Had a Visit from TV Licence Man

oldgrumpygit

sniggings wrote: »

the number of people who use a TV to only listen to the radio and still have the channels tuned in and either are daft enough to invite a goon in for a search or have a warrant served on them would be so small, you will be waiting a long time for a test case.

Maybe give them a rang, tell them you are going licence free but still intend on tuning your set in to every channel, and invite them in for a search, my guess is they will take you up on it...oh make sure to post when the court case is as I for one would love to watch how it goes

If I went down that route then I would be happy to do so. Given that my defence would be the information, freely available to the public, from the BBC and TVL advising that my course of action would not require me to have a licence.

I am hoping that Kurtis_Blue will be able to answer the points in my previous post as that may shed some light as to why cases as described have failed.

Jamie_Carter

oldgrumpygit wrote: »

Not sure I understand this.

Who is being forced to fund other people's entertainment, and how?

Isn't that one obvious?

The BBC is funded rightly or wrongly by license fees. So anyone who watches/listens to any BBC broadcast (either live or recorded) is having their entertainment paid for by license payers.

But then this reflects the selfish world we live in.

scrounger_2

One day the BBC will fall.

anotheruser

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

The BBC is funded rightly or wrongly by license fees. So anyone who watches/listens to any BBC broadcast (either live or recorded) is having their entertainment paid for by license payers.

But then this reflects the selfish world we live in.

Just like my car insurance is high because of where I live or the age I am. I am not judged by my own ability but by others who often think their ability to drive is far greater than it actually is.

In paying for the licence fee, you are also partly agreeing that the Director General should be paid over £700,000 a year for his job, correct? If not, then surely it is right not to support the organisation and make a stand against them in perhaps the only way realistically possible.

I don't think either of those are right or fair.

oldgrumpygit

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Isn't that one obvious?

The BBC is funded rightly or wrongly by license fees. So anyone who watches/listens to any BBC broadcast (either live or recorded) is having their entertainment paid for by license payers.

But then this reflects the selfish world we live in.

It wasn't originally the way I read it, sorry.

Are you saying then that those that use catch up services and are able to watch, read and listen to the BBC without the need for a licence, are being subsidised by those that do?

That I can understand and think that it is wrong and the BBC has made a rod for its own back with iPlayer.

oldgrumpygit

scrounger wrote: »

One day the BBC will fall.

I think it will change and needs to change but I think it will be around for some time to come.

Cornucopia

oldgrumpygit wrote: »

That I can understand and think that it is wrong and the BBC has made a rod for its own back with iPlayer.

I totally agree with this. I think that the BBC should place ads on iPlayer catch-up programmes. This would fund the service, whilst not detracting too much from the wider advertising market.

oldgrumpygit

Cornucopia wrote: »

I totally agree with this. I think that the BBC should place ads on iPlayer catch-up programmes. This would find the service, whilst not detracting too much from the wider advertising market.

I am sure there would be an outcry from all sectors if the BBC proposed that.

However it may well happen as they are managing to negate arguments in favour of a licence fee themselves.

Jamie_Carter

anotheruser wrote: »

Just like my car insurance is high because of where I live or the age I am. I am not judged by my own ability but by others who often think their ability to drive is far greater than it actually is.

In paying for the licence fee, you are also partly agreeing that the Director General should be paid over £700,000 a year for his job, correct? If not, then surely it is right not to support the organisation and make a stand against them in perhaps the only way realistically possible.

I don't think either of those are right or fair.

So you pay your insurance even though you think that it isn't right that your insurance is high because of bad drivers and no win no fee claims do you? Or to give the CEO's of the insurance companies wages of probably far more than £700k?

If you don't like the license fee system, then lobby your MP.

As for the Director General's wages. In any organisation wages are dependent on position. The higher up the company you go, the more you earn. And £700k isn't actually high for someone in his position in an organisation the size of the BBC. What you should be looking at is some executives employed by county councils.

It sounds like you are just making up excuses to not pay.

Jamie_Carter

oldgrumpygit wrote: »

It wasn't originally the way I read it, sorry.

Are you saying then that those that use catch up services and are able to watch, read and listen to the BBC without the need for a licence, are being subsidised by those that do?

That I can understand and think that it is wrong and the BBC has made a rod for its own back with iPlayer.

Yes that's exactly what I mean.