Ban the TV Licence

DCodd

prowla wrote: »

I have a device which allows me to skip ads - it's called a Sky+ box.

If I am watching something live, then I've got a couple of other devices which allow me to skip the ads - my legs! (I leave the room to make a cuppa or something.)

Another thing is that the TV "On Demand" recordings don't include ads.

My word prowla, you must drink Gallons a night!;)

nsabournemouth

Going by these figures of what was spent

http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/whoweare/licencefee/


I'd be happy to pay £0.55 a month for the online stuff.

Cornucopia

cepheus wrote: »

The rebate to the opt out viewer would come from businesses in the form of an advertising tax, perhaps in place of a corporation tax. All businesses which choose not to advertise on TV would qualify for a reduction in this. Newspapers and electronic media could be dealt with in the same way.

I appreciate that you are probably coming at this from some far-left perspective.... but this is never going to happen. Even Labour is fully committed to letting the market do its stuff.

This would be an important landmark since viewers would then realise advertising channels are NOT free, and they pay for them ostensibly. Of course this doesn't guarantee the price of products would be reduced by non-advertisers, but if money isn't spent on advertising there is a spare pot of money to do as the business wishes. The removal of the pernicious influence of advertising would be a great bonus.

That's not really how advertising works. It's not intended to be a bottom-line cost. It's actually (or should be) an investment in acquiring new business. If businesses are simply throwing money at advertising to maintain a price-point, then their business is fundamentally flawed.

skitler

if the bbc could make adverts like the Virgin one, folk could save money and bbc would make more. its so funny.


more power, more power, more power, Mo Farah.:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Loucien

I think a monthly subscription charge - for all the BBC's TV, internet and radio output would be fairer than the current system. It could also be available worldwide - so giving them a larger number of people to drawn from.

ricky_v

I've had 27 letters from the BBC/Capita/TV Licensing, for the henious crime of doing nothing.

I've been under investigation 8 times over, and 6 times a "hearing is about to be set in my local court".:rotfl:

My nan doesn't get threatning letters from the DVLA because there isn't a driving licence registered at her address, nor does my mother get letters from the police reminding her of the Firearms Act 1968 and the need to get a gun licence, but somehow the public accept accusatory correspondence from the BBC/Capita/TV Licensing under the auspices of "paying your fair share" or "nobody can survive without live TV".

kerrazoo

i still think the TVL should be kept, but the enforcement strong arm tactics are wrong. If you don't have a TV, there should be no more said about it and certainly no follow up.

If iplayer was behind a password screen requiring you to enter your valid TV Licence or something like that it would help, as too many people are getting the benefit of the BBC broadcasts without paying anything for them. If you had to have a TV licence to access ANY BBC content, a lot more people would need to pay up.

aimeemum

I'm all in favour of a small fee to keep the BBC ad-free, I really am, but I do not take kindly to small greasy men knocking on my door and reading me my rights when I have done nothing wrong, or getting court summons, 2 of them, in a 3 month period, again when I have done nothing wrong.

We de-tuned our television over a year ago. We wrote and informed the TV licence and cancelled the DD. We did not want our at the time 2 children (now 3) subjected to the drivel that kids have on their own channels. We unplugged everything and as such there is nothing for me to hide. When the little man came to my door I welcomed him in and told him just that. He examined everything and said that he saw nothing wrong and wished me a good day. 2 weeks later I got a summons and when I rang the tv licence people to get an explanation apparently this snivelling wretch had said I was watching TV when he arrived and that I was 'blatantly lying'. How dare he!! I asked them to send me a copy of the paperwork as I still had my copy (the CC one) and I would like to compare them. They quickly backpedalled and said that I wouldn't need to go to court, they gave me a no-tvl registration number and told me that an 'enforcement officer' would do a spot check.

3 weeks later he turned up again. I wasn't so very welcoming but I was clear he wasn't to lie about me again and I wanted to see him write everything clearly etc. 2 weeks later, another summons! I was not amused. I called them, told them that they were harrassing me and my children, that they were putting me under undue stress and I was ill (I had PND at the time) and this would make me worse and how dare they etc. Again they 'let me off'. Same drill as before. Little man came to the door again 3 weeks ago....husband told him to shove off.

It's totally pointless!!! It should be removed and if the government are that bothered about it they should give everyone a viewing box and a payment card that they can top up on pay-point!

Cornucopia

This is why we (anti-TVL people) advise anyone who is legally licence-free not to invite the TVL staff into their homes, and not to consent to an interview under caution.

I use the words "invite" and "consent" quite deliberately, because despite what TVL might say, these things are under your control, not theirs.

Cornucopia

I think you misunderstand the "burden of proof" thing. It is related solely to the Judge/Magistrate's assessment of "what really happened", and nothing else.

It certainly doesn't permit entirely speculative charges to be laid.

Moreover, to get the desired benefit of decriminalisation (reduction in court time & costs) would require a move to a fixed penalty model. I'm thinking that such a move pretty much requires that physical evidence of the offence is captured, which would be a major step forward.