'Because I can, is probably the most honest reason. I could give you some other bullshit, but it'd be kidding myself on'
No worries.
You're just the kind of career criminal this is designed to catch out.
🙂
Rusty Spanner - Member
'Because I can, is probably the most honest reason. I could give you some other bullshit, but it'd be kidding myself on'No worries.
You're just the kind of career criminal this is designed to catch out.
Suppose I better watch out for that detector van! 😆
IMHO there should be no license fee for those paying for Sky/Virgin/etc. Covered under the subscription cost as they are redistributing and providing you with the means to watch it.
If that were the case, the BBC's entire output would then be a premium service. Ie, you wouldn't get it for free as part of your Sky package, you'd be paying an extra *handwave* £10 a month for it. And you'd have adverts every 15 minutes. You'd be no better off, you'd just be giving the money to someone else.
I do take the point about choice, but I'd expect the number of people who like TV sufficiently to merit a Sky subscription and never watch / listen to any BBC output at all will be astonishingly small.
And for those who aren't paying for a subscription service and are just watching terrestrial TV arguing "I never watch BBC," where do you think the money comes from to build and maintain all the transmitters and associated broadcast costs? A big chunk of that comes from the BBC.
I suppose it's a bit like line rental. I really begrudge paying BT £16/month for a phone line that I never use (other than to receive calls about my mis-sold PPI and my recent car accident that wasn't my fault) just because it's required as a broadband bearer, but really, it's paying towards the maintenance of the infrastructure.
Anything that stops parasitic middle class spongers with an over developed sense of entitlement is fine by me
that is a bit harsh on the BBC
You either pay it or ignore the letters.The prosecuted bit is only kept for the few examples that they are willing to make.
it's a bit more than a few http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-23792388
IF you have Sky, etc then the fee should be part of that service - not an EXTRA over and above it!
So you want to remove the BBC's funding in totality by removing the licence fee. Then you want the BBC's output including for free in your Sky package without further charge?
You've thought about this, haven't you.
(-:
This was linked from that page,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22947160
Excuses for non-payment given last year included:
[list][*]"Apparently my dog, which is a corgi, was related to the Queen's dog so I didn't think I needed a TV licence"[/*]
[*]"Why would I need a TV licence for a TV I stole? Nobody knows I've got it"[/*]
[*]"Only my three-year-old son watches the TV. Can you take it out of the family allowance I receive for him? He watches it so he should pay"
[/*][*]"I had not paid as I received a lethal injection"[/*]
[*]"I don't want to pay for a licence for a full year. Knowing my luck I'll be dead in six months and won't get value for money"
[/*][*]"I have lost weight recently and had to buy new clothes. That's why I could not afford to buy a TV licence"[/*][/list]
I watch iplayer via VPN thingy from Germany.
I'd happily pay the BBC to do so.
Much better programming than German equivalents. Even the GF would rather watch Lambing Live than Hausfrau Tausch.
DAB radio, anyone?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ariel/18679080
(for the benefit on non-licence payers who can't use that link, it states that "The BBC have agreed to pay £7m towards infrastructure needed to increase digital radio coverage across the UK.")
for the benefit on non-licence payers who can't use that link
It's got a bit childish now, time to go to a different thread.
It's got a bit childish now, time to go to a different thread.
[img]
[/img]
big_n_daft - Memberit's a bit more than a few
They can summon Mr occupier to court all they like! 😉
[quote=mikewsmith ]@slowoldgit you don't have to pay unless your watching live, what's your point.
this is the change. you have to pay to watch catch up tv too from september.
Do those who take what they haven't paid for apply this to other aspects of their lives?
Bit of tax evasion?
Shoplifting?
Benefit fraud?
I would imagine that there's a statistical link, be interesting to see the figures.
🙂
Rusty Spanner - Member
Do those who take what they haven't paid for apply this to other aspects of their lives?
Bit of tax evasion? - I'm PAYE, but to be honest, i'd have no qualms about bumping the tax man if I could, it seems to be the in thing, so why not! 😆
Shoplifting? - I once stole a bottle of milk from someones doors step, when out camping as a 10 year old with my friends, I ended up putting it back as I felt so guilty! 😆
Benefit fraud? - touch wood, i've never claimed in my puff.
Not so much these days, but in my younger days, I'd happily ignore the drug laws and the drinking the street laws, canny really think of much else.
Whilst being firmly on the side of funding the BBC being a good thing and those that actively avoid (and actively consume its output) being a bit sad; I do have sympathy with those that want to avoid paying and using it but can't. It should be possible to watch all the free to air channels bar the BBC and not be forced to pay. It's daft that I can consume 10hrs a day of Radio 4 and not have to pay for it (assuming I don't need to for other reasons) but someone who only watches ITV should have to.
