BBC license change to cover catchup
 

BBC source

Change in law planned so close loophole whereby people who watch BBC other than live don't require a TV license - good thing too.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

Plus I read the other day that recording on a PVR to watch later will also oblige you to pay the TV license fee.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

Mr Whittingdale can go and do one, I ad block to the hilt, some sites are almost impossible to navigate otherwise.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

What a first class berk. If the web wasn't over the the top with ads it wouldn't be a problem. I don't mind 1 or 2 on a page, but some sites don't know where to stop.

That's reminded me to switch my ad-blocker back on; every Google upgrade seems to switch it off again !

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

All they need now is the power and authority (power is no good without authority) to check your PC/Phone/Tablet on the spot to see if you have either an iplayer app or shortcut. to prove you are guilty and eligible to give them some dollars.

we all love dollars!
we will kill our granny for a few dollars!

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

Good.

The law needs to catch up with technology.

---------- Post added at 16:49 ---------- Previous post was at 16:46 ----------

The report also said:

It sounds to me as if he thinks the way forward is to show certain advertisers that their behaviour has been counterproductive.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

the whole thing is a joke and they need to get rid of it completely. How can it be legal to pay for something which you don't use. Just because you have a tv doesn't mean I am going to watch the BBC. The BBC is **** and get all my stuff from the hundreds of channels Sky provides. Why should I pay two subscriptions?

They had might as well make it law that everyone in the country pays road tax because we all walk on paths and use roads to get from A to B. If I won the euromillions I love to bring it up in the European court of human rights.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

We don't watch their main channels so by logic we never use catch up either.

Will TVL bozo's be accosting mobile and tablet users in the street and demanding to see their TV license on the basis that they must be watching the BBC because they could?

It's like owning a car and being done for speeding because you could.:rolleyes:

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

The license is to use TV receivers, it's not just about the BBC.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

As far as we're concerned it is simply a BBC tax and we don't pay it. Haven't paid it for the last decade. We reserve the right to watch all non BBC channels.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

Your council tax pays for services you don't use too.

Parliament believes that forcing TV users to buy a licence, and using the funds raised to run a public service broadcaster, is the best way of ensuring that there is a benchmark of quality and breadth of content in UK broadcasting.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

The council tax pays for essential services, the idiot box isn't essential, perhaps they're bringing this in to cover the legal fees for the paedophile cover up.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

Depends on what you call essential.

I believe Schools still use TV as part of Children's education. Would that not be classed as essential?

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

yes it but I am not ordering you to give me money so that I can fund the National Geographic channel for schools and they aren't allowed to watch anything else.

They need to make BBC channels a bundle option just like movies and sports. They aren't included in the basis package but if you want them it is an extra £5/month. I think there was a news article about this on this forum a few years ago when VM and SKY did a deal. Sky owned the rights to a group of channels like Sky 1, Sky Living, and a few channels like the CBS channels. VM wanted them and Sky were going to charge them £X amount per user but they ended up doing a swap because VM owned a similar group of channels which Sky wanted to offer to their subscribers so they ended up doing a link for like swap.

They really need to get rid of the tv license. If you made people pay for it then you would really see how many people actually wanted it. There just isn't any value for money when you compare it to the quality and variety of programming offered by Sky. Think about all the US shows you gets on Sky 1, Atlantic, all the excellent stuff on scifi, the numerous music channels, international tv channels (you would be amazed how informative al jazerra and france 24 are) not to mentioned the Discovery Channel, National Geographic and Eden etc.

There is a reason why Sky, Virgin and BT tv services exist; terrestrial tv is crap.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

I don't have any children in school but I still pay tax so I don't have to live in a country of stupid people.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

No, of course it's not. Culture is only for those that can afford the price of a theatre ticket, after all. The plebs can huddle round the wireless.

Honestly daddy, of all the bone-headed comments ... TV's impact on our national life has been immense. It has made culture and entertainment universally available, has played an important role in creating and maintaining a sense of British national identity and has transformed our outlook on the world - the modern success of major fund raising events like Sport Relief is directly attributable to TV images of the famine in Ethiopia, which wasn't the first or the biggest the world had ever seen, but was communicated in a way no other humanitarian disaster had ever been up to that point.

