i thought we sorted this one out with subscription? perhaps not, lol

Mine arrived a couple of days ago, noticed that 'their' definition of TV equipment is now;

a TV set, digital box, DVD recorder, VHS recorder, computer, mobile phone, games console!

WTF, now they are the PC, phone and Wii gestapo too.

"You need a TV Licence to use any television receiving equipment such as a TV set, digital box, DVD or video recorder, PC, laptop or mobile phone to watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV"

So as long you are not watching or recording live BBC transmissions on your computer or phone, you're OK to own those devices without requiring a licence. No?

I love adverts, in fact I would sooner watch them all day than be forced to pay the licence fee. Capitalism FTW

the inane, senseless, constant, repeated, mind numbing advertising trailers for other radio 4 programmes, such as "A History Of The World in a Million Trailers" that drive you to the point of despair.

You're either the most fragile of fragile little blossoms, or you're the kind of chap who believes that he who exagerates most wildly wins the argument.

BTW, it can't be "constant" and "repeated", can it?

bloodynora – Member

I love adverts, in fact I would sooner watch them all day …….

Yep, you're right mate ………… the licence fee would be wasted on you.

In fact, I'm surprised that you need a TV at all to entertain yourself……….can't you make interesting shapes out of your earwax or something ?

ernie_lynch in resorting to insults shocker….

ernie_lynch in resorting to insults shocker….

He gave up trying to insult your intelligence…

It is pretty much impossible to avoid paying for example, the private water companies. If you chose to live on bottled water and to urinate and defecate in your garden, I think your local environmental health department might have an issue with that.

lots of people (100's of thousands) aren't connected to a water company network and therefore don't pay the charges. Those who do connect to the sewer network subsidise what is indeed deemed a "tax" ie Highway Drainage as those not connected to sewers don't pay it

on average every bill payer subsidises non-paying service users by £12 p.a. (ie how much does bad debt put your bill up by). These are "won't pays" as most "can't pays" get picked up by the chritable schemes run by the water companies

water company privatisation is a method of off balance sheet financing the massive investment required by pollution control and tightening water quality standards. They can't be asset stripped due to licence conditions and are in essence low risk low return investments hence the ownershipby pension companies etc

the BBC issue is that the corporation has a guaranteed income and a desire to infiltrate every aspect of broadcasting and media and can be free at point of use as it already has the cash. This means that commercial media (except Sky due to the pay tv football) struggle for a viable model

imho it should be very clear what the BBC should be focuing on and where "commercial" broadcasters should compete for the market. Radio's 1 & 2 for example do they need to be done by the BBC? Arguably 6 music is what the BBC shuld be doing rather than Chris Moyles? This clarity of purpose will drive out the savings. I'd rather pay £100 p.a. for a reduced scope, high quality output than £140+ for "stars" like Jonathan Ross and tat like R1&2

I'm sure the resident troll will dispute everything above and resort to some highly amusing comments 😉

Arise Lord Rupert of Wapping. You know it makes sense 8)

lots of people (100's of thousands) aren't connected to a water company network and therefore don't pay the charges.

Yes, I am aware that not everyone is connected to the main sewer – my sister isn't. Obviously that situation wasn't what I was talking about. If you hadn't figured it out ……… I'm clearly talking about where the property is connected to the main sewer – you can't simply decide to opt out, you can't tell them that you don't wish to use their services as you will be using the pub next door to have a shit. You are forced to pay the private water company whether you like it or not. You are not forced to have a TV licence. It was in response to what ratty had said. But yeah big_n_daft, you are absolutely right – I should have said "except for the exceptions". Very sloppy of me. Thanks for pointing it out mate 🙂

anyone got any comments on this???

http://www.tpuc.org/stoppayingtvlicencefees

big_n_daft: the trouble is that if the beeb stayed away from ALL 'commercial'/populist programming and only did drama, documentaries, Radio 4 and 6 Music then they would alienate a large portion of the population which would A) be against their charter and B) would be suicide as then people really would rise up against the license fee.

BTW doesn't Channel 4 still get license fee money for providing regional programming or something?

Thanks for posting that Lawmanmx, very interesting. What if I'm connected to the main sewer though? Does that mean I still have to pay my licence fee?! 😉

BTW doesn't Channel 4 still get license fee money for providing regional programming or something?

No, Channel 4 has never received any money from the license fee. It was proposed a few years back that it should – but it never happened.

.

Lawmanmx – is your link for real ? I didn't have the patience to try and figure out whether this was some sort of "joke" :

Sir Michael Lyons
The Chairman, By 1st Class Post BBC, Recorded Delivery.
Broadcast centre,
201 Wood lane,
London
W12 7TP

Dear Sir Michael Lyons

Re: The Royal Charter of the BBC, & the Treason & Felony Act, 1848
Notice Before Action.

