Ban the TV Licence

kayester

i understand why people dont want to pay it, but i couldnt care less i only pay £5.50 every 2 weeks via text....

frazefast

I used to fight tooth and nail for the BBC and the TV Licence. Sadly it's now a dumbed down cesspit full of pro Western biased dross and reality TV for idiots. Not to mention it's become the current British government's vocal sound-piece.

Shove the BBC tax where the sun doesn't shine.

frazefast

As for the poll, no I don't think it should be free, any more than I should be forced to pay a tax for a blatantly biased broadcaster. If people don't care about biased reporting (or enjoy it) then they can pay for it. I've boycotted BBC programmes for a few years now yet still have to pay their Stasi tax or get a criminal record. Which in itself is criminal.

goldiemama

Ban TV licence !!!"

BBC is most a government propaganda machine !!!

silverwhistle

Well.. I haven't got a TV licence since I don't have a TV and visits to aged parent confiirm I don't particularly want one .. but when I read crap like "I've boycotted BBC programmes for a few years now", I feel.. well,.. there is either an old fool or a dishonest one. You boycott programs because they are from the BBC? Even ones that might interest you? Why? Because they have biased reporting? Have you ever noticed the quality of the reporting from the privately owned opposition?

I despair of such stupidity, I really do.

silverwhistle

And then along comes goldiemama who moans even though her (?) first language isn't english. [If it is I despair even more!]

Cornucopia

silverwhistle wrote: »

You boycott programs because they are from the BBC? Even ones that might interest you? Why? Because they have biased reporting? Have you ever noticed the quality of the reporting from the privately owned opposition?

I despair of such stupidity, I really do.

People who wish to protest at either the BBC or TV Licensing face a bit of a dilemma.

Personally, I am quite happy to defend my use of BBC services without payment of the Licence Fee as being entirely within the law. Whereas the BBC's approach to Licence Fee enforcement looks to be in breach of Article 8 of the ECHR as well as having some issues around PACE. (In fact the BBC Trust has recognised two of those issues following my complaint to them, and has instructed the BBC to address them).

I can defend that position because (a) it is lawful, and (b) it is a response that fits within the law as it stands ie. other options might be available, but they are not lawful, so I do not do them.

At the same time, there are certain people who would see that as free-loading. So should I only watch the catch-up service of non-BBC channels? What about Dave, which is half-owned by the BBC? What about radio, that you don't even need a licence for? It all gets too complicated, partly because the BBC has its pudgy fingers in so many pies.

So that's my analysis of it, FWIW.

I join with nearly 2 million other addresses that are "No licence needed" according to BBC figures. Let's get a few more, I say, so that the BBC and the Government cannot go on complacently thinking that nothing is wrong.

silverwhistle

Heh, I really must avoid posting when tipsy! Thanks for your post, Cornucopia, I know you're interested in the subject and have thought through your position.

It's obvious though that the subject does attract the 'disgusted of Tunbridge Wells' brigade, and I don't think they all appreciate the impact of having a weak or non-existant public broadcaster. Living abroad for some years (still without a TV mind) I was aware of the poor quality and political bias of the local dominant private broadcaster.

I listen to a lot of radio - mainly R4 and R3 - and wouldn't have an issue contributing towards that - but not 140 quid, thanks!

In the meantime the brown letters from TVL go straight to the incinerator (I've seen all the variants, I believe), and resisted the temptation to return one with 'well bl**dy visit then' scribbled all over it in green ink.
I've also singularly failed to give them my name, email or phone number which seemed to be a requirement of their website.. but if they can't be ar**d to look at the electoral roll I don't see why I should risk more spam by telling them..

stoatwblr

[QUOTE=Buzby;64684287however_for_those_less_fortunate,_as_the_Receiving_Licence_has_been_in_place_since_the_1920's_(and_coming_up_to_its_centenary)[/QUOTE]

The radio receiving license was abolished in the 1960s, because the advent of transistor radios meant they were small and portable, so it was impossible to enforce.

TV Receiving licenses should have gone the same way after the mid 1980s, for the same reason.

Still, be glad we're not Belgium - there's no state broadcaster there and the fee is charged whether you have a TV or not.

Yes, it's a tax, yes TV Licensing is a private company owned by the BBC, yes they farm collection out to Capita and yes, this is extremely wasteful.

I've had a licence since I started living here and I _still_ get threatening letters from TVL every 2 months claiming I don't. That says a lot about their general competence and recordkeeping abilities.

stoatwblr

skitler wrote: »

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

Be careful what you wish for.

The State Broadcaster in New Zealand used advertising AND TV license fees. It got up to 22 minutes/hour of advertising before there was a general revolt on fee paying and the license was axed (only 30% of the country were estimated to have paid license fees in the last couple of years)

The State broadcaster still runs that much advertising per hour and sucks down a disproportionate amount of govt subsidies - often going out of its way to drive competitors out of existance.