A basic TV service, providing news and catering for as wide a range of tastes and outlooks as possible, is of course absolutely essential.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

:clap::tu:

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

I wasn't talking about normal tax, I was referring to Stuart's assertion that tv is essential for schools. Do they only watch the BBC?

a very well articulated point and I genuinely agree. But surely such an essential service should sell/run on its own merits if it is so amazing and shouldn't have to rely to a legislated budget where £billions of income is guaranteed and you basically have a free reign to do whatever you want. If they had to work to provide a quality service and failure to do so with result in reduced income (subscription channel package) or share prices then I am sure we would see a completely different BBC.

If you took away the mandatory license fee and said to everyone "you can either pay £12/month for the BBC or £20/month for 270 channels with Sky" what do you think they would choose. At the moment I am paying half my Sky subscription again for a few channels which I never watch. Or the other way to look at is that I am legally forced to pay 1/3 of my tv subscription for a channel package that I don't want.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

TV has had its day, it's great achievements are in the past, long distant past in most cases, if people were watching it they wouldn't need to think of new ways to pick pockets. I also like the way you talk about the poor having to huddle round t'wireless whilst conveniently ignoring the financial burden the TV licence places upon them in the next breath, it's actually quite funny, culture is only for those that can afford a theatre ticket or a tv licence

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

I don't pay it, haven't for many years. I've saved a small fortune. :)

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

Don't be absurd - the TV licence costs about £12 a month ... That's £3 a week. I have had stretches of unemployment in the past, I know what it's like to live on minimal state handouts, and I never once found it impossible to find that amount.

People are watching, that's the point. The iplayer had been so successful that it has become a loophole to avoid paying the licence. It is quite right for that loophole to be closed.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

How is it absurd, the other channels are free but the bbc tax is not, you or they shouldn't have to find any money to cover it. Scrap the tax is another way of closing the loophole to btw

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

well said dude

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

It's absurd to equate the cost of a TV licence with the price of a theatre ticket, which is what you seemed to be doing earlier. The TVL works out at around £3 a week. I took the kids to the panto last Christmas and the cheapest seats in the house were £20 *each*.

Yes, you can of course have a free-to-air national TV broadcasting service without imposing a charge on those who use it. The quality of those networks is however not so good. Even in the USA, where the advertisers potential audience is more than five times the size of the UK, free-to-air TV is swamped with cheap, low quality dross. What we see of US TV in the UK is highly distilled, has often been made to show on networks that require a subscription, and these days is normally shown in the UK on a network requiring subscription, given the producers' need to recoup the high costs of making it.

For a *tiny* contribution from all TV users in the UK, the BBC produces quality output and caters for a wide range of interests. Even for those who do not watch it, its output sets a benchmark that forces its competitors to keep their own standards up.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

How?

What to do about the fee in general is a different argument. This is about people that should already be paying for the BBC not doing so.

Closing the loophole is stopping people who are watching BBC content via iPlayer from not paying for it at the moment. So for them they'd have to pay for the BBC anyway, as they want to watch the content.

If you don't watch BBC content, then this loophole closure doesn't affect you either as you won't want to watch iPlayer content in the first place.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

Just Kodi or various Android app anything you want to watch, you don't need iPlayer

BBC licence fee is a 20th Century anarchism that needs to be consigned to the dustbin, every other UK channel manages just fine with adverts.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

That's always been the case hasn't it? If you watch or record live TV then you always needed a TV licence

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

When I read/see the news every day, I wonder how well that worked out, we seem to have a lot of stupid people.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

Maybe they should stop watching the BBC. :D

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

They'll be the ones that don't watch the BBC. :D

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

No I didn't equate the cost of the TV tax to a theatre ticket at all, what I said was you ignored the financial burden the tax placed upon the poor when you were on your high horse

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

The BBC is fantastic value for money when compared to Cable or Satellite. Most of their output is original, and most cable channels just repeat it. Not just tv, radio and websites -all ad free.

