TV Licence Should anyone be paying it????

mippy

positive1 wrote: »

although th way the law is right now if you have the "equiptment" for
viewing and capable of viewing then they say you need one,

Id like to say surley its against our human rights to impose an almost Poll tax like burden on people is unjust and unfair,
?

1 - not true, many friends of mine have a TV just for videogames or DVDs.
2 - ownership of a TV is hardly comparable to the right to legal representation, free education or anything else covered by the Human Rights Act. You can avoid paying this 'poll tax' very easily - don't have a TV set. My b/f doesn't and watches programmes online instead.

mippy

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

i work in advertising, so obviously I think TV advertising is a good thing. But I am glad we have one network that isn't beholden to its advertisers and can occasionally broadcast things other networks can't take a risk on - Jerry Springer the Opera, anyone? Also, having a news service independent of product placement/corporate input is a very valuable thing. Take a look at some of the American news networks to see just what I mean.

mippy

marleyboy wrote: »

I do have to point out the programme on not so long ago (cant remember its name it might have been Panorama), regarding how much the BBC staff and executives were charging (us licence payers) for their 1st class flights, chauffeur driven cars and not forgetting the taxi fares. BBC are sweating at the moment after the Government discussed "spreading" the money to pay for "regional" news on rival channels.

I used to work for the BBC, and my hours ranged from 6.30am to 11.45pm in a changing shift pattern - so we got taxis at either end of the scale. Remember that a lot of production jobs, especially in news, are not 9-5 and taxis are provided to stop people going home alone very late at night or very early in the morning, which can be dangerous or difficult. It's a shame not all similar workplaces can;t do the same, as it shows a level of care to staff. Never got a chauffer-driven car, though

mustrum_ridcully

positive1 wrote: »

Hi All,

should anyone be forced to by a TV licence because they own a TV?

Yes: if they watch BBC1 right?

But if you dont, then surely you dont need a licence,

although th way the law is right now if you have the "equiptment" for
viewing and capable of viewing then they say you need one,

Id like to say surley its against our human rights to impose an almost Poll tax like burden on people is unjust and unfair,

I can understand when the law was made and only 1 channel was available it would be just and fair to expect ant TV owner to pay to view that channel,

but now there are over 400 hundred something channels available to the uk public, to view BBC1 is an option that most people wont take, and shouldntbe forced to take such licence fee for a non viewing channel,

your thoughts?

You are aware that every household in the UK pays an average of over £120 per year for the commercial TV channels irrespective of whether they have a TV or not? The commerical TV companies received £3billion in advertising revenue in 2007, not all of it will come from the British consumer but a fair old chunk will though.

I ask this as a lot of anti-license fee people don't seem to be aware of this or choose to ignore the fact. A bit like certain government ministers who don't want facts to get in the way of their grandstanding....

elfen

That breakdown on the fee comes from the 2005 license fee, when it was £10.54 a month. How I know this, is having seen it recently in a lecture on TV History.

The quote on the first page was taken completely out of context by the poster, and this can be seen by it not corresponding to anything. This isn't the only country with a fee, but is it one of the countries with decent public service broadcasting not subsidised by advertising that covers many different areas (Channel 4 receives money as it has educational content on - Monday to Friday Schools' - as did BBC2, and the BBC still show OU programmes) Every terrestrial channel in this country has PSB obligations in their remit and also the charter used to set them up - they don't get money but moan at the BBC for having one of the diggest developed news services in the world. If you didn't have the BBC, there would be a lot of programming that goes (decent costume dramas, wildlife documentaries, programming for the deaf, kids programming, dramas, The Proms - Electric and Orchestra, radio stations, regional stations, regional news, regional TV channels - Wales, NI, Scotland all have their own) that WE pay for. The BBC have an obligation towards it's viewers to "instruct, inform and educate" and they fit their remit, however by getting rid of the license fee would mean that their money for decent programming would come from MORE advertising. I like the BBC's USP - no adverts, and I DO watch the BBC.

(N.B. BBC subsidiaries - BBC Worldwide and 2lentertain are not allowed to provide extra money for programming and are considered companies and out of the remit of the CORPORATION - they can't use their money to buy programmes for the BBC - so it's used to help other channels and sell programming abroad)

Every Goverment has a new Commitee on the BBC and it's charter, and even they have said (both politicians and the DG of the BBC and other BBC people) that for now the license fee is the best option we have to ensure decent PSB instead of PSB like it is in America (every programme interrupted by fundraising adverts - i.e. "we need blah amount to buy another episode, will you help us?") Would you prefer a license fee or blatant begging?
And anyway, when they do find a way of making the BBC PAYG, it'll probably cost a ton more than the £140 license fee....£140 a year or £20 a month....I know what I'd rather pay

(*is a Film and TV Studies student, and can find a helluva lot more stuff if you want)

System

Can we get a refund if we can show that we can't watch TV...the aerial doesn't work at all..can't even get freeview (ike idiots we didn't realise this before---previous tenents had virgin)

Though that would mean my bf couldn't watch MOTD anymore...but then we're paying £100 for him to watch MOTD..:eek:

elfen

Only if there is no possible way for your TV to receive a picture; either digital or terrestrial. If the digital doesn't work, the terrestrial might. Also means it needs to be tested to see if you can't get it, but as long as you aren't watching TV on either phone or computer as is live (i.e. Programmes or coverage shown on iplayer at the same time as is shown on TV) then you don't have to pay.

marleyboy

mippy wrote: »

I used to work for the BBC, and my hours ranged from 6.30am to 11.45pm in a changing shift pattern - so we got taxis at either end of the scale. Remember that a lot of production jobs, especially in news, are not 9-5 and taxis are provided to stop people going home alone very late at night or very early in the morning, which can be dangerous or difficult. It's a shame not all similar workplaces can;t do the same, as it shows a level of care to staff. Never got a chauffer-driven car, though

Would love for my company to pay for a taxi home when its late, should they muster this I am sure it would come out of the companies own expenses, and not our customers costs.

To recap; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1034764/BBCs-taxi-soars-60-year-staggering-14million.html or even http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/5853046/BBC-executives-received-1000-in-licence-fee-payers-money-to-cut-taxes-on-pensions.html

I hardly think this is fair on licence fee payers.

System

elfen wrote: »

Only if there is no possible way for your TV to receive a picture; either digital or terrestrial. If the digital doesn't work, the terrestrial might. Also means it needs to be tested to see if you can't get it, but as long as you aren't watching TV on either phone or computer as is live (i.e. Programmes or coverage shown on iplayer at the same time as is shown on TV) then you don't have to pay.

Seeing as we have the licence already i'd be tempted to let them come and test it..hell maybe they can get it to work!

Swan_2

xXMessedUpXx wrote: »

Can we get a refund if we can show that we can't watch TV...the aerial doesn't work at all..can't even get freeview (ike idiots we didn't realise this before---previous tenents had virgin)

Though that would mean my bf couldn't watch MOTD anymore...but then we're paying £100 for him to watch MOTD..:eek:

unplug the aerial & detune your set (just telling them you can't get a signal isn't enough to keep them away) then tell TVLA you're not watching telly any more & ask for a refund of the 'unused' part of your licence

they'll probably say they'll send someone to check (although they never did when I stopped watching telly) whether you let them in or not is up to you as they've no right of entry to your home, I couldn't be bothered with hassle on the doorstep & if they'd ever shown up, I'd have let them see my telly was only used for DVDs & gaming

your boyfriend will just have to go visit his pals to watch MOTD