It has been brought to my attention that the Corporation has received and is now receiving substantial amounts of funding from the European Union, in breach of Charter Provisions, and that in consequence of this very suspect arrangement the BBC is now reduced to the function of providing both broadcasting & propaganda facilities to a form of alien authority that fails to acknowledge the Supreme Authority of the British Crown.

I must advise you that all such conduct serves to breach the provisions of the Treason Act, 1351 with the further provisions of the Treason & Felony Act, 1848.

In addition, I must advise that the Treason & Felony Act of 1848 provides that it is a Criminal Offence for Subjects of the Crown to give aid or comfort to Traitors, and that this offence is punishable by imprisonment for life.

I am concerned for my own position and I must ask you to cease and desist from all treacherous conduct & financial arrangements, without delay.

Unless I receive your written assurance that the Corporation will issue an immediate public apology for all Treason committed thus far, with your further guarantee that the Corporation will cease and desist from all and any conduct that fails to maintain the Supremacy of the British Crown, then I must give fair warning of my intention to discontinue the payment of all such moneys as are now being applied to the financial support of the BBC.

I look forward to receipt of your immediate response to this present letter and I give notice that payments in support of the BBC will be suspended, unless I receive a satisfactory response within 14 days of this present date.

Yours faithfully,

(Sign Here)

Have you signed it nora ?

I don't think it's a joke. Have you read any of the other stuff on the site. The phrase "swivel-headed loon" doesn't even come close!

As Oscar Wilde nearly said, "Some of those cynical bicyclist types obviously know the price of everything & the value of nothing."

Have signed it just for you Ernie 😉 Your blurring of the lines between sewerage and TV licence fees has been amusing though I have to say

GrahamS – Member
I don't think it's a joke. Have you read any of the other stuff on the site. The phrase "swivel-headed loon" doesn't even come close!

Obviously You have'nt then Graham, try again 😉

What? So is it a joke then?

It's pretty extensive if it is, what with the tours, the youtube videos, the rambling blogs and random links to bits of out of date legislation, the various campaigns and the forum.

Obviously You have'nt then Graham, try again

So it is a "joke" then Lawmanmx ?

Oh dear, I think poor old nora fell for it.

He apparently signed a letter which claimed the BBC were traitors, as they had provided propaganda facilities to an alien authority which fails to acknowledge the Supreme Authority of the British Crown………. and are therefore guilty of treason under the provisions of the Treason Act 1351.

I bet he feels stupid now 😐

Yeah, I don't get it.

Maybe that is hilarious if you are a lawyer???

Why should the BBC should only produce stuff that is non-commercial? I've paid my £145 a year and I want the dross too. If the commercial stations were so sure of their success then they would be all over the BBC in terms of ratings, quality products, loved by the British public.

ITV succeeded in the 50s', 60, 70s and early 80's due the fact that we had so few channels, therefore making money was easy. With so many channels commercial television is struggling to survive. rather than improve what they churn out, their action is to attack the BBC. This reduces the quality of the competition as well as a major player.

If BSkyB was run properly it would split itself into two – one a transmission service and the other a TV producer. At the moment one cross subsides the other.

We all get get value from the BBC – £145 a year for all the services that it provides is cheap. If you had to buy the individual bits by themselves i.e. BBC 2, 4, Radio 4, 6, local radio and the BBC website I would expect the annual cost to be in excess of that. I dread to think how much I pay to Virgin and Murdoch for the privilege of them running TV into my house. (I do wonder what percentage of the time that TV is watch via cable and Satellite is for BBC? Do you that think Sky/Virgin would tell us?)

Finally while the TV Licence is anachronistic it does at least give a illusion of separation from the Government. All methods of collecting money are open to abuse, our tax system is no better. If is was done via subscription I am sure that somewhere along the way someone would find a way to crack the subscription.

The license fee costs you less than 40p per day. The queen and her inbred mutant family costs you at least 62p per day. The replacement of Trident will likely cost you more than £1 a day. Murdoch will soon be charging £1 per day just for access to the Times online.

I feel like I definitely get 40p worth of value from the BBC every single day. I'm hugely unconvinced by the others.

The queen and her inbred mutant family costs you at least 62p per day.

