MP's to remove the threat of prosecution from those who do not pay the BBC licence

[arista]

[Remove the threat of prosecution from
those who do not pay the BBC licence fee,
raising the prospect that the government
could support the more than 140
backbench MPs who are trying to change the law.]

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/mar/18/david-cameron-bbc-licence-fee



the BBC is angry at this
and makes a claim
they will have cut more - Well Tough Titty


http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/3/18/1395165598605/TV-Licensing-007.jpg


So it would become a civil matter

[Vicky.]

Rightly ****ing so too. About time they scrapped it altogether tbh

[arista]

Rightly ****ing so too. About time they scrapped it altogether tbh


Correct in this Day and Age
the BBC Tax is not worthy

[joeysteele]

It's a start and well done to the Conservative MP who wants this too. I hope it is a step to greater things if it comes about.

However,it is time this dinosaur of a licence/tax was done away with totally and I cannot wait for the day it is.

[Kate!]

Good, I haven't paid it for over 8 years and I don't intend to start.

[Verbal]

The TV license is outdated and archaic why its still allowed is beyond me. If people are not going to get prosecuted for not paying it, why should any of us pay it?

[AnnieK]

Good, I haven't paid it for over 8 years and I don't intend to start.

How've you got away with that? I forgot to transfer mine when I moved (I was still paying monthly) and I got a visit pretty sharpish

[Verbal]

I also know someone that was prosecuted and fined pretty heavily for not paying it recently.

[Marsh.]

People don't want to pay, but will happily watch TV. :laugh:

I find it a lot more worth the money than the sky subscriptions.

[Verbal]

People don't want to pay, but will happily watch TV. :laugh:

I find it a lot more worth the money than the sky subscriptions.

Its only for the BBC, the other channels are self funding through adverts.

[Jack_]

I actually think it should be increased if anything, the BBC is criminally undervalued in this country IMO

[Cherie]

People don't want to pay, but will happily watch TV. :laugh:

I find it a lot more worth the money than the sky subscriptions.

.

[Marsh.]

Its only for the BBC, the other channels are self funding through adverts.

I already know this.

[Verbal]

I already know this.

Well the way you worded your post suggested otherwise. No harm done.

[Marsh.]

Well the way you worded your post suggested otherwise. No harm done.

Ah, no worries.

[Vicky.]

How've you got away with that? I forgot to transfer mine when I moved (I was still paying monthly) and I got a visit pretty sharpish

Just refuse to sign the paper when they knock. The contract you sign when they come round to intimidate you is what can get you done, not actually not having a license ;)

[T*]

I actually think it should be increased if anything, the BBC is criminally undervalued in this country IMO

:notimpressed:

[Vicky.]

The Saville thing screwed them I think tbh. A few people I know (mostly older people aswell who have paid it for years) are now refusing to pay because 'the BBC uses their money to cover up pedophilia' and such :laugh: Probably worried about loads and loads of people ending up with criminal records now.

Also, IMO the BBC are ****ing rubbish anyway. I actually cant think of one thing I watch on there yet am still expected to pay for it to have no ads :crazy: Just put ****ing adverts on..god, from what I remember they have loads of ads on anyway, just advertising other shows on their channel rather than stuff to buy.

[Marsh.]

The major problem with ads though is that everything comes down to the mercy of the advertisers and the shows with the biggest ratings as opposed to making a mix of everything.

I doubt something like BBC4 would survive if the BBC were to rely on ads.

[Marsh.]

The Saville thing screwed them I think tbh. A few people I know (mostly older people aswell who have paid it for years) are now refusing to pay because 'the BBC uses their money to cover up pedophilia' and such :laugh: Probably worried about loads and loads of people ending up with criminal records now.

Also, IMO the BBC are ****ing rubbish anyway. I actually cant think of one thing I watch on there yet am still expected to pay for it to have no ads :crazy: Just put ****ing adverts on..god, from what I remember they have loads of ads on anyway, just advertising other shows on their channel rather than stuff to buy.

That's not really the point though. It's not to avoid actual advert time between shows, but the programming being reliant on advertisers.

[Vicky.]

That's not really the point though. It's not to avoid actual advert time between shows, but the programming being reliant on advertisers.

Well as someone who doesnt even watch the BBC, I would much rather they put ads on than me having to pay for a channel I never bloody watch :joker:

If that makes me selfish and petty, so be it, I dont care. Its like asking teetotallers to pay alcohol tax on their cokes on a night out

[Marsh.]

Well as someone who doesnt even watch the BBC, I would much rather they put ads on than me having to pay for a channel I never bloody watch :joker:

******* the rest of us. :laugh:

I'll take the BBC anyway over itv. That's what I wouldn't like to see them turn into.

[Vicky.]

I *think* the only thing I watch on itv is saturday night takeaway every now and again. And thats only because I am seriously bored

[Vicky.]

******* the rest of us. :laugh:


Indeed. Isn't that how the general thinking of the UK population goes...look out for yourself? :p

[T*]

I doubt something like BBC4 would survive if the BBC were to rely on ads.

Surely if channels like can handle the amount, surely the BBC can?

[Kate!]

How've you got away with that? I forgot to transfer mine when I moved (I was still paying monthly) and I got a visit pretty sharpish

Had tons of requests and final notice letters. I just bin them. Not once has anyone ever knocked. Which takes me to Vicky's post.......

Just refuse to sign the paper when they knock. The contract you sign when they come round to intimidate you is what can get you done, not actually not having a license ;)

Bob on, they have no powers unless they manage to intimidate people, they've never called in person but if they did I just wouldn't answer the door. I very often ignore anyone at the door who isn't friend or family or pre-arranged.