Lots of people agree with me:- ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lzS8yW8INA

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

Yes l could not have said it better myself.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

Oh yes fantastic value, 145 quid a year for something I never use is cheap at twice the price and it's not anyway compared to itv or channel 4 which cost nothing directly.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

Exactly. :tu:

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

How much do you spend on cable, satellite subscription in a year for mostly repeated programming of low quality dross? Are you sure you never use the BBC - local radio, weather, traffic, website? I think many take these things for granted. If we relied on commercial TV, some of the best TV drama would never get made - we'd be left with tabloid TV.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

Meh.

You want to read Horizon's linked document: Source

From the thread in VM TV Link

But you won't being a fully paid up BBC fanboi.:rolleyes:

But to return to the thread: How on earth will this be enforced when phones and tablets are likely to be connecting via public WiFi? Can you see a TVL Bozo trying to make a load of bolshie teens pay the TV tax? Ain't going to happen. They're more likely to get knifed.

A law that cannot be enforced is a bad law IMHO.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

A prediction I have made elsewhere:

The TVL will be replaced with a precept on council tax to be paid to a national broadcasting authority (probably Ofcom), which will then pass most of it to the BBC and invite bids from the other public service broadcasters to fund some of their PSB obligations.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

And I was referring to TheDaddy's assertion that
I did not mention the licence. The School would likely to have to pay for any channel that has any reasonable amount of educational programming even if the licence fee did not exist as, in my experience, the channels on Freeview (which is largely funded by the licence fee, BTW) don't tend to carry educational TV.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

Zero pounds and pretty sure

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

5% of households don't have a tv anymore, many use catch up services but a significant number don't bother with it at all.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...thout-one.html

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

great, if they were going to do it properly and not rip people off then they need to manage as a pay per view service. Sky boxes use cards so Sky know who you are what package/channels you have access to and the BBC should be managed the same way. Like wise, just as you have to register/sign in for Sky Go, if BBC want to start charging people to use iplayer then they should get them to register with name, address, tv license number etc and sign in when they want to use it. Failure to implement such a system just makes a mockery of the whole system and means some people license payers are paying for other people to use the service. If you think I am being stupid then look at it this way. What would you think if 4 millions people paid for Sky in their home to watch on tv/boxes but Sky let non-paying people access Sky Go/other services online and have it all for free?

TV is multi platform now and whether it is online or on the "tv" everyone who wants to watch it should pay for it. I think the sticking point is that they need to change the name from "tv license" and call it "media license" or "BBC license".

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

I my house the BBC channels never watched, we enjoy ITV and C4, and many other channels. So too me the BBC is a rip off and many many agree with me.

---------- Post added at 14:01 ---------- Previous post was at 13:58 ----------


It's only TV, close the BBC let me save £145 a year or let those that want it subscribe to it. It's only TV. Just like those that don't want Virginmedia TV choose not to subscribe to it.

If the BBC is so amazing I'm sure everyone currently paying the TV licence or face prison will keep willingly paying.

I can't think of a single programme any of my kids have ever watched on the BBC,

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

Isn't that what tv licensing is all about anyway, everyone has to pay whether you use it or not and if some peoples predictions come true even a little thing like not having a tv won't protect you from subsidising other peoples dubious 'viewing pleasure'

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

How is it a rip off just because you don't watch it ,also it's been shown many times in various threads on the TVL that you would be very surprised about BBC programs that you watch without being aware that the BBC had a hand in their production.

FYI no one has ever gone to jail for not paying their TVL

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

True, although:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013...n_4163939.html

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

And every last one of them thought "I won't get jailed for not paying". :D

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

Like I said before "it was t the gun shot to the head that killed him, it was the loss of blood"

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

Every single one was jailed for not paying fines not for not paying the TVL .You don't get jailed for doing 40mph in a 30 mph zone but you will get jailed for not paying the fine

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

You only get done if you let the TVL bozo into your house or let them see your 60" screen from the road. We've even had them peering through the letterbox. :rolleyes:

As stated not paying the subsequent court fine and thus being in contempt of court is what gets you jailed.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

