The BBC  permalink

TV licence...

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 50 of 75
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by wolfie (U15842015) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    It seems the BBC revel in seeing vulnerable people going to prison..

    How else to explain their strong response to this mornings suggestion...

    It seems reasonable to me...and I would think to any right thinking person...

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Lee (U1149673) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    What are you talking about, wolfie?

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by wolfie (U15842015) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    The TV licence...

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Lee (U1149673) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    I was rather hoping you might make it easier for people to follow your argument by posting a link to the story you're discussing.

    www.bbc.co.uk/news/u...

    You ask "how else to explain (the BBC's) strong response to this mornings suggestion", but the answer is given in the article. The BBC say that even a 1% increase in evasion would lead to a loss of income equivalent to running ten local radio stations.

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by wolfie (U15842015) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    So they'd rather see vulnerable people going to prison...

    I think their response is wholly spurious...

    People don't refuse to pay the licence fee thru choice...

    This won't make an iota of difference to the amount that's collected...the BBC are scaremongering for some reason...

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Juvia says goodbye (U15993513) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    It seems the BBC revel in seeing vulnerable people going to prison..

    How else to explain their strong response to this mornings suggestion...

    It seems reasonable to me...and I would think to any right thinking person... 
    Nonsense.

    I agree that it shouldn't be a criminal matter. However, what they are suggesting shifts the burden of expense on to an already overburdened licence fee. The government seem to be hell-bent on the destruction of the BBC. Given the history of past privatisations it would be an unmitigated disaster.

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by tumteatum (U15488526) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    I didn't realise it was one in ten cases brought before the criminal courts relate to watching the tv without a licence. That's ridiculous, I wonder how much that is costing us all in clogged up courts and legal costs. I wonder also how many end in a successful prosecution? From the BBC's perspective at least a civil action has a lower burden of proof.

    I am no expert on these things but I don't understand why the BBC cannot secure its broadcasts and has to resort to harassing non-tv watchers and peering through net curtains.

    I can't get Sky without subscribing and as far as I am concerned, I pay a licence fee because I am subscribing to receive live tv broadcasts.

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by technologist (U1259929) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    Why is the BBC collecting the LF .. ?
    the answer was that some years ago the BBC convinced the government that it could reduce the evasion rate and thus gain more income without the LF going up as much by taking the job from the POst Office.. and also do it cheaper!
    This they did very successfully.....

    So at the time that was the Government's wish.....
    and I think the wishes of the majority of the population that everyone who has to pays and the cost of getting the money is minimised.

    There is a lot of debate now about the way that the BBC is funded etc - ALL of which may be proper but is far better held over until there is a debate on what the BBC shodu be doing and thus how it should be regulated and Funded etc etc as part of the review of its charter in 2016.

    The BBC income is less than a Quarter of the total UK Media industry income -
    and as this shows we are getting well over twice a musch output from the BBC for less than we were paying in real terms 20 years ago.... and we are consuming more TV and More BBC TV.
    see downloads.bbc.co.uk/...

    Prof BArwise also points out at page 34 of this https://reutersinst...

    With 26 million UK households, this works out at an annual cost of £452 per household per annum averaged across the whole population. 22.8% of this – equivalent to £103 per household per annum, just under £2 per household per week – was for BBC TV content funded by the licence fee.

    TV etc is only 13.5p an hour - internet is around 50p and even "The Sun" is 34p/ reader hour.

    As the LF goes to the government many have called it a tax ... so are the government suggesting that evading one type of Tax is criminal and another one is not ???

    This needs to be held over until nearer Charter renewal ...
    after all the LF is very good Value for money -

    But the UK population at large needs to decide what they want from the BBC _ does it meet its Public purposes
    and how can it be funded to meet what the public requires...

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by Lee (U1149673) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    So they'd rather see vulnerable people going to prison...

    I think their response is wholly spurious...

    People don't refuse to pay the licence fee thru choice...

    This won't make an iota of difference to the amount that's collected...the BBC are scaremongering for some reason... 

