TV Licensing - Do I Need to Remove Antenna Cables from room?

Options
18911131416

Comments

  • Cornucopia
    Cornucopia Posts: 16,189 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Photogenic
    edited 19 November 2017 at 10:54PM
    Options
    john22 wrote: »
    My god when are the pitchforks coming out and people marching on BBC headquarters lol

    From my POV by far my major concern here is that BBC-TVL should treat the Public fairly, lawfully and honestly.

    Simply by reference to contradictions in the things the BBC itself says, it's clear that there is an issue. And that's before delving into the often complex legal position - a position that is way too complex for something as trivial as TV Licences.

    For example, as above they say this on the TVL website: "You have no obligation to grant entry to an enquiry officer if you don’t wish to do so". But they say this (elsewhere, more prominently on the TVL website): "If you tell us you don’t need a licence, we may confirm this with a visit to your address".

    So, semantics aside, what is it? Is the "visit" voluntary or not, and short of consulting knowledgeable people on the Internet or paying for legal advice how is a typical householder supposed to know what is required of them? And when we do find out the truth, why is BBC-TVL saying the opposite?

    This is just one example of BBC-TVL self-contradictions about things it really ought to be completely consistent and completely transparent about.
  • LAWKO
    Options
    Thanks Thread,
    If you don't mind me asking how about boxes work with internet like ISTAR & KODIBOX Please ?
  • silverwhistle
    Options
    HWW wrote: »
    The UK, would be far better off WITHOUT the BBC, in my humble opinion. It is just so biased to it's own defence & protection, it is unreal.

    Funnily enough, although I don't have a TV I don't think you're right (and a bit obsessed about JS and bias too), having seen the examples of other countries' broadcasting. Nor do I think you've considered the alternatives.

    I certainly couldn't do without radio 3 and 4.
  • HWW
    HWW Posts: 103 Forumite
    edited 20 November 2017 at 10:23AM
    Options
    fooby1 wrote: »
    I had a threatening letter from TV licensing informing me that my property is "under investigation" as I haven't applied for a TV license. I don't watch live TV and decided when they brought in the iPlayer catch up requirements that a subscription to BBC iPlayer isn't worth £147 a year.

    I only watch Netflix, YouTube and very rarely 4od catchup. No antenna is plugged in to my TV, however there is a regular TV antenna and Sky satellite cable coming in through the wall. It's a rental, so I'd rather not chop the cables, but if they wanted to, could I be fined for having cables coming into my living room that could produce a live TV signal?
    You will have no problem, with that at all, the logic being "Just because I have milk on the doorstep, does not mean I keep a cow in the back garden"


    But, as TVL have been known to twist evidence & interviews - my advice is to clear these "Salesmen" off if they call, politely but firmly. They are after a sales commission, should you be talked into buying a licence, which you in your circumstances do not need.


    "No, or minimal communication" is the best way to treat them. HM projects a very good picture of the Capita/BBC?TVL's attitude: "You are guilty before you even got to court" instead of the correct one, under British law, that "you are innocent, until proven guilty" But that is the sad way the BBC conduct their "Public relations" partly due to the outdated TVL model, that should have been replaced by a subscription model, years ago.


    The only exception to that one, was when a head of the Police declared Savile to be a proven criminal with countless victims, even after he was dead & could not be tried in court.
  • House_Martin
    Options
    LAWKO wrote: »
    Thanks Thread,
    If you don't mind me asking how about boxes work with internet like ISTAR & KODIBOX Please ?
    Kodibox is a dead duck IMO in the UK. The new laws seem to have stopped this straightforward con dead in its tracks.
    I have two friend who bought the Kodi box fiddle and despite trying the latest "builds " most stuff fails to load and you spend half your life gawping at the TV only to see it fail again, and again and again.
    Give up with the Kodi con its as dead as VHS video recorder.
    One of my friends, who fiddles his TV licence of course as well even offered his Kodi box to me as a free gift. I declined.
    The only TV program I am remotely interested in viewing on the American rubbish online broadcaster Amazon Prime is The Grand Tour . I will purchase this TV program to enjoy Clarkson and his mates the legal way
  • Cornucopia
    Cornucopia Posts: 16,189 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Photogenic
    edited 20 November 2017 at 11:10AM
    Options
    Funnily enough, although I don't have a TV I don't think you're right (and a bit obsessed about JS and bias too), having seen the examples of other countries' broadcasting. Nor do I think you've considered the alternatives.

    I certainly couldn't do without radio 3 and 4.

    I tend to agree with you, although I think the issues are well within the scope of legitimate subjectivity.

