Interesting read .
Originally Posted by erinp:
Originally Posted by KaffyBaffy:
Originally Posted by moonie:
Dont they have to have evidence against you to prosecute?
How can they get that evidence if you dont admit you are watching tv at all?
I don't think they have to catch you watching - just have to catch you with a telly in the house.
Enquiry officers have no more right to enter your home that yout postman ,so do not let them in .They will have to go to magistrates court for a warrant.
I've often wondered how 'detector vans' worked. I thought they could tell if you were watching telly without coming in. I've got a licence btw - just curious.
My advice if summond to court plead not guilty and let them prove you have no licence
Originally Posted by erinp:
My advice if summond to court plead not guilty and let them prove you have no licence
I'm innocent I tell you!! Innocent!!! 
I believe you.
Just remember, no info from technology claimed to detect television signals has ever been used as court evidence.
Well done on getting back to the original post! 
Originally Posted by moonie:
If you dont let them into your home and you dont tell them you have a tv how can they prosecute you for not having a tv licence
They use LASSY its a data base with licence details given when you purchase a TV .
Originally Posted by erinp:
Originally Posted by moonie:
If you dont let them into your home and you dont tell them you have a tv how can they prosecute you for not having a tv licence
They use LASSY its a data base with licence details given when you purchase a TV .
Yep, but you could have sold that tv and therefore dont have one.....
Sorry I am being picky.....*zips gob*
Originally Posted by erinp:
Interesting read .
Oh! thats a great link 
Originally Posted by squiggle:
Originally Posted by Enthusiastic Contrafibularities:
Originally Posted by squiggle:
Originally Posted by Enthusiastic Contrafibularities:
Originally Posted by Garage Joe:
I can well understand that people think the cÂĢ150 a tax.
I personally don't see it as a tax, I see it as a cost of the service, a service that I have the option of having or not having. At 41p per day I think it is pretty good value.
Maybe once the BBC (the only service we have to pay for) was good value for money but it is probably the channel I watch the least now. I think if they had to compete for revenue with the other channels they might trim their budget in accordance with market forces. I feel they are grossly bloated, the number of staff they send overseas to cover events is plain daft.
Sorry, but I have to disagree on the value point. They have some very good content across a number of channels. BBC 1, BBC 2, BBC HD, BBC Three and BBC Four. They also have plenty of excellent radio programmes.
Paying the license fee allows them not to have to compete for revenue via advertising. If the license fee was dropped, then they would have to compete and I'm sure the quality and quantity of programming would be affected.
You only have to look at the ITV channels, it's full of mindless rubbish. They rarely have anything of worth on.
I use the BBC most of all, then Channel 4 and it's additional channels.
What I do agree with you on is the number of reporters they seem to have at the same location, it's crazy. Depending on the size of story you can probably get away with one.
I guess you could stop paying the license and watch everything on catch TV on-line.
Your post underlines my point of view. You like the BBC channels and are a keen listener to their radio stations. I am not. But do I get a choice of whether I want to pay for all the stuff that the BBC churns out at sometimes horrendous cost and which doesn't appeal to me? No I do not, hardly a fair proposition is it, that is why I regard the licence fee as an iniquitous tax, like the dog licence well past its sell by date.
What none of it? You must be in a tiny, tiny minority if nothing the BBC does appeals to you. Not the sport, comedy, films, quizzes, reality TV, lifestyle, current affairs, natural history, science, radio, drama - nothing?
I think people should take it on the chin, it's not much money and it's communal for rich and poor. We all pay a bit and it gives the state broadcasters the financial clout to mix it with the Yanks and make programs that are sold to make money for the state abroad. It's also relatively independent of editorial bias.
There isn't enough add revenue to sustain the BBC and ITV and they do not have the bandwidth infrastructure to compete satellite systems which can offer 3d and HD channels. ITV is far more commercial than it used to be because it can't survive on commerical revenue alone. It certainly wouldn't survive on half of what it gets currently.
People think they can have their cake and eat it. They imagine they'll get the same service but with some adverts. They won't! There's no reason why a privatised BBC shouldn't shut down all its radio stations, have shows where you can phone or text strippers, infommercials and casino programming. That is what makes the money. Basically, showing crap all day. The government couldn't demand a wholly commerical BBC provide a certain type of programming when other broadcasters were free to air whatever they liked.
Originally Posted by Carnelian:
Originally Posted by squiggle:
Originally Posted by Enthusiastic Contrafibularities:
Originally Posted by squiggle:
Originally Posted by Enthusiastic Contrafibularities:
Originally Posted by Garage Joe:
I can well understand that people think the cÂĢ150 a tax.