[Marsh.]

Surely if channels like can handle the amount, surely the BBC can?

It's not the amount, it's the ratings.

The BBC can make a lot of shows/content because they have a fixed amount of money. Their funding is not at the mercy of demographics and viewing figures for popular shows with advertisers.

BBC 4 holds a lot of great programming/documentaries that wouldn't be made without the license fee. We'd end up with something more akin to itv 2's schedule.

[T*]

It's not the amount, it's the ratings.

The BBC can make a lot of shows/content because they have a fixed amount of money. Their funding is at the mercy of demographics and viewing figures for popular shows with advertisers.

BBC 4 holds a lot of great programming/documentaries that wouldn't be made without the license fee. We'd end up with something more akin to itv 2's schedule.
That's actually a really good point.

[Vicky.]

If people are so concerned about bbc4 and the likes, why not make paying it an opt in service, and increase it. That way the people who want it are happy and keep their channel, and the people who have never watched anything on it arent pissed off :laugh:

[Marsh.]

If people are so concerned about bbc4 and the likes, why not make paying it an opt in service, and increase it. That way the people who want it are happy and keep their channel, and the people who have never watched anything on it arent pissed off :laugh:

:laugh: Well, it's an option but I don't know about its chances of working.

That's probably the sort of "compromise" they'll move into in the future.

[Kizzy]

How've you got away with that? I forgot to transfer mine when I moved (I was still paying monthly) and I got a visit pretty sharpish

Like this annie....
http://reallifestl.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/slamming-the-door-o.gif

[Vicky.]

Like this annie....
http://reallifestl.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/slamming-the-door-o.gif

:D

[Kate!]

:laugh2:

[King Gizzard]

It's a necessary annoyance I think, nearly everyone will pull out if they hear about it lets face it, then BBC won't get their funding then we'll have gigantic ads everywhere

[joeysteele]

The BBC used to be great leaders in most news and entertainment areas, the licence likely made sense when it held at least 50% of the viewing channels available.
Now with so many commercial channels available it is ridiculous that people have to pay a licence for the BBC, to watch TV generally in their own homes on a TV they have had to buy too.

The really great and 'exclusive' days of the BBC are well gone.
It is time, and in fact massively overdue, that this daft licence fee is done away with completely and the other great things is that would get rid of totally the rotten sarcastic staff at TV Licensing too.

[arista]

I actually think it should be increased if anything, the BBC is criminally undervalued in this country IMO


No its Frozen for good reason.


No way will it go up in price
they can cut wages at the top of the Bloated BBC

[Kizzy]

Then they can privatise it....

[Livia]

If you disabled all the BBC channels on your TV and radio, you'd still be required to pay the licence fee. And when you work out the licence fee week by week, it's not very much at all. Compared, say, to the money people pay for Sky every month. I do feel a bit aggrieved that some people seem quite proud of breaking the law and not paying it, so that those who don't pay end up getting a free ride of the backs of those of us who do. You're welcome. I hope they take your telly away.

[Cherie]

If you disabled all the BBC channels on your TV and radio, you'd still be required to pay the licence fee. And when you work out the licence fee week by week, it's not very much at all. Compared, say, to the money people pay for Sky every month. I do feel a bit aggrieved that some people seem quite proud of breaking the law and not paying it, so that those who don't pay end up getting a free ride of the backs of those of us who do. You're welcome. I hope they take your telly away.

:hmph: true.

Just read an article on this, what the people lobbying for this want the Beeb to do is collect payment via subscription so if you don't pay then it would be turned off, fair enough I think.

[Vicky.]

Its quite a lot to those who dont have much. If you dont pay it in one go, it works out something like £7 per week(as they make you pay 2 years or something I think, its definitely around 7 per week as my sis used to have problems with it)..which doesnt sound like much but when you figure to some people thats like..1/10 of their income or more

[Vicky.]

:hmph: true.

Just read an article on this, what the people lobbying for this want the Beeb to do is collect payment via subscription so if you don't pay then it would be turned off, fair enough I think.

Sounds perfect to me tbh

[Cherie]

Its quite a lot to those who dont have much. If you dont pay it in one go, it works out something like £7 per week(as they make you pay 2 years or something I think, its definitely around 7 per week as my sis used to have problems with it)..which doesnt sound like much but when you figure to some people thats like..1/10 of their income or more


I pay by DD its 12.00 a month! with one payment being a bit more! and no they don't make you pay for two years.

[Vicky.]

I pay by DD its 12.00 a month! with one payment being a bit more! and no they don't make you pay for two years.

When my sister did it weekly, she got a payment card and was told it was £7 ish per week because you pay this years and the next years too :suspect:

[Vicky.]

£5.60 per week it is for a colour license to pay weekly sorry..was sure it was 7 quid but cose enough :laugh:

[Cherie]

£5.60 per week it is for a colour license to pay weekly sorry..was sure it was 7 quid but cose enough :laugh:

She must have been in arrears? as it works out about 12.00 a month

TV Licence types and costs

It costs £145.50 for a colour and £49.00 for a black and white TV Licence. In some cases, you may be entitled to a reduced fee TV Licence (see table below).

[Nedusa]

It's only about £2.80 a week so I don't know what the fuss is about. I would pay that just not to have to suffer constant adverts every 5 mins..........

[Vicky.]

