[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by kizzy

The law states that you need to be covered by a TV Licence if you watch or record television programmes, on any device, as they're being shown on TV. This includes TVs, computers, mobile phones, games consoles, digital boxes and Blu-ray/DVD/VHS recorders.

You don't need a licence if you don't use any of these devices to watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV - for example, if you use your TV only to watch DVDs or play video games, or you only watch ‘catch up’ services like BBC iPlayer or 4oD.

hehehe where is this quote from, the BBC?

the quote was direct from the tvlicencing website.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

the quote was direct from the tvlicencing website.

Fab! thats my defence.....

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by kizzy

How would I know that...I don't know you...And you don't know me?...

However....Theres no point throwing your hands in the air at the injustice of the poor poor BBC not recieving its full licence fee from every watcher of the BBC.

Making that a criminal offence therefore causing the do gooders to vomit with rage at anyone who fails to abide by the laws of the land.

Those who work within our walls of power are not punished for their indiscretions.... It stands to reason those mere mortals joe public are going to wake up and smell the coffee...surely?...

I have no vomitting with rage. I feel cheated.

Those who work within our walls do sometimes get punished - quite a few have been in the nick for various things... but as I said: this thread isn't about that.This isn't about politicians and what they may or may not do that may be morally considered criminal.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by kizzy

Fab! thats my defence.....

Not much of a defence when you appear not to have read anything about it.... it's not just covering the BBC.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

I have no vomitting with rage. I feel cheated.

Those who work within our walls do sometimes get punished - quite a few have been in the nick for various things... but as I said: this thread isn't about that.This isn't about politicians and what they may or may not do that may be morally considered criminal.

This is not about you though ....Please don't think it is.
No maybe about it pyra.....
We all feel cheated because we are all being cheated

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Not much of a defence when you appear not to have read anything about it.... it's not just covering the BBC.

Don't patronise me... You were really rude to joey today and I will not tolerate that.
State your point, stick to the facts and accept I feel as passionate as you do but from a different perspective.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by kizzy

This is not about you though ....Please don't think it is.
No maybe about it pyra.....
We all feel cheated because we are all being cheated

I know.... but I feel cheated, I wanted vomit (mostly coz I actually don't feel too good hence being up at this ungodly hour when I have work!).

As I say: I do feel that if they are going to spend whatever they spent on detector vans and letters etc: what's the point if they don't follow it up. It does make it easy to avoid paying - can't argue with that .... it's been the same though for as long as I can remember - even when I was a kid.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by kizzy

Don't patronise me... You were really rude to joey today and I will not tolerate that.
State your point, stick to the facts and accept I feel as passionate as you do but from a different perspective.

I wasn't patronising you. If you had paid any attention to that website: you'll have realised it wasn't all about the BBC.

I stated my point, I stuck to the facts: and I stand by them: if that is your defence, then you haven't read the website and what it details - it is not about the BBC alone.

Odd that you suddenly bounce in about Joey now .... despite having been on the thread most of earlier today...... no one said you couldn't be passionate - but it still doesn't negate the fact that you are indeed watching illegally.

That's your choice and you are quite entitled to make it - and of course: have to accept the punishment that goes with it should you be prosecuted.

[Kizzy]

I am not bouncing anywhere..Detector vans? they were only ever a gimmick....
I will accept my fate as a decent citizen...Right after my fellow citizen David Laws accepts his ...

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by kizzy

I am not bouncing anywhere..Detector vans? they were only ever a gimmick....
I will accept my fate as a decent citizen...Right after my fellow citizen David Laws accepts his ...

Still trying to turn this into a political debate then Kizzy I see.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Still trying to turn this into a political debate then Kizzy I see.

Nope I live in the UK and so does he...Why should my actions be percieved as deviant and his not?...It makes no sense is all

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by kizzy

Nope I live in the UK and so does he...Why should my actions be percieved as deviant and his not?...It makes no sense is all

It's not some party polical argument Kizzy.

The Law has been determined on this one - whether you agree with it or not. Thems the rules of this here land... the UK.

[Kizzy]

If you agree that for not having a £145 licence you are breaking the law when another can defraud the system to the tune of £100'000 and nobody bats an eyelid...Then maybe the UK is more corrupt than I thought...
And the more intelligent,educated people are willing to accept this as the norm the more I worry.......

[BBfanUSA]

wait, BBC is still public? Wow...they have commercials on BBC America. So TV shows like Doctor Who and the documentaries are made with Taxpayers dollars?