I personally don't see it as a tax, I see it as a cost of the service, a service that I have the option of having or not having. At 41p per day I think it is pretty good value.
Maybe once the BBC (the only service we have to pay for) was good value for money but it is probably the channel I watch the least now. I think if they had to compete for revenue with the other channels they might trim their budget in accordance with market forces. I feel they are grossly bloated, the number of staff they send overseas to cover events is plain daft.
Sorry, but I have to disagree on the value point. They have some very good content across a number of channels. BBC 1, BBC 2, BBC HD, BBC Three and BBC Four. They also have plenty of excellent radio programmes.
Paying the license fee allows them not to have to compete for revenue via advertising. If the license fee was dropped, then they would have to compete and I'm sure the quality and quantity of programming would be affected.
You only have to look at the ITV channels, it's full of mindless rubbish. They rarely have anything of worth on.
I use the BBC most of all, then Channel 4 and it's additional channels.
What I do agree with you on is the number of reporters they seem to have at the same location, it's crazy. Depending on the size of story you can probably get away with one.
I guess you could stop paying the license and watch everything on catch TV on-line.
Your post underlines my point of view. You like the BBC channels and are a keen listener to their radio stations. I am not. But do I get a choice of whether I want to pay for all the stuff that the BBC churns out at sometimes horrendous cost and which doesn't appeal to me? No I do not, hardly a fair proposition is it, that is why I regard the licence fee as an iniquitous tax, like the dog licence well past its sell by date.
What none of it? You must be in a tiny, tiny minority if nothing the BBC does appeals to you. Not the sport, comedy, films, quizzes, reality TV, lifestyle, current affairs, natural history, science, radio, drama - nothing?
I think people should take it on the chin, it's not much money and it's communal for rich and poor. We all pay a bit and it gives the state broadcasters the financial clout to mix it with the Yanks and make programs that are sold to make money for the state abroad. It's also relatively independent of editorial bias.
There isn't enough add revenue to sustain the BBC and ITV and they do not have the bandwidth infrastructure to compete satellite systems which can offer 3d and HD channels. ITV is far more commercial than it used to be because it can't survive on commerical revenue alone. It certainly wouldn't survive on half of what it gets currently.
People think they can have their cake and eat it. They imagine they'll get the same service but with some adverts. They won't! There's no reason why a privatised BBC shouldn't shut down all its radio stations, have shows where you can phone or text strippers, infommercials and casino programming. That is what makes the money. Basically, showing crap all day. The government couldn't demand a wholly commerical BBC provide a certain type of programming when other broadcasters were free to air whatever they liked.
An extremely tiny minority of what I choose to watch is on the BBC. I admit it was once a great service worth paying for but in my view it is not any more. And why should I 'take it on the chin' and subsidise the viewing choices of those who do like to watch the endless sport, natural history, quizzes, cookery shows, history programmes etc etc etc?
Living in the area I do I have to rely upon Sky to get TV reception. I get the films I want to watch through them and am happy to pay for the service. I am not happy to have to pay for a channel which does not pay any heed to what I want to watch, which exactly describes the output of the BBC at the moment.
The BBC could once be relied upon the handle the great occasions but they are no longer a safe pair of hands, witness the right mess they made of the Thames Flotilla Queen's Diamond Jubilee. They have even now lost the right to show Royal Ascot.
I for one don't imagine I will get the same service with some adverts, their output is not appealing to me, and from the look of it to a growing number of other people. Let the BBC get out and face the cold winds of reality.
As for it being relatively independent of editorial bias well you and I will just have to agree to disagree on that one won't we Carnelian?
Originally Posted by Carnelian:
Originally Posted by squiggle:
Originally Posted by Enthusiastic Contrafibularities:
Originally Posted by squiggle:
Originally Posted by Enthusiastic Contrafibularities:
Originally Posted by Garage Joe:
I can well understand that people think the cÂĢ150 a tax.
I personally don't see it as a tax, I see it as a cost of the service, a service that I have the option of having or not having. At 41p per day I think it is pretty good value.
Maybe once the BBC (the only service we have to pay for) was good value for money but it is probably the channel I watch the least now. I think if they had to compete for revenue with the other channels they might trim their budget in accordance with market forces. I feel they are grossly bloated, the number of staff they send overseas to cover events is plain daft.
