TV License Inspectors

Azari

The_Safordian wrote: »

"whinging" well put it this way I don't insult fellow members. It seems to be the BBC fans get rather upset at the thought of paying for the service by themselves.
Strange really considering they usually keep telling us how great the BBC is so surly it would do just fine under a voluntary subscription method
No it was setup because there were no alternative broadcasters, unlike now.
We are also told this is a democratic country so those who want your believed BBC should be paying for it while others are given the choice.
Ah the BBC pitch of comparing a broadcaster to essential public services again..........how long have you worked for the BBC?

You seem to have an entire swarm of bees in your bonnet concerning the BBC.

If you have a TV that you use to watch any live TV or you record and then watch any TV then you need to have a licence.

This is something that is the law of the land (at the behest of parliament, not the BBC), and has been for well over half a century.

If you are required by law to have a licence and do not have one then you are a common criminal.

As such, your continued ranting and raving in this thread is of little interest.

That is all.

DCodd

The_Safordian wrote: »

No it was setup because there were no alternative broadcasters, unlike now.

We are also told this is a democratic country so those who want your believed BBC should be paying for it while others are given the choice.

It may have been set up for that reason but is a political will that is required to change the BBC's charter and that has never been forthcoming.

There have been many petitions against the tactics of the collection agencies like the TVL, PRS, PPL etc plus many a review carried out yet the Governments responses (both past and present) are that there are legal avenues already in place for the consumer to contest these agencies and their processes and so the authorities do not believe they need to enact any extra legal protection for the consumer.

This is an indirect endorsement of these agencies actions and tactics by the Government, all of them request payment by default and the onus is on the consumer to prove otherwise. So if you have a problem with the BBC etc then it is your political represenatives that you need to speak to.

biscit

The_Safordian wrote: »

Oh nice, someone tells you how upset they are that you expect everyone to subsidise Eastenders for you and you call them aggressive. You know one could say the same thing

I posted something so bland, neutral, middle-of-the road and polite that I was astounded with the ferocity of the response.

I said words to the effect of not having a problem with the licence fee and I was treated as if I was shrilly singing its praises and bashing those who disagree.

I happen not to agree with your worldview and see things differently. I see you have a problem with the BBC, but don't agree with your perspective. If you want to disagree with the licence fee, fine, but do it in a measured way, arguing your case not attacking people who don't see things your way.

Your perspective on this is just your point of view, it is not some inalienable truth about the way the world works.

If you want to persuade the majority to come round to your point of view, attacking them is only going to make them see how much they dislike your argument. Hyperbole and emotive statements don't persuade reasonable people, level headed, intelligent debate does.

biscit

****This post has been expanded upon to make the meaning clearer****

Azari wrote: »

People who have to pay a licence fee and claim never to watch BBC are in the same boat as those who have to pay for schools and don't have children

Not quite.

The people who benefit from schools are the children who are educated there, not the parents of those children.

By and large tax-payers have already benefited from an education paid for by the people who were tax-payers when they were children. (Or they had the opportunity to benefit, but wasted the opportunity by bunking off or flicking stuff at each other at the back of class.)

Today's tax-payers paying for the education of today's children are giving back for what they received. It's a case of what goes around coming around. But it's far more than that- people benefit from living in an educated society, paying for schools is in no way without beneift to childless taxpayers.

(You can argue with immigration and emigration that there are tax-payers that have not benefited from a British education, and ex-pats who have received their education and not paid back in tax, but that would be frankly petty and in no way damage my point.)

The_Safordian

DCodd wrote: »

There have been many petitions against the tactics of the collection agencies like the TVL, PRS, PPL etc/quote]

Every public opinion poll for the past 10yrs at least has shown 75% of the British public want the BBC TV Licence abolished.

The reason it isn't is because the Liberal/Left know their isn't enough of them to generate the billions the BBC wastes

DCodd wrote: »

then it is your political represenatives that you need to speak to.

