TV licence non payment could be made a civil offence

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

Not all receivers have a card slot. The ones in my TV's don't and why should I have to buy something extra to watch the BBC?

Indeed but why should i have to pay the Tv tax when i dont watch it ?

Originally Posted by Sirius

Indeed but why should i have to pay the Tv tax when i dont watch it ?

For the same reason you pay taxes to fund all sorts of services our government has deemed socially necessary, even though you don't use them. You see, no matter how many times you ask that question, the answer isn't going to go away.

You can of course argue that a quality national broadcaster with a remit to produce a wide range of programming for a wide range of audiences is not actually socially necessary. You wouldn't be the only one to think that. But you would have a hard time pushing that view in a democratic forum like Parliament, which votes on the BBC's Royal Charter every 10 years. MPs are mostly in favour of the BBC's status and polls show that voters are too.

[Jimmy-J]

Originally Posted by Chris

For the same reason you pay taxes to fund all sorts of services our government has deemed socially necessary, even though you don't use them. You see, no matter how many times you ask that question, the answer isn't going to go away.

You can of course argue that a quality national broadcaster with a remit to produce a wide range of programming for a wide range of audiences is not actually socially necessary. You wouldn't be the only one to think that. But you would have a hard time pushing that view in a democratic forum like Parliament, which votes on the BBC's Royal Charter every 10 years. MPs are mostly in favour of the BBC's status and polls show that voters are too.

That may be the case Chris, but I reckon that some time in the not so distant future, the BBC and it's forced licence fee, will be assigned to room 101, where it belongs.

People are beginning to realise just how corrupt and out-of-date "Auntie" really is. The BBC, are losing the public's support and confidence, and this will show in their figures.

Many people I know have already cancelled their direct debits, and many more are refusing to be forced into paying for something they no longer want nor need.

Originally Posted by Jimmy-J

People are beginning to realise just how corrupt and out-of-date "Auntie" really is. The BBC, are losing the public's support and confidence, and this will show in their figures.

Many people I know have already cancelled their direct debits, and many more are refusing to be forced into paying for something they no longer want nor need.

Actually despite the recent scandals at the BBC "Aunties" audience share has remained steady ,people have not turned off because of any scandal or perceived corruption

http://www.barb.co.uk/viewing/weekly...ry?period_year[]=2014&period_month[]=3&period_week[]=2&button_submit=View+figures&period[]=201403060102

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by martyh

Actually despite the recent scandals at the BBC "Aunties" audience share has remained steady ,people have not turned off because of any scandal or perceived corruption

http://www.barb.co.uk/viewing/weekly...ry?period_year[]=2014&period_month[]=3&period_week[]=2&button_submit=View+figures&period[]=201403060102

They may not of turned off but i bet more and more are not paying

Originally Posted by Sirius

They may not of turned off but i bet more and more are not paying

That may be the case i have no idea ,i would imagine that because it is getting easier to evade a greater number are making a conscious decision to not pay it but still use the service

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

We don't pay but we're honest and don't rip the service. We treat it as a subscription and don't watch/web watch. Not that it's that difficult with the wall to wall crap. I mean do you really want to pay for Eastenders?

Luckily i have never had the pleasure of watching it.

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

We don't pay but we're honest and don't rip the service. We treat it as a subscription and don't watch/web watch. Not that it's that difficult with the wall to wall crap. I mean do you really want to pay for Eastenders?

I would pay to watch Sherlock, or Planet Earth, or Doctor Who. Do you not watch any of them? Sherlock is very good.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Sirius

Luckily i have never had the pleasure of watching it.

They've killed of Nasty Nick Cotton.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Gary L

They've killed of Nasty Nick Cotton.

WHO ?

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

We don't pay but we're honest and don't rip the service. We treat it as a subscription and don't watch/web watch. Not that it's that difficult with the wall to wall crap. I mean do you really want to pay for Eastenders?

I wouldn't but the wife is quite partial along with about 7 million other people.You may want to look past 1 program you dislike and look at some others ,a really good one i watched over the last couple of days was a drama called 37 days ,about the build up to and causes of the first world war ,a class production and one typical of the BBC

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

With my hand on my heart I can say no.