She must have been in arrears? as it works out about 12.00 a month

TV Licence types and costs

It costs £145.50 for a colour and £49.00 for a black and white TV Licence. In some cases, you may be entitled to a reduced fee TV Licence (see table below).

http://cashplans.tvlicensing.co.uk/

Weekly its 5.60...as they get you to pay this years in 6 months and the next years the following 6 months

[Vicky.]

It's only about £2.80 a week so I don't know what the fuss is about. I would pay that just not to have to suffer constant adverts every 5 mins..........

I would gladly pay it if I didnt have to suffer adverts. Unfortunately the channels I actually watch are still full of adverts.

I pay it anyway, but am a little bitter about it despite it being so low an amount. :laugh:

[Cherie]

http://cashplans.tvlicensing.co.uk/

Weekly its 5.60...as they get you to pay this years in 6 months and the next years the following 6 months

Oh! I don't understand how that is a easy way to pay given you are paying double the normal rate :laugh:

[Vicky.]

Oh! I don't understand how that is a easy way to pay given you are paying double the normal rate :laugh:

Well as usual it seems a way to take the piss out of the poorest IMO :shrug:

I find it much easier to just pay the lump sum every year, she does that now too.

[user104658]

I'm flirting with the idea of ditching mine (legitimately: removing all live TV reception facilities from my house) when my Sky contract is up in August. I never watch TV live, I sky+ a lot, but I literally watch NOTHING that I couldn't get on the various OnDemand services plus Netflix. So I'd be getting rid of a TV licence and a Sky sub (totalling about £40 a month) and getting a Netflix sub for £7 a month. Sounds like a deal. And would also be generally fun telling the TV licencing heavies where to jam their licence.

[Cherie]

I'm flirting with the idea of ditching mine (legitimately: removing all live TV reception facilities from my house) when my Sky contract is up in August. I never watch TV live, I sky+ a lot, but I literally watch NOTHING that I couldn't get on the various OnDemand services plus Netflix. So I'd be getting rid of a TV licence and a Sky sub (totalling about £40 a month) and getting a Netflix sub for £7 a month. Sounds like a deal. And would also be generally fun telling the TV licencing heavies where to jam their licence.


Go for it. Wouldn't get away with that in my house due to this idea of needing to watch live sports!

[Livia]

Its quite a lot to those who dont have much. If you dont pay it in one go, it works out something like £7 per week(as they make you pay 2 years or something I think, its definitely around 7 per week as my sis used to have problems with it)..which doesnt sound like much but when you figure to some people thats like..1/10 of their income or more

When you work out that it's the main entertainment of many people, especially those with not much money, it's cheap. And if you can afford a telly you can afford a licence. It's like driving a car and saying, I've bought a car, but I don't have much money so I won't bother taxing it.

[joeysteele]

I begrudge every single penny of the TV licence, if I had my way I would scrap it tomorrow.
It is time the BBC competed in the real world in my view and was not fed from the pockets of people that find around £145 a year, every year hard to keep up with.

It is even worse that it had a criminal record element to it for not paying too.
Shocking, and for me it is time it was gone and consigned to history.

[smeagol]

it should be scraped completely , its 2014 people pay how much now for tv per month and yet still have to pay the greedy money grabbing con merchants money on top for 2 channels. its really mental if you think about it and how many channels there is.

it doesn't help the poor old ladies who are still slopping out in prison and have ended up someones bitch because they dont pay their tv licence

[smeagol]

speaking of the tv licence i know someone who is constantly hounded by them every week threatening letters and calls to pay the licence, even though they are already paid up in advance. they still want you to pay more in advance. 3 months left isn't good enough you must pay now for the next one and so on.
they are not well and the stress its caused its disgusting. the way they go about trying to get the money really is shocking. even if your paid up in advance they dont stop .
they shouldn't be allowed to do that to people.

[user104658]

When you work out that it's the main entertainment of many people, especially those with not much money, it's cheap. And if you can afford a telly you can afford a licence. It's like driving a car and saying, I've bought a car, but I don't have much money so I won't bother taxing it.

Except that the two aren't really comparable; road tax is more like "road rent" as it pays for the upkeep of the roads and highways which, if you run a car, you will almost certainly be using. In fact if you're not - if you're only using your car on private land - then you DON'T need a tax disk.

The TV license is more akin to being forced to pay a £1 "milk tax" every time you go to the supermarket, whether you drink milk or not, so that everyone else can take their 2L milk bottle for free, because "most people drink milk".

I'm also unsire about your suggestion that "if you can afford a telly you can afford a license" - I could go on my local freecycling group right now and pick up 10 CRT televisions tomorrow for precisely £0.

The only people who should be paying for the BBC are the people who use the BBC and / or its broadcasting equipment. Period. If people don't want to pay a subscription charge for it - which should REALLY be less than £12 a month anyway - then there's no demand for the service and it simply shouldn't exist. And before people start bawling about Doctor Who - the intellectual rights to a show that successful would be snapped up by another network faster than you can say "fire-sale". The same goes for all successful BBC properties.

It's an outdated model. Broadcast television in general is on the way out in favour of on-demand services, and quite rightly. They're better. If the BBC was to switch to being an entirely on-demand, internet based service like Netflix tomorrow and charge a subscription fee, they would still make an absolute fortune.

[Vicky.]

Except that the two aren't really comparable; road tax is more like "road rent" as it pays for the upkeep of the roads and highways which, if you run a car, you will almost certainly be using. In fact if you're not - if you're only using your car on private land - then you DON'T need a tax disk.

