TV Licence “Unenforceable”?

Same old discussion.Nothing changes.

However as an educator I do want the younger generation under 16 to be protected from those that will always be ready to prey on them. So let's keep the BBC and all the protections from every public broadcaster.

[Hom3r]

Well next March I'm seriously thinking about dropping the VM TV package..


I have enough DVDs, Blu-Rays & 4K to last me many many years, plus Amazon Prime and NetFlix.

I ditched VM after an absurdly expensive renewal offer and went with Hyperoptic for £21 a month for two years. I was going to supplement that with Sky Steam but actually am just going with Now TV that I can turn off and on when needed.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Damien

The BBC isn't going to go subscription, and I don't think it will have adverts. It's too important a national institution for it to go away and leave us only with American venture capitalists controlling our news, radio and being responsible for discovering and promoting British artists.

We might have to look at a tax on the streamers. The BBC has helped them when it comes to production in this country. One of the reasons so much stuff is filmed in Britain, along with tax breaks, is that generations of on-screen and off-screen talent have been brought up via the BBC and Channel 4. Black Mirror is a big hit for Netflix but it was C4 who took the risk on it and the BBC that gave Charlie Brooker his break into television. Lots of British writers, directors and performers in Hollywood were helped to get where they are via theatre and our television, which we've helped pay for.

We need to protect our national interest here. We cannot keep giving it up so American Silicon Valley investors can make more and more money from us only to avoid paying us any taxes anyway. The BBC has to remain British, publically owned and do it's job promoting British arts.

That’s just your view. A growing number of people are ditching the TV licence because they are objecting to paying for a service they don’t use.

There are those who are starry eyed about the Beeb, simply because it's been there since TV in this country started. The reason you don’t want to see payments by voluntary subscription is that you know very well that many would choose not to pay it.

The point you raise about private ownership is easily negated by keeping the BBC as a public body, but ensuring that it operates within the money it earns from subscriptions and from making its programmes available to other providers after one year or two of broadcast. That way it will keep to the standards set by the government because it is not a private company.

Itis inherently unfair to expect people to pay compulsorily for an entertainment and news service they don’t want.

Their public service remit could be preserved by government funding for programmes they want broadcast which otherwise would not be commercially viable. That could be available also to the other ‘designated public service’ broadcasters and funded by taxation - a more sensible use of public money.

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Maggy

Same old discussion.Nothing changes.

However as an educator I do want the younger generation under 16 to be protected from those that will always be ready to prey on them. So let's keep the BBC and all the protections from every public broadcaster.

BBC protecting the young? did you really just say that or have I missed something

[Mythica]

Originally Posted by noel43

TVL evasion is not a criminal offence, (Not paying tyhe fine is.)

Are you sure? It's an offence to install tv receiving equipment to watch TV without a licence.

[thenry]

Why doesn't installing receiving equipment come with a warning

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by thenry

Why doesn't installing receiving equipment come with a warning

I remember that when I bought one in Argos they wanted my address to pass it on to tv licensing, guess buying on line stops the need.

---------- Post added at 20:20 ---------- Previous post was at 20:18 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

That’s just your view. A growing number of people are ditching the TV licence because they are objecting to paying for a service they don’t use.

There are those who are starry eyed about the Beeb, simply because it's been there since TV in this country started. The reason you don’t want to see payments by voluntary subscription is that you know very well that many would choose not to pay it.

The point you raise about private ownership is easily negated by keeping the BBC as a public body, but ensuring that it operates within the money it earns from subscriptions and from making its programmes available to other providers after one year or two of broadcast. That way it will keep to the standards set by the government because it is not a private company.

Itis inherently unfair to expect people to pay compulsorily for an entertainment and news service they don’t want.

Their public service remit could be preserved by government funding for programmes they want broadcast which otherwise would not be commercially viable. That could be available also to the other ‘designated public service’ broadcasters and funded by taxation - a more sensible use of public money.

Or they could survive on advertising ,guess the model might work . On Itv channels 4 and 5 etc it seems to work

[thenry]

Originally Posted by Itshim

I remember that when I bought one in Argos they wanted my address to pass it on to tv licensing, guess buying on line stops the need.

What did you buy? And could you have refused giving your details? It could have been a gift

[Mr K]

There must have been 156 different versions of this thread whilst I've been on CF !

The BBC is continuing and needed. Even the last inept Govt agreed on that. Just a matter of how to fund it. The licence fee might be not be the fairest way any longer.

Advertising and subscription are non starters, it would lose all the things that make it essential and unique as a public service broadcaster ( and take it downmarket like the hundreds of other channels repeating crap and producing nothing new/unique). Making programmes that only attract advertisers is a downward spiral.

We'll pay one way or another just like we do for everything else. Some might pay more, others less , if that's done fairly then its an improvement on the licence fee. General taxation, and/or taxing the extra streaming services. You don't get something for nothing.

(And those that say they never use any BBC services:- tv channels, national radio, local radio, news, weather, apps, iplayer , website - I don't believe you !)

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Maggy

Same old discussion.Nothing changes.

However as an educator I do want the younger generation under 16 to be protected from those that will always be ready to prey on them. So let's keep the BBC and all the protections from every public broadcaster.

The BBC does a marvelous job of protecting children from those who wish to pray on them. Jimmy Saville et al.

---------- Post added at 21:54 ---------- Previous post was at 21:51 ----------

Originally Posted by Mythica

Are you sure? It's an offence to install tv receiving equipment to watch TV without a licence.

No,you don't need a license for any equipment or installing it.

I have a 32" TV as a monitor, I don't watch TV on it.

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Mythica

Are you sure? It's an offence to install tv receiving equipment to watch TV without a licence.

Rubbish

You can install TV equipment to watch on demand through a service just not iplayer and you can not watch live tv


Now here is another crux . You can have sky and never watch or record live TV only ever on demand but if you are silly enough to let the Capita "Enforcement" officers in they will want to access your TV and the very fact your Sky puck or whatever can receive Live TV they assume you actually watch it and will prosecute you . Just having it does not mean you watch. Any PC Laptop Tablet or phone can access live tv but does it mean it use it too? It is a joke. They never getting in my house without a warrant a police officer and a signed document from a judge . An ink signature too

[Dude111]

Originally Posted by thenry

unenforceable yet many do still get taken to court

I wonder if those are the ones they can PROVE have a TV on........

They drive around in vans looking for certain freqs to be emitted... For instance if someone had a CRT set on,you can check for 550am and if you heard a certain tone,etc on that frequency,than a CRT was most likely on in that house....

Im not sure about CRT monitors,I think the 550 thing only applies to reg TV sets where the tubes gives off a certain freq when its on......

Im amazed after all these years they are still trying to collect a licence fee....... Why not just put more spam ads on and call it a day? (Im sure there are alot already)

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Dude111

I wonder if those are the ones they can PROVE have a TV on........

They drive around in vans looking for certain freqs to be emitted... For instance if someone had a CRT set on,you can check for 550am and if you heard a certain tone,etc on that frequency,than a CRT was most likely on in that house....

Im not sure about CRT monitors,I think the 550 thing only applies to reg TV sets where the tubes gives off a certain freq when its on......

Im amazed after all these years they are still trying to collect a licence fee....... Why not just put more spam ads on and call it a day? (Im sure there are alot already)

I doubt there are any CRT sets in use for TV in the UK. The license fee funds the BBC, its not allowed to run ads.

[Dude111]

You guys are lucky if there are no ads...... I wonder if thats why they are so persistant about the fee?