Sorry, but I have to disagree on the value point. They have some very good content across a number of channels. BBC 1, BBC 2, BBC HD, BBC Three and BBC Four. They also have plenty of excellent radio programmes.
Paying the license fee allows them not to have to compete for revenue via advertising. If the license fee was dropped, then they would have to compete and I'm sure the quality and quantity of programming would be affected.
You only have to look at the ITV channels, it's full of mindless rubbish. They rarely have anything of worth on.
I use the BBC most of all, then Channel 4 and it's additional channels.
What I do agree with you on is the number of reporters they seem to have at the same location, it's crazy. Depending on the size of story you can probably get away with one.
I guess you could stop paying the license and watch everything on catch TV on-line.
Your post underlines my point of view. You like the BBC channels and are a keen listener to their radio stations. I am not. But do I get a choice of whether I want to pay for all the stuff that the BBC churns out at sometimes horrendous cost and which doesn't appeal to me? No I do not, hardly a fair proposition is it, that is why I regard the licence fee as an iniquitous tax, like the dog licence well past its sell by date.
What none of it? You must be in a tiny, tiny minority if nothing the BBC does appeals to you. Not the sport, comedy, films, quizzes, reality TV, lifestyle, current affairs, natural history, science, radio, drama - nothing?
I think people should take it on the chin, it's not much money and it's communal for rich and poor. We all pay a bit and it gives the state broadcasters the financial clout to mix it with the Yanks and make programs that are sold to make money for the state abroad. It's also relatively independent of editorial bias.
There isn't enough add revenue to sustain the BBC and ITV and they do not have the bandwidth infrastructure to compete satellite systems which can offer 3d and HD channels. ITV is far more commercial than it used to be because it can't survive on commerical revenue alone. It certainly wouldn't survive on half of what it gets currently.
People think they can have their cake and eat it. They imagine they'll get the same service but with some adverts. They won't! There's no reason why a privatised BBC shouldn't shut down all its radio stations, have shows where you can phone or text strippers, infommercials and casino programming. That is what makes the money. Basically, showing crap all day. The government couldn't demand a wholly commerical BBC provide a certain type of programming when other broadcasters were free to air whatever they liked.
I don't mind paying my licence. I don't think ITV is all dross mind... it shows some good dramas but it's 'night shift' is crap. I dread the thought of any more Channel 5 stylee late night programming though...
Originally Posted by squiggle:
Originally Posted by Carnelian:
Originally Posted by squiggle:
Originally Posted by Enthusiastic Contrafibularities:
Originally Posted by squiggle:
Originally Posted by Enthusiastic Contrafibularities:
Originally Posted by Garage Joe:
I can well understand that people think the cÂĢ150 a tax.
I personally don't see it as a tax, I see it as a cost of the service, a service that I have the option of having or not having. At 41p per day I think it is pretty good value.
Maybe once the BBC (the only service we have to pay for) was good value for money but it is probably the channel I watch the least now. I think if they had to compete for revenue with the other channels they might trim their budget in accordance with market forces. I feel they are grossly bloated, the number of staff they send overseas to cover events is plain daft.
Sorry, but I have to disagree on the value point. They have some very good content across a number of channels. BBC 1, BBC 2, BBC HD, BBC Three and BBC Four. They also have plenty of excellent radio programmes.
Paying the license fee allows them not to have to compete for revenue via advertising. If the license fee was dropped, then they would have to compete and I'm sure the quality and quantity of programming would be affected.
You only have to look at the ITV channels, it's full of mindless rubbish. They rarely have anything of worth on.
I use the BBC most of all, then Channel 4 and it's additional channels.
What I do agree with you on is the number of reporters they seem to have at the same location, it's crazy. Depending on the size of story you can probably get away with one.
I guess you could stop paying the license and watch everything on catch TV on-line.
Your post underlines my point of view. You like the BBC channels and are a keen listener to their radio stations. I am not. But do I get a choice of whether I want to pay for all the stuff that the BBC churns out at sometimes horrendous cost and which doesn't appeal to me? No I do not, hardly a fair proposition is it, that is why I regard the licence fee as an iniquitous tax, like the dog licence well past its sell by date.
What none of it? You must be in a tiny, tiny minority if nothing the BBC does appeals to you. Not the sport, comedy, films, quizzes, reality TV, lifestyle, current affairs, natural history, science, radio, drama - nothing?
I think people should take it on the chin, it's not much money and it's communal for rich and poor. We all pay a bit and it gives the state broadcasters the financial clout to mix it with the Yanks and make programs that are sold to make money for the state abroad. It's also relatively independent of editorial bias.