The TV license is more akin to being forced to pay a £1 "milk tax" every time you go to the supermarket, whether you drink milk or not, so that everyone else can take their 2L milk bottle for free, because "most people drink milk".

I'm also unsire about your suggestion that "if you can afford a telly you can afford a license" - I could go on my local freecycling group right now and pick up 10 CRT televisions tomorrow for precisely £0.

Yup..said it better than I could have tbh.

[Livia]

Except that the two aren't really comparable; road tax is more like "road rent" as it pays for the upkeep of the roads and highways which, if you run a car, you will almost certainly be using. In fact if you're not - if you're only using your car on private land - then you DON'T need a tax disk.

The TV license is more akin to being forced to pay a £1 "milk tax" every time you go to the supermarket, whether you drink milk or not, so that everyone else can take their 2L milk bottle for free, because "most people drink milk".

I'm also unsire about your suggestion that "if you can afford a telly you can afford a license" - I could go on my local freecycling group right now and pick up 10 CRT televisions tomorrow for precisely £0.

The only people who should be paying for the BBC are the people who use the BBC and / or its broadcasting equipment. Period. If people don't want to pay a subscription charge for it - which should REALLY be less than £12 a month anyway - then there's no demand for the service and it simply shouldn't exist. And before people start bawling about Doctor Who - the intellectual rights to a show that successful would be snapped up by another network faster than you can say "fire-sale". The same goes for all successful BBC properties.

It's an outdated model. Broadcast television in general is on the way out in favour of on-demand services, and quite rightly. They're better. If the BBC was to switch to being an entirely on-demand, internet based service like Netflix tomorrow and charge a subscription fee, they would still make an absolute fortune.

I stand by my analogy. And yes, I understand if you drive your car on private land you don't need it to be taxed, but frankly that's got nothing to do with anything. Part of my Council Tax goes to street lighting and pavement upkeep. There are no street lights nor pavements where I live, but I still have to pay that part of the charge.

You currently have to have a licence if you watch the telly. That's the bottom line, despite your claim it's an outdated model. You can go and buy a cheap telly... but the fact is you will need a licence to watch it, like you need a your car taxed to drive it on the highway. Whichever way you spin it, if you watch the telly you must have a licence or you're breaking the law. I pay my licence and I resent people feeling like they should be entitled to get it for free.

[Vicky.]

I stand by my analogy. And yes, I understand if you drive your car on private land you don't need it to be taxed, but frankly that's got nothing to do with anything. Part of my Council Tax goes to street lighting and pavement upkeep. There are no street lights nor pavements where I live, but I still have to pay that part of the charge.

You currently have to have a licence if you watch the telly. That's the bottom line, despite your claim it's an outdated model. You can go and buy a cheap telly... but the fact is you will need a licence to watch it, like you need a your car taxed to drive it on the highway. Whichever way you spin it, if you watch the telly you must have a licence or you're breaking the law. I pay my licence and I resent people feeling like they should be entitled to get it for free.

I have heard of no streetlights (we have them but they are never on :/ ) but never no pavements :o

Do you live way out in the countryside or something where its all dirt paths and such? If so I sooo envy you :joker:

[Marsh.]

Doesn't the licensing go towards "upkeep"? I'm sure I read the government are forcing the BBC to use the fee to pay for upkeep of technology for the broadcast of all television. :shrug:

[Livia]

I have heard of no streetlights (we have them but they are never on :/ ) but never no pavements :o

Do you live way out in the countryside or something where its all dirt paths and such? If so I sooo envy you :joker:

I'm about three miles from the nearest village and eight miles from the nearest town. It's very quiet....

[Marsh.]

I'm about three miles from the nearest village and eight miles from the nearest town. It's very quiet....

Sounds like heaven.

I'd probably never watch a horror film though.

[Vicky.]

Doesn't the licensing go towards "upkeep"? I'm sure I read the government are forcing the BBC to use the fee to pay for upkeep of technology for the broadcast of all television. :shrug:

Looks like its upkeep of their own channels..http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/what-does-your-licence-fee-pay-for-top13/

Looking at that site, I realise 'I' do watch BBC. Well, cbeebies. But only at gavins dads house as he has no spoingebob squarepants channel :laugh:

[Marsh.]

It must've been back when analogue TV was on they had to pay for the upkeep of all the technology and equipment that broadcast the signals.

[joeysteele]

Except that the two aren't really comparable; road tax is more like "road rent" as it pays for the upkeep of the roads and highways which, if you run a car, you will almost certainly be using. In fact if you're not - if you're only using your car on private land - then you DON'T need a tax disk.

The TV license is more akin to being forced to pay a £1 "milk tax" every time you go to the supermarket, whether you drink milk or not, so that everyone else can take their 2L milk bottle for free, because "most people drink milk".

I'm also unsire about your suggestion that "if you can afford a telly you can afford a license" - I could go on my local freecycling group right now and pick up 10 CRT televisions tomorrow for precisely £0.

The only people who should be paying for the BBC are the people who use the BBC and / or its broadcasting equipment. Period. If people don't want to pay a subscription charge for it - which should REALLY be less than £12 a month anyway - then there's no demand for the service and it simply shouldn't exist. And before people start bawling about Doctor Who - the intellectual rights to a show that successful would be snapped up by another network faster than you can say "fire-sale". The same goes for all successful BBC properties.

It's an outdated model. Broadcast television in general is on the way out in favour of on-demand services, and quite rightly. They're better. If the BBC was to switch to being an entirely on-demand, internet based service like Netflix tomorrow and charge a subscription fee, they would still make an absolute fortune.

