MSE News: TV licence costs to increase from April

Former_MSE_Callum

The cost of a standard colour TV Licence will rise to £150.50 from 1 April - an increase of £3.50...

Read the full story:
'TV licence costs to increase from April'

Click reply below to discuss. If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply.

HWW

That is another £3 saved, by those that do NOT support the Biased, wasteful & corrupted by sexual misbehaviour corporation - Known as the BBC.....
Bung it up to £200+ the sooner, the better.

chippy2u

Yippee! 75 years old in March so won't have to be robbed by the Brussels Broadcasting Company any more!!

Doc_N

But, in favour of the BBC (and very much so) do you really like your news slanted and filtered by newspapers like the Mail, the Sun, the Star and the Telegraph, and election outcomes controlled by those same outlets?

The BBC has a statutory obligation to be unbiased, and it is - despite the whingeing of the right wing, who can't stand the idea of news that doesn't have a blue bias to it.

Cornucopia

Doc_N wrote: »

But, in favour of the BBC (and very much so) do you really like your news slanted and filtered by newspapers like ... the Telegraph, and election outcomes controlled by those same outlets?

I think if you can see clear blue water between the factual coverage of the BBC and the Telegraph, then you may just be making the case (that the BBC has a left-liberal ethos). I'm sure that the Telegraph would be flattered that you think that they have had elections "controlled" by them, but I'm pretty sure it just ain't so. The other papers on your list might like to think they have influence, but it probably isn't as great as they (or their opponents) like to think.

The BBC has a statutory obligation to be unbiased, and it is - despite the whingeing of the right wing, who can't stand the idea of news that doesn't have a blue bias to it.

To be fair, ALL TV news has an obligation towards unbiased coverage. The Papers don't. That's just the way the regulatory dice have landed in the UK, and personally I think it works quite well most of the time.

[Deleted User]

Worth every penny. The iPlayer is superb. No adverts and quality programming you just don!!!8217;t get with commercial tv.

House_Martin

HWW wrote: »

That is another £3 saved, by those that do NOT support the Biased, wasteful & corrupted by sexual misbehaviour corporation - Known as the BBC.....
Bung it up to £200+ the sooner, the better.

i fully agree. Get the licence fee up past £200 asap. That will provoke even more to decide to claim that they do not watch live scheduled broadcasts ( they do really ! ) ( OK to stop the wailers, 98% do really ) and so force the BBC to end all the freeloading by bringing in a watertight way of stopping this bunch of tv licence thieves ripping us and the BBC off.
It happened in Australia when their licence fiddling thievery got too high.
It can happen here too, sooner the better.
This would mean the end of the lucrative gravy train of websites who give advice on how to have the confidence to deal with Capita employees checking transgressors on their doorsteps. They suffer threats and abuse from the thieves on a daily basis going about their lawful business. Thieves do not like to be confronted and brought to justice..200,000 were dragged to the magistrates last year kicking and screaming.
This all has to end, if only to free up the local magistrates who have TV licence swindlers clogging up the courts every week. It will be good for everyone, even the licence thieves who can then stop looking over their shoulders when they are watching TV every night
There has to be a better way.
Maybe if and when a Capita employee gets badly injured or even murdered by some tv licence fiddling chav it will provoke the BBC into doing what they have to do to end the wholesale theft.
A BBC Sky type subscription box ?, accurate Wifi targeted technology embedded into tv sets ?. end of the part of the data protection act which protects , Sky, Virgin etc to reveal their customer base to the BBC ? I ve no idea, but the Aussies did it years ago so we can do it now
.It would mean the end of grotty little Youtube vids from TV licence resistance such as this ,of which Cornucopia is a moderator on this foul mouthed website. he and his mates need to moderate a little stricter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_Stsnpc--s

Cornucopia

House_Martin wrote: »

i fully agree. Get the licence fee up past £200 asap. That will provoke even more to decide to claim that they do not watch live scheduled broadcasts ( they do really ! ) ( OK to stop the wailers, 98% do really )

The BBC say 1 in 6 (17%). I believe them.

