TV Licence Should anyone be paying it????

positive1_2

juliescot wrote: »

I see that evidence is from Incorporated Society of British Advertisers.

I can understand why they wish the BBC to carry advertising - in their interest

SO your trying to says its not in the publics interest for th BBC to be self supporting?

Why would the BBC want to be self supporting when they can rape EVERY uk household for licence fees?

juliescot

positive1 wrote: »

SO your trying to says its not in the publics interest for th BBC to be self supporting?

Why would the BBC want to be self supporting when they can rape EVERY uk household for licence fees?

Calm down and stop using frankly ridiculous language.

Fire_Fox

positive1 wrote: »

Thats not what I said, Forced to pay for a service that I dont use maybe, its nothing more than another UK (only) stealth tax.

Add to that the use of BBC iplayer, may in turn increase the cost of all broadband services, as experts believe isps will need to increase bandwidth to cope with usage, and inturn pass on the cost to all BB end users, this will include vast majority of non iplayer customers.

You really are a rubbish troll, aren't you: can't you come up with something other than the same old tired and flawed arguments? :rotfl:

Lots of British people pay for services they don't personally use, it's called civilisation. How often do you use a state care home, maternity ward, secondary school, fire service, environmental health department, receive disability living allowance, attend county court, apply for planning permission? :rolleyes:

There's nothing stealthy about the TV license, if you've only just found out about it you you need to get out more. It's an option, you aren't forced to watch live television you choose to - hence you contribute to the service as a whole. The concept is hardly revolutionary.

Use the internet free at your local public library or at wi-fi hot spots, or pay £4 a month with Plusnet - even adding £12 a month for a TV license only takes the total to £16 ... hardly going to break the bank. What percentage of households do you seriously think never watch a BBC programme, listen to a BBC radio station or watch a clip on iPlayer?

In August it was announced that
"A new Ofcom report shows a massive 5.2 million punters now use BBC iPlayer. That’s twice the amount compared to last year."
http://www.electricpig.co.uk/2009/08/10/bbc-iplayer-hits-5-million-mark/
"Across all its channels from the flagship BBC One to digital news and children's stations the corporation's output now accounts for only one third of all TV viewing ..."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/

positive1_2

Fire_Fox wrote: »

Lots of British people pay for services they don't personally use, it's called civilisation. How often do you use a state care home, maternity ward, secondary school, fire service, environmental health department, receive disability living allowance, attend county court, apply for planning permission? :rolleyes:

So what part of TV licence fee goes towards the above services

and to compare the BBC with the emergency services is simply outrageous :rolleyes:

Bamber19

patman99 wrote: »

BTW, just for info., the reason you need to supply an address when buying TV reception equipement such as settop boxes and tellys is that there is no currant technology capable of detecting moden digital equipment such as TFT TVs and Freeview/Sky boxes.

The vans are, and always have been, empty propaganda mobiles. Even when we were only dealing with analogue televisions you have to ask yourself, if these vans were going about detecting signals then why were their finidngs never once used against someone in a court, and instead licensing always relied on people admitting they were unlicensed or letting their employee into the house to see for himself that television was being watched in the unlicensed property. This is still all they can rely upon today, just tell them to go away if they come to your door, or better still ignore them, you have nothing to fear. The technology they claim to have does not exist and no court in the land is going to issue a warrant to allow a search of someone's property based simply on the fact they do not own a TV license (which as far as i'm aware is not a crime.)

Esqui

positive1 wrote: »

Thats not what I said, Forced to pay for a service that I dont use maybe, its nothing more than another UK (only) stealth tax.

You do know that if you don't use the service (i.e. watch live TV) you don't have to pay the TV licence, right?

giovanni

From wikipedia:

The amount of each licence fee spent monthly breaks down as follows:

Department/ Monthly cost (GBP)
BBC ONE £3.52
BBC TWO £1.52
Transmission and collection costs £1.08
Nations and English Regions television £1.04
BBC Radio 1, 2, 3, 4 and Five Live £1.02
Digital television channels £1.00
Nations' and local radio 68p
BBC Online 36p
BBC jam 14p
Digital radio stations 10p
Interactive TV (BBC Red Button) 8p
Total £10.54

spaceman5

giovanni wrote: »

From wikipedia:

The amount of each licence fee spent monthly breaks down as follows:

Department/ Monthly cost (GBP)
BBC ONE £3.52
BBC TWO £1.52
Transmission and collection costs £1.08
Nations and English Regions television £1.04
BBC Radio 1, 2, 3, 4 and Five Live £1.02
Digital television channels £1.00
Nations' and local radio 68p
BBC Online 36p
BBC jam 14p
Digital radio stations 10p
Interactive TV (BBC Red Button) 8p
Total £10.54

but the licence is now £12.12, we are being robbed:eek::D

cajef

spaceman5 wrote: »

but the licence is now £12.12, we are being robbed:eek::D

The remainder must go into the kitty for MP's expenses, someone has to pay for them.:p

exup

the main problem I have with the TV licence is the amount of money that is wasted.- I don't have a problem paying for a licence as I enjoy some of the programmes that the BBC put out - whether on radio or TV.