In reality though there must be a vanishingly smaller percentage of households that do not consume BBC output in some form every week if you include the website, radio, online and broadcast material.
In reality though there must be a vanishingly smaller percentage of households that do not consume BBC output in some form
My reaction to anyone who says "I watch TV but never, ever watch anything on BBC channels" is to reach for Adam Hills' big red button.
I do wonder though if a better question might be, who would actually pay for the BBC if it went to a subscription model?
@mike iplayer is easily available abroad as I am sure you must be aware.
If BBC is such a national asset it should be funded by the state, eg increase VAT by 1% raises the £4bn the BBC spends
I'd go for funding BBC via ads as first choice
More than happy to pay for the licence fee, we think it offers extremely good value for money (we hardly watch any live tv). Also equally happy to download anything that's 'exclusively available' on Sky, and watch that for free. 🙂 Will never pay a penny for anything produced by a company owned by Murdoch.
What's the moral situation regarding downloading stuff that's been on the BBC (that we pay a licence fee for, that's been available on iPlayer)? Because we miss stuff sometimes, or an episode of a series, and it's the only way to view it. Anyone going to be morally outraged about this?
Cougar - Moderator
IF you have Sky, etc then the fee should be part of that service - not an EXTRA over and above it!
So you want to remove the BBC's funding in totality by removing the licence fee. Then you want the BBC's output including for free in your Sky package without further charge?You've thought about this, haven't you.
Did I say that though Cougar?
Nope - I didn't.
The point is - if Sky and the others are distributing the BBC content via their PPV network then it is them who you should be paying to view it - not the BBC.
After all - if you stop paying them - the service stops working. (OK they will send you out another card later for "freeview" but it is still needed to make the system work)
Why shouldn't then they pay the relevant amount to the BBC seeing as they are charging the customer for the service through their proprietary system?
Personally - I can genuinely say that I've not used the BBC's service at all in well over 2yrs - if not longer.
No aerial here, no Sky dish, I don't have iPlayer installed on any device and have no desire to.
BBC Radio I cannot stand of any kind - in fact I don't even listen to local radio.
The only TV programming watched was the ITV programme with Rachel Reilly about science which I watched with the kids and that was on catch up via ITV's website so not using any BBC network.
Anything else is either Netflix or Amazon - perhaps 2-3 times a week at most.
The funding to the BBC is an archaic and frankly its insulting that you are not given a choice of how/if you pay for the content you want to view.
Want to watch Westbenders? Fine - £1
Want to watch Bargain Twunt? Fine - £1
Your choice.
I choose not to pay for the permatanned muppet to prance around a carboot or for the fatso falling down the stairs to be shown 3.9m times a week depsite the programs being sold off to various other channels/broadcasters and netting the BBC billions in income along with DVD's, etc.
If it's "Public Broadcasting" then fine but the moment they start selling stuff commercially and making a profit - it stops and they fund it that way not by a "charter" that forces anyone who might one day want to watch Coronation Street on a commercial network.
Whilst I'm not disputing that the BBC pay towards the network systems, antennas, cabling etc - so do [b]ALL[/b] of the other broadcasters. Most of who actually have their own infrastructure due to the BBC not allowing shared usage.
I repeat, it should be funded by advertisements or a grant from central Government if people believe its a national service.
Totally bonkers to me you pay £500 for a very nice TV then £1,500 to the BBC over it's lifetime whether you watch their programmes or not.
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
After a childhood spent mesmerised by BBC nature documentaries, I was very pro-BBC. Until I started paying attention to their news outputs commitment to some perverse ritualistic sense of "balance" while fielding reporters and presenters with very clear axes to grind. Nowadays they don't seem much better than FOX in that respect and can go whistle.
**** the BBC and their licence fee. Rotten scumbags the lot of them.
BBC News has a clear left/centre bias. If it was a commercial channel the news would be much more right leaning.
We pay the TV License and haven't had a TV for years. More than happy to support the BBC.
@ Mike - perhaps you missed the comments about funding TV via leccy bills or local taxes.
They are spending money on sending me monthly threatening letters because I don't have a TV license.
@slow yes quite entertaining that! I think they finally found me in after about 18 months and I happily showed them round so they could see there was no TV. They asked why I never replied to the letters and I explained I thiught they where rude and threatening so why should I ?
If they chose to presume that I have a TV and I'm a criminal, they can go away right off.
I watched some TV in a holiday let recently. There was little to interest me, and I can get better weather forecasts on the internet. That's forecasts which include wind speed and direction.
that dependents entirely where you view the centre line.... We obviously offer here. 😆jambalaya - Member
BBC News has a clear left/centre bias. If it was a commercial channel the news would be much more right leaning.
