TV License Inspectors

biscit

The_Safordian wrote: »

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!

No, not at all.

The_Safordian wrote: »

So you think no one should have the right to watch television feeds unless they subsidise the BBC for you first, how very selfish of you.

That is not you giving your views on the licence fee itself, that is a direct criticism of me for not opposing it. It isn't even criticising the view expressed, but a "straw man" version of what I said.

It was expressed in an aggressive way.

You said that *I* was selfish for holding this view that I had not even expressed.

It is, in short, an attack.

Now I will say again, if you want to criticise the BBC or the license fee, please feel free to do so. If you want to debate, in a level headed and logical way (and by the way ending a sentence with Jack is aggressive, even if the person you are talking to is called Jack) the rights and wrongs of the licence fee. It's even fine to disagree directly with the points people have made.

Just don't have a go at people for seeing the world differently.

Now lets take that quote and express it nicely:

I happen to think that people shouldn't have to subsidise BBC viewers in order to have the right to watch broadcast TV feeds

Isn't that much much better? It gets exactly the same point across without attacking the person you're replying to. So much less confrontational and personal.

Instead of agressively saying:

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!

You could have said:

Actually I believe that the whole country benefits from education. In fact I'd go as far as to susggest that people who don't wish to accept that should go and live in a country without it!

Identical views, identical arguments, just expressed in a polite and unconfrontational manner.

The_Safordian

DCodd wrote: »

That is not true.

I know its wiki but anyway,

What's Wiki got to do with this factual information, every public opinion poll has shown 75% of the British public want the BBC TV Licence scraped and that includes Yougov and Mori

[Deleted User]

The_Safordian wrote: »

BBC TV Licensing always tells people they will send someone round to check because you are always guilty until the BBC says otherwise

Indeed, the BBC Trust Review of TV Licence Fee Collection 2009 categorically states:-

Once TV Licensing receives notification that there is no set at an address an enforcement officer will (my emphasis) visit the address to confirm.

[Deleted User]

DCodd wrote: »

all of them request payment by default and the onus is on the consumer to prove otherwise.

No it's not.

Innocent until proven guilty applies to the LF, as much as it does to other offences.

giraffe69

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.

So, it's a town with lots of TV's facing the wall, loads of people who don't have computers, libraries with PC's just waiting to be used that are lonely and neglected. Sounds fun. Probably in Scotland.

There are two issues which are getting confused.
1. Collecting any money to fund the BBC
2. Collecting it via Licence Fee rather than, say, income tax or increased VAT

I would prefer not to have a licence fee because I think that collecting money that way and then having to spend a significant amount of it on the admin involved is not worthwhile. I find some of the BBC a touch biased but I also think some of its channels provide some excellent TV watching. I wouldn't personally mind paying a subscription instead of the fee. I imagine if we moved to that model this thread would be replaced with one about the inalienable right of people to watch who should not be disadvantaged on account of having little available cash.
Those who like sport go completely bonkers when events are moved from BBC to one of the subscription channels(ITV being bad enough). There is even a list of treasured events like the Cup Final, some test matches and Wimbledon that HAVE to be on a terrestrial channel.

Jeff_Bridges_hair

Cant believ Godwins law has already entered this discussion. Brilliant.

The_Safordian

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

Cant believ Godwins law has already entered this discussion. Brilliant.

I can't believe someone can just jump into thread for the first time and add something so non-constructive :huh:

EDIT: I see the BBC is breaking its charter again. something for your "Godwins law"

"The BBC and an inconvenient truth about climate change: A devastating report lays bare the BBC’s endemic bias on global warming"

http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/devastating-report-lays-bare-the-bbcs-endemic-bias-on-global-warming/

[Deleted User]

giraffe69 wrote: »

I imagine if we moved to that model this thread would be replaced with one about the inalienable right of people to watch who should not be disadvantaged on account of having little available cash.

People with little available cash are already disadvantaged.

biscit

The_Safordian wrote: »

http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/devastating-report-lays-bare-the-bbcs-endemic-bias-on-global-warming/

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

That article is hilarious, and in no way reflects badly on the BBC.

The_Safordian

biscit wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

That article is hilarious, and in no way reflects badly on the BBC.

The BBC "people" will say and do anything to deflect negative criticism of it.

That article is yet more proof that the BBC does not stick to its Charter and yet you find it funny, this in itself is a reason to do away with the TV Licence and let you "people" fund it via a voluntary subscription