Source please.

here's one source – took about 3 seconds to find

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/7872052/Cost-of-Royal-Family-drops-7p-per-person.html

The queen and her inbred mutant family costs you at least 62p per day.[b]Year[/b]

yep, 62 pence per year per person – in comparison with the BBC I'd call that a freaking bargain, if only for Phil the Greek 🙂

here's one source – took about 3 seconds to
find

Yes well done, except as Zulu-Eleven points out, that doesn't match the 62p per day that Urchinboy was frothing about – which is why I called him on it. 🙂

62p a day would be around 13.9 billion pounds a year. Even the dear old Queen Mum couldn't put that much champagne away.

I don't really understand why the Tories are / would be anti BBC.

I'd be willing to bet that if you look at the data Experian and the likes hold on constituencies and wards that consistently vote Tory, ITV viewing will generally be way below the norm. Everyone knows Sky isn't worth watching for things other than Sport and Films, so they must be watching the Beeb's entertainment, news and documentary output.

so they must be watching the Beeb's entertainment, news and documentary output.

Your assumption being that everyone spends all their spare time glued to the TV?

Fair enough. I still consider 62p per year to be too much for that lot.

Still don't think you can argue with 40p per day for the BBC.

I don't really understand why the Tories are / would be anti BBC.

The old 'One Nation' social-democratic Tories before Thatcher weren't in the least bit hostile towards the BBC. In fact they recognised "Auntie", as the BBC was fondly called in those days, for what it was/is ie, a real asset to Britain. Something to be proud of – a British broadcaster in a unique class of it's own, with an international reputation, and the envy of the world.

Things changed for a number of reasons. Firstly, the foreign owned Sun newspaper started a long and protracted campaign against the BBC, as it's proprietor's broadcasting interests were now in direct competition with the BBC – hardly a day passes by without the Sun slagging off the BBC.

Then newspaper like the Daily Mail also jumped onto the bandwagon as the BBC's 'fair and balanced' reporting flies completely in the face of everything which the Daily Mail stands for – the more the truth gets out, the weaker the Daily Mail is at influencing people.

And finally the new breed of right-wing working-class Tories such as Thatcher and Tebbit, hated anything which was owned by the nation – specially something which is exceptionally successful.

So we now have a situation where slagging off the BBC has become highly fashionable. And spongebrains, including a small minority on here, obediently comply with the right-wing press's agenda, and stick the boot in BBC at any opportunity. Thereby helping some America/Australian billionaire in his quest to become even more wealthy and powerful, and the Daily Mail in their quest the churn out bollox without hindrance.

ernie_lynch = nailed it! Top marks that man.

I'll happily not pay a licence fee.

I never watch BBC boring as hell or tv that much but do like the odd news or movie/documentary on other channels.

I never watch BBC

You NEVER watch it? Even though you apparently like news, movies and documentaries – all of which the BBC are pretty good at?

How about radio? Listen to any BBC output there?

Do you use the BBC website at all?

Frankenstein – if you don't like what the BBC make, get in touch. Whilst they are a publicly funded organisation they have a duty to listen to any feedback you have. I think thats one of the best things about the BBC, they make stuff that might be a bit niche or a bit unusual or just blatantly not very 'commercial'. Sometimes its dull and I don't watch, sometimes it's crap and I don't watch, but often its interesting, well made, unique and without any adverts or commercial interests, and I love watching it.

We have some of the best TV in the world on the BBC, as well as probably the best and most impartial news on the planet. In my opinion it would be a shame to lose it over a matter of 40p per day.

You can't read Graham S 🙂

I never watch the BBC.
I've put all my channels in order of pref and the BBC is last.
I understand if people love it but I think we should have a choice like Sky or Virgin.

I do go to the movies or buy DVD's BlueRay etc.
Radio? I have a hard drive in my car with my fave music.

Just looked at the TV guide -bugger all on BBC for me anyway, Oh I missed Songs of Praise…

Whats on Sky?

You can't read Graham S

I can read fine: don't mistake incredulity for incomprehension. 🙂

I've put all my channels in order of pref and the BBC is last.

Even below price-drop.tv, The Hallmark Channel and Gay Rabbit??? Blimey!

I think we should have a choice like Sky or Virgin.

What's the cheapest Sky subscription? £20 a month?
How would you propose to charge for radio, iPlayer and the BBC websites?

Just looked at the TV guide -bugger all on BBC for me anyway

Okay.. on right now:

BBC1: The Silence (Top drama already being discussed in another thread here).
BBC2: News
BBC3: Underage and Pregnant
BBC4: Britain by Bike
News 24: ABC World News with Diane Sawyer

Not bad for the back of 1 in the morning.
But yeah nothing really interesting unless you like new drama, current affairs, underage chavs, or bikes.

Meantime…

Sky1: Surviving Prison
Sky2: My Pet Shame
Virgin1: Challenge Jackpot

I shit you not.