's programming/news/online content/radio stations, ever again on principle, right? Because [b]you wouldn't want to be a hypocrite, would you?[/b]

Listening to a news broadcast in the car once every farts end or following a link from STW to some utterly insane "cultural appropriation" bullshit on a BBC website shouldn't cost £150 though should it? Therein lies the problem.

Netflix has risen from 20million subscribers in 2011 to over 100million. Amazon Prime has something like 80million. Youtube is starting to make inroads into creating their own content too. It's only a matter of time before these companies stop buying content from the BBC and just make their own instead - Grand Tour for instance. People like Attenborough obviously won't defect but most content creators and contributors are guns for hire.

If the licence fee isn't simply switched to a mandatory tax they'll have to change their business model to keep up with the times.

bodgy - Member
The BBC is a paedophile infested propaganda outlet of the British state.
Of course it is, dear. Whatever you want to believe in order to justify yourself...

Well maybe they've run out of paedos by now... 🙂

And as for the propaganda, it's very noticeable if you live in Scotland.

It's a sewer pipe of propaganda, and too bloody true I don't watch it or listen to it anymore. Life is possible without TV you know.

And as for the propaganda, it's very noticeable if you live in Scotland.

Or Ireland.

epicyclo - Member
The BBC is a paedophile infested propaganda outlet of the British state. Why should we have to pay for it if we don't watch it

[img] [/img]

Quick question BoardinBob.

Do you think we should pay for a service we don't use?

A service with some well known flaws.

i think his comment is aimed at this part of the quote

paedophile infested propaganda outlet of the British state./quote]

 

Do you think we should pay for a service we don't use?

The service you're paying for is "broadcast television." If you don't watch broadcast television, you don't have to pay the licence fee. Where the money then goes after you've paid it is an irrelevance.

I pay my council tax and some of that money goes towards paying for childcare. I don't have children, why do I have to pay for a service I'm not using?

Do you think we should pay for a service we don't use?

A service with some well known flaws.

Bit like the NHS isn't it.

RichPenny

Bit like the NHS isn't it.

I would say it's exactly like the NHS. Exactly.

It's the intellectually insulting, repetitive and unnecessary programs I object to. I was paying towards the bread-and-circuses cooking, decorating and house-moving dross. I used to watch programmes about subjects that interested me and was frequently disappointed, sometimes annoyed by how shallow and misleading they could be.

I'm surprised you can see any TV at all from right up there on that high horse.
I bet you were enraged when TVs became cheap enough for the lower classes to afford.

PeterPoddy

I'm surprised you can see any TV at all from right up there on that high horse.
I bet you were enraged when TVs became cheap enough for the lower classes to afford.

Although I'm at a loss as to what class has to do with repetitive broadcasting of intellectually barren crap (maybe working class people are stupid?) let's just see what was on BBC One yesterday.

06:00
[b]Breakfast [/b]

10:00
[b]Saturday Kitchen
[/b]

11:30
[b]Nadiya's British Food Adventure [/b]

12:00
[b]Football Focus[/b]

13:00
[b]BBC Weekend News [/b]

13:15
[b]Bargain Hunt Hour Specials[/b]

14:15
[b]Money for Nothing
[/b]

15:15
[b] Escape to the Country [/b]

16:00
[b] Final Score [/b]

17:00
[b]Final Score from NI [/b]

17:15
[b]Toy Story[/b]

18:30
[b]BBC Weekend News [/b]

18:45
[b] BBC Newsline Weekend News, [/b]

18:50
[b]Len Goodman's Partners in Rhyme[/b]

19:25
[b] Pointless Celebrities Series 8[/b]

20:10
[b]When Miranda Met Bruce[/b]

21:15
[b]Casualty Series 32[/b]

22:05
[b]BBC Weekend News [/b]

22:25
[b]Match of the Day [/b]

23:50
[b]People Just Do Nothing Series 4[/b]

-

I guess if you like soccer, gameshows and watching people cook it's great.

I descend from my high horse occasionally. Sometimes as low as doing track work on a steam railway. There was an episode of Countryfile that included a piece about the West Som Railway. I watched it hoping to learn something, perhaps to see their H & S around a film crew. They showed the presenter kitted out for a track walk. They came to a broken fishplate, a common problem. A replacement was provided and he set to work. He was talking to camera about how he had to get it fixed before the train arrived, like a total Walt. Effectively he presented the railway as less safe than the reality, while wittering on in his own little fantasy.

That's not how it goes. The train crew would know about the filming, there would be a lookout and a set of proceedures, maybe a speed restriction for the duration.

Has anyone seen my horse, I think I left it hereabouts.

I'm surprised you can see any TV at all from right up there on that high horse.

I am surprised you chose to shoot the messenger rather than engage with the message and defend the programmes.

I am surprised you chose to shoot the messenger

You're not really, are you. (-:

While looking for my horse I remembered this, which also took place at ground level. I was helping in a walled kitchen garden. The local TV came by to film about growing and cooking food. They chose to feature squash or pumpkin, I forget which. They filmed someone cutting a squash, then saw the nearby courgette plants.