    Examining the question analytically:-

    - Is BBC-TVL operating inappropriately at the direction of the BBC in such a way as to fail the not unreasonable expectation of engaging with the Public fairly, lawfully and honestly. I think the answer is yes.

    - Does the BBC's output exhibit bias, if not on party-political matters, then on important matters of the day. I think the answer is yes.

    - Was the historic BBC plagued by sexual offences, including playing host to one of the UK's most prolific child abusers over a period of several decades? Did management at the time fail in their duty of care? Are there echoes of sexual impropriety and gender discrimination to this day? I think the answer is yes.

    So, the individual elements are there. The question is then whether there is an overwhelming cultural malaise within the BBC that links these issues. I'm not convinced that there is. Or at least, that if there is, the BBC's cultural malaise is no worse than in many of our other large and/or public organisations.

    In the end, I'm not really that proud of the analysis that says that the BBC is morally and practically lacking, but, hey, it's just as bad elsewhere. Every one of those organisations should want to change itself and bring about a new era of properly administered large organisations, that are focused on the needs of the Public, value for money, fairness and integrity.

    "Some hope", I suspect some people will say.
  • System
    System Posts: 178,104 Community Admin
    Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    Options
    Cornucopia wrote: »
    I tend to agree with you, although I think the issues are well within the scope of legitimate subjectivity.

    Examining the question analytically:-

    - Is BBC-TVL operating inappropriately at the direction of the BBC in such a way as to fail the not unreasonable expectation of engaging with the Public fairly, lawfully and honestly. I think the answer is yes.

    - Does the BBC's output exhibit bias, if not on party-political matters, then on important matters of the day. I think the answer is yes.

    - Was the historic BBC plagued by sexual offences, including playing host to one of the UK's most prolific child abusers over a period of several decades? Did management at the time fail in their duty of care? Are there echoes of sexual impropriety and gender discrimination to this day? I think the answer is yes.

    So, the individual elements are there. The question is then whether there is an overwhelming cultural malaise within the BBC that links these issues. I'm not convinced that there is. Or at least, that if there is, the BBC's cultural malaise is no worse than in many of our other large and/or public organisations.

    In the end, I'm not really that proud of the analysis that says that the BBC is morally and practically lacking, but, hey, it's just as bad elsewhere. Every one of those organisations should want to change itself and bring about a new era of properly administered large organisations, that are focused on the needs of the Public, value for money, fairness and integrity. "Some hope", I suspect some people will say.

    Currently the BBC work within whatever government is in power and the remit that they give. If you want the BBC to change into something that suits your view point then vote for whatever MP or party that gets you closer to that goal.

    Whether we like it rules or laws its part of what keeps a society together. I feel that we live in a society now that is very polarised of left and right ideas and language. There is always a few bad apples but rather than make changes to help reduce those bad apples and move forward people want to see things teared down as in companies broken up or people fired.

    I think the biggest problem that the BBC faces is that its not a free commercial entity and the Government has control over it when in this day of polarise politics the BBC is attacked from both left and right and I don't see it ever changing unless they become separate from state.

    Oh and with regards to value that is a personal subjective view point as everyone values things differently. All companies can do is hit a sweet spot that makes them the most money. Whether the BBC is bound to the state or a free commercial entity they will never give value of money to everyone. Also being a free commercial entity will if they choose make them push whatever agenda they want.
  • Cornucopia
    Cornucopia Posts: 16,189 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Photogenic
    edited 20 November 2017 at 12:19PM
    Options
    john22 wrote: »
    Currently the BBC work within whatever government is in power and the remit that they give.
    Only in the very broadest sense. At any meaningful level of detail, the relationship between the BBC and successive governments is strained (to put it diplomatically). I don't know if that is the fault of the BBC or of the various governments (probably a bit of both).
    If you want the BBC to change into something that suits your view point then vote for whatever MP or party that gets you closer to that goal.
    Since there have been Governments of various flavours, and the BBC has plodded on regardless, I have to disagree with you on this. In fact, one of the unhelpful internal beliefs of the BBC seems to be that they are superior to mere politicians in that whilst politicians and governments come and go, the BBC remains as a timeless feature of the British Establishment. Whilst it may be based in fact, it is an extremely unhelpful and tendentious belief to hold, and even more so when it is thrust in the face of stroppy (reform-minded) politicians.