Good post Toy Soldier, valid points, I, when I updated my TV, handed on my previous one to someone who needed a new one,I would guess a lot of families do that too.
Then as you say you can pick up TV's quite cheaply too anyway.

I would be quite happy for the BBC to go subscription,then people have the choice to sign up or not.
However,I still think it ridiculous in the 21st century to have to have a licence to watch a TV in your own home.
I don't even consider the TV as a luxury, for me it is an essential item and politicians would be well lost if they didn't have the TV media to communicate to the electorate with too.

My real pet hate however is TV Licensing, the people who work there are some of the most awful people you could come across.
Time they were well and truly closed down and got rid of.

[MTVN]

This might be quite ignorant of me, but with all the cutbacks the BBC are making do we really need both a Scots Gaelic television and radio channel, a Welsh language radio station, two different Northern Irish radio stations, and a BBC Asian network?

[Kizzy]

Well it's not a tax it's a licence and as said if people are struggling to heat or eat I personally don't blame them if they forgo this.
I'm sure the'll be those who think the poor should be in workhouses unknotting string if they can't get work rather than watching the box.

[Marsh.]

This might be quite ignorant of me, but with all the cutbacks the BBC are making do we really need both a Scots Gaelic television and radio channel, a Welsh language radio station, two different Northern Irish radio stations, and a BBC Asian network?

Depends, do the Welsh and Scottish contribute to the fee?

If so, why shouldn't they get the material catered for them?

[lostalex]

Why don't they just pay for the BBC out of regular tax dollars instead of a license fee? it would be so much easier and end this stupidity. Imagine how much money they would save from not having to hire people to collect the license fees and go after people not paying it.

[Marsh.]

Why don't they just pay for the BBC out of regular tax dollars instead of a license fee? it would be so much easier and end this stupidity.

:suspect:

[MTVN]

Depends, do the Welsh and Scottish contribute to the fee?

If so, why shouldn't they get the material catered for them?

Well I imagine so but there's a radio Wales and a radio Scotland already, then they also have another two separate stations which broadcast in Welsh/Scottish Gaelic. I know the Welsh in particular are proud of their own language and everything but is that really necessary, and Scottish Gaelic is hardly ever used I believe

[lostalex]

Well it's not a tax it's a licence and as said if people are struggling to heat or eat I personally don't blame them if they forgo this.
I'm sure the'll be those who think the poor should be in workhouses unknotting string if they can't get work rather than watching the box.

but people who don't have enuf money to pay for gas or food don't pay any tax anyway.

[Jack_]

The BBC is definitely value for money, are some people on here really saying they don't ever use the BBC website to read articles and link to them on websites, watch BBC News, BBC Sport, listen to Radio 1, 2, 4, 5 Live? Watch BBC3? 1? 2? 4? CBBC/CBeebies?

I wouldn't be averse to the idea of making it subscription but I think it's a dangerous path to go down, the thought of having no state sponsored, ad-free broadcaster is harrowing. Their documentaries and live programming (you only have to look at the Olympics coverage to see this) is second to none, the thought of losing that is quite awful

[Marsh.]

Well I imagine so but there's a radio Wales and a radio Scotland already, then they also have another two separate stations which broadcast in Welsh/Scottish Gaelic. I know the Welsh in particular are proud of their own language and everything but is that really necessary, and Scottish Gaelic is hardly ever used I believe

I would imagine so for the people who don't speak English. :laugh:

[MTVN]

I would imagine so for the people who don't speak English. :laugh:

Welsh people who can't speak English? :suspect:

[Marsh.]

Welsh people who can't speak English? :suspect:

Probably very few these days. But where do they learn it from, sheep? :laugh:

[smeagol]

bottom line is we dont ask for their programs so we should not have to pay for them
you have to pay whether you watch the channels or not. thats nothing short of extortion with threats.

its a practice the old kings would do in the 18th century with land owners and the like. when you got 57 channels and 55 of them dont ask for money its mad
value for money , value for money is our civil rights and freedom thats priceless
there is no value in paying bullies bbc- big bully cooperation or big bully c----s lol

[Livia]

bottom line is we dont ask for their programs so we should not have to pay for them
you have to pay whether you watch the channels or not. thats nothing short of extortion with threats.

its a practice the old kings would do in the 18th century with land owners and the like. when you got 57 channels and 55 of them dont ask for money its mad
value for money , value for money is our civil rights and freedom thats priceless
there is no value in paying bullies bbc- big bully cooperation or big bully c----s lol

It's a licence to watch the telly and listen to the radio. It's not a licence just to watch the BBC.

[smeagol]

It's a licence to watch the telly and listen to the radio. It's not a licence just to watch the BBC.

its a licence to print money to feed rich men.

its the bbc you pay for not the tv or other channels

[Vicky.]

It's a licence to watch the telly and listen to the radio. It's not a licence just to watch the BBC.

But it only appears to fund the BBC and its channels/radio stations? If the BBC would just fund itself like other channels have to, then there would be no license fee :S

[Kizzy]

but people who don't have enuf money to pay for gas or food don't pay any tax anyway.

Everyone pays council tax and VAT.

[joeysteele]

Everyone pays council tax and VAT.

Absolutely, no matter how people get their money, everyone pays tax in some form.
Although if your circumstances are right you can get full council tax rebate.

This Licence however is taken from all people except the over 75s.
If the BBC was made to be funded other ways then this obscene licence would not be in existence.

Everyone that wants certain channels are happy to pay subscription for that,I have no issue with that, Sky customers have to pay for packages of Channels,it is the BBC that wants to keep this daft licence and is the only real reason we still have it.