Of course they can only fine you if they get your full name. So if you never give it to them they can't ever fine you or take you to court.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

Our names are not on the public electoral register so all their threatening letters are addressed to "The Legal Occupier" The silliest one being "What you need to know in court" No name, no prosecution, numb nuts. :D

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

Non-payment is still a criminal offence. Believe me, if they do actually take you to court, they can get your name without any problems at all.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

Yeah, I get those too. Also the we are sending someone round. I live in a flat so anytime I answer the buzzer I ask who is there. If I don't know them or they say they are from TVL I just say not today thanks thenhang up and never let them in. :D

But they can't take you to court WITHOUT having your name first. So the letters are just empty threats as they are just addresed to The legal Occupier.

They can't get your name unless you give it to them.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

Yes they can. If they actually launch a criminal investigation (which they have not done, at the point you start getting threatening letters), they can very easily get your name without asking you.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

I think the guy is pushing it a bit in his statement, I didnt like this comment.

There is people who may never watch bbc even with iplayer but because they watch some other channel they have to pay the license fee.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

funny you should say that because I have been thinking about this all day as Games of Thrones 6x01 has premiered. People can praise the BBC all they want but given the choice (as in if the law changed and you weren't forced to pay for it anymore) how many people do you think would choose to save themselves £x/month and/or go for Sky/Netflix/Amazon Prime instead?

The BBC was good for what it was back in the 60s, 70s and 80s when there wasn't anything else but as with everything else, times have moved on and there are better services out there which offer you better and more for your money. Millions of people used to flock to the beach (Blackpool etc) in the early 1900s for their summer holidays and watch punch & judy shows and have ice cream but times have moved on and now we like to go abroad. Shall we make it law that everyone has to have their summer holiday in England?

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

Personally i can't remember the last time i watched anything on the bbc, if it went the way of a subscription based the bbc would not last long

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

article on Sky News this morning about some potential new rules about BBC programme scheduling and one of the quotes from the BBC is:

"It would be odd to make it harder for people to find and watch the programmes they have already paid for"

Why am I paying for tv series that I don't wait (or entire channels)?

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

You could say that of any cable/satellite subscription. I and I suspect most, don't watch 90% of channels paid for.

The Govt. are determined to crush the BBC, slowly but surely. Pressure from their commercial pals, Murdoch, and they see it as a hotbed of socialism (Countryfile is a communist propaganda piece for sure..) Truth is, most of the decent TV is made by the BBC and repeated by other channels. One of those things that you really would be sorry if it went. Like cable/satellite it does need paying for, and doesn't thankfully have commercials. Its incredibly good value for money in comparison.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

Yep politicians just can't keep their hands off the BBC and sadly that will be to the detriment of viewers if it is allowed to continue willy nilly.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

Most stuff is made for the BBC by independent studios. If the BBC went these studios would provide the same programming directly for commercial channels rather than having the BBC as some kind of parasitic intermediary

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

I don't think the same programmes would get made without the BBC and license fee. Programmes would only get made if they attracted advertising ie. Expect a lot more reality TV, soaps and general crap.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

Not really because I don't watch it at all because it hasn't got any progs on that I want to watch and I have been wanting it to go for years. Like another user said a few days ago, if the BBC channels were changed to a package/bundle option on Sky/Virgin/BT just like the Disney channels/movies etc how many people do you think would opt to pay for it? If your answer is loads of people because the BBC is awesome then that is what they should do and let it sell on it's merits.[/QUOTE]

so stuff would get made that people presumably want to watch vs all the stuff they make now that they don't want to watch (implied). The difference is that I choose to pay for Sky and yes there are many many channels that I don't watch but that is because there are a handful of channels which have everything on that I love so I still get my moneys worth out of my subscription. The difference between the BBC and everyone else is that if I decided I wasn't getting value for money from my subscription then I could cancel it, I can't do that with BBC. Even if Sky etc wasn't around I still wouldn't watch BBC because I would be watching boring dross for the sake of it.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

How do you know it's boring dross if you don't watch it?

