TV Licence article Discussion

Cornucopia

DavidP24 wrote: »

Isn't there a tiny element under the guise of "public service" programming that allows them to skim a bit

No, only the BBC is presently receiving Licence fee funds. There have been various plans over the years to give some Licence fee cash to C4, but nothing recently. ITV and C5 would never be given Licence fee cash.

According to the Powers That Be, the entire output of BBC1, BBC2, ITV1, C4 and C5 is public service broadcasting. But Sky Arts and Quest (as examples)... none of that is public service.

There is something about broadcasting that causes a fairly fundamental bypass of normal common sense, and abuse of terms like "public service" is part of it.

Zapito

DavidP24 wrote: »

C4 & C5 get their bit of fee and ITV do not do that kind of TV anymore agree, would be interesting.

I beg to differ, I am definately more bonkers and no paranoia (I do not even smole baccy never mind the weed), just my perception on how you seem to be their mouthpiece.

Bedsit B was just voicing a very real concern, there have been hundreds of videos on YT of TVL, you can see the internal memos of how they appeal to take them down (they use a 3rd party company and the emails were leaked).

Fact is that you have not experienced this yourself, you seem annoyed (you used stronger words) because you have to pay and others don't, how about you join them, don't put up with this !!!!!!.

In my experience there are a lot of people who struggle to make ends meet, they can't afford the TVL never mind Sky, if "the system" enables some to watch catch up, then good luck to them. The simple fact is that TVL have raped a fortune from BBC income and for what, to send some person who is not as lucky as you to prison because they can't afford the fine for not having a TV licence.

We have the technology to restrict viewing and the BBC has the ability to do it just as Sky does. They can encypty the broadcast on Freeview and send out a card to access it.

BTW I will be losing sleep thinking that I will lose credibility, honest!

Yeah OK, but don't accuse me of working for TVL or BBC, because I don't. I work for no-one, I'm a free agent, and yes I agree that's "lucky" (but it's mostly luck that I made for myself, as it goes). I might be kr@p at m@th but I've always known how to make a bob or three.

And you are quite right, I am annoyed at folk who cheat the system and use BBC services without contributing towards the cost. So I do object to "catchup cowboys", but that's only a moral objection as apparently they are within the law (which I want to see changed accordingly).

I've already said elsewhere regarding people so skint they can't afford the licence, that if BBC is to be regarded as a social necessity (and I think it is) then it needs to be allowed for in benefits. Then their excuse for not paying it is gone.

If TVL are abusing Data Protection etc then I agree they need to be curbed. As I keep saying.

According to Cornucopia, btw, it's a myth that C4 get anything from the licence fee.

(I don't smole tobacco neither btw, and am way too odd for the weed. No booze neither. So wot?)

hhermione666

I just don't watch live TV. :cool:
I used to have a licence, but didn't want to renew it because I never watched it. If the BBC wants me to cough up they will have to start producing something I want to watch.:j

Cornucopia

Zapito wrote: »

Yeah OK, but don't accuse me of working for TVL or BBC, because I don't.

I think, perhaps, you have an unusual "way" about you - quite strident even when you are factually wrong, and you come across as wanting to set the agenda in a forum within which you are somewhat inexperienced.

I work for no-one, I'm a free agent, and yes I agree that's "lucky" (but it's mostly luck that I made for myself, as it goes). I might be kr@p at m@th but I've always known how to make a bob or three.

I've no idea what you do, or how you gained your independence, but as someone in a similar situation, I would caution against confirmation bias in your self-examination.

... apparently they are within the law ...

No apparently about it.

... then it needs to be allowed for in benefits. Then their excuse for not paying it is gone.

I think this is a little naive and unrealistic regarding the vagaries of the benefits system and the unpredictability of people's lives. Anything short of the Licence being free or taken at source from benefits is going to leave some people not paying - that is inevitable.

According to Cornucopia, btw, it's a myth that C4 get anything from the licence fee.

To be fair, it's not just me. Channel 4 say the same.

Zapito

DavidP24 wrote: »

... the BBC can work smarter by using technology as Sky do. No need for ads, no need for goons

If that sort of thing can be done effectively on the required wide scale then fine. But as I understand it there are ways to cheat such systems, so it'd probably end up as business as usual with the enforcers.

Zapito

Cornucopia wrote: »

I think, perhaps, you have an unusual "way" about you - quite strident even when you are factually wrong, and you come across as wanting to set the agenda in a forum within which you are somewhat inexperienced.

My other half would undoubtedly agree. Quite so about forums - hate 'em - only in this one because of the subject.

I've no idea what you do, or how you gained your independence, but as someone in a similar situation, I would caution against confirmation bias in your self-examination.

That's all about image. You may need an image. I don't care.

I think this is a little naive and unrealistic regarding the vagaries of the benefits system and the unpredictability of people's lives. Anything short of the Licence being free or taken at source from benefits is going to leave some people not paying - that is inevitable.

Let's take it from source then.

Actually (completely different topic) I support the concept of a citizen's income which would go a long way to solving many of these kinds of problems. If interested see http://citizensincome.org/

Cornucopia

Zapito wrote: »

That's all about image. You may need an image. I don't care.

Not really. In this context, I mean the propensity of people who have gained a level of wealth in their lives to believe that wealth can be acquired by anyone with the required skill, judgement and/or fortitude (or in extreme cases, they believe themselves/other wealthy people to be innately superior). Luck is a significant factor IMHO, and although, to an extent, you can make your own luck, in the end everyone cannot be wealthy.

Actually (completely different topic) I support the concept of a citizen's income which would go a long way to solving many of these kinds of problems. If interested see http://citizensincome.org/

Yes, I've always thought that was a good idea.

Zapito

Cornucopia wrote: »

Not really. In this context, I mean the propensity of people who have gained a level of wealth in their lives to believe that wealth can be acquired by anyone with the required skill, judgement and/or fortitude (or in extreme cases, they believe themselves/other wealthy people to be innately superior). Luck is a significant factor IMHO, and although, to an extent, you can make your own luck, in the end everyone cannot be wealthy.

Aha, I have distinct views on this. I agree with you that most acquired wealth is down to luck. Except that, IMHO most folk have far more luck than they realise; often they either simply don't recognise it or don't know how to deal with it.

Take windfalls for example. Most folk get a windfall, what do they do? Whoopee, let's have a party, champagne!, etc. And BANG! It's soon all gone (and some!). Me - what I've always done with windfalls, is (1) stash 90% of it in a safe place and (2) BLOW the remaining 10%. Always remembering that to do (2) is every bit as vital as to do (1). And you know, it works. But you have to be vigilant about it.

Cornucopia wrote: »

Zapito wrote: »

Actually (completely different topic) I support the concept of a citizen's income which would go a long way to solving many of these kinds of problems. If interested see http://citizensincome.org/

Yes, I've always thought that was a good idea.

It's a brilliant idea. Makes total sense. Main problem is: how to get to there from here?

Zapito

hhermione666 wrote: »

I just don't watch live TV. :cool:
I used to have a licence, but didn't want to renew it because I never watched it. If the BBC wants me to cough up they will have to start producing something I want to watch.:j

:cool: So long as you're not using catchup, then good on ya mate. Any hassles from TV Licensing?

cw18

Zapito wrote: »

:cool: So long as you're not using catchup, then good on ya mate. Any hassles from TV Licensing?

They can LEGALLY use catchup without breaking the law. Just because you feel it to be MORALLY wrong doesn't mean you should word posts such that it could sound (to someone who doesn't understand the situation properly) as if they're in the wrong if they do so.