    The BBC doesn't want anyone to go to prison, that's a frankly silly argument - but I've met people who defend shoplifters, fare dodgers and other 'minor' offenders using the same argument. They say people don't commit these offences through choice.

    I'm sure there are lots of different points of view in this area, but personally I don't think it makes a lot of sense to criticise businesses for legitimately trying to prevent a loss of their income on the grounds that those people have a legitimate reason and are therefore 'entitled' to commit the offence.

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by wolfie (U15842015) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    it is not possibility of prison that deters people from not paying the licence...its the possibility of a fine...

    the possibility of prison only comes into play when deciding whether to pay the fine or not...

    does the bbc not understand this...




    your argument is spurious as well.....its not compulsory to go shopping or to go on a train...

    people have that choice...


    with the tv licence there is no choice...

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by technologist (U1259929) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    with the tv licence there is no choice... 

    Which is a matter for the government who after all get all the money (less collection costs) as well as setting the laws which have since 1922 for radio and 1946 for television been the way that the BBC was notionally funded.

    So it is up to parliament to decide,,...

    It is not a matter for the BBC ....
    Other than any change may impact their income ..
    And could be a way to reduce the BBC without democratic debate,,,,,

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by dayraven (U13717520) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    your argument is spurious as well.....its not compulsory to go shopping or to go on a train... 
    It's probably more compulsory to go shopping than it is to own a TV.

    Incidentally, here's something from the BBC about licence fee evasion:

    www.bbc.co.uk/presso...

    The bit about socioeconomic groups is interesting -- while that doesn't correlate entirely with ability to pay, and it does tilt noticeably towards the DEs, it's still fairly spread.

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by wolfie (U15842015) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    yes...up to parliament to decide...its not up to the bbc to stick their oar in..

    could not believe the debate on r5 last night with the presenter unbelievably sticking up for the bbc as he did and criticising the politician for even daring to suggest it...


    just because he works for the bbc doesn't mean he has to stick up for them so vehemently as he did...

    even a caller came on later to mention this...

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by Lee (U1149673) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    it is not possibility of prison that deters people from not paying the licence...its the possibility of a fine...

    the possibility of prison only comes into play when deciding whether to pay the fine or not...

    does the bbc not understand this...  

    Yes, the BBC understands this. It was YOU who introduced the suggestion that people go to prison for not having a TV licence.

    your argument is spurious as well.....its not compulsory to go shopping or to go on a train...

    people have that choice...


    with the tv licence there is no choice...  

    There is absolutely no logic or common sense in anything you've said here.

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by moaningminnie54 (U14285226) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    If true this is very good news. Never mind what ulterior motives are behind it. I'ts common sense.

    Why even Margaret Thatcher herself once expressed her belief that it should not be a criminnal offence.

    One of the nicest things what she ever said smiley - laugh

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by puppydogeyes (U14659366) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    So they'd rather see vulnerable people going to prison...

    People don't refuse to pay the licence fee thru choice...

    .. 


    What I suppose in the same way that people dont -pay car insurance,income tax and shop lift etc-some do if they think they can get away with it-and in the meantime the rest of us subsidise them.

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by moaningminnie54 (U14285226) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    mmmm thedogcody, I cannot see that not paying for a tv license puts one in the same bracket as shoplifters ( you have to be pretty brass necked and possibly brung up on it ) ..income tax evaders: the majority of it still being stopped at source, and car insurance well yes that is detrimental to victims in the event of an accident,
    but the TV license well no one was ever charged with being drunk in charge of a remote control or recklesslessly watching back to back episodes of House Of Fools or worse a Coronation Street Omnibus.

    I'm not saying it's a "victimless" crime just not as deliberate as the others.

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by lluncoolj (U7676659) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    Of course some people will avoid paying the TV license if they think they can get away with it, the system's not watertight like scrambled-signal subscription viewing is. The strange thing is that, by broadcasting in the clear, the Beeb don't seem to mind viewers in the Irish Republic and on the continent watching for sweet FA. Not to mention their obsession with iPlayer which is available to all and sundry with a broadband connection.

