Licence Fee - Is it worth it?

Defiant_3

JackieO wrote:

Yes I think it's reasonable value for money.

Its great value if you don't mind knowing millions of people are forced to subidise the costs of those who like the BBC. I can't even remember the last time I watched or listened to anything on the Blair Broadcasting Corperation I can't stand the lefty PC trash they produce.

Defiant_3

Paul_Herring wrote:

Here we go again. No you don't. I don't pay for it. Then again, I choose not to have a TV because I objected to paying (I think it was around) £110 at the time for the < 8 hours of TV I was watching a week, none of it on BBC.

I agree I have a TV but I pay for Cable even though I could watch the true FTA channels but I will never pay for the BBC and they can't do nothing about it (18yrs and still going strong here )

lochaber wrote:

For about £2.50 a week it includes radio and TV for the entire household. Compare that with the cost of a newspaper every day.

Why do so many new posters jump in defending the BBC and them all almost sounding like sales pitch's

You know my cable TV works out at £5.50 a month or 17p a day see I can drill the numbers down to make them sound better too

t8769

It wasn't until I was able to listen to US radio on line that I discovered what a beautiy it is to listen at home to non-socialist radio, WITHOUT propaganda from middle-upper class White guilt ridden liberals preaching Guardian-ism.

The same goes for T.V. Channel 4 and BBC is too Left wing, and so anti-American and cheesie.

Since I have the internet, I no longer have to suffer guilt ridden lefties explain to me how all the problems of the world are the fault of Jews and Americans.

If you know what's good for your brain... listen to some American TV and radio.


Merry Xmass

tightasanats..._2

The bottom line IMO is whether we consider the BBC as a service or a commodity? I fail to see it as a service, no matter how good you think a particular radio station or program is. If it is a commodity, then why are we 'supporting' this company giving it an unfair advantage compared to its rivals. This enforced fee appears to me to be criminal and the sooner the majority wakes up to this, the sooner we can have a level playing field for all the broadcasting companies and fair choice for the consumer.
MC

bobbarley

Did you hear that the BBC complained to the government that they wanted the TV licence doubled! government told them no

Defiant_3

bobbarley wrote:

Did you hear that the BBC complained to the government that they wanted the TV licence doubled! government told them no

Did you know among other things some people get FREE TV Licence's and FREE TV's ? Did you know the government use the official secrets act to keep the councils from admitting it ?

Free colour TV and licence paid!

One item does, however, stand out:

“For Each Living/Dining Room

1 new twenty inch screen colour television complete with licence which shall be renewed at each annual anniversary of the Start Date throughout the Term.”

Native Brits, of course, have to wait until they are 75 to get a free TV licence, and non-payment of this iniquitous tax is the biggest single ‘crime’ that puts British women in prison.

Many of those women can’t afford a TV licence because they are struggling to bring up young families on pitifully low incomes. As a result, they are also often unable to afford proper child safety equipment. No wonder, then, that the Home Office bureaucrats being so generous with our tax money wanted to keep Section 1.20 secret:

“Where there are to be children living in the Property, the Property shall include:

Adequate cot and highchair facilities;
Appropriate sterilisation equipment;
Child safety gates on all stairways;
Childproof resistant devices or casement stays on all windows;
Appropriate play areas both inside and outside the Property.”

Another thing that ordinary families on average incomes find a big problem is the occasional cost of major repairs. Asylum seekers have no such worries. Under this Agreement, the Landlord is bound to do all repairs within seven days, and to provide an emergency repair service (Section 1.23) “where a threat to health and safety is apparent.” The rest of us have to turn to Yellow Pages or pay for call out insurance, but it would be unfair to expect asylum seekers to do the same, wouldn’t it?

Similarly favourable treatment is also specified in the Letting Provisions, Section (f) of which commits the Landlord “to redecorate all parts of the Property in the third year of the Term.” The rest of us may have to fork out down at "Do It All", but not Mr Blunkett’s special guests.


Perhaps most ludicrous of all, however, is the next section (g) of the Letting Provisions, whereby the Landlord agrees: “To have the exterior of all windows of the Property cleaned once every twelve weeks.” I kid you not, it’s there on page 7. What would George Formby have had to say about it?

