TV licence non payment could be made a civil offence

[Jimmy-J]

No Marty, it's the Beebs attitude... Anyway, carry on giving them your money for content you can get for free elsewhere, and I'll carry on saving my money for the things I really need.

Originally Posted by Jimmy-J

No Marty, it's the Beebs attitude... Anyway, carry on giving them your money for content you can get for free elsewhere, and I'll carry on saving my money for the things I really need.

and what would the "Beebs attitude" be then ?

[heero_yuy]

Originally Posted by martyh

and what would the "Beebs attitude" be then ?

We have a divine right to broadcast any rubbish and force you to pay for it even if you never watch it.

[rhyds]

Originally Posted by martyh

and what would the "Beebs attitude" be then ?

BBC/Capita: "Your address is in our database, ergo you need a TV licence"

Me: "No I don't. My TV doesn't have access to live broadcasts"

BBC/Capita: "Yes you do"

Me: "No I don't"

BBC/Capita: "Yes you do, and we will scare you in to handing over £145.50 because no-one doesn't have a TV, ergo everyone needs a licence."

---------- Post added at 09:11 ---------- Previous post was at 09:09 ----------

Another reason for not allowing some berk from TVL entry in to your home is that they're not exactly technical experts.

For example my TV isn't connected to my freeview aerial, but is connected to a freesat box that's connected to a dish, ergo I need a licence as I can receive live broadcasts.

Now, If I were to disconnect that freesat box from the dish, but keep it connected to the TV as it does media streaming, would a TVL berk really understand the distinction?

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by martyh

All of this above just shows that your obstructive attitude is causing you problems ....more fool you

I think the real problem is that you think your opinion is always right and everyone else with a different one is wrong.

My attitude is not obstructive, I let into my home who I choose to let in. The only circumstances where I don't have a say is an illegal forced entry when I'm not present or an entry with a warrant.

I am certainly not going to let a salesman into my property to mooch around and see if I'm using their products.

[Jimmy-J]

Originally Posted by martyh

and what would the "Beebs attitude" be then ?

Marty, stop being a silly Billy

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

We have a divine right to broadcast any rubbish and force you to pay for it even if you never watch it.

That may be your view but it certainly isn't the majority view.

---------- Post added at 09:40 ---------- Previous post was at 09:25 ----------

Originally Posted by Escapee

I think the real problem is that you think your opinion is always right and everyone else with a different one is wrong.

My attitude is not obstructive, I let into my home who I choose to let in. The only circumstances where I don't have a say is an illegal forced entry when I'm not present or an entry with a warrant.

I am certainly not going to let a salesman into my property to mooch around and see if I'm using their products.

Of course i think my opinion is right ,it's called having an opinion .What a crazy thing to say .

I happen to support the BBC ,i think they produce some really good programing for not a lot of money compared to ,for example, Sky .I do think the BBC has it's problems but i think it should be supported and kept as a public service broadcaster .For those who genuinely don't need a licence then they should have no problem showing the relevant authority the required proof or they will be suspected of cheating the system ,i really don't know why this concept is so hard for some to understand

[rhyds]

Originally Posted by martyh

That may be your view but it certainly isn't the majority view.

---------- Post added at 09:40 ---------- Previous post was at 09:25 ----------



Of course i think my opinion is right ,it's called having an opinion .What a crazy thing to say .

I happen to support the BBC ,i think they produce some really good programing for not a lot of money compared to ,for example, Sky .I do think the BBC has it's problems but i think it should be supported and kept as a public service broadcaster .For those who genuinely don't need a licence then they should have no problem showing the relevant authority the required proof or they will be suspected of cheating the system ,i really don't know why this concept is so hard for some to understand

Its a simple case of "Innocent until proven Guilty". Its up to the BBC/Capita to prove someone needs a licence rather than said person prove they don't. If I were to roll up to your house demanding to see your TV/AV gear would you let me in?

And as for the licence being cheaper than sky/VM, the massive difference is that I can *choose* to pay for those services or not.

I do support the BBC, and do watch the odd programme from them, but they could do much better with their legally guaranteed £3bn or so a year...