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

Below is a last of every tv series I have seen in it's entirety including ones I currently watch. Find me one that is on the BBC. The last time I checked (and it was 20 years ago) Buffy, Xfiles and Star Trek were on BBC2 and that is it and even then they dicked around taking them every time darts/tennis/whatever else came along but they managed to keep all the stupid gardening shows and everything else on before and after.


10.5
24
12 Monkeys
3rd Rock from the Sun
Agent Carter
Agents of Shield
Airwolf
alias
Allegiance
American Odyssey
Andromeda
Arrow
Ascension
Avatar
Babylon 5
Babylon 5 Crusade
Band of Brothers
Beauty and the Beast
Big Bang
Bionic Woman
Bitten
Black Sails
Blade
Blindspot
Boardwalk Ampire
BoP
BSG
BSG Old
Buck Rogers
Buffy
Camelot
Continuum
Criminal Minds
Crisis
Csi
Dark Angel
Dark Matter
Dead Zone
Defiance
Dexter
Dollhouse
Dominion
Dooms Day Preppers
Early Edition
Earth Final Conflict
Eleventh Hour
Eureka
Extant
Falling Skies
Fear the Walking Dead
Flash Forward
Flash Gordon
Flashpoint
Frasier
Friends
Game of Thrones
Greys Anatomy
Harpers Island
Helix
Heroes
Homeland
House
Intelligence
JAG
Jake 2.0
Jeremiah
Jericho
Joey
John Doe
Knight Rider
Kyle XY
Last Kingdom
Last Resort
Legend of Korra
Lexx
Lie to Me
Limitless
Lost
Master of Science Fiction
Minority Report
NCIS
NCIS New Orleans
New Adventures of Superman
O5
Outer Limits
Persons Unknown
Prison Break
Proof
Quantico
Quantum Leap
Relic Hunter
Revolution
Robin of Sherwood
Rome
Romeo Section
Roswell
Scorpion
SeaQuest DSV
Secret Circle
Sliders
Smallville
Space Above & Beyond
Spartacus
ST DS9
ST Enterprise
ST TNG
ST Voyager
Stalker
Standoff
Star-Crossed
Stargate Atlantis
Stargate SG1
Stargate Universe
State of Affairs
Super Volcano
Supergirl
Surface
Taken
Terminator
Terra Nova
The 100
The 4400
The Event
The Fallen
The Flash
The Last Ship
The Lost Room
The Mentalist
The Originals
The Strain
The Tomorrow People
The Triangle
The Unit
The Walking Dead
Threat Matrix
Threshold
Time Trax
True Blood
Under the Dome
V
Vampire Diaries
Vikings
War of the Worlds
West Wing
X-files
Z Nation
Zoo

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

Impressive list, but it didn't answer my question....

It's like someone saying they don't like (fill in food/drink of choice), but won't taste the food/drink...

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

I love Italian and Indian food but can't stand Chinese or Thai, that doesn't mean I have to visit a new Chinese restaurant that has just opened up. Having reviewed my list and seeing the genres I like and the level of production quality that I appreciate, find me something similar on BBC that I'll like. Dr Who doesn't count because I hate it (and have tried it).

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

I don't like any of those shows you watch ,i want all those commercial channels to go pay per view because i don't see why i should be forced to pay for shows i don't watch .

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

I know I am going to regret asking this but if you don't like anything I watch then what do you watch? And don't say Eastenders and Bargain Hunt.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

I watch lots of stuff ,my point was why should i be forced to pay for the stuff you watch

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

:confused: you aren't forced to pay for the stuff I watch, that is the point. Your subscription and channel package with Sky/Virgin is entirely optional and you can cancel it at any time. I, in contrast, don't have a choice and am legally required to pay for a service which I do not use at all. Which of the two is worse?

