TV Licence article Discussion

cw18

Britannia12345 wrote: »

Ah ok. We've got a freesat box. Will wait until the end of the month then - thankyou ☺

If you want to check, simply unplug the box from the mains, take the cable from dish to box out (you need to power off first to be sure you don't short the box!), power back up and see if you have access to your records. Then power down and put cable back in before powering back up with access to live shows for the rest of the month.

Britannia12345

Great, I'll try that later ☺

silverwhistle

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

For once, this is nothing to do with the Government.

It's the BBC reneging on a deal they agreed to.

Your usual b*ll*cks about the BBC. Let me quote from a newspaper article:

The policy of free TV licences for the over-75s was introduced in 1999 by the then Labour chancellor, Gordon Brown, with the cost met by the government, which paid the BBC to provide the service.

However, in 2015 the Conservative government, guided by George Osborne, struck a deal under which the subsidy would be phased out by 2020, with the broadcaster having to shoulder the cost of free TV licences.

The government later gave the BBC responsibility for deciding what to do about the benefit, meaning any unpopular decisions on charging over-75s had to be made by the BBC rather than ministers.

My bolding. Basically the government not financing it anymore.


I've owned this house 35+ years and never had a colour TV and licence, so saved far more than you ever have, but I'm not obsessed at having a go at the BBC.

Lewie

Section106 wrote: »

This is off topic, but is so misleading it needs a response.

Gullibility comes to mind.
What you are told and what actually happens aren’t necessarily the same.
Not long ago our recycling bin was refused.
It had a sticker on it with a scrawled message ‘BLACK BIN LINER’
There was nothing unusual about our bin that week.
I called the council.
They asked if there was a black bin liner in the bin.
Yes, I said.
Ah, that’s the reason. They can’t see what’s in a black bin liner.
But I always use a black bin liner to line the bin. You can still see all the waste if you lift the lid.
Oh no, that’s fine, I was told, it’s only sealed black bags that aren’t acceptable. I’ll send someone round to pick it up.
A couple of hours later, knock on the door.
I’ve emptied your bin, said the chap.
I went outside with him to ask what was going on.
We don’t know ourselves, he said.
We’ve been told not to pick up bins with black liners in them, you can only use clear as the equipment at the plant can’t recognise black, it stops the belt.
If they see a black liner they reject the whole lorry costing the council £1,500 per lorry.
Loads are rejected every week, he informed me.
So they refused my stuff for recycling, then sent a second lorry because they were wrong?
That’s a really good advert for ‘saving the planet’!
Add to that the amount we, the tax payer are being charged for rejected loads = a con that is costing the tax payer a fortune.
Then there was the investigative programme some years ago that visited a tip, I think in India, where they recovered a letter. They took the letter to the address in the UK and asked the occupier what he had done with the letter.
Recycled it, he said. He was gob smacked that it found it’s way to India. CON!
And that’s just the tip, so to speak, of the iceberg.

Nick_C

Ignorance, and a refusal to do anything about it, comes to mind.

[Deleted User]

silverwhistle wrote: »

However, in 2015 the Conservative government, guided by George Osborne, struck a deal under which the subsidy would be phased out by 2020, with the broadcaster having to shoulder the cost of free TV licences.

The deal was that, in exchange for taking over responsibility for the over 75 licence, I-Player would become subject to the licence, and the licence fee would rise.

If the BBC didn't like the deal, they should have refused it, but they didn't, they accepted it.

I-Player came under the licence, and the fee went up (twice so far), and the BBC is now reneging on it's responsibility for the over 75 licence.

castle96

Just stop paying it, whether you 'should' or not. Play with them. S*d em. Don't talk/respond/let them in. The 'legalities' of it are neither here nor there. If enough of us just stop, then what can they do?

Cornucopia

castle96 wrote: »

Just stop paying it, whether you 'should' or not. Play with them. S*d em. Don't talk/respond/let them in. The 'legalities' of it are neither here nor there. If enough of us just stop, then what can they do?

MSE can't condone non-payment of the Licence Fee by anyone who should be paying it.

Lewie

Nick_C wrote: »

Ignorance, and a refusal to do anything about it, comes to mind.

Not sure if this is aimed at me as it's a tad confusing.
If it is, I was 'doing something about it'.
I was recycling but those in 'power' have no idea what they are doing.
I no longer waste my time.
Another sheep following the flock.
If you think recycling is helping 'climate change' then your wool is well and truly pulled over your eyes.

Nick_C

Lewie wrote: »

If you think recycling is helping 'climate change' then your wool is well and truly pulled over your eyes.

That's one possibility. Another possibility is that I worked in the waste industry for ten years and actually know what I'm talking about.

And recycling isn't just about climate change. It's also about preserving resources and dealing with "waste" in the most cost effective manner.

50 years ago, our local council had a trailer on the back of the dustcart, and collected newspapers which they sold instead of sending to landfill. It saved money. We used to collect milk bottle (foil) tops and used kitchen foil and give it to charity.

Aluminium is a finite resource, and you use much less energy recycling drinks cans than you do digging bauxite out of the ground and smelting it.