Anyway I don't know why people are pissed about the BBC. I see the BBC as one of the most prominent news organizations in the world. Way better than CNN (And there's a huge gap since there is in fact a channel that's more blantantly biased than Fox News) MSNBC, and the other news organizations.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by kizzy

If you agree that for not having a £145 licence you are breaking the law when another can defraud the system to the tune of £100'000 and nobody bats an eyelid...Then maybe the UK is more corrupt than I thought...

And the more intelligent,educated people are willing to accept this as the norm the more I worry.......

You don't have to worry about the more intelligent people ...... I'm sure they can worry and think for themselves. about whether they wish to be regarded as a criminal or not.

Who is saying no one bats an eyelid at serious fraud as you are hinting at - I most certainly agreed with you 100% when you raised it (time and time again) thorughtout the thread - and I am quite sure many others would also concur.

However, we are not speaking of comparisons to the tune of £100k though - we are speaking of one thiing: tv licence that costs less than a family of 4 or 5 might spend on a night out in a nice restarant once a year.

It may not sound a lot of money: but multiply that by those who do not pay - and then you see the bigger picture (ya see what I did there ). Others have to cough up even more for those who don't pay.

That's hardly fair either is it or those who do act in accordance with the law - it's still making other people pay for your share. What's fair about comparison?

[arista]

"they have commercials on BBC America."

Of course they do
they are a Commercial Company.

BBC UK is still funded by UK Tax payers
its well out of date and needs to get rid of charging
the UK public.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by kizzy

How would I know that...I don't know you...And you don't know me?...

However....Theres no point throwing your hands in the air at the injustice of the poor poor BBC not recieving its full licence fee from every watcher of the BBC.

Making that a criminal offence therefore causing the do gooders to vomit with rage at anyone who fails to abide by the laws of the land.

Those who work within our walls of power are not punished for their indiscretions.... It stands to reason those mere mortals joe public are going to wake up and smell the coffee...surely?...

Because I'd have thought, seeing as you take such a vested interest in my posts, that you'd have known I'm highly critical of the incumbent government, most other political parties, and politics in the UK itself.

I also thought you'd know that I believe that the laws of the land are a majority of the time set by those who are so far removed socially from the citizens they're governing that they are weighted in favour of those in power.

But the licence fee is one thing that I believe they've got right. One of the very few remaining strands of socialism we have left in this country and I resent the idea of that being abolished. We're already edging towards the prospect of the NHS being taken over by private investors, I absolutely do not want that happening to the BBC.

It's rare that I agree with Pyramid, but as I've just explained I in no way disagree with any of what you've said with regards to MP's expenses and the like, but what relevance does that have in this thread exactly?

[BBfanUSA]

Originally Posted by arista

"they have commercials on BBC America."

Of course they do
they are a Commercial Company.

BBC UK is still funded by UK Tax payers
its well out of date and needs to get rid of charging
the UK public.

So they're not under the same banner?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

You don't have to worry about the more intelligent people ...... I'm sure they can worry and think for themselves. about whether they wish to be regarded as a criminal or not.

Who is saying no one bats an eyelid at serious fraud as you are hinting at - I most certainly agreed with you 100% when you raised it (time and time again) thorughtout the thread - and I am quite sure many others would also concur.

However, we are not speaking of comparisons to the tune of £100k though - we are speaking of one thiing: tv licence that costs less than a family of 4 or 5 might spend on a night out in a nice restarant once a year.

It may not sound a lot of money: but multiply that by those who do not pay - and then you see the bigger picture (ya see what I did there ). Others have to cough up even more for those who don't pay.

That's hardly fair either is it or those who do act in accordance with the law - it's still making other people pay for your share. What's fair about comparison?

This makes no sense... I don't care if they wish to be regarded as criminal the fact is they are not....As defrauding the state of £100'000 is not a criminal offence.
I appreciate we are dealing with what to you may seem small change, which as you say adds up.
Are we to believe that David Laws is the only politician who fraudulently claims expenses?....
Potentially millions of pounds annually are seeping from the taxpayers purse, if you want to talk comparisons.
However let us remember that not paying for a £145 TV licence is against the law, why I am not sure, unless by 'licence' the government really mean 'entertainment tax'.
A lot of people not paying a small amount...Some people defauding a large amount.
Both could be seen as theft in some respects, yet only one is considered a criminal act, does that not strike you as odd?
You can fool some of the people all of the time, you can fool all of the people some of the time ......
I find it really hard to feel sory for those who are so blinkered they cannot or will not see that those who scamming thousands and thousands are no better than benefit fraudsters and TV licence avoiders.

[MTVN]

While I'd say the BBC is generally pretty good and does do it's best to maintain it's neutrality (even though I don't really think there is such a thing as "unbiased" news), I don't think that public broadcasting should necessarily be lauded and considered that superior to private broadcasting; ok so the former is not done for profit but there are still concerns that it can be used to serve vested interests, it's just that those interests are normally governmental and not financial. If you are to have a public broadcaster than there needs to be vigorous checks on it's independence, because all too often they've become tools of the government as a means to suppress opposing views, as is the case in a lot of countries (Syria, North Korea etc.)

Again I'm not really talking about the BBC here, just public broadcasting in general

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Because I'd have thought, seeing as you take such a vested interest in my posts, that you'd have known I'm highly critical of the incumbent government, most other political parties, and politics in the UK itself.

I also thought you'd know that I believe that the laws of the land are a majority of the time set by those who are so far removed socially from the citizens they're governing that they are weighted in favour of those in power.

But the licence fee is one thing that I believe they've got right. One of the very few remaining strands of socialism we have left in this country and I resent the idea of that being abolished. We're already edging towards the prospect of the NHS being taken over by private investors, I absolutely do not want that happening to the BBC.

It's rare that I agree with Pyramid, but as I've just explained I in no way disagree with any of what you've said with regards to MP's expenses and the like, but what relevance does that have in this thread exactly?

Jack stop thinking....

I would prefer to see our public services remain unprivatised...
You would have to live in a hole in the ground if you thought for one minute the news and programming on the BBC were not controlled by those with money and power.
Again I use it as a comparison, if you cannot see it then I don't see how I could make it any clearer jack sorry.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by kizzy

This makes no sense... I don't care if they wish to be regarded as criminal the fact is they are not....As defrauding the state of £100'000 is not a criminal offence.
I appreciate we are dealing with what to you may seem small change, which as you say adds up.
Are we to believe that David Laws is the only politician who fraudulently claims expenses?....
Potentially millions of pounds annually are seeping from the taxpayers purse, if you want to talk comparisons.
However let us remember that not paying for a £145 TV licence is against the law, why I am not sure, unless by 'licence' the government really mean 'entertainment tax'.
A lot of people not paying a small amount...Some people defauding a large amount.
Both could be seen as theft in some respects, yet only one is considered a criminal act, does that not strike you as odd?
You can fool some of the people all of the time, you can fool all of the people some of the time ......
I find it really hard to feel sory for those who are so blinkered they cannot or will not see that those who scamming thousands and thousands are no better than benefit fraudsters and TV licence avoiders.

At the risk of repeating myself - this is not a Political Party Broadcast Kizzy.

Plenty of very politically minded threads for you to vent your disgust at the Tories for - you know, the ones that inherited what Labour left for them after..... oh, let me think, about ten years or so? Can you try to remain on topic - after all, this is not about only the BBC, the TV licence encompasses so much more.

For the sake of civility, I would politely ask that you refrain from being quite so sanctimonious with comments suc as such as 'you feel sorrry for those who are so blinkered that they they cannot or will not see.....". People are entitle to their opinion Kizzy, without the need for such withering words. It really is unnecessary and adds nothing to good debate. I understand your opinion, I respect your right to your opinoin on not paying for a tv lic, I simply don't agree with it.

You may not agree with me, but the bottom line is and the fact of the matter is: not paying for a tv licence and watching the live services in the manner you do: is a criminal offence - that is fact and no matter what you bring into play as a deflective on the topic: will not change that.

It matters not what other things out there are not a criminal offence that you regard as 'should be' - it does not dilute the matter of tv licencing and the legalities that surround it, and the reason that it is exists currently.

[Marsh.]

I am struggling to understand how the answer to protesting against someone else's criminality is by committing it yourself. Doesn't that make you as bad as the politicians you're dead set against?

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by kizzy

Jack stop thinking....

I would prefer to see our public services remain unprivatised...
You would have to live in a hole in the ground if you thought for one minute the news and programming on the BBC were not controlled by those with money and power.

Again I use it as a comparison, if you cannot see it then I don't see how I could make it any clearer jack sorry.

Like anything else in this world in a similar footing Kizzy.... the BBC is a business when all is said and done.

Businesses run on money and power.

Here's an interesting bit of reading. Their Annual Report & Trust Statment.

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/resourc...ent_110705.pdf

Page 26 onwards has some good points - including many recommendations covering the current use internet access for non live streaming.

[Kate!]

Oh dear, are you still beating this to death Pyra. I don't think its Kizzy who's not staying on topic.....plus the thread is about the BBC primarily, not JUST the licence fee. I didn't intend the thread to be used to repeatedly hammer home the fact that you think we are criminals, fine, we get it. I accept it. Once you made the point why keep repeating it.

Can I politely request that the thread moves on, or is closed if the sniping continues.

Now, The BBC...are they doing a good job? We've dealt with licensing more than enough. How about quality of programmes etc?