Well, not for me,I don't feel in any way the BBC is better a great deal of the time and in fact,I for one, don't even find them as good now as to certain programming.

This attempt to de-criminalise not paying the licence fee would go a good way to perhaps seeing the start of the end for the licence,for me that is a really good thing and way overdue in my view too.

Time the BBC was made to battle for viewers and improve its programming like all other channels and stop having its funding given to it on a plate as it has for far too long now.

[Marsh.]

The thing is though, engaging in a battle for viewers with itv will not improve its programming. It means more reality shows.

Most of the BBC's good output will start relying on viewing figures and be axed due to their low rating.

[lostalex]

The thing is though, engaging in a battle for viewers with itv will not improve its programming. It means more reality shows.

Most of the BBC's good output will start relying on viewing figures and be axed due to their low rating.

but the BBC already has Strictly Come Dancing, and The Voice, which is enough to make anyone want to quit paying the license fee...

let's face it, the BBC puts on a lot of trash, just as trashy as any of the commercial channels, it would be easier to defend them if they had better content...

newsnight, and Question Time are good, everything else is a bit iffy...

the Great British Bake-off is something you'd expect to see on a low end basic cable network here in the US... and the sewing -bee version of it wouldn't even make it to air here, even with 500 channels.

[Marsh.]

but the BBC already has dancing with the stars, which is enough to make anyone want to quit paying the license fee...

let's face it, the BBC puts on a lot of trash, just as trashy as any of the commercial channels, it would be easier to defend them if they had better content...

Do you live over here or are you talking about BBC America?

I never said they don't have their share of trash (they have to cater to all audience members after all) but there's a lot of quality shows that don't have to rely on viewing figures to survive that would just be axed completely if the BBC went commercial. BBC4 and all of their documentaries for a start.

Strictly Come Dancing and all that bollocks wouldn't have to worry, they pull in the viewers.

Edit - I see you're continually editing your post, but you're only including random shows that run for a couple of months a year on BBC 1. That's not even scratching the surface of the entire BBC. Pull your head out of the TV listings.

[lostalex]

Do you live over here or are you talking about BBC America?

I never said they don't have their share of trash (they have to cater to all audience members after all) but there's a lot of quality shows that don't have to rely on viewing figures to survive that would just be axed completely if the BBC went commercial. BBC4 and all of their documentaries for a start.

Strictly Come Dancing and all that bollocks wouldn't have to worry, they pull in the viewers.

Edit - I see you're continually editing your post, but you're only including random shows that run for a couple of months a year on BBC 1. That's not even scratching the surface of the entire BBC.

but most of the really high quality docu's the BBC does do, are co-productions with the Discovery Channel in the US, so they are using commercial money anyway to do the high end stuff... they aren't even relying on the license fee to make those really good documentary series...

[Marsh.]

but most of the really high quality docu's the BBC does do, are co-productions with the Discovery Channel in the US, so they are using commercial money anyway to do the high end stuff... they aren't even relying on the license fee to make those really good documentary series...

Because the license fee is frozen and costs are rising and rising. Their viewing figures wouldn't even justify a co-production if they went commercial.

[Kizzy]

In 2012/13 the company saw headline sales rise by 3% to £1,116m - exceeding the £1bn mark for a fifth year

http://www.bbcworldwide.com/about-us.aspx

Is this all from British licence payers?... No,

[joeysteele]

but the BBC already has Strictly Come Dancing, and The Voice, which is enough to make anyone want to quit paying the license fee...

let's face it, the BBC puts on a lot of trash, just as trashy as any of the commercial channels, it would be easier to defend them if they had better content...

newsnight, and Question Time are good, everything else is a bit iffy...

the Great British Bake-off is something you'd expect to see on a low end basic cable network here in the US... and the sewing -bee version of it wouldn't even make it to air here, even with 500 channels.

Good post and good points with examples too lostalex, I agree completely.

[Marsh.]

In 2012/13 the company saw headline sales rise by 3% to £1,116m - exceeding the £1bn mark for a fifth year

http://www.bbcworldwide.com/about-us.aspx

Is this all from British licence payers?... No,

:conf: That's not what I said. I said they'e relying on co-productions and other means of funding more and more because the fee has been frozen whilst costs rise.

[Cherie]

No matter who is right and who is wrong, as it stands the BBC charge a licence fee whether we like it or not is immaterial. If you are dodging paying you are currently breaking the law and can be prosecuted.

[Marsh.]

No matter who is right and who is wrong, as it stands the BBC charge a licence fee whether we like it or not is immaterial. If you are dodging paying you are currently breaking the law and can be prosecuted.

You tell them Cherie. :fist:

[Cherie]

You tell them Cherie. :fist:

I will Marshy :fist:

[Kizzy]

Not for much longer suckers.... :grin2:

[Marsh.]

Not for much longer suckers.... :grin2:

Don't come crying when we have more X Factor/The Voice shows. :fist:

[Marsh.]

In 2012/13 the company saw headline sales rise by 3% to £1,116m - exceeding the £1bn mark for a fifth year

http://www.bbcworldwide.com/about-us.aspx

Is this all from British licence payers?... No,

Returns to the BBC (not the international companies) - £156 million
License fee - £3.6 billion.

:hmph:

[Kizzy]

Returns to the BBC (not the international companies) - £156 million
License fee - £3.6 billion.

:hmph:

they get £3.6 billion from British licence payers?