Basil Rathbone was the quintessential Sherlock. Once you've seen one mating rhino, you've seen them all and Dr Who was ruined by Billie Piper (whom I hate) and I've never watched it since.

We like the specialist output of documentary channels like Discovery (networks) and Nat Geo. IF the BBC were producing mostly this output I would have no argument about funding it but because it has to pander to the low brow tastes of the major popule it fails for us. That's why I object to being forced to pay for it.

You do know that BBC content often ends up on Discovery and Nat Geo ?That in doing so the BBC are recouping the licence money?That the the licence money you don't want to pay to watch Eastenders etc but in fact go to produce a lot of documentaries and Natural History programmes as well.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

With my hand on my heart I can say no.

Basil Rathbone was the quintessential Sherlock. Once you've seen one mating rhino, you've seen them all and Dr Who was ruined by Billie Piper (whom I hate) and I've never watched it since.

We like the specialist output of documentary channels like Discovery (networks) and Nat Geo. IF the BBC were producing mostly this output I would have no argument about funding it but because it has to pander to the low brow tastes of the major popule it fails for us. That's why I object to being forced to pay for it.

I wouldn't knock Benedict Cumberbatch's Sherlock before you've seen him in action. Personally, for me, the quintessential Sherlock was Jeremy Brett, but Cumberbatch does a damn good job.

Regarding the programme Planet Earth, I fail to see how you can dismiss it as "you've seen one rutting rhino, you've seen them all". That's like dismissing the output of Discovery by saying "Well, you've seen one Nazi Invasion, you've seen them all" or "You've seen one big machine, you've seen them all". Discovery has some excellent documentaries. As does the BBC, but you need to be prepared to look a little further than just BBC 1 or 2. BBC 4 has documentaries that, in some cases, are better than those provided by Discovery or National Geographic (and I speak as a fan of Discovery, which was actually the main reason I got cable).

Regarding the comments about Doctor Who, refusing to watch the whole series because you didn't like one actress who stopped being a main character 8 years ago is a little odd, IMO. The series has changed a lot since it's re-launch and has given us what are, IMO, some of the best examples of storytelling on British TV recently. One example being Blink where a young girl, Sally Sparrow (played brilliantly by Carey Mulligan before she was famous) gets to rescue the doctor who has been trapped along with his assistant in 1969. This episode was wonderfully creepy.

---------- Post added at 13:12 ---------- Previous post was at 13:05 ----------

Originally Posted by Maggy J

You do know that BBC content often ends up on Discovery and Nat Geo ?That in doing so the BBC are recouping the licence money?That the the licence money you don't want to pay to watch Eastenders etc but in fact go to produce a lot of documentaries and Natural History programmes as well.

Also, bear in mind that the profits from something low-brow but cheap to make (like Eastenders) also go back into making the more high brow stuff.

To give an idea of prices, an episode of Eastenders costs around £141,000 to produce. A good drama can cost ten times that per episode.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Well when you loose contact with a series it can be hard to get back into it especially when all the characters change.

True.

I'll be honest, when Dr Who relaunched, I was very excited (being a long term fan). Then I saw the first couple of episodes and wondered why I'd bothered. A couple of weeks later, we had two of the best stories of the series (as a whole), "Dalek" and "The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances". Dalek was quite a taught action/thriller story about the Doctor, Rose and a few other people being trapped in a massive underground bunker in Nevada with the last remaining Dalek, and the story did a good job of making the Dalek look scary (especially the way it massacres a group of armed security guards without even moving from the spot). Then, the Empty Child came along, featuring the Doctor visiting WWII London, where a seriously creepy small boy was looking for his mummy. As a story, I have not done it justice, but it actually manages to be scary in the way a lot of Horror films aren't.

[TheDaddy]

I think after years of supporting TV licencing my opinion has changed, it's been a year.since I got a TV again and I'm not getting value for money from it, if it wasn't for the kids I'd go without the idiot box again for another five years