Originally Posted by rhyds

Its a simple case of "Innocent until proven Guilty". Its up to the BBC/Capita to prove someone needs a licence rather than said person prove they don't. If I were to roll up to your house demanding to see your TV/AV gear would you let me in?

Yes ,as would most people with nothing to hide

And as for the licence being cheaper than sky/VM, the massive difference is that I can *choose* to pay for those services or not.

and you can choose to not watch any BBC programs and you can choose not to watch any live tv

I do support the BBC, and do watch the odd programme from them, but they could do much better with their legally guaranteed £3bn or so a year...

This i agree with .

[rhyds]

Originally Posted by martyh

Yes ,as would most people with nothing to hide

Then you sir are a very trusting soul. Send me your address so I may make my unannounced visit at a time that suits me.

Originally Posted by martyh

and you can choose to not watch any BBC programs and you can choose not to watch any live tv

Of course I can choose not to watch the BBC (I often do). The problem is I have to pay the BBC to watch live broadcasts from satellites and other services that they don't use or contribute to. Saying "well you could not have a TV" is not a valid answer. It might have been back in 1952 when it was the BBC or nowt, but now they are but one player is a global marketplace, but one with a guaranteed, by law, revenue of £3bn on top of the roughly £2bn it makes commercially.

If the BBC is indeed the national treasure we are always told it is, why is it scared of going subscription?

Originally Posted by rhyds

Then you sir are a very trusting soul. Send me your address so I may make my unannounced visit at a time that suits me.

not so much trusting just not paranoid as hell

If the BBC is indeed the national treasure we are always told it is, why is it scared of going subscription

It's not a case of being scared to go subscription ,the BBC is a PSB and has legal requirements to produce programming for all genres as do ITV ,ch4 and 5 ,it would be hard to satisfy those requirements if they where a subscription service given how many do not use subscription tv .Now if you are making the case for not needing a PSB in modern times that is a different argument to how the BBC is funded

[rhyds]

Originally Posted by martyh

It's not a case of being scared to go subscription ,the BBC is a PSB and has legal requirements to produce programming for all genres as do ITV ,ch4 and 5 ,it would be hard to satisfy those requirements if they where a subscription service given how many do not use subscription tv .Now if you are making the case for not needing a PSB in modern times that is a different argument to how the BBC is funded

So your argument is that, given a choice, most people wouldn't pay for the BBC?

Originally Posted by rhyds

So your argument is that, given a choice, most people wouldn't pay for the BBC?

No ,the main argument against subscription is that many won't be able to afford it given the rise in cost which is not how a PSB operates .A psb should be available to most of the public which is certainly not the case for subscription tv .Advertising is a method used by the other PSB's
but given the popularity of the BBC it is likely that the other broadcasters would lose revenue to the BBC .

[rhyds]

Originally Posted by martyh

No ,the main argument against subscription is that many won't be able to afford it given the rise in cost which is not how a PSB operates .A psb should be available to most of the public which is certainly not the case for subscription tv .Advertising is a method used by the other PSB's
but given the popularity of the BBC it is likely that the other broadcasters would lose revenue to the BBC .

If they can afford to pay for a TV licence now, then they could afford to pay the subscription if they chose to. If your arguing that the subscription would be higher than the licence fee, then the only ones to suffer from the fall in revenue and subscriber numbers would be the BBC, who would be forced to either make more popular programmes or reduce the subscription cost to a more palatable level.

[tweetiepooh]

Don't the BBC and ITV, C4, C5 have to pay for the transmitters too? So the fee will also cover the cost of transmitters that some use to receive other channels (they also likely need to contribute).

I think the fee is a good, easy and clear way to fund the BBC and keep it free of ads and the like. Subscriptions would be hard to manage. How do you stop people viewing your channels. Our receiver for freeview is fixed inside the TV, no card reader or like (it's an CRT TV). Many others will be in a similar position. No way we'd pay for a new set or box with a reader to switch off BBC if we didn't want it.
Could be controlled via our VM service I suppose which we use most of the time.

But the cost of collecting a subscription would be high and so the subscription would need to be high to cover all those not paying and to collect it.

(Maybe one reason for switching to a civil offence is the change in burden of proof required in a criminal case.)