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by Juvia says goodbye (U15993513) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    The strange thing is that, by broadcasting in the clear, the Beeb don't seem to mind viewers in the Irish Republic and on the continent watching for sweet FA. Not to mention their obsession with iPlayer which is available to all and sundry with a broadband connection.  On the first point, I don't think that there is much that they can do about it. On the second. It does seem that Lord Hall is discussing it: www.bbc.co.uk/news/e...

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by dayraven (U13717520) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    The strange thing is that, by broadcasting in the clear, the Beeb don't seem to mind viewers in the Irish Republic and on the continent watching for sweet FA. 
    One of the ways to do that (on satellite) just got locked down.
    Not to mention their obsession with iPlayer which is available to all and sundry with a broadband connection. 
    With 97% of households having a TV, there's a ceiling on how many people could be avoiding the licence fee that way (and not everyone without a TV will be, of course). And it's supposed to be locked to people outside the UK, though in turn there are known methods for avoiding that.

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by Myles4291 (U14634500) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    it is not possibility of prison that deters people from not paying the licence...its the possibility of a fine...

    the possibility of prison only comes into play when deciding whether to pay the fine or not...

    does the bbc not understand this...




    your argument is spurious as well.....its not compulsory to go shopping or to go on a train...

    people have that choice...


    with the tv licence there is no choice... 
    ...and what choice do we have over funding the ad-channels? Who funds the ad-channels regardless? You can't have one argument without the other.

    The only people anti the Beeb are those with a commercial interest, those who want to force through their ideology (them tories) and the 'I don't want it / I don't like it why should I contribute to it' brigade.

    The BBC is one of our finest institutions. The only way to fund it is via an increased licence fee. It is the only way to guarantee it's excellent programming. Any alternative will be a massive negative for all of us, our country, it's democracy, it's creative industries and have more broadly, a negative impact on the current commercial sector.

    The licence fee means more (and quality) for less. The licence fee actually keeps the cost of television down whilst at the same time, forcing a race to the top.

    I am afraid I have next to no time for free-loaders / the 'wanting something for nothing' brigade. If people can't / won't (the latter is more likely) pay their bills, they face the consequences. Simple as...

    No ads on the Beeb. No BBC subscription. No funding via general taxation.

    The licence fee...providing quality UK programming at an affordable price for all.

    Don't worry BBC...I and many more people loves ya!

    By the way people, sign the 'Save BBC3' petition. This decision MUST be reversed.

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by Myles4291 (U14634500) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    yes...up to parliament to decide...its not up to the bbc to stick their oar in..

    could not believe the debate on r5 last night with the presenter unbelievably sticking up for the bbc as he did and criticising the politician for even daring to suggest it...


    just because he works for the bbc doesn't mean he has to stick up for them so vehemently as he did...

    even a caller came on later to mention this... 
    You clearly don't watch much BBC do you. What impresses me hugely is that the BBC will never shy away from dealing with and discussing in a fair and balanced way issues which affect them or issues which have involved them. You won't see that on the private sector...cough...Murdoch...cough...

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by technologist (U1259929) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    While there is some overspill which means that those near to the uk can recive its uk transmissions ... All of those viewing by cable outside the uk pay BBC worldwide .... Quite a goodly amount, .

    Whether non live iPlayer viewing is requires a LF is a matter for the government, and that the BBC has iPlayer at all is due to the BBC trust .... And they put some very strict restriction on it to prevent the BBC abusing its position.

    But they also laid out the BBC public purposes and iPlayer is obviously within the sixth ...

    But the BBC successfully lobbied the government to legislate to include live iPlayer viewing ,,, just as they did to add funding for TV in 1946 , colour tv in the late sixty. And not to have enhanced licenses for digital or HD .

    I suggest you look at the costs of subscription services ... Just what one broadcaster requires is roughly 8% subscription just to transmit and do the techy bits... Some one would still need to collect it.... And the credit card co wil take a few % ....... And the whole lot has20% VAT...

    So is this good use of money for a public service... Which currently uses 3.4% to collect the LF ...

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Tafkaj (U3674656) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    Non-payment of the licence fee MUST remain a criminal offence ...

    I mean, how else will the BBC afford such delights as the £100m digital farce or £multi-million payouts to its executives?