There isn't enough add revenue to sustain the BBC and ITV and they do not have the bandwidth infrastructure to compete satellite systems which can offer 3d and HD channels. ITV is far more commercial than it used to be because it can't survive on commerical revenue alone. It certainly wouldn't survive on half of what it gets currently.
People think they can have their cake and eat it. They imagine they'll get the same service but with some adverts. They won't! There's no reason why a privatised BBC shouldn't shut down all its radio stations, have shows where you can phone or text strippers, infommercials and casino programming. That is what makes the money. Basically, showing crap all day. The government couldn't demand a wholly commerical BBC provide a certain type of programming when other broadcasters were free to air whatever they liked.
An extremely tiny minority of what I choose to watch is on the BBC. I admit it was once a great service worth paying for but in my view it is not any more. And why should I 'take it on the chin' and subsidise the viewing choices of those who do like to watch the endless sport, natural history, quizzes, cookery shows, history programmes etc etc etc?
Living in the area I do I have to rely upon Sky to get TV reception. I get the films I want to watch through them and am happy to pay for the service. I am not happy to have to pay for a channel which does not pay any heed to what I want to watch, which exactly describes the output of the BBC at the moment.
The BBC could once be relied upon the handle the great occasions but they are no longer a safe pair of hands, witness the right mess they made of the Thames Flotilla Queen's Diamond Jubilee. They have even now lost the right to show Royal Ascot.
I for one don't imagine I will get the same service with some adverts, their output is not appealing to me, and from the look of it to a growing number of other people. Let the BBC get out and face the cold winds of reality.
As for it being relatively independent of editorial bias well you and I will just have to agree to disagree on that one won't we Carnelian?
What you probably do not know is that the government forces the BBC to pay Sky so that it can host BBC channels. Ironic as Sky had the nerve to advertise BBC Olympic coverage over the summer while Murdoch newspapers constantly undermine it. As a Sky subscriber, you are not just getting the BBC for free, you are getting Sky channels part-subsidised by BBC licence fee payers.
Since you've ruled out pretty much all genres of broadcasting, what do you like?
The BBC is more than a few hours of fawning show-piece tributes to royalty. In truth, occasions like Royal Ascot are just what the establishment tells us we should cherish. However, like the Boat Race, few actually care about all that 'season' rubbish. One horse race is much the same as the next and the BBC has plenty of that. I'd sooner watch an episode of "The One Show". I bet millions more watched the BBC's much-derided Glastonbury coverage than boring old Royal Ascot.
Originally Posted by Carnelian:
Originally Posted by squiggle:
Originally Posted by Carnelian:
Originally Posted by squiggle:
Originally Posted by Enthusiastic Contrafibularities:
Originally Posted by squiggle:
Originally Posted by Enthusiastic Contrafibularities:
Originally Posted by Garage Joe:
I can well understand that people think the cÂĢ150 a tax.
I personally don't see it as a tax, I see it as a cost of the service, a service that I have the option of having or not having. At 41p per day I think it is pretty good value.
Maybe once the BBC (the only service we have to pay for) was good value for money but it is probably the channel I watch the least now. I think if they had to compete for revenue with the other channels they might trim their budget in accordance with market forces. I feel they are grossly bloated, the number of staff they send overseas to cover events is plain daft.
Sorry, but I have to disagree on the value point. They have some very good content across a number of channels. BBC 1, BBC 2, BBC HD, BBC Three and BBC Four. They also have plenty of excellent radio programmes.
Paying the license fee allows them not to have to compete for revenue via advertising. If the license fee was dropped, then they would have to compete and I'm sure the quality and quantity of programming would be affected.
You only have to look at the ITV channels, it's full of mindless rubbish. They rarely have anything of worth on.
I use the BBC most of all, then Channel 4 and it's additional channels.
What I do agree with you on is the number of reporters they seem to have at the same location, it's crazy. Depending on the size of story you can probably get away with one.
I guess you could stop paying the license and watch everything on catch TV on-line.
Your post underlines my point of view. You like the BBC channels and are a keen listener to their radio stations. I am not. But do I get a choice of whether I want to pay for all the stuff that the BBC churns out at sometimes horrendous cost and which doesn't appeal to me? No I do not, hardly a fair proposition is it, that is why I regard the licence fee as an iniquitous tax, like the dog licence well past its sell by date.