It happened in Australia when their licence fiddling thievery got too high.

Is that the official line? Wikipedia says that they (sensibly) decided that Public Service TV was beneficial to the entire country, and moved its funding to central funds.

They suffer threats and abuse from the thieves on a daily basis going about their lawful business.

Have you read my recent post about how the business of TVL is anything but lawful? Whilst I personally wouldn't threaten or abuse a TVL operative (beyond my lawful right to do so), I find it hard to criticise those who do in reaction to an unlawful attempt to usurp their basic rights in law.

Thieves do not like to be confronted and brought to justice..200,000 were dragged to the magistrates last year kicking and screaming.

I know you like the hyperbole, but no one was actually "dragged kicking and screaming" to the courts. Most TVL defendants do not attend - they either plead guilty by post, or by default. If you took the time to go and see the process you'd possibly realise that it has more in common with Walls sausages than Rumpole of the Bailey.

In reality, the vast bulk of cases will have practical or technical flaws, and therefore the actual guilt of the defendants is questionable.

This all has to end, if only to free up the local magistrates who have TV licence swindlers clogging up the courts every week.

The BBC say that TVL cases take up a tiny amount of court time. (Mainly because they believe that justice can be done in as little as 30 seconds).

Maybe if and when a Capita employee gets badly injured or even murdered by some tv licence fiddling chav it will provoke the BBC into doing what they have to do to end the wholesale theft.

Have you considered that it is in the self-interests of the BBC and Capita to maintain the status quo where they can justify the present regime and its cost by "catching" the easiest 10% of "evaders" each year?

The reality of law breaking is that whilst I am aware of a number of TVL employees and contractors who have been prosecuted, sometimes in the context of very serious offences, I have yet to see a prosecution of a householder in respect of violent conduct towards TVL staff. I don't doubt that there have been "incidents", but I suspect that local Police and the BBC take the view that the dubious approach of TVL is likely to provoke a certain reaction, and in some cases could be consider Aggravated Trespass. Also, as I think I have told you before, a householder suffering the civil tort of trespass is lawfully permitted to use reasonable force to eject a trespasser. It's not something to be done lightly, but under the circumstances of someone lying to you and threatening you on your own doorstep, and refusing to leave immediately when instructed I can see it being a relevant recourse.

...end of the part of the data protection act which protects , Sky, Virgin etc to reveal their customer base to the BBC ?

This is already agreed, I believe. I support the measure, and was disappointed to find that the BBC never bothered legally testing the reluctance of the commercial platform providers under the previous Dealer Notification rules.

I ve no idea, but the Aussies did it years ago so we can do it now

I think you may be confused about Australia. They abolished their TV Licence (in 1974), as have New Zealand (1999), Portugal (1992) and many others. When a country abolishes their Licence (or never had one in the first place) they do not need, and do not have any means to enforce (against) TV viewing because it is no longer "necessary".

[Deleted User]

Doc_N wrote: »

The BBC has a statutory obligation to be unbiased, and it is

Seriously?

BBC Brexit BIAS row: Fury over 'two THIRDS of guests on flagship shows being anti-Leave'

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/912172/BBC-Brexit-bias-row-two-thirds-guests-Question-Time-Any-Questions-anti-leave-Remainers

The IEA analysis showed that in 2016 and 2017 of the 281 panellists on Question Time and 297 on Radio 4!!!8217;s Any Questions, 69 per cent were Remainers and 31 per cent backed Brexit.

[Deleted User]

Deleted_User wrote: »

No adverts and quality programming you just don't get with commercial TV.

So make it subscription.

As it's so brilliant, people will be rushing to subscribe.

[Deleted User]

Cornucopia wrote: »

whilst I am aware of a number of TVL employees and contractors who have been prosecuted, sometimes in the context of very serious offences

Off the top of my head, I recall the following:-

"Enforcement officer" David Clark, who assaulted Disabled Ron Sinclair, on his own property.

Oluwagbenga Olaniyan, who forged interviews, leading to four innocent people being summonsed for LF Evasion.