[Cherie]

Not for much longer suckers.... :grin2:

You will have to subscribe for PM Questiontime, :tongue:

[Marsh.]

they get £3.6 billion from British licence payers?

Yep. :hugesmile: But that doesn't go to Worldwide, which funds itself.

[lostalex]

i used to listen to BBC "world have your say" radio program everyday, but they don't even give that for free online any more. BBC is getting cheap and going down hill even before they have their license fee taken away.

[Marsh.]

i used to listen to BBC "world have your say" radio program everyday, but they don't even give that for free online any more. BBC is getting cheap and going down hill even before they have their license fee taken away.

Yes, that's part of the crisis their facing. Where've you been? :laugh: BBC Three's been axed too. The license fee was frozen and costs are rising. Not to mention the Tories are taking the piss with forcing the BBC to pay for more and more besides.

Also BBC World News doesn't come from the license fee. That is subscription and advertiser funded.

[Kizzy]

Marsh are you Chris Patten?..... :joker:

[Marsh.]

Marsh are you Chris Patten?..... :joker:

Yes. :hmph:

[armand.kay]

This will mean adverts during doctor who and East Enders :'(

[Samm]

Omg I only like the BBC because they don't have adverts :/

[Marsh.]

Omg I only like the BBC because they don't have adverts :/

Well you must like them for some other reason otherwise you wouldn't care if they had adverts or not.

http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net/photo/agyoBBg_460sa.gif

[joeysteele]

I can accept to a good number of people the advertisemants would be an annoyance, however I rarely watch the BBC myself so since watching more commercial channels,I find the adverts not a problem at all.

In fact I welcome them as I can,for instance, let the dog out when a break comes if I am watching something I really am concentrating on.

For me, I would rather have adverts on the BBC and not have to pay nearly £150 a year to watch the BBC in my own place on the TV I have bought.

[Nedusa]

What I normally do to take the pain out of adverts is to let the programme start and immediately put it on live pause for about 10 mins then start watching it. Every time adverts come I fast forward past them and wind down the 10 mins of recorded programme.

Usually by the end of the programme I am back on live broadcast after the last of the adverts.

Or I guess you could just record the whole programme and flip through the adverts when they come on.

[user104658]

What I normally do to take the pain out of adverts is to let the programme start and immediately put it on live pause for about 10 mins then start watching it. Every time adverts come I fast forward past them and wind down the 10 mins of recorded programme.

Usually by the end of the programme I am back on live broadcast after the last of the adverts.

Or I guess you could just record the whole programme and flip through the adverts when they come on.

Exactly! Although these days I find an hour long show needs more like 15-20 mins ad allowance. Things like X Factor often need 30-45 :o.

Does anyone remember when Ant & Dec used to say "see you in two" before ad breaks? Now it's "see you in five"!

Both the TV licensing and Commercial versions of broadcast television are pretty broken these days. The future is downloads, OnDemand and live streaming. Scheduled TV is hopefully on the way out altogether.

[Nedusa]

Exactly! Although these days I find an hour long show needs more like 15-20 mins ad allowance. Things like X Factor often need 30-45 :o.

Does anyone remember when Ant & Dec used to say "see you in two" before ad breaks? Now it's "see you in five"!

Both the TV licensing and Commercial versions of broadcast television are pretty broken these days. The future is downloads, OnDemand and live streaming. Scheduled TV is hopefully on the way out altogether.

Agree the whole idea of somebody scheduling programmes for you or in the case of the BBC for a whole nation is a bit old fashioned.

With a more Multicultural society the diversity and range of programmes being watched could never seriously be scheduled by one single broadcaster.

The future has arrived with downloads, YouTube, Pay TV, Satellite TV, Cable TV etc..

We have so much choice over what we watch and the medium through which we watch. The idea of somebody deciding a shedule of programmes is now a bit quaint.

I usually cherry pick the programmes I wish to view record them and watch them as I please fast forwarding through Ad breaks.

So I think the BBC needs a massive revamp and the idea of a TV licence is now not sustainable. Better perhaps to charge a fixed monthly fee like Sky or BT and then at least people have the choice to pay for BBC programmes or not.

[Kizzy]

I couldn't be bothered scanning viewing guides and pre planning a schedule, if I catch it I catch it, if I don't I don't :laugh:

[user104658]

So I think the BBC needs a massive revamp and the idea of a TV licence is now not sustainable. Better perhaps to charge a fixed monthly fee like Sky or BT and then at least people have the choice to pay for BBC programmes or not.

The problem is, they're afraid that not enough people would be interested in signing up for them not to have to massively scale back. Lots of people would sign up to receive BBC programmes, sure, but... Definitely not the entire country. Probably not even half. Lots of households would happily do without BBC shows.

And that says it all really. We're all being forced to pay for a service that isn't actually justified by public demand. The quality of BBC television isn't SO high that people would willingly pay a monthly subscription for it. So how can a "licence" fee be justified?

Plus all of the big-selling properties would be snapped up if the BBC went under. Something like Doctor Who would have purchase offers stacked to the ceiling, its worth a fortune. There are essentially a FEW good shows scattered amongst endless hours of mindless dross that often verges on propaganda.

To showcase the point: Channel 4 might be in the pan currently, but take a look over the last 10 to 15 years. They made some of (the bulk of, in my opinion) the best British TV shows ever made. Production quality, acting, humour and "edginess" that the BBC has not come close to with the majority of its shows. Even now they have a couple of shows that are above most BBC productions on many levels.

...and dont even get me STARTED on the quality of BBC "journalism".

