The 'licence' fee is an unlawful charge. It is not a tax: governments tax us, not broadcasters, and this money is not collected or spent by government. Governments are answerable for the expenditure of tax money. But the whole point of the devious and dishonest 'licence' fee is to absolve the BBC from being answerable to anyone: not to you, not to your elected representative, not to Ofcom, not to public accounts scrutiny, to no one. It is a device designed to deprive consumers of the consumer rights which would ordinarily attach to such a purchase. Which is a great position for a bunch of unelected people running Broadcasting House to be in, and one they intend to use all their considerable propaganda resources to hang on to!
Granted there is a bunch of superannuated, paternalistic Overpaids called the BBC Trust, who claim to act in the best interests of the 'licence' fee payer. But the only chap who knows the best interests of the 'licence' fee payer is the 'licence' fee payer. He and she don't need to be patronised like this.
Nor is the 'licence' a licence. Think of a driving-, fishing-, pilot's licence... Typically they are obtained by demonstrating competence, they guarantee a standard of behaviour and they can be confiscated for lapses of behaviour. Their level of charge is related to the cost of licensing, not to the cost of running a broadcasting operation. When was the last time the inspector came around and checked you were watching tv in the prescribed manner and with full regard to health and safety regulations?
Government can licence a broadcaster; it is absurd for it to claim to licence the recipient of a broadcast, not least because of the implied interference with freedom of speech. Why, in a democracy, should we need government permission to watch television? The 'licence' is no more than an order from government, to you and me, to subscribe to the BBC. But the government can't order you to buy anything, it can't even order you to buy British. Yet here it is with this devious setup ordering us all to pay for Celebs Prancing Around in Sequins.
You may love BBC programmes, you may hate them. That is irrelevant. The issue is whether you and I should be compelled by government, under threat of criminal prosecution, to pay for them.
Some defend the 'licence' fee on the grounds that they hate adverts. I wonder to what extent their livelihoods depend upon trade and the success of the advertising industry? But there is no reason why a privatised BBC could not live honestly on a voluntary subscription rather than a compulsory one. It is, after all, the best broadcaster in the world, we know that because it continually tells us so, and would never want for subscribers or income. It could have a 24/7 Celebs Prancing channel.
A voluntary subscription would allow the BBC to participate in the free market democracy that the rest of us inhabit. It would bestow what the BBC desperately needs: someone, shareholders and/or viewers, to be answerable to. It might even be able to make programmes of the standard of the despised American ones it keeps buying in. Those of us who wish to take up ITV's offer of free to air television would be able to do so without having to pay the BBC. Those who disagree with the policies the BBC promotes would be able to exercise their right to unsubscribe. Those who cannot afford the BBC levy (it is a noticeable bite out of jobseekers' allowance) would not have to be denied tv services.
And the over 75s' free 'licence'? It's paid by government (that is, by you the taxpayer, not by the BBC). Why shouldn't the government offer the option of a Sky Sports subscription instead? To offer only one subscription is commercial favouritism and a restraint on trade.
The 'licence' is an outdated charge which is no longer enforceable. Everyone knows the famous detector vans can spot only a cathode ray tube, they cannot find a modern flatscreen television. Yet antediluvian Culture Minister, Jeremy Hunt, remains committed to the 'licence', and pretty soon there will be another BBC settlement announced from behind closed doors, which the BBC will again have kept away from public discussion until it is finalised.
|
What a load of trollop. tell you what, dont pay the License fee, kiss goodbye to your radio, great unbiased newsm some great TV,
You could always move to Spain and not have to pay it.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 3 Jul 11 at 19:36
|
Isn't the licence fee for receiver equipment???
So even if you are fully Sky you still have to pay the licence fee.
|
>>Isn't the licence fee for receiver equipment???
So even if you are fully Sky you still have to pay the licence fee.>>
Yes, it includes the right to receive radio and television transmissions and that includes ITV, Sky etc. No TV licence, no TV or radio from any source and that includes VCRs, PVRs, PC tuner cards and any other equipment containing the necessary tuner(s).
The BBC doesn't get all the TV licence fee money - the Government decides how much it is going to give the corporation annually from the licence fee money pot.....
The BBC also had to pay for the cost of the digital switchover including providing cut price equipment for the elderly and others who might find difficulty buying new equipment.
|
Think of it a subscription channel - it's a real bargain, especially alongside the 90% crap that brute Murdoch tries to peddle. Multichannel television and radio, international frequencies - a world news service, one of the best, if not the best, website in the world with cutting edge features. World class reporters who are in the right place at the right time and not arriving after the event e.g. Stephen Evans in the WTC on 9/11, staff reporters in Syria, Lybia and Egypt at the start of the Arab Spring. A slight right/left wing bias depending on which way you happen to swing - all for the price of licence. Peanuts.
You don't need a licence for a stand-a-lone radio.
Oh and an honourable record of standing up to knobs like Mandy and Prescott..
Last edited by: Pugugly on Sun 3 Jul 11 at 20:21
|
FFS it's less that £3 a week. Less than the price of a single sandwich in a London snack bar. Less than a 4-pack of Stella. Four TV channels and all the radio you can eat.
BARGAIN!!!!
|
I don't pay it, my parents do. However when I do have to pay it I will still think it is great value.
About 70% of all TV I watch is on the BBC, I also use the BBC website a lot etc.
Just look at the crap ITV make compared to the BBC.
|
|
Good for you Roger - That makes you some sort of anarchist or something.
|
Though about this and I have Sky HD and movies.
I still reckon that I watch about 70% BBC / 10% C4 and 10% Sky. The remaining 10%, the TV is probably on but I don't care.
Doesn't C4 still get a hand out?
On that basis I don't mind paying for it!
Probably an argument for dropping Sky though!
Last edited by: zippy on Sun 3 Jul 11 at 21:34
|
|
If it wasn't for the BBC channels my TV would hardly be on. I have often given up on programmes on commercial channels because the ad breaks seem to be getting longer and longer to the extent that I simply lose interest.
|
|
That is one reason I am more likely to choose a BBC programme over a commercial one when trying to find something to watch on the internet. Also Iplayer just works, where as the commercial ones are prone to getting stuck during adverts.
|
|
Bit of a stretch to call BBC news unbiased though....
|
|
Any news organisation that gets accused by labour and Tory as biased, is about unbiased as it gets.
|
>> Good for you Roger - That makes you some sort of anarchist or something.
>>
No - it makes me 75 years old!
|
|
Fair enough....I'll be paying for the next 23 years, if I'm around that long.
|
You could scrap BBC tomorrow, for me. Mostly a waste of money, for me, with apology to the one shining star, Sir David Attenborough. Not that I now pay a licence fee.
The programs I would like to watch would be OK without the BBC --- noise making morons. They mess up most of them to the point where I can't be bothered. I see someone in this month's journal of the IET is asking, are BBC documentaries fit for purpose. I have wondered that for some time.
In the past there have been many pleas on the BBC notice boards to keep the speech clear but it is now worse than it was two years ago. Indeed commercial channels have followed suit.
Nothing will change with the present BBC management. It is alleged to be managed by a failed doctor. Either way they are clueless about sound in a documentary. The man did a survey but asked the wrong question. It was something like, 'how should we arrange the sound?' according to one paper. It should have been, 'sound in documentaries, yes or no?' I don't want noises from the silly brigade played over the top of the speech. Charlie Chaplin did it but, then, it was the only sound he had.
It may be that technically clueless viewers can be persuaded to 'watch' documentaries just to hear the sound and so swell the program numbers. Is that what it's about?
Noise examples: Why do BBC play a rumbling drum and other sounds while they are speaking the first few minutes of the news? Why does Master Chef need rattling sounds? Horizon used to be a good program to watch but not now the noise morons have invaded. Bring back Raymond Baxter. There was a man who appreciated technology. The BBC know they are upsetting people with sound over speech, they just want to keep doing it. You can't tell them anything. Also the board of management is inaccessible via the BBC website. At least I can't find a way.
I watch Sky news (free) on channel 82, in preference to BBC on 80. Arguably sky produces better news anyway. Yes they make a bit of noise at the start but they soon turn it off. Also if I do flick to have a look at BBC I can quickly get back to where it is noise free.
I watch Quest (channel 38 here) for some interesting technical programs that are at least as good as BBC ones and free of the BBC sound pollution. They have done nuclear submarines, bridge building, oil drilling -- land and sea---, capping the oil well in the recent spill off the US coast, an excellent metal working program series, and have a regular program, 'How is it made' etc.
Today's TV is about making as much noise as possible. The BBC can't even get come dancing right. The band plays nice sounding music but they are clueless when it comes to correct dance tempo. The participants practice their routines until they could still dance their Waltz if the band played hokey cokey, which is just as well.
It sounds as if they emphasize the audience participation noise which spoils the program for me with outbursts at every opportunity. As do Britain's got talent. Just an unruly mob. Not my scene.
Rant over.
|
>> You could scrap BBC tomorrow, for me. Mostly a waste of money, for me, with
>> apology to the one shining star, Sir David Attenborough. Not that I now pay a
>> licence fee.
>
You should stop listening to Radio 4 then
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=151314&v=e
Also please use a spellchecker at least - Program??? Are you American? you will like the overpriced crap they show on Sky it has commercials too!
|
|
Have you had your hearing checked out Busbee?
|
|
I suspect one of those hand made tin foil helmets may help?
|
" suspect one of those hand made tin foil helmets may help?'
Yep, they're good
|
At the end of the day the argument in favour of the license fee is that it works. For £145.50 per annum, an amount that is frozen for the next six years fee we are all getting a good quality and varied output of radio,TV and internet services.
You can make all the arguments in the world but at the end of the day any alternative system will give you a worse service at far greater cost. The BBC is one of the things that make the UK a decent place to live. If it were to be ended for political reasons we would all be very much the poorer in all manner of ways.
|
Well I am prepared to pay well for any organisation that produces the likes of Yes Minister, and Black Adder
To quote barclaycard, priceless!
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 3 Jul 11 at 22:26
|
That is my view too, and one of the reasons I am proud to be British.
Not sure what has happened to ITV though, I am finding I am watching nothing on it now other than Coronation Street.
|
Not sure what has happened to ITV though, I am finding I am watching nothing on it now other than Coronation Street. Yes but your from Manchester......same as the program....
£12.00 a month not a bad service but should be free from the age of 60 if you have paid it for at least 20-30 years, not for the new arrivals.
|
Yep and that is the appeal of it for me, I know a few people that work on it, and I of course I know a lot of the areas where it is filmed. That said most the things which are filmed near me are not corrie but drama programmes.
Plus I've grown up with it and seen every episode since 1992, and loads from the 60's, 70's and 80's. My grandma used to record them for my mother on VHS and she had Granada Plus on Sky.
|
That said most the things which are filmed near me are not corrie but drama programmes
Yes crime drama, Scott & Bailey itv.
|
Not really, its all mixed stuff really, some silly Sky suburbia drama was the latest thing to be filmed near me. Coldfeet was also filmed in my area, although it was supposed to be set in Didsbury 2 miles down the road.
I suspect now Media City are 2.5 miles from me I will be seeing a lot more of the TV cameras even if it is just Blue Peter.
|
|
What always puzzles me is that many of the people who complain about the TV licence fee happily fork out hundreds of pounds annually for Sky and other satellite channels and don't seem to bat an eyelid....
|
Indeed but I suppose you have a choice, I think what annoys people about the TV licence is you don't have a choice if you want a TV.
I remember in the mid 80's my parents being so poor after buying a C64 and a new thing called a CD player they ditched the colour TV and used a 10" Portable B/W for a few years to get a half price TV licence, black and white didn't bother them.
Then I think we got given an old colour TV, so they went back to the colour licence.
|
|
For Zeddo and other Black Adder fans, Tony Robinson was on Desert Island Discs this morning. It was good. It'll be on iPlayer (which I now get on BT Vision !) - maybe that service should be available to licence payers only.
|
>> For Zeddo and other Black Adder fans, Tony Robinson was on Desert Island Discs this
>> morning. It was good. It'll be on iPlayer (which I now get on BT Vision
>> !) - maybe that service should be available to licence payers only.
>>
Thanks for that PU - caught it on iplayer. The licence fee is worth playing just for iplayer; maybe there is a case for making it licence holders only.
For what it's worth we don't have Sky, Frreeview (and iplayer) provide us with all the TV we need. The only thing I really miss is live cricket. I think the way test cricket has declined in public popularity since Channel 4's superb coverage of The Ashes in 2005 - which was available to all - just shows what a huge mistake the ECB made in selling out to Murdoch.
The way the 2005 series caught on with public was due to both some fantastic matches and live coverage available to all the public - matches since have been very good but without the coverage available they just haven't caught on.
|
>> The way the 2005 series caught on with public was due to both some fantastic
>> matches and live coverage available to all the public - matches since have been very
>> good but without the coverage available they just haven't caught on.
Sky would have bought it, and the ECB would have sold it, except the ashes is on the Government golden list, events considered culturally important to the country, so important that can not be sold into "exclusive" viewing.
|
>> Sky would have bought it, and the ECB would have sold it, except the ashes
>> is on the Government golden list, events considered culturally important to the country, so important
>> that can not be sold into "exclusive" viewing.
>>
Sorry, Zero, you are mistaken. The Ashes were not included under the original 1996 Broadcasting Act, or in any subsequent revision.
See also this Tory graph link: tinyurl.com/393mdbl
"The Ashes will continue to be broadcast on satellite television after a decision on the future coverage of major sporting events was deferred until 2013. "
|
|
I stand corrected then. Thought they were. In that case, nothing is sacred.
|
>>I think what annoys people about the TV licence is you don't have a choice if you want a TV.>>
It's never been any different and, as I've pointed out, it also confers the right to receive television transmissions whatever their source.
|
|
I agree with you, I have no problem with it, but I do understand the anarchistic views that don't. I don't agree with them, but I understand their view point.
|
>> What always puzzles me is that many of the people who complain about the TV
>> licence fee happily fork out hundreds of pounds annually for Sky and other satellite channels
>> and don't seem to bat an eyelid....
That's because it's a FREE CHOICE to do so, not a tax enforced with draconian penalties.
I don't disagree that the BBC offers good value for the money, what I dislike is the fact that, unless one has no receiving equipment, payment is compulsory.
|
"what I dislike is the fact that, unless one has no receiving equipment, payment is compulsory."
Unfair perhaps on those who own TVs but never watch any BBC program, listen to the BBC radio services or use the Internet services.
Are there many such people, I somehow doubt it. So it's not much of an argument is it? Just something you found on another website.
|
>> I don't disagree that the BBC offers good value for the money, what I dislike
>> is the fact that, unless one has no receiving equipment, payment is compulsory.
Because in some way you get the benefit. Ok I dont have a TV, but I bet they listen to BBC radio.
|
The original post is perhaps cut and pasted from
www.tvlicenceresistance.info/forum/general-discussion/the-tv-licence-is-a-tax/
as a post on Feb 19th has exactly the same lengthy content. I'd not be surprised if that post was not a cut and paste from elsewhere.
'Trolling' comes to mind...
|
I don't really object to paying. I do it monthly, it's one of my few small DDs.
What I object strongly to is the harrassment of folk who've never had a telly by TV licencing.
Some friends of ours have never had a set ( I admire them for that ) and have been plagued by letters and visits. They just will not believe they're telling the truth.
After all, the DVLA don't harrass you if you haven't got a driving licence !
Ted
|
>>What I object strongly to is the harrassment of folk who've never had a telly by TV licencing.>>
As virtually 100 per cent of the population is supposed to have a TV, it's not all that surprising that they don't believe the few that don't own one...:-)
|
Isn't the word plagiarising?
Credit should, at the very least, be given to a source or sources.
|
A troll and plagiarist?
How do you plead Roger? Any mitigating factors to take into account?
|
I know a few people that never had a TV, one of them one of my teachers who lived close to Ted but has since moved away. She felt very strongly that she didn't want a TV in her house.
There are a few intellectual types in my area who think they are too smart to own a TV.
|
>>There are a few intellectual types in my area who think they are too smart to own a TV.>>
Probably prefer some decent red wine..:-)
|
I am really Johann Hari in disguise!
|
I'm sure we could move to a system where you couldn't watch or listen to the BBC unless you had paid - some card based system with scrambled broadcasts. But, would that really represent such a step forward? Who would really benefit?
The TV licence has the supreme virtue of simplicity.
The problem, as I see it, is that if we do attempt to adopt ruthless logic and clear up every rough edge in the law and in the way the country runs, we just bog ourselves deeper in a mire of bureaucracy.
We have seen changes in the way that some goods and services are sold, and although the plethora of tariffs, call plans, options, bundles, etc, etc, do offer consumer choice, I'm not sure there are many consumers who are able to (or willing to) crunch the numbers and determine the optimum choice.
|
>> I'm not sure there are many consumers who are able to (or willing to) crunch
>> the numbers and determine the optimum choice.
hence the rise of the "U go compare meerkat" business model. Confuse the market with options then take money off the punters to clear it up.
|
Message to the Original Poster
What You, and Everyone else who whinges on about the TV licence fails to realise is that we are not the only country in the world who has to pay for one
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_licence
Some countries you pay for a licence, AND have to watch commercials - a bit like SKY Really but everything they show on sky is either rubbish or American Rubbish.
Get Over it, and Stop Listening /Watching the BBC if you don’t like it that much - I bet you wont do that will you?.
|
|
Good health to you Roger you'r a caracter:)
|
Redviper: "a bit like SKY Really but everything they show on sky is either rubbish or American Rubbish."
I watch Sky News and the above statement you make in regard to that bears little resemblance to the facts. Their coverage of North Africa, Libya etc., was second to none. They have/had reporters on the spot reporting as things developed. More so than BBC.
I have long given up writing programme. I use the same spelling as for a computer program.
By the way, I don't pay for Sky either.
|
>> The 'licence' fee is an unlawful charge. It is not a tax: .............
Nobody claims it's a tax. It's a licence fee. dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/fee?q=fee
Last edited by: L'escargot on Mon 4 Jul 11 at 18:05
|
The TV tax - a view. - Zero
