bails – Member

Isn’t Top Gear one of the shows that sells so well abroad that it makes a profit for the BBC, thus lowering the price of the TV Licence?

You’re probably right – I know it sells to a huge number of countries…it’s still crap though.

No institution is perfect and alternative forms of entertainment are available,

You have a choice with sky, virgin, etc and you don’t get them knocking on your door or sending threatening letters just for not using them.

So we’re clear I think for what you get from the BBC, it’s reasonable vfm.

Licence fee refuseniks are as morally bankrupt as tax avoiders & benefit cheats.

‘But I only watch iPlayer’.

Oh, well that changes EVERYTHING doesn’t it?
Er, no, actually, it doesn’t.
You’re still a parasite – morally, if not legally.

So many of the programmes make massive amounts of money from sale here and abroad that the Beeb has huge profits every year!
That alone shows that the “need” to take money from us for the privilege of having the BBC is utter bollocks!
It’s a commercial organisation the same as any other company – just without the commercials.
If you think that they don’t take money from “product placement”, advertising, etc then you are rather naive….

Oh, Fags, Mags & Bags is utter genius btw.

Give it another go, well worth investing a bit of time into.

So many of the programmes make massive amounts of money from sale here and abroad that the Beeb has huge profits every year!
That alone shows that the “need” to take money from us for the privilege of having the BBC is utter bollocks!
It’s a commercial organisation the same as any other company.

Maybe doing away with the licence fee would mean better programmes being made then, as they would have to sell them to self fund.

They make some good programming, on the whole. I don’t mind the £12.50 it costs for a month.

But I dislike their BBC’s approach to revenue collection. It’s completely f’in nazi.

Maybe doing away with the licence fee would mean better programmes being made then, as they would have to sell them to self fund.

There’s plenty of commercial channels around already, so I guess we already know what the beeb would look like without license fees (adverts & murdoch).

Only if you watch Live TV. You don’t need one if you TV is only plugged into an Xbox or a PS3 for example.

Then it’s not a TV (T:Tele, as in Teleport, telegraph, telephone), it’s just a big screen.

Licence fee refuseniks are as morally bankrupt as tax avoiders & benefit cheats.

‘But I only watch iPlayer’.

Oh, well that changes EVERYTHING doesn’t it?
Er, no, actually, it doesn’t.
You’re still a parasite – morally, if not legally.

What if I didn’t watch iPlayer either (which was probably true, i had a mobile broadband dongle in the arse end of yorkshire).

I may have listened to Annie Mac on a friday night though.

Licence fee refuseniks are as morally bankrupt as tax avoiders & benefit cheats.

‘But I only watch iPlayer’.

Oh, well that changes EVERYTHING doesn’t it?

Um…. Yeah it does. I very rarely watch iPlayer and have paid many years of license fee.

But I dislike their BBC’s approach to revenue collection. It’s completely f’in nazi.

This is the main reason we don’t have a license. They really bullied and harassed my wife’s elderly grandmother (despite her having a license) leaving her extremely distressed – my wife was furious. Personally I’d still be up for having one but my wife won’t.

So you still take advantage of BBC services but refuse to contribute like the rest of us?

Occasionally yes.

I also pay taxes to send other people’s children to school. 😉

Do you voluntarily pay more tax than you are required to then?

If BBC3 & 4 didn’t exist, i would too do without a telly. But they do, and the science/factual content is truly excellent IMO 😉

Maybe doing away with the licence fee would mean better programmes being made then, as they would have to sell them to self fund.

You mean like the wall to wall quality progamming on ITV or Five?

No.

Unlike you, I pay what the law says I should.

😀

so for those people who have sky …. and maybe watch sky 1 – eurosport and some movies

you still have to have a tv licence.

Thats wrong.

No.

Unlike you, I pay what the law says I should.

I think you’re getting confused. I do pay what the law says I should. 😕

bails – Member

Maybe doing away with the licence fee would mean better programmes being made then, as they would have to sell them to self fund.

You mean like the wall to wall quality progamming on ITV or Five?

No, ITV and 5 have advertisement revenue, and lots of it. If a channel didn’t have this, and had to sell their programmes for their only source of income then the programmes would have to be good.

Fair enough, if you watch no live TV at all.

Watching iPlayer though – you’re still getting the benefits without making contributions.

Morally right?

I don’t have a tv license and also don’t have a TV. I NEVER get letters or hassle about it because I just went online and told them that I don’t need a license. They leave you alone and it only takes 5 minutes…

I don’t have one, I don’t have a TV though, we watch a few films on Netflix

so for those people who have sky …. and maybe watch sky 1 – eurosport and some movies

We’ve got sky because the missus refuses to watch the football in the pub so pays £50 a month for the privelage.

It’s dire, utterly utterly dire. There’s an advert on for “The face” at the moment, which seems to be a bit like “the voice”, but purely based on being silent and judged on looks.

Personaly I agree with it being levied universaly (I’d even suppourt it being funded through actual taxation if they could ring-fence it), as it’s like free museums and art galleries, without the BBC life would be a little bit worse, but you wouldn’t know it.

Fair enough, if you watch no live TV at all.

I occasionally watch red bull TV for DH races, or watch the cricket on Sky using my brothers Sky Go login. 😉

I never, ever watch BBC live though, and have probably watched less than 10 iPlayer programmes in the last year.

I agree we should probably contribute something mainly for R4 and the world service. Not aware it’s possible to do that though.

So pay your licence fee then!