What none of it? You must be in a tiny, tiny minority if nothing the BBC does appeals to you. Not the sport, comedy, films, quizzes, reality TV, lifestyle, current affairs, natural history, science, radio, drama - nothing?
I think people should take it on the chin, it's not much money and it's communal for rich and poor. We all pay a bit and it gives the state broadcasters the financial clout to mix it with the Yanks and make programs that are sold to make money for the state abroad. It's also relatively independent of editorial bias.
There isn't enough add revenue to sustain the BBC and ITV and they do not have the bandwidth infrastructure to compete satellite systems which can offer 3d and HD channels. ITV is far more commercial than it used to be because it can't survive on commerical revenue alone. It certainly wouldn't survive on half of what it gets currently.
People think they can have their cake and eat it. They imagine they'll get the same service but with some adverts. They won't! There's no reason why a privatised BBC shouldn't shut down all its radio stations, have shows where you can phone or text strippers, infommercials and casino programming. That is what makes the money. Basically, showing crap all day. The government couldn't demand a wholly commerical BBC provide a certain type of programming when other broadcasters were free to air whatever they liked.
An extremely tiny minority of what I choose to watch is on the BBC. I admit it was once a great service worth paying for but in my view it is not any more. And why should I 'take it on the chin' and subsidise the viewing choices of those who do like to watch the endless sport, natural history, quizzes, cookery shows, history programmes etc etc etc?
Living in the area I do I have to rely upon Sky to get TV reception. I get the films I want to watch through them and am happy to pay for the service. I am not happy to have to pay for a channel which does not pay any heed to what I want to watch, which exactly describes the output of the BBC at the moment.
The BBC could once be relied upon the handle the great occasions but they are no longer a safe pair of hands, witness the right mess they made of the Thames Flotilla Queen's Diamond Jubilee. They have even now lost the right to show Royal Ascot.
I for one don't imagine I will get the same service with some adverts, their output is not appealing to me, and from the look of it to a growing number of other people. Let the BBC get out and face the cold winds of reality.
As for it being relatively independent of editorial bias well you and I will just have to agree to disagree on that one won't we Carnelian?
What you probably do not know is that the government forces the BBC to pay Sky so that it can host BBC channels. Ironic as Sky had the nerve to advertise BBC Olympic coverage over the summer while Murdoch newspapers constantly undermine it. As a Sky subscriber, you are not just getting the BBC for free, you are getting Sky channels part-subsidised by BBC licence fee payers.
I don't think broadcasting should be in the interests of a tiny, tiny minority who have very narrow tastes. You should take it on the chin.
Since you've ruled out pretty much all genres of broadcasting, what do you like?
The BBC is more than a few hours of fawning show-piece tributes to royalty. In truth, occasions like Royal Ascot are just what the establishment tells us we should cherish. However, like the Boat Race, few actually care about all that 'season' rubbish. One horse race is much the same as the next and the BBC has plenty of that. I'd sooner watch an episode of "The One Show". I bet millions more watched the BBC's much-derided Glastonbury coverage than boring old Royal Ascot.
Chanel 4 are effectively subsidised by the racing industry to show their product, and are steadily hoovering up the fixtures.
I'm not a big fan of the summer stuff but like the idea of being cabined up on winter afternoons watching the jumps.
Originally Posted by Garage Joe:
Chanel 4 are effectively subsidised by the racing industry to show their product, and are steadily hoovering up the fixtures. I'm not a big fan of the summer stuff but like the idea of being cabined up on winter afternoons watching the jumps.
It is more of a product for the betting industry than a sport. If I had my way, I'd make it illegal to display odds on TV racing coverage. It would probably die a death in that event, but then, if it really is a sport viewers were interested in for its own sake, it would find an audience.
Not sure about that Carnelian ! Are not our football grounds also full of betting points? Don't they give odds on the box? I know I put more money on football than horses.
Originally Posted by Garage Joe:
Not sure about that Carnelian ! Are not our football grounds also full of betting points? Don't they give odds on the box? I know I put more money on football than horses.
It's a legitimate leisure activity, adds excitement to sport and I don't want to sound like nanny but I think it's in our faces far too much these days.
I don't think TV companies should be promoting gambling or listing odds. The gambling industry is socially useless and parasitical. It can and should promote itself with its own funds. If football clubs want gambling concessions to increase revenue, then so be it, they are private businesses. I just don't think an industry should get its services promoted for nothing. Certainly not on the BBC.
I held a similar view when the BBC used to do all those holiday shows that were no more than promo pieces for the travel agents.