I prefer the way of the Poll Tax, when the money starts declining change came

biscit

LegalOccupier wrote: »

I had not watched much TV for years as i worked shifts so i phoned them up for advice, I was told that if i was not going to pay for a licence i must have my television facing the wall so no one could view the screen and to coil the aerial up away from the set.

Yes people can find out lots of things from the internet when you have a computer and internet connection.

The people i speak to the most do not have a computer and have never been on the internet.

There are still lots of people like these around.

As I stated earlier I have lots of sympathy for those who don't watch broadcast TV and are given a hard time by TV licensing.

The_Safordian

biscit wrote: »

I happen not to agree with your worldview and see things differently. I see you have a problem with the BBC, but don't agree with your perspective. If you want to disagree with the licence fee, fine, but do it in a measured way, arguing your case not attacking people who don't see things your way.

Well that is your right but don't you think I should be able to force you to subsidise Cable or Satellite if I want them or is this all about you and the rest of the BBC "people"?

Oh and I've not attacked anyway, I've given my views and I dislike your games. It seems anyone who has an opinion biscit doesn't like is attacking him!

biscit wrote: »

Your perspective on this is just your point of view, it is not some inalienable truth about the way the world works.

A view that the majority of the British public agree with otherwise you wouldn't have to force them into funding your beloved BBC under threats of fines and then prison

biscit wrote: »

If you want to persuade the majority to come round to your point of view, attacking them is only going to make them see how much they dislike your argument. Hyperbole and emotive statements don't persuade reasonable people, level headed, intelligent debate does.

As I said I don't have too, I don't need to threaten, intimidate or harass people into funding my entertainment, Jack.

I suggest you look up the meaning of debate too because your clearly struggling

The_Safordian

biscit wrote: »

Not quite.

The people who benefit from schools are the children who are educated there, not the parents of those children

Oh dear how many times do you wish to be wrong.

The whole country benefits from education, if you don't wish to accept that I'd suggest you live in a country without it!

DCodd

The_Safordian wrote: »

Every public opinion poll for the past 10yrs at least has shown 75% of the British public want the BBC TV Licence abolished.

That is not true.

I know its wiki but anyway,

In August 2008, the Guardian newspaper reported that "The BBC is facing an uphill battle to maintain support for the licence fee", stating that according to an Ipsos MORI poll the newspaper had commissioned, 41% agreed that the licence fee is an "appropriate funding mechanism" and 37% disagreed but when asked whether the licence fee is "good value for money", 47% disagreed, with more than half of them disagreeing strongly. The poll also showed that there is no longer a majority believing that the licence fee assured them of distinctive programming not available elsewhere ― which, the newspaper said, had long been one of the arguments for its existence: 41% of the population disagreed with only 30% agreeing. The poll also showed that opinion was split by a growing north-south and socio-economic divide.[21]

In September 2008, the BBC's governing body, the BBC Trust, launched a review of TV Licensing's methods,[22] following complaints about "heavy-handed" and "intimidating" tactics[23] and during December 2008, it was reported by the press that the chairman of the all-party Commons Culture, Media and Sport committee had accused TV Licensing of behaving "like the Gestapo", employing "tactics that are outrageous", saying: "The tactics used by TV Licensing in their letters are intimidatory and cause genuine distress. Their records are not always correct, but they write letters that assume members of the public are criminals".[24]

In September 2009, The Guardian reported an ICM poll showing an increase in support for the licence fee to 43%; "The fee is backed by 43%, against 24% who think advertising should foot the bill and 30% who think people should pay to subscribe if they want to see BBC programmes. In 2004, only 31% backed the licence fee, 12 points lower than today.".[25]

biscit

The_Safordian wrote: »

Oh dear how many times do you wish to be wrong.

The whole country benefits from education,

I agree, and this is, in fact, the very point I made. But I will concede that I didn't highlight strongly enough the fact that we all benefit from living in an educated society. That is a very good point.

The_Safordian wrote: »

if you don't wish to accept that I'd suggest you live in a country without it!

Nothing in my post suggested that I was anything other than extremely happy to do my bit to help pay for the education of today's children and all the other children who have been and will be educated during my taxpaying life.