Do you not pay VED if you only use your car twice a year?

nealglover : It has little to do with the inconvenience, rather the automatic assumption that i am breaking the law by possessing a means to watch live broadcasts without owning a licence. And the post box is 30yrds from my door so it’s hardly a hassle to scribble “unknown at this address, return to sender” on the envelope.

I did once many years ago go through the rigmarole of calling TV licensing and explaining i did not have a licence nor have i ever owned a TV nor will i ever own a TV and that was fine, till they sent out an inspector who wished to gain access to my house to ensure i did not have a licence, why should i let them in to my house?.

**** them.

Do you not pay VED if you only use your car twice a year?

Well VED operates a sliding scale of payment depending on emissions doesn’t it. So not a great example. And I’m not sure what Red Bull TV or Sky get out of the license fee.

If there was a radio license I’d happily buy one. I really do object to the bullying tactics of the licensing people though.

Q: When do you need a licence? Do you need one for watching TV using an iPlayer?

A: You need a TV Licence to watch or record TV programmes as they are being shown on television, irrespective of what channel you’re watching, what device you are using (TV, computer, laptop, mobile phone or any other), and how you receive them (terrestrial, satellite, cable, via the internet or any other way).

You do not need a TV Licence if you are watching TV after it has been shown on television, eg TV programmes downloaded or streamed after broadcast.

Source: Auntie

Live Sky, however…..?!?

So if I objected to the way benefits system is enforced I’d be justified in fraudulently claiming benefits I’m not entitled to?

Ok well it seems watching stuff live on Sky Go means I should have a TV license. Didn’t know that.

Personally I think that’s bloody ridiculous but I’ll not be buying one for the rare occasions I bother to do it. So I guess that’s the end of that.

http://helpforum.sky.com/t5/Sky-Go/Sky-Go-TV-License/ta-p/605960

So if I objected to the way benefits system is enforced I’d be justified in fraudulently claiming benefits I’m not entitled to?

Yeah cos watching Sky TV very occasionally without a license is just the same as benefit fraud. Do people this sanctimonious exist in real life?

Well I’m a freeloading non-licence holder who watches the odd one on iplayer.

And I do all this legally as I never watch anything live (that seems bizarre now, a bit like having a landline). I’ve filled in the forms, they send me a new one every 2 years or when I move house.

So it’s not required. Last TV licence I had I think I might have watch 10 programmes the whole year and half of them were probably the local news to see how gash the weather/how deep the snow was.

I do listen to the radio (the news, plus Late Junction) but there’s no such thing as a radio Iicence so **** ’em.

I think is funny that people are talking about morally we should be paying the licence fee anyway. I pay taxes, I don’t dodge them. No kids, I reckon I pay my share. But feel free to pay for me if you want.

Oh and mags bags n fags is genius.

What if I only claimed a very small benefit, once or twice a year?
😀

It really wouldn’t bother me at all. 🙂

It’s very interesting how social morality allows people to pick and choose the laws they like to abide by. I’m sure they are very keen on the one’s that protect them or are advantageous to them. But a little law that they choose doesn’t apply to them anymore, or doesn’t matter if they break, just once or twice, can easily be ignored with no feelings of guilt. I wonder what other laws will start falling into this bracket, because we are above the law and so can pick and choose them. After all i never crash my car so do ,”I” need insurance. I have access to red diesel so must i pay fuel duty. After all I’ve paid for them for the last 10 years, surely that’s enough so I’ll opt out of those laws please.

If you don’t like the laws then move somewhere with laws you like, easy.

Rusty earlier….

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ukun8nc5Y8U&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/video]

Edit – double post

No, ITV and 5 have advertisement revenue, and lots of it. If a channel didn’t have this, and had to sell their programmes for their only source of income then the programmes would have to be good.

It wouldn’t have to be good, only popular, which really isn’t the same thing. See ITV for examples of popular but rubbish programming.
The trashy reality stuff is all over commercial TV because its cheap and easy to make and the mouth breathers lap it up.

Planet Earth cost £16m for 11 hours of viewing time and got an average of 7.8m viewers per episode. Seems like a bargain to me.
The big brother/xfactor/celebrity shows regularly get 10m viewers and I can’t see any of them costing £1.5m per hour to produce.

It’s very interesting how social morality allows people to pick and choose the laws they like to abide by. I’m sure they are very keen on the one’s that protect them or are advantageous to them. But a little law that they choose doesn’t apply to them anymore, or doesn’t matter if they break, just once or twice, can easily be ignored with no feelings of guilt. I wonder what other laws will start falling into this bracket, because we are above the law and so can pick and choose them.

Never break the speed limit then? Or cycled somewhere you shouldn’t?

Isnt arguing we should pay for a TV licence (despite not actually requiring one) a bit like arguing road cyclists should pay VED? After all we’re just a bunch of freeloaders who don’t pay road tax, right?

Have had no TV (or licence) at a property for a few years. Assuming the address has had a licence in the past you’ll get lots of letters and eventually a visit. If they do see a TV you’ll have to pursued them it’s for computer / dvd use only. You can register “no tv” online. Someone may have posted this already but you need a tv licence to watch bbc iPlayer live but not the recorded programmes.

With more and more good online content there is less and less need to watch broadcast tv, anything I watch on bbc tends to be “recorded” from iPlayer for example.

Planet Earth cost £16m for 11 hours of viewing time and got an average of 7.8m viewers per episode. Seems like a bargain to me.
The big brother/xfactor/celebrity shows regularly get 10m viewers and I can’t see any of them costing £1.5m per hour to produce.

Planet Earth has also been sold to TV channels around the world (e.g. Discovery in the US) plus there will be DVD/Blu-Ray sales etc which will claw some of that money back.

Can’t imagine the same being true for Big Brother!