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 24.

    Posted by Myles4291 (U14634500) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    Non-payment of the licence fee MUST remain a criminal offence ...

    I mean, how else will the BBC afford such delights as the £100m digital farce or £multi-million payouts to its executives? 
    Seriously?

    Look, the licence fee provides outstanding programming at just 40p a day per household. A bargain.

    Allow me to draw peoples' attention to the following points...

    1. The licence fee guarantees the BBC's COMMERCIAL and POLITICAL independence. Vital and essential for any democracy and it's creative industries.

    2. Suppose the BBC took ads (please God don't let it happen)...a) what would be the likely impact on programming b) what would be the likely impact on the rest of the commercial (Tv / Radio) sector?

    3. Suppose the BBC went sub (please God don't let that happen)... a) what would be the likely impact on programming? b) what would be the likely impact on the rest of the industry c) what would happen to the cost of television?

    4. Suppose the BBC was funded via general taxation (i.e. run by the government of the day) ...seriously? People who complain about alleged bias at the Beeb now wouldn't know what had hit them. Russia Today anyone?

    The 'moaners n bashes' have no idea what they are talking about. They clearly have no understanding what public service is and/or don't value public service.

    Perhaps the real agenda of the 'moaners n bashes' is this...put the Beeb in the hands of right-wingers so that all the media is in the hands of right-wingers. Could I be onto something? I possibly could.

    The licence fee:
    - independence from political and commercial influences.
    - non-commercial programming and minority interests served (hence the need to save BBC3)
    - quality programming available to all at the point of use.
    - keeps the cost of television down.
    - allows non-commercial programming / general programming to be broadcast FREE FROM ADS, FREE FROM COMPETITIONS AND FREE FROM SPONSORSHIP BREAKBUMPERS...which is more than enough justification in itself to keep an increased licence fee.

    To those who believe the ad-channels are free...wrong again. All of us pay for the ad-channels whether we watch them or not through the products and services we buy. Fair or unfair?

    *FUND THE BBC VIA AN INCREASED LICENCE FEE*
    *#SAVE BBC3*

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by Joe Black (U10382673) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    yes...up to parliament to decide...its not up to the bbc to stick their oar in..

    could not believe the debate on r5 last night with the presenter unbelievably sticking up for the bbc as he did and criticising the politician for even daring to suggest it...


    just because he works for the bbc doesn't mean he has to stick up for them so vehemently as he did...

    even a caller came on later to mention this... 
    You clearly don't watch much BBC do you. What impresses me hugely is that the BBC will never shy away from dealing with and discussing in a fair and balanced way issues which affect them or issues which have involved them. You won't see that on the private sector...cough...Murdoch...cough... 
    When "Watchdog" make a program that shows up Capita door to door salesmen, carrying out their Harrasment on behalf of the BBC, & creating thousands of "Criminals" a year - I will agree with you about the BBC "Not shying away"...until then - All tosh smiley - winkeye

    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 26.

    Posted by puppydogeyes (U14659366) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    yes...up to parliament to decide...its not up to the bbc to stick their oar in..

    could not believe the debate on r5 last night with the presenter unbelievably sticking up for the bbc as he did and criticising the politician for even daring to suggest it...


    just because he works for the bbc doesn't mean he has to stick up for them so vehemently as he did...

    even a caller came on later to mention this... 
    You clearly don't watch much BBC do you. What impresses me hugely is that the BBC will never shy away from dealing with and discussing in a fair and balanced way issues which affect them or issues which have involved them. You won't see that on the private sector...cough...Murdoch...cough... 
    When "Watchdog" make a program that shows up Capita door to door salesmen, carrying out their Harrasment on behalf of the BBC, & creating thousands of "Criminals" a year - I will agree with you about the BBC "Not shying away"...until then - All tosh smiley - winkeye 


    They dont do that Cyril-as you well know -they are just popping round for coffee and biscuits.

    Report message27

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by Joe Black (U10382673) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    I didn't realise it was one in ten cases brought before the criminal courts relate to watching the tv without a licence. That's ridiculous, I wonder how much that is costing us all in clogged up courts and legal costs. I wonder also how many end in a successful prosecution? From the BBC's perspective at least a civil action has a lower burden of proof.