Now squash have ordinary leaves, normally a bit sad-looking. Whereas courgette leaves have splashes of silver against their darker green, and have a divided outline. The TV person said 'Can you pretend to cut the squash from this much nicer looking plant, please?'

When you see stuff than you know about turned towards total bolleaux, then you come to question all the other stuff that you don't know about.

I have another walled kitchen garden story, another time, another place, but right now I cba.

Theft is theft

And as for the propaganda, it's very noticeable if you live in Scotland

Aye for years the Beeb have force fed wee eck and wee nippy on the innocent and vulnerable. Still a small price to pay for FoR and comedy gold, but they should carry some warning and certification.

Anything with Brian Cox
Anything with Attenborough
The Olympics coverage
The Adventure Show
Countless BBC4 music documentaries
Documentaries on the cold war stuff etc
Horizon
Storyville
Glastonbury (and other) festival coverage
Limmy's Show
The League Of Gentlemen
Still Game
HIGNFY
plus countless other stuff

All tremendous

No one forces you to watch Eastenders, Bake Off, Strictly etc

Nic Robinson at that Alec Salmond press conference, in case anyone hasn't seen it...

BoardinBob

No one forces you to watch Eastenders, Bake Off, Strictly etc

It's a question of volume and cost. How many hours of Strictly or Eastenders do they make vs Horizon, or how many hours of Horizon could they make for the cost of an episode of Strictly.

Your "tremendous" list could be summarised into "documentaries and old comedies".

It's a question of volume and cost. How many hours of Strictly or Eastenders do they make vs Horizon, or how many hours of Horizon could they make for the cost of an episode of Strictly.

How many of the populist shows/formats get sold off to other territories?

I genuinely don't know, but assume there has to be some kickback.

How many of the populist shows/formats get sold off to other territories?

I genuinely don't know, but assume there has to be some kickback.

Quite a lot, I expect. Stuff with mass appeal here will probably have appeal elsewhere, even if it's fluff. As a random example,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_British_Bake_Off#International_broadcast_and_versions

[i]The UK version of The Great British Bake Off is broadcast in many countries and it has been sold to 196 territories as of 2015. The format has also been sold to 20 territories by 2015, making it the third most successful BBC format after Dancing with the Stars (Strictly Come Dancing) and The Weakest Link. Many of these shows have been successful. The Junior Bake Off format has also been sold to Thailand.[/i]

The problem with that model though is that it encourages further investment in that kind of show and going forward you run the risk of becoming little more than the Talent/Soap/Game Show broadcaster.

Nextflix, Amazon and Youtube aren't going to keep buying previously aired documentaries forever either. That reduces their potential subscribers and they don't have creative control. Programes like Life don't just happen because of some innate quality possessed by the BBC alone. It's a product of millions of pounds paid to talented creators who will go where they are paid.

Junkyard - lazarus
i think his comment is aimed at this part of the quote

paedophile infested propaganda outlet of the British state./quote]

But which bit of my statement?

The BBC coverage of athletics, Olympics etc, is bloody awful.

Just had to say that.

the BBC coverage of news and current affairs is bloody brilliant*

Just had to say that

*this is my opinion, I am aware others disagree, but so what? I'm happy with it

I guess if you like soccer, gameshows and watching people cook it's great.

What about the other 8 BBC TV channels? Maybe you should flip over to BBC4 if BBC1 is cerebral enough for you, plenty of interesting stuff on there.

jon1973 - Member

What about the other 8 BBC TV channels? Maybe you should flip over to BBC4 if BBC1 is cerebral enough for you, plenty of interesting stuff on there.

As I said earlier, how many hours of Strictly or Eastenders do they make vs Horizon, or how many hours of Horizon could they make for the cost of an episode of Strictly?

Yes there is quality content on BBC 4 but there is also massive repetition and it represents a fraction of the output, and a fraction of the expenditure. Documentaries featuring talking heads and archive footage or lone scientists walking through fields cost a pittance compared to live studio "star studded entertainment".

Its[BBC 4] also not on tv its internet based only iirc

Clearly the BBC , and it is one of its strengths, will do programmes from the proms to pop and from documentary to soaps

No one is going to like all of its output s it makes programmes for everyone not just programmes where they get good advert revenue.

Double post with the same time!

[quote=jimjam ]As I said earlier, how many hours of Strictly or Eastenders do they make vs Horizon, or how many hours of Horizon could they make for the cost of an episode of Strictly?

Maybe you needed a more explicit reply then - they could make approximately -5 hours of Horizon for the cost of an episode of Strictly...

[quote=Junkyard ]Its[BBC 4] also not on tv its internet based only iirc

I think you're getting confused with BBC3; BBC4 is still broadcast. Though I'm not sure that's all that relevant anyway - surely for most people on here it's just as easy to watch iPlayer as broadcast TV (and the licensing requirements are the same now).

And let's not forget about the beatles... the e n d l e s s going-on about the sodding beatles. It's 2017.

told you I did not watch any tv

An true its easy enough