Totally agreed. I find the wish by so many perfectly affluent folk to weasel out of funding the BBC an odd one. Granted, I don't think the current funding model works very well any more but it's still a brilliant thing that the UK should remain proud to have. I find 80-90%+ of it's output not for me but that still leaves way more than I could possibly consume, especially in an on demand digital era.
Similar attitude to those who maintain that all music should be available for free, ignoring the fact that those who create music don't, by and large, distribute their work for free out of an altruistic desire to enrich people's lives, the majority actually feel that the fruits of their labours actually deserves some recompense, as in actually earning a bloody living from it! Most musicians actually don't get rich from their work, oddly enough.
I repeat, it should be funded by advertisements or a grant from central Government
Yes it should be funded from general taxation.
BBC News has a clear left/centre bias
Its bias appears to me to be the direct opposite of the complainant.
I don't but I am expected to subsidise the people who do choose to watch the BBC as they seem unprepared to pay the full cost of their viewing and want folk like me to contribute.
And I wonder which services you use that are paid from my taxes that I'd rather not pay for. Life doesn't work like that I'm afraid.
Do you insist on breaking down the bill in restaurants too? 😛
The BBC is nothing more than the ministry for propaganda - I'd happily see it dispanded - Its mendacious brand of impartiality I'd say is severely detrimental - I Player is like Facebook - with some devices you can't even unistall it .. Government TV no thanks .. I own screens not televisions ..
jambalaya - Member
BBC News has a clear left/centre bias. If it was a commercial channel the news would be much more right leaning.
[b]The BBC is nothing more than the ministry for propaganda[/b] - I'd happily see it dispanded - Its mendacious brand of impartiality I'd say is severely detrimental - I Player is like Facebook - with some devices you can't even unistall it .. [b]Government TV no thanks ..[/b] I own screens not televisions ..
If noltae sees the BBC as a tool of the government and the present govt is right wing, but Jambalaya sees it as left wing/centre. This either means that Jamba is considerably further to the right than the current government or one or both are wrong. 😕 😛
or the beeb are getting it about right. Can't please all of the people all of the time bla bla bla...
^^ this is the best explanation
Their news reporting is somewhat biased.
Fortunately, their news reporting is a tiny part of their total output.
BBC News has a clear left/centre bias.
Where are you counting "centre"? Maggie? Or somewhere to the right?
One of my beefs with the beeb is that there's little of anything to interest people in their 30's to 50's.
Aside from the gritty Scandinavian detective stuff I found little that appealed to me.
No wonder Netflix, etc do so well.
No real attempt to explain global events in economic terms.
I wont miss the iplayer (apart from the 'news')
If they sold the iplayer content worldwide, there would be little or need for the licence.
But they wont, because they want to grind you peasants into the ground.
or the beeb are getting it about right. Can't please all of the people all of the time bla bla bla...
That's called the "argument to moderation" and it's a common fallacy. The correct answer isn't between two extremes - if you say that 2+2=4 and I say 2+2=5 then the correct answer is not 4.5.
The BBC isn't biased to left or right - what it is is biased towards the status quo. So it generally supports the government, generally supports the current political makeup of the UK, generally supports the "New Labour" version of the Labour Party, etc.
The other problem it has - and it shares this with many other news organisations - is a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of "balance". And this is another version of the Argument to Moderation. It's not balanced to give equal time to both sides in an argument with no analysis. You're not balanced if you give equal airtime to climate scientists and climate change deniers.
Interesting point
It's not balanced to give equal time to both sides in an argument with no analysis. You're not balanced if you give equal airtime to climate scientists and climate change deniers.
the lack of challenge and analysis damages the understanding of many issues and leads to dumbing down of the discussion/ debate
climate change is one classic example, the science is dumbed down, the messages over simplified, the nuances discarded and the "non-pc" issues not discussed. Add into the collective memory the forecasts from climate scientists that we about to head into a new ice age then it's entirely credible that people don't trust what they are being fed as the "truth" and the associated monosolution
I'd be persuaded to watch for a while if there were two channels: one centre left, about where the SNP are, or the middle of the ongoing Labour cat fight, and one the other way. Then I, and others, could make up our own minds.
[i]climate change is one classic example, the science is dumbed down, the messages over simplified,[/i]
... not just climate change b n d.
I thought of typing examples, but gave up. Things I've long found interesting seem to be let down by presenters doing half a job, like Alan Titchmash on geology and that Countryfile bloke on a steam railway. It leads one to presume there's no-one on location with the nous to say 'No, Alan, you got that wrong, not one mile but fifteen or twenty*'.
*Ok. I'm not sure where the rocks get hot enough for isostacy to happen, but I'm not paid to talk about it. But if it were as he said, there would be geysers in the background.