    I am no expert on these things but I don't understand why the BBC cannot secure its broadcasts and has to resort to harassing non-tv watchers and peering through net curtains.

    I can't get Sky without subscribing and as far as I am concerned, I pay a licence fee because I am subscribing to receive live tv broadcasts. 
    As it is actually one in 9 cases, it is even worse - & if that is the case, the evasion figure must be FAR more than Capita claim at 5% ish - are the books being cooked to make it seem that Capita are doing a good job - when actually, they are not?
    We will see......

    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 27.

    Posted by Joe Black (U10382673) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    yes...up to parliament to decide...its not up to the bbc to stick their oar in..

    could not believe the debate on r5 last night with the presenter unbelievably sticking up for the bbc as he did and criticising the politician for even daring to suggest it...


    just because he works for the bbc doesn't mean he has to stick up for them so vehemently as he did...

    even a caller came on later to mention this... 
    You clearly don't watch much BBC do you. What impresses me hugely is that the BBC will never shy away from dealing with and discussing in a fair and balanced way issues which affect them or issues which have involved them. You won't see that on the private sector...cough...Murdoch...cough... 
    When "Watchdog" make a program that shows up Capita door to door salesmen, carrying out their Harrasment on behalf of the BBC, & creating thousands of "Criminals" a year - I will agree with you about the BBC "Not shying away"...until then - All tosh smiley - winkeye 


    They dont do that Cyril-as you well know -they are just popping round for coffee and biscuits. 
    smiley - winkeye "yes & while we are eating you out of house & home, just sign this innocent form TVL 178, it is just to say we've been - really"smiley - winkeye

    Report message29

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 29.

    Posted by Suki (U4915486) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    About time this happened. Been hassling my Uncle for years, they have never understood that not all want to watch tv. Been complaining for years how he has been bullied by the inspectors. He is very vulnerable but the bullies continue to make his life hell.

    Report message30

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 26.

    Posted by Myles4291 (U14634500) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    yes...up to parliament to decide...its not up to the bbc to stick their oar in..

    could not believe the debate on r5 last night with the presenter unbelievably sticking up for the bbc as he did and criticising the politician for even daring to suggest it...


    just because he works for the bbc doesn't mean he has to stick up for them so vehemently as he did...

    even a caller came on later to mention this... 
    You clearly don't watch much BBC do you. What impresses me hugely is that the BBC will never shy away from dealing with and discussing in a fair and balanced way issues which affect them or issues which have involved them. You won't see that on the private sector...cough...Murdoch...cough... 
    When "Watchdog" make a program that shows up Capita door to door salesmen, carrying out their Harrasment on behalf of the BBC, & creating thousands of "Criminals" a year - I will agree with you about the BBC "Not shying away"...until then - All tosh smiley - winkeye 
    No response again to the valid points I make up thread? Why? Because you know as well as I do that the answers completely blow any 'argument' (and I use that term loosely) that you have against the licence fee, clean out of the water. Nothing constructive left to contribute?

    No BBC Subscription. NO Ads on Auntie. Remove the ads from the ad-channels!

    Save the BBC. Save BBC3.

    Report message31

  • Message 32

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by TomcatRed (U8418886) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    your argument is spurious as well.....its not compulsory to go shopping or to go on a train...

    people have that choice...


    with the tv licence there is no choice... 
    I can't make my mind up if you are winding us up or you just have an extraordinary grip on reality wolfie.

    Nobody is forced to watch TV but somebody in every household has to go shopping, or not eat, and many people can't drive and work a long way from where they live so have little choice but to get a train to work.

    Report message32

  • Message 33

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by TomcatRed (U8418886) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    People don't refuse to pay the licence fee thru choice...  Of course they do, if you are suggesting that they don't pay because they can't afford to pay then they shouldn't own, and watch, a television.

    We all make "choices" in life and choosing how to spend the money you have at your disposal is one of the most important.

    Report message33

  • Message 34

    , in reply to message 33.

