Is the TV Licence fee worth it? Poll results/discussion

Schwade

ShelfStacker, although the idea of bias is a person's opinion, just do a simple search and there are allegations of bias by BBC in lots of links.

Even wiki has a whole section on it. See below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC#Allegations_of_bias

Whether it is true or not I don't know. The only thing I know is there is as much criticism about BBC as there are for other commerical news channels.

Note that I am not going further to discuss whether BBC is bias or not, as it is not really irrelevant.

magyar

Schwade wrote: »

Just want to clarify that I wasn't associating merits of licence with licence enforcement. I just want to highlight this aspect because of an earlier post.

Noted Schwade and for the record I was simply commenting on it because, likewise, earlier posts have suggested that TVL's activities are a reason to dismantle the BBC. Personally I quite agree that their actions are disgraceful and that to the degree that the element of choice currently exists - i.e. you can choose not to watch live broadcasts - you should be free to exercise that right.

Schwade

magyar wrote: »

Noted Schwade and for the record I was simply commenting on it because, likewise, earlier posts have suggested that TVL's activities are a reason to dismantle the BBC. Personally I quite agree that their actions are disgraceful and that to the degree that the element of choice currently exists - i.e. you can choose not to watch live broadcasts - you should be free to exercise that right.

Yes. Although I think the concept of having to pay a government sponsored entertainment network first before watching live broadcast from other network just plain weird, this latter issue is what really gets to me.

The actions of TVL to disregard the laws and restrict the choice currently mandated by the law is indefensible.

Here are some legal facts if you ever opt out of watching live broadcasts. Despite what you might see on those threatening letters.

1. TVL has no legal right to know your personal details.
2. TVL has no legal right to enter your premises (unless they have a search warrant).
3. You have every legal right to tell them to leave your property.
4. You have every legal right not answer any question.
5. You have no legal duty to inform TVL of whether you are watching live broadcasts or not.
6. TVL has no legal right to confirm this by making a visit to your house.
7. You have every legal right to use a TV (i.e. watch DVDs, kids playing video games, etc) as long as the TV is not connected to an ariel and you are not watching live broadcasts.

The above are legal facts. If you do not believe this, do a quick search for all the Freedom of Information replies from TVL and BBC on these issues.

DO NOT BELIEVE the threatening letters. They are not true. They are there only to scare the ignorant public (which I was one of them).

magyar

I agree Schwade. I had a look on the BBC's own FOI site and find no evidence to disagree with you. There is clearly a common sense balance here.

On the one side these people don't have a legal right to enter property etc. You could argue that they should (indeed have a duty to) inform people of what rights they do and don't have (much like the police do when they arrest someone).

On the other side is the common sense point that there are a lot of people who - if it were not spelt out quite clearly what the implications are - would quite simply not get a licence, refuse entry and still watch EastEnders.

Whether or not people agree with this, it is the law that if you watch or record live broadcasts, you need a set, and in practice I think if it was not enforced in the way it was, then many more people would break that law.

I suppose the ideal way - for those who would rather keep the BBC - is some sort of electronic device which simply prevents TVs from connecting to aerials unless the licence fee has been paid, but that's clearly £££s.

Schwade

magyar wrote: »

On the one side these people don't have a legal right to enter property etc. You could argue that they should (indeed have a duty to) inform people of what rights they do and don't have (much like the police do when they arrest someone).

Not sure if TVL has a duty to inform but they have an absolute duty not to mislead (i.e. TVL does not need a visit to confirm anything AND TVL does not have a right to question you or enter your property despite what the letters say)! Sample of the letters are on the net if you want to have a look.

magyar wrote: »

On the other side is the common sense point that there are a lot of people who - if it were not spelt out quite clearly what the implications are - would quite simply not get a licence, refuse entry and still watch EastEnders.

Whether or not people agree with this, it is the law that if you watch or record live broadcasts, you need a set, and in practice I think if it was not enforced in the way it was, then many more people would break that law.

I suppose the ideal way - for those who would rather keep the BBC - is some sort of electronic device which simply prevents TVs from connecting to aerials unless the licence fee has been paid, but that's clearly £££s.

TVL already have a way to do this. It is called their TV detection equipment, which, by the way, they have heavily advertised in the past.

Now this begs the question - either the detection equipment is a TVL lie or they really do have this and aren't using it. Either way, you have to say TVL is not acting in good faith.

magyar

I thought TV licence vans were a myth?

Schwade

magyar wrote: »

I thought TV licence vans were a myth?

Not in the eyes of the TVL. You can check the limited FOI information TVL is willing disclose of these vehicles and the detecting equipment they used.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/docs/responses_tvlicence.shtml

In fact, they have more than just detector vans, they have hand-held detectors.

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/tvdetectorvans.jsp

Assuming they are truthful on their claims, they have the ability to trace a specific location of a TV with live broadcast and therefore there is no need to be so intrusive.

If they are not truthful on their claims, how do they expect people to trust them?

Jvic28

magyar wrote: »

Well it was mainly a joke, I should point out. Whilst there is truth to the last bit about ITV viewership being considered an area differentiator, I don't in all honesty think that the BBC is a bastion of intellectual splendour. Cash In The Attic isn't exactly my idea of a cultural pinnacle.

It was more a jibe at the way these idiots are constantly telling anyone who supports the BBC that they are employees of them, which is just tiresome.

I was joking too! And to set the record straight, I don't believe that all supporters of the BBC are employees of the BBC and have never said so.

x

moggylover

Defiant wrote: »

And your still being obtuse with people



I'm not I get an email asking for my meter reading and then a week or so later I'll get an another email saying my bill is ready So you see you can make things up all you like but it would seem the majority in this country have just about had enough.


:rolleyes:

Well yes, that is partly true - but you pay your service charge in advance for most metered services.

moggylover

Defiant wrote: »

It’s okay I’d be a little peed if someone said they didn’t like subsidising my viewing habits too but that’s life hey



Truth and honesty always hurts the BBC because you only have opinions in it's defense.

Tell me what do you think of the BBC lying in order to obtain search warrants and then the SS (TV Licensing) finding nothing because they were already told by the harassed victims that they didn't watch "live" transmissions?



No you're choosing to ignore economics because you're cringing to an edifice with the lack of argument for the BBC TV Licence (like no one else has noticed LOL)




Congratulations this must be the most pathetic argument I’ve heard for the BBC TV Licence yet. Remember people he said he doesn’t work for the BBC :rotfl: "I don't like adverts so £3.5 BILLION (and rising) is great value for ME"

Sorry to put this in so late in the day - but am just catching up with the thread!

Is there anyone else out there worried that this guy is seriously ill and probably sitting there with tin foil on his head and over the windows?

He's obvioulsy heavily into all sort of conspiracy theories - but I do wish he could put together a lucid and readable post cos he is slowing me down - I have to read - just in case he actually comes up with anything intelligent (:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: ) well, I did say "in case".