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

Every time i buy a tin of beans or packet of cornflakes i contribute to the advertising revenue of all the commercial channels .People whining about having to pay for the BBC on the grounds of "i don't watch the channels so why should i pay" would do well to remember that even people who do not own a tv contribute to ITV ,C4,C5 etc ,you can't say the same about the BBC

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

dude you have well and truly lost the plot. Even if I agreed with you, indirectly paying for something is of far less consequence than directly paying for it. Going back to my original argument though, you can choose whether or not you buy cornflakes or beans and if you do, which brand you also buy (or which there are many). I choose to subscribe to Sky out of choice and not Virgin Media, BT or Now TV and do not choose to pay for the BBC.

Do you think you pay more in passive sponsorship on your cornflakes than the £145/year for the license fee? If so there is a massive conspiracy we need to make everyone aware of ASAP. Don't ring Sky News though, ring BBC News.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

Love the way you dismiss any argument that is not sympathetic to your own as "lost the plot" .

Who do you think paid for the boring dross you watch ?

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

not really, you aren't making any sense and I can't decided whether it is because you have misunderstood my posts or whether you are just the biggest hypocrite ever and like to contradict yourself. The general tone of your posts suggests that you disagree me yet your individual arguments and statements regarding having to pay for channels that you don't watch support my position. Just to be clear, you are complaining about "choosing" to pay for a service which has so many channels and so much variety that you cannot watch all of them. I am complaining about "having" to pay for a service that I don't watch and don't want to have. I do not have an option not to pay or to unsubscribe.

Me and all the other people who "choose" to pay for a quality tv service with hundreds of channels containing series I actually want to watch. There are many many channels that have content I am not interested in (e.g. Sky Living, UK Gold etc) but there are a handful of channels such as Syfy, Sky One, Sky Atlantic, CBS Reality, National Geographic, Discovery Channel, Sky News, Eden etc etc which have more quality and enjoyable content on than I physically have time to watch. I don't actually watch any terrestrial tv at all. I am happy to let everyone do their own thing and watch Coronation Street because it does not affect me at all. ITV and Channel 4 can broadcast whatever they want and people can watch it if they want to or not watch it, it doesn't bother me because I don't watch them and I don't have to pay for it. What does bother me is having to pay for 2 channels that I don't watch which costs nearly as much as the 200+ channels that I do choose to pay for.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

For the n- millionth time.

The licence fee is not a subscription. It is a tax. British law regards a universally available TV and radio service to be a utility, therefore we all pay for it.

It is much the same as council tax, which is levied on homeowners and tenants, and pays for all local authority services regardless of whether you use them.

Whether you agree that a universal TV service is essential is besides the point. The law says that it is. Therefore arguments about not paying for what you don't use are also besides the point.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

It really doesn't make sense and to be honest it sounds so outrageous that it sounds like something you would hear about in a country run by a dictatorship. I don't know why it hasn't be raised in the European Court of Human Rights by now (seriously). You argument makes sense for 50 years ago when there wasn't anything else available but now that technology has moved on there are a multitude of other services available at a better price and value. The law needs to be changed to reflect this. I half wish I did my degree in law now and I would take this up as a personal mission.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

It isn't my argument - it's legal fact.

And there are a good number of countries within the EU where TV is at least partially funded by a public levy (including Germany). I very much doubt the EU is about to ride to your rescue.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

Sarcasm escapes you does it ? I am not complaining(apart from some people's constant whining about paying for the BBC) ,you are complaining about having to pay for a universal channel free of subscription and free of advertising that you don't watch ,i was sarcastically using your own argument of "why should i pay for channels i don't watch against you . You should be able to understand that everybody ,regardless of TV ownership pays for commercial channels via the products they buy in the shops ,when was the last time you heard anyone complain about having to pay for ITV

---------- Post added at 07:59 ---------- Previous post was at 07:48 ----------

You do realise that most of Europe has a tv licence,quite often it is a surcharge on electricity bills or electrical goods

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

The point is that you have choice in what products you buy where as you are being forced to pay the TVL. Whether you watch the BBC or not.

So by calling it a subscription service is unrealistic. If it was a subscription then you would have a choice to pay it or not.