    Posted by Myles4291 (U14634500) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    People don't refuse to pay the licence fee thru choice...  Of course they do, if you are suggesting that they don't pay because they can't afford to pay then they shouldn't own, and watch, a television.

    We all make "choices" in life and choosing how to spend the money you have at your disposal is one of the most important. 
    Absolutely right Tom. Well said. People expect a free lunch don't they. Well there is no such thing as a free lunch. If people are watching television and they aren't paying for the privilege, they deserve all that they get. It is right that all evaders / avoiders are checked up on regularly and unannounced. Why should you and I pay for those who aren't?

    Report message34

  • Message 35

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by SAB888 (U14777346) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    People don't refuse to pay the licence fee thru choice...  Of course they do. Just like I made the choice to pay for my TV licence. It most definitely is about choice.

    Report message35

  • Message 36

    , in reply to message 33.

    Posted by DaphneMS (U16022021) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    People don't refuse to pay the licence fee thru choice...  Of course they do, if you are suggesting that they don't pay because they can't afford to pay then they shouldn't own, and watch, a television....  Except, you don't need a TV licence to own, or watch, a television.

    'TV Licence' is a rather misleading label these days - you need a licence to watch live broadcasts on any device, not just a telly.

    And you don't need a licence for a television if you don't watch live broadcasts on it.

    Report message36

  • Message 37

    , in reply to message 35.

    Posted by moaningminnie54 (U14285226) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    there are not that many "choices" you can make when you're living at subsistance level.

    Report message37

  • Message 38

    , in reply to message 36.

    Posted by TomcatRed (U8418886) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    And you don't need a licence for a television if you don't watch live broadcasts on it.  If it is "capable of" receiving live broadcasts then you need a licence for it (as it is impossible for you to prove that you don't use it that way).

    Report message38

  • Message 39

    , in reply to message 34.

    Posted by DaphneMS (U16022021) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    ...It is right that all evaders / avoiders are checked up on regularly and unannounced. ...  I wonder what the BBC's official guidance is on co-operating with Capita employees.

    Most BBC consumer programmes I've heard seem to stress that it's not a good idea to admit cold callers into your home.
    Capita representatives have no more authority than any other stranger knocking at your door - so why should the public treat them any differently?

    Report message39

  • Message 40

    , in reply to message 38.

    Posted by DaphneMS (U16022021) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    And you don't need a licence for a television if you don't watch live broadcasts on it.  If it is "capable of" receiving live broadcasts then you need a licence for it (as it is impossible for you to prove that you don't use it that way). 
    No, I think that's incorrect.

    The TV Licencing web page says:
    "You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder."

    The onus is on them to prove that live TV has actually been watched or recorded - regardless of whether a particular device is capable of doing so.

    The Capita people like to check peoples' tellies to ensure they don't see any live TV at all when they turn them on, as that would need a licence (which is why aerials and STBs should be disconnected at unlicenced premisies, just to be on the safe side). Then you can use the TV to watch DVDs without the risk of accidentally glimpsing a live broadcast.

    Capita don't check PCs or other devices.

    Report message40

  • Message 41

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by Permtong (U15934379) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    So they'd rather see vulnerable people going to prison...

    I think their response is wholly spurious...

    People don't refuse to pay the licence fee thru choice...

    This won't make an iota of difference to the amount that's collected...the BBC are scaremongering for some reason... 

    The BBC doesn't want anyone to go to prison, that's a frankly silly argument - but I've met people who defend shoplifters, fare dodgers and other 'minor' offenders using the same argument. They say people don't commit these offences through choice.

    I'm sure there are lots of different points of view in this area, but personally I don't think it makes a lot of sense to criticise businesses for legitimately trying to prevent a loss of their income on the grounds that those people have a legitimate reason and are therefore 'entitled' to commit the offence. 
    Not that rigorous I fear.

    The BBC, using the charade of the wireless telegraphy act as amended etc etc., employs a private company to run people through the courts and see they are banged up if they can't pay, even when they never watch the BBC.

    'Dodging your fare' on the train when you are in fact using the bus would be a closer analogy.