Who pays?

So what do all these modcons and services cost the lucky occupants of such premises? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. When various bleeding heart liberals tell us how asylum seekers only get basic income support payments, they don’t tell us about the Letting Provisions on page 4 of the Home Office’s Revised Tenancy Agreement, do they? Yet these show that not only do asylum seekers get their TV licences paid for them, we also pick up the tab for their rent, water rates, gas, and electricity bills.

Surely, you must think, these people must want to spend night after night on the phone to all their friends and family back home, telling them all about the wonders of Soft Touch Britain? A lot of their pocket money must go on paying the phone bill? No, as you probably guessed, they don’t have to pay a penny. Section 1 ((b) of the Letting Provisions sets out the fact that the Tenant Company (funded by the taxpayer) agrees to pick up the phone bill for every single property provided by the Landlord in question to asylum seekers.

Don’t forget that every single council or housing association in this land which is housing asylum seekers has signed this document. Thousands of councillors in the ruling party in Labour, LibDem and Tory councils alike have either read this document or studiously avoided seeing it so they didn’t have to.

It only took one BNP supporter in one council to leak this insulting and undemocratic document to us. By contrast, we will never know how many Lib-Lab-Con merchants have seen this Agreement since it first started being used in 2001, but not a single one of them has had the guts to put the interests of democracy and their constituents before asylum seekers and the Home Office.

source for full story and source of PROOF yes please check out the proof because we all know the do gooding PC brigade will say its bull

Graham_Devon

The TV Licence was ok years ago. That was when there was the BBC and a couple of other channels.

Things have moved on and the licence fee is just another stealth tax.

You cannot have a TV in your house unless you pay for the BBC. Thing is, TV's are not just used for the BBC anymore. We pay for sky/cable through choice should we want to, we can choose what we want to watch and pay for what we want to watch. We can choose to buy a movie, we can choose not to buy a movie. It's up to us, if we want to watch it, we pay for it.

If I wanted to solely use my TV as a large computer monitor (I do use it for that sometimes) I couldn't do so unless I paid the BBC so that i could use MY tv to display MY computer.

Same applies if I wanted to play my xbox.

It's the only charge that I know of that you HAVE to pay whether you use the service or not should you want to have a television in your house.

Thats like me HAVING to pay for pub meal just because I went in for a pint.

People can easily compare it to newpapers, they can say 'well dont plug your aerial in' but this does not work. if I want Sky, I HAVE to pay the BBC. I may not want their channels, but I'm forced to.

I cannot believe it's still going to be honest.

Paul_Herring

Graham_Devon wrote:

You cannot have a TV in your house unless you pay for the BBC.

Yes you can.

If I wanted to solely use my TV as a large computer monitor (I do use it for that sometimes) I couldn't do so unless I paid the BBC so that i could use MY tv to display MY computer.

Same applies if I wanted to play my xbox.

You would not have to pay the TV licence in this scenario.

From their own site at http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/index.jsp

TVL wrote:

Do I need a licence?

-
You need a TV Licence to use any television receiving equipment such as a TV set, set-top boxes, video or DVD recorders, computers or mobile phones to watch or record TV programmes as they are being shown on TV.

Emphasis mine. If the only TV on your premisis is being used solely as a display for a games box, it clearly isn't being used to watch programs as they are being shown on TV. Hence you don't need a licence.

On the other hand, if you don't posess a TV, but your PC is capable of receiving a TV signal and showing you the programmes,then you require a TV licence, even though you don't own a "TV"

Dan29

Graham_Devon wrote:

It's the only charge that I know of that you HAVE to pay whether you use the service or not should you want to have a television in your house.

If you pay council tax you're paying for loads of services you don't use.

Defiant_3

Dan29 wrote:

If you pay council tax you're paying for loads of services you don't use.

Just who do you think you are trying to kid Dan29 ?. The council tax pays for essential services many of which benefit the community and don’t have any commercial alternatives. The mighty BBC does have alternatives as I’m sure you know being employed by the BBC (Yes an old argument you guys keep repeating)

Perhaps you could stay on topic and come up with a real argument next ?