Ban the TV Licence

Cornucopia

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

Because that is what the law currently allows.

If Parliament felt it was a problem, they'd change the law.

Exactly. There needs to be a boundary somewhere, and Parliament in its wisdom decided on this. They've effectively distilled into legislation what it means to watch TV (as opposed to viewing any number of other sources of video content). They actually made a pretty good job of it, IMHO.

The alternatives - to require a licence for content that was once a TV programme, or that was a TV broadcast within the last X days would be completely unworkable.

Requiring a TV licence to view DVDs or CCTV would be completely disproportionate. (And yes I recognise that some other countries do exactly that).

AFAIK there is nothing in the law or in its Charter that would preclude the BBC from requiring registration & a licence number to use iPlayer. It is the BBC's choice not to do that which is the issue, here.

eggsarnie

whitegoods_engineer wrote: »

Don't you get it??

So in your world, the BBC becomes a subscription only option.

The BBC income would drop like a stone because it would just become another low-quality subscription channel like sky.

Therefore, it would cease making programmes and simply buy in rubbish American shows like Sky does, then there would be no quality standard. The broadcasters would all be the same, peddling American dramas and comedies just like Sky!

That would be the end of a quality standard, and we'd all get our TV based on the American model which is cheap, tacky poor quality shows. Nothing else, just boxsets basically!

why would income drop like a stone ? the people in favour of keeping it say it produces to outstanding programmes ?

if the programmes are so great that you say they are no-one but handfull of people will cancel, you may have to pay 1 or 2 pence more a year thats it to make up for us few.

your argument makes zero sense !

Bayonetta

I had a delightful letter threatening to take me to court unless I bought a TV licence - I have one, and pay by direct debit, and have had the same one for more than 5 years now. Some delightful person told the TV Licence people that I had moved - I've no idea who this was or how they did it as they would have needed my name, D.O.B and a few other things too! It was more than a hassle to sort out as they didn't believe I was who I said I was either, so really wonder what I am paying a licence fee for! Grrr!

[Deleted User]

Bayonetta wrote: »

I had a delightful letter threatening to take me to court unless I bought a TV licence

I've had 12 copies of a letter, implying I'm about to be taken to court, despite them not knowing my name, age, sex, or whether I watch live TV.

Oddly, despite these 12 letters, I haven't been to court once, let alone 12 times.

drbraindead

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

I've had 12 copies of a letter, implying I'm about to be taken to court, despite them not knowing my name, age, sex, or whether I watch live TV.

Oddly, despite these 12 letters, I haven't been to court once, let alone 12 times.

Have you tried opting out on their website? if not, what are the implications of doing this.

[Deleted User]

drbraindead wrote: »

Have you tried opting out on their website?

No I haven't.

AFAIC, the less they know about me, the better.

if not, what are the implications of doing this.

They implications are, that they will want to search my home, to determine if I'm a liar. :mad:

skitler

ive never had a tv licence.


I don't need one tv works great without one


I cant understand why folk whinge about stuff and then still pay.

drbraindead

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

No I haven't.

AFAIC, the less they know about me, the better.



They implications are, that they will want to search my home, to determine if I'm a liar. :mad:

I can understand that, there is a lot of advice on the net to not give them any details.

But what would happen if you told them you only watch Dvds and showed them. Not that they would believe this, but how could they prove this not to be true.

cw18

drbraindead wrote: »

But what would happen if you told them you only watch Dvds and showed them. Not that they would believe this, but how could they prove this not to be true.

I told them I don't need as I don't have a working aerial connected up and only use the TVs for DVDs and streaming. Haven't heard from them at all apart from an acknowledgement (and request for me to confirm this is still the case when I bought a new TV), and certainly haven't seen them (shame, as I'd love to send them away with egg on their faces when I prove I'm not connected up to receive terrestrial signals on them).

[Deleted User]

drbraindead wrote: »

But what would happen if you told them you only watch DVDs and showed them.

They'd likely tune it in, then summons you.

Not that they would believe this, but how could they prove this not to be true.

They can't, but LF evasion cases go through the Magistrates Court, like meat through a sausage machine.

Most Magistrates don't understand the Comms Act, and will find you guilty, simply for having a TV.