[Nedusa]

The problem is, they're afraid that not enough people would be interested in signing up for them not to have to massively scale back. Lots of people would sign up to receive BBC programmes, sure, but... Definitely not the entire country. Probably not even half. Lots of households would happily do without BBC shows.

And that says it all really. We're all being forced to pay for a service that isn't actually justified by public demand. The quality of BBC television isn't SO high that people would willingly pay a monthly subscription for it. So how can a "licence" fee be justified?

Plus all of the big-selling properties would be snapped up if the BBC went under. Something like Doctor Who would have purchase offers stacked to the ceiling, its worth a fortune. There are essentially a FEW good shows scattered amongst endless hours of mindless dross that often verges on propaganda.

To showcase the point: Channel 4 might be in the pan currently, but take a look over the last 10 to 15 years. They some of (the bulk of, in my opinion) the best British TV shows ever made. Production quality, acting, humour and "edginess" that the BBC has not come close to with the majority of its shows. Even now they have a couple of shows that are above most BBC productions on many levels.

...and dont even get me STARTED on the quality of BBC "journalism".

Yes I think the BBC would have to look at which programmes it could sell to the public and like the other mainstream TV channels include adverts or product placement but a lot of programmes would have to go, but at least supply would reflect demand and the quality of programmes made would have to kept high in order to compete with advertisers and viewing figures.

The days of Public service broadcasting have I think now ended. The BBC would survive in the long run as it does have a massive back catalogue of programmes and a wealth of quality, expertise and resources to allow it to continue to make good programmes.

But it will look so different to the overbloated behemoth it currently is.

If ever change was needed at the BBC it is now

[arista]

New carpets at BBC's £1bn HQ... just 18 months after it opened

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2585792/New-carpets-BBCs-1bn-HQ-just-18-months-opened-Corporation-bosses-demand-revamp-current-decor-not-inspiring-enough.html#ixzz2wbHILOX6


Fecking Bloated BBC burning public money

[Marsh.]

I couldn't be bothered scanning viewing guides and pre planning a schedule, if I catch it I catch it, if I don't I don't :laugh:

Easy going. That's the way to be.

[joeysteele]

New carpets at BBC's £1bn HQ... just 18 months after it opened

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2585792/New-carpets-BBCs-1bn-HQ-just-18-months-opened-Corporation-bosses-demand-revamp-current-decor-not-inspiring-enough.html#ixzz2wbHILOX6


Fecking Bloated BBC burning public money

They've been doing that for ages in my view arista.

[arista]

The Times has how they want to block TV signals to Non payers
if they are on sky or virgin.

Not sure if that would work.

And I am sure they could not block a house from getting Freeview or Freesat
as it would block other homes near the non payer etc.

[Cherie]

The Times has how they want to block TV signals to Non payers
if they are on sky or virgin.

Not sure if that would work.

And I am sure they could not block a house from getting Freeview or Freesat
as it would block other homes near the non payer etc.

They guy in charge of strategy was interviewed on 5live yesterday evening he said it would not be possible to block signals, he never mentioned Sky or Virgin subs holders.

[arista]

They guy in charge of strategy was interviewed on 5live yesterday evening he said it would not be possible to block signals, he never mentioned Sky or Virgin subs holders.


Yes but lots of Ideas are being put Forward
Blocking is still under debate.


Soon The MP's Vote changing
the Non payers from criminal to civil

[lostalex]

Yes, that's part of the crisis their facing. Where've you been? :laugh: BBC Three's been axed too. The license fee was frozen and costs are rising. Not to mention the Tories are taking the piss with forcing the BBC to pay for more and more besides.

Also BBC World News doesn't come from the license fee. That is subscription and advertiser funded.


well i miss my daily dose of "world have your say". i can't imagine that it's that expensive to put up daily podcasts. a daily 1 hour show that's supposedly for the whole world not just the UK, so i don't know why they took it down. it can't be that expensive to host a 1 hour radio show. there are tons of free ones on iTunes podcasts from people in their basements, so why the BBC can't do it i don't know.

[Kizzy]

They need some kind of TV detector van or something...... :hehe:

[Cherie]

It's not being doing to protect the "poor" though, its to free up courts as 1 in 10 cases is a licence fee evader.

[arista]

That Lady on Question Time
had a good idea take out of General Tax Money


dear OLD David liked that

[Cherie]

That Lady on Question Time
had a good idea take out of General Tax Money


dear OLD David liked that

Quite likely this is what will happen. Pensioners should be exempt.

[Marsh.]

well i miss my daily dose of "world have your say". i can't imagine that it's that expensive to put up daily podcasts. a daily 1 hour show that's supposedly for the whole world not just the UK, so i don't know why they took it down. it can't be that expensive to host a 1 hour radio show. there are tons of free ones on iTunes podcasts from people in their basements, so why the BBC can't do it i don't know.

:shrug: I don't know. But that's got nothing to do with the license fee.

[arista]

Labour now agree's with Conservative/Lib Dem plans to take away the Prison



The BBC warns bigger cuts will follow - Tough titty



Unanimous cross-party support to remove threat of criminal sanction means it's almost certain to become law after election

[arista]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/managementstructure/biographies/purnell_james/

James Purnell (Ex New Labour) now high up at the BBC
was due to go on todays Daily Politics
but he avoided it ,
as he does not want to debate BBC funding.

He was on the Front Cabinet of
New Labour he also walked away from that job
as he could not back the New Labour Policy under Brown


He must go on Question Time
stop all this running away
fight your fecking corner purnell


Life In The City