So as he doesn't watch it then why should he pay.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

thanks dude :luv:

I have come up with the perfect solution (and I am being very serious). If it is a public service which everyone should pay for regardless of whether they use it or not (remember it includes radio and not just tv) then payment for the service should be incorporated into income tax and not be a separate payment. This way when it comes round to the general elections we can see where the different parties want to spend the money and I can guarantee there will be at least one party which says they want to drop the £5 billion of pubic money we give the BBC and split it between schools, the nhs and defence. Just imagine what a £1.5 billion injection into schools could do every year!

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

Because, as you yourself have just said, it isn't a subscription. It is a tax, levied in the form of a fee to obtain a licence to use TV receiving equipment.

It is levied in this way because the settled will of Parliament is that there should be a publicly funded broadcaster, independent of political control, with a remit to provide a broad range of information and entertainment.

That's why you pay it even if you don't watch the BBC (incidentally, I don't believe anyone who claims never, ever to consume any BBC content). You don't send any kids to school either, but your council tax pays for the classrooms for those that do.

Paying the BBC a grant out of income tax would end its independence from Government, and will not happen.

What might happen, not at the upcoming charter renewal but the one after, is that OFCOM may be told to collect fees via a precept on council tax instead, the same way the fire and police authorities do. My prediction is that from 2027, the BBC will have to apply to OFCOM for funding, and that other public service broadcasters will also be able to do so.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

That may be the case but you have zero influence on the use of money paid over as advertising revenue .I don't watch Hollyoaks, coronation st or Big Brother but i know that i contribute to there making in the products i buy ,i have no idea which products contribute to Hollyoaks ,Coronation st or Big Brother so therefore i have no choice ,i simply have to accept that i have no choice but to pay for stuff i don't watch.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

This is the kind of bs we're all paying for

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ckgrounds.html

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

They've been doing that for years. I had similar nonsense from them when trying to get into their graduate journalist training scheme 20-odd years ago.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

I would sue them. The whole point of equal opportunities and discrimination laws is that if somebody is capable of doing the job then they get the jobs regardless of colour/disability/gender. By deliberately excluding white people they are actively discriminating against white people. We might laugh about it but imagine the change in tone and the reaction is they sad "sorry, no black people"?

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

They have a loophole - "training opportunities" are exempt from the law. They're not even salaried, they get an "allowance". Someone in Broadcasting House has gone to great lengths to get round this.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

Its absolutely pathetic in my opinion and surely they should be brought to book over this because if it was a the other way round certain groups would be screaming blue murder that's for sure.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

I believe it's called 'Reverse discrimination'

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

It used to be called 'Positive Discrimination', then the PC Brigade decided that sounded too negative and changed it to 'Positive Action'.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

I applied for a radio tech job with them, and got through to the final stage. The someone started talking to me in Welsh, and seemed aghast that I did not understand. I was asked why I had put down "bilingual" on my application, and I told them I was bilingual: English and French. Application denied on the spot.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

Did the job ad specify that the applicant be fluent in Welsh? If it just said bi lingual, you'd have a reason for complaint because there are hundreds of other languages besides English and Welsh.

As for positive discrimination, I personally think it is *still* discrimination, therefore in general, still bad. However, the press, while condemning the BBC for encouraging ethnic minorities to apply, also condemn the BBC for being too white and too middle class.

So, everyone who has condemned the BBC for this action, how do you propose they get script writers from ethnic backgrounds to apply? Also bear in mind they run more than one training course each year, which the papers (both Mail and Sun) have studiously avoided mentioning.


By the way, they have replied.
http://www.digitalspy.com/tv/news/a7...in-front-page/

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

I didn't realise script writers from ethnic backgrounds were better at script writing than non-ethnic script writers. You advertise the position to everyone, you interview people and you take the best person for the job regardless of whether they are male or female, white or black, 20 or 60. If a script writer from an ethnic background sees the advert and wants to apply for it then great, he has a fair shot at it like everyone else.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

The application form was in English and made no mention of languages. I was going to complain but was told that could permanently sour relations with the BBC..... by a BBC administrator.

The job was readvertised for at least 6 months after my interview.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

Haha.

Yet more scare mongering!!

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

While some of us moan at the BBC it sill represents excellent value for money in my opinion but alas l am sure that there are some won't agree with that sentiment.