    I don't particularly want to see the BBC ripped to pieces by the next zealous reforming Government of Left or Right. What I want to see is the re-establisment of a decent set of values and integrity. However, there is a sense in which a single act of "boil-lancing" reform of the BBC might be required to overcome its obsessive secrecy and self-defensiveness.
    Whether we like it rules or laws its part of what keeps a society together.
    Do you mean TVL's "rules"? If there are rules to be applied by a public authority upon the Public, that affect the privacy of their homes, then the law says that those rules MUST come from legislation or regulations of similar standing, and that they MUST be explicit, specific, understandable, accessible and proof against arbitrariness. The BBC has implemented "rules" which do not follow that model, and are arguably therefore unlawful. I'm not aware of any Government forcing it to do that (although successive Governments seem to have turned a blind eye).
    There is always a few bad apples...
    The BBC does seem to have had more than its fair share, though I accept that there are some media outlets that take delight in pointing them out.
    ...I don't see it ever changing unless they become separate from state.
    Those of us who favour subscription believe that this would increase the separation between the BBC and the State, and bring the BBC closer to its public.
    Also being a free commercial entity will if they choose make them push whatever agenda they want.
    They more or less do that now. :)
  • Robisere
    Robisere Posts: 3,237 Forumite
    First Anniversary Photogenic First Post Combo Breaker
    Options
    The conclusion reached by some here, is that the BBC needs to be replaced. My answer to that would be: with what? More commercial broadcasting?

    A subscription model has been mentioned. So how is that to be collected? Perhaps by a levy on every taxpayer, or simply upon those who wish to watch and/or listen to BBC content? Maybe some sort of proof could be issued, as in a licence to qualify for being legally able to accept - oh, wait a moment...

    Here are the facts. The BBC is not perfect. ("Oh, no!" I hear you cry) However, if it goes, that's the end. Whatever form it takes after that, it will never be the same again. When it's gone, it's gone.

    Now I offer my own very contentious views. I am not H o m o p h o b i c. I have gay friends, even one who is TG. I consider them as good friends. But what gets me annoyed at the BBC, is the number of gays employed in broadcasting. Everything the Beeb does now, appears to be measured through the "Diversity" microscope. I repeat: I AM NOT ANTI GAY. It just strikes me that there is an unrepresentative number of gay people working for the BBC. To quote one of my friends, in a long term gay relationship, "Most of them flaunt themselves-" said with a shudder.

    There: I said it. There will be recriminations I expect, but I don't care.
    I think this job really needs
    a much bigger hammer.
  • Cornucopia
    Cornucopia Posts: 16,189 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Photogenic
    edited 20 November 2017 at 11:41PM
    Options
    Robisere wrote: »
    The conclusion reached by some here, is that the BBC needs to be replaced. My answer to that would be: with what? More commercial broadcasting?
    Subscription.
    A subscription model has been mentioned. So how is that to be collected? Perhaps by a levy on every taxpayer, or simply upon those who wish to watch and/or listen to BBC content? Maybe some sort of proof could be issued, as in a licence to qualify for being legally able to accept - oh, wait a moment...
    There's no need to second-guess this, because we've had successful Subscription TV in the UK for 30 years. The piece that's possibly lacking is technology on the Freeview platform, but "oh, wait a moment", the BBC took that out when they had the opportunity, and Greg Dyke is completely open about that act of sabotage and the reasons for it.
    Here are the facts. The BBC is not perfect. ("Oh, no!" I hear you cry) However, if it goes, that's the end. Whatever form it takes after that, it will never be the same again. When it's gone, it's gone.
    I think that's a somewhat melodramatic view. The BBC is not the same as it was 20 years ago. It is in a constant state of reinvention, and it's highly implausible that that would always be a positive change that pleases the majority of its viewers and listeners. At the same time, the pace of technology marches on, and even if the BBC preserved itself in its present-day glory, it would rapidly get left behind both technically and culturally.

    On the other hand, AFAIK, the issues with TV Licensing are all of the creation of the BBC, its lawyers and its outsourcers. Even if I accepted the valuable uniqueness of the BBC (and I'm not sure that I do, or given your further comments that you do) that cannot justify such a draconian/unfair/dishonest/unlawful approach to enforcement. It's disappointing that the BBC seems to think it does.

    I won't bother quoting your further comments as there's a fair chance that you or the Forum Team will remove them. I certainly think that there is a disparity between the BBC's relentless political correctness, the views of the general public and the sometimes politically incorrect actions of the BBC. I'm open-minded about whether utopian broadcasting is a good or bad thing. However, I don't think that the presence within the BBC of a particular minority group is a direct cause of that, or a problem in itself.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.8K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 450K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.9K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 609K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.4K Life & Family
  • 248.5K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards