Cant pay.. OR Wont Pay!!

seven-day-weekend

If you don't want to pay for your TV licence don't have a TV that will receive the channels.

No-one will die from not having a TV.

Simple.

Defiant_3

seven-day-weekend wrote:

If you don't want to pay for your TV licence don't have a TV that will receive the channels.

No-one will die from not having a TV.

Simple.

I agree but I'm not going to stop watching the TV I pay for via cable just because your upset that I don't subsidise your beloved BBC. If you selfish people think thats wrong then its about time the BBC went subcription and you started paying as you go giving millions CHOICE. How much doe's the BBC cost you in Spain SDW ?

slenderkitten

seven-day-weekend - did you not read my last comment

you do NOT need a tv licence to OWN A TV! - it's in the law books!

Defiant_3

slenderkitten wrote:

seven-day-weekend - did you not read my last comment

you do NOT need a tv licence to OWN A TV! - it's in the law books!

According to his/her profile they live in Spain so don't pay anyway

slenderkitten

lol isn't it typical people who have nothing to do with this country is posting when it doesn't affect them. maybe they should start paying to look at the BBC website.

Defiant_3

Here's another good one the BBC is using Licence Fee money to try and hide stuff from the people that are forced to fund them.

BBC mounts court fight to keep 'critical' report secret

The BBC has spent thousands of pounds of licence payers' money trying to block the release of a report which is believed to be highly critical of its Middle East coverage.

The corporation is mounting a landmark High Court action to prevent the release of The Balen Report under the Freedom of Information Act, despite the fact that BBC reporters often use the Act to pursue their journalism.

The action will increase suspicions that the report, which is believed to run to 20,000 words, includes evidence of anti-Israeli bias in news programming.

The court case will have far reaching implications for the future working of the Act and the BBC. If the corporation loses, it will have to release thousands of pages of other documents that have been held back.

Like all public bodies, the BBC is obliged to release information about itself under the Act. However, along with Channel 4, Britain's other public service broadcaster, it is allowed to hold back material that deals with the production of its art, entertainment and journalism.

The High Court action is the latest stage of a lengthy and expensive battle by Steven Sugar, a lawyer, to get access to the document, which was compiled by Malcolm Balen, a senior editorial adviser, in 2004.

Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner, who is responsible for the workings of the Act, agreed with the BBC that the document, which examines hundreds of hours of its radio and television broadcasts, could be held back. However, Mr Sugar appealed and, after a two-day hearing at which the BBC was represented by two barristers, the Information Tribunal found in his favour.

Mr Sugar said: "This is a serious report about a serious issue and has been compiled with public money. I lodged the request because I was concerned that the BBC's reporting of the second intifada was seriously unbalanced against Israel, but I think there are other issues at stake now in the light of the BBC's reaction."

The BBC's coverage of the Middle East has been frequently condemned for a perceived anti-Israeli bias.

In 2004, for example, Barbara Plett, a Middle East correspondent, was criticised for revealing in an episode of Radio 4's From Our Own Correspondent that she had been moved to tears by the plight of the dying Yasser Arafat. MPs said it proved that the corporation was incapable of presenting a balanced account of issues in the Middle East.

Figures released by the Information Commissioner's Office show that there have been 105 complaints about the BBC's attitude to the Act since it came into force in January 2005. Only four of these have been dismissed and the rest are being examined. The BBC has lodged at least 25 complaints about the way other organisations have dealt with its requests.

The BBC declined to say how much it was spending on the High Court action. "We will be appealing the decision of the Information Tribunal," a spokesman said. "This case has wider implications relating to the way the Act applies to public broadcasters."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/15/nbeeb15.xml

So they are trying to stop information getting to the public most have already suspected anyway :rolleyes:

A_little_stressed!!

lisyloo wrote:

The local library will let you have books for free.
If you have a garden you could grow vegeteables in it which will also reduce your food bill.



Walking is good for exercise.
If you found a local riding school then it would be very productive to walk round in circles with horses with disabled children on.
There a LOADS of organisations which need volunteers to help them.
For example the local dogs home need dog walkers.

This would be good exercise for you as well as meeting people and gaining skills which might help you later in your career.
What about cleaning, babysitting, dog walking for people?
What about getting involved in local committees?

I sympathise with the financial situation you found/find yourself in but I think it's a great shame and highly unimaginitive if watching the TV is the only thing you can think of doing.

The local yobbos used to have thier drinking games / fight / mating sessions in my garden so I kept well away.

I am allergic 2 animals so all those were out.

I was a member of a youth council 2 nights a week.

But after hard exams & studying, watching an hour of TV before bed, or some news with my toast in the morning, or just hearing a voice in an extremely lonely time in my life. (16, living alone, estranged from family) I dont care that I watched without a licence!!

I'm not saying it should be free 2 every1 on benefits, just those who truely are poor.

reason_2

Even if you don't have a television, TVL still sending threating letters as to why you haven't paid for a licence. Friend of mine didn't have a television and he got loads of letters saying he didn't have an up-to-date licence and he was to get one immediately or could face penalty/fine. He wrote back the first few times explaining he didn't have a television, from what I recall they didn't believe him. They assume everyone has a television! I think he still receives the odd letter but they've not came out to check yet.

lollipop211

we dont have a tv licence,but do have a TV. we only use it for dvd`s. we choose not to watch TV,because we find it "saps" too much time. We are however harrassed by tvla BUT i know my rights and am not intimidated by them (though God knows they try !!) they contradict themselves in most letters re the law...to try and frighten people into paying. i always keep my MP in the loop when replying to them,as he has had to tackle them on several occasions re their letters,especially to older people.

They have no right of entry to your property.

My biggest arguement with them is that in any other area of life i do not have to prove that i am NOT breaking the law. that is i do not report weekly to our local police station that i have not murdered anyone this week etc etc

After the last letter,I replied with 2 pages of arguement (this had been going on over a period of years)they then requested a visit "just to check"
i refused,but said if they wanted to park their van on my track....maybe even for weeks at a time,i would make sure that my car was not in the way!!

mouseymousey99

Ok so a tv may not be 'essential'. So why should a pensioner or someone on benefits (who cant work who may be ill/disabled/whatever) have to pay full whack? I have some family abroad & OAP's are exempt from tv licences.
Some replies seem very harsh to me, 'who cannot afford the fee should consider not owning a telly' does that go for phones, washing machines etc...
one thing about benefits if you aren't on them - be glad - be very glad...it aint no garden party!!!