    The BBC is a government department not a business. It was nationalised in the 1920s and that has never changed. All the BBC Trust are picked by ministers and the Chairman is a personal friend of the prime minister.

    Forcing people to pay a government inspired tax before they have access to the most powerful news and information medium isn't democratic.

    The BBC has the capacity to do some good things and at £145 a year could be good value; and illustrates just how inefficient the others are; however radical overhaul is required to stop the rotten edifice collapsing completely as scandal after scandal unfolds.

    Incidentally I don't have a licence due to the IPlayer loophole out of choice as it happens. I am sick of the noise pollution applied to programmes which makes them unwatchable and am now down to the odd episode of Dads Army and usually less than half of Newsnight due to the sporadic eruption of silly gimmicks on that.

    Report message41

  • Message 42

    , in reply to message 40.

    Posted by TomcatRed (U8418886) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    The onus is on them to prove that live TV has actually been watched or recorded - regardless of whether a particular device is capable of doing so.  That is not my understanding of how it works and I can't imagine how they COULD "prove" that you had done so.

    Report message42

  • Message 43

    , in reply to message 39.

    Posted by Myles4291 (U14634500) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    ...It is right that all evaders / avoiders are checked up on regularly and unannounced. ...  I wonder what the BBC's official guidance is on co-operating with Capita employees.

    Most BBC consumer programmes I've heard seem to stress that it's not a good idea to admit cold callers into your home.
    Capita representatives have no more authority than any other stranger knocking at your door - so why should the public treat them any differently? 
    Listen, if the object is to check whether people are watching television without a licence, they should have the right to check...and that means entering your home. If you are paying your way, what is the problem? As far as I can understand, the only people who protest are the ones who have something to hide!

    Report message43

  • Message 44

    , in reply to message 42.

    Posted by moaningminnie54 (U14285226) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    The onus is on them to prove that live TV has actually been watched or recorded - regardless of whether a particular device is capable of doing so.  That is not my understanding of how it works and I can't imagine how they COULD "prove" that you had done so.  With a Television detector van of course smiley - doh

    Report message44

  • Message 45

    , in reply to message 44.

    Posted by TomcatRed (U8418886) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    The onus is on them to prove that live TV has actually been watched or recorded - regardless of whether a particular device is capable of doing so.  That is not my understanding of how it works and I can't imagine how they COULD "prove" that you had done so.  With a Television detector van of course smiley - doh  smiley - laugh they are a myth.

    Report message45

  • Message 46

    , in reply to message 45.

    Posted by moaningminnie54 (U14285226) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    smiley - laugh smiley - laugh I know they are TCR I know

    Report message46

  • Message 47

    , in reply to message 43.

    Posted by puppydogeyes (U14659366) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    ...It is right that all evaders / avoiders are checked up on regularly and unannounced. ...  I wonder what the BBC's official guidance is on co-operating with Capita employees.

    Most BBC consumer programmes I've heard seem to stress that it's not a good idea to admit cold callers into your home.
    Capita representatives have no more authority than any other stranger knocking at your door - so why should the public treat them any differently? 
    Listen, if the object is to check whether people are watching television without a licence, they should have the right to check...and that means entering your home. If you are paying your way, what is the problem? As far as I can understand, the only people who protest are the ones who have something to hide! 
    So why did they enter you home Myles??

    Report message47

  • Message 48

    , in reply to message 43.

    Posted by DaphneMS (U16022021) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    ...It is right that all evaders / avoiders are checked up on regularly and unannounced. ...  I wonder what the BBC's official guidance is on co-operating with Capita employees.

    Most BBC consumer programmes I've heard seem to stress that it's not a good idea to admit cold callers into your home.
    Capita representatives have no more authority than any other stranger knocking at your door - so why should the public treat them any differently? 
    Listen, if the object is to check whether people are watching television without a licence, they should have the right to check...and that means entering your home. If you are paying your way, what is the problem? As far as I can understand, the only people who protest are the ones who have something to hide! 


    I didn't renew TV Licence last year - so I am now legally licence free (my set top box is permanently disconnected smiley - smiley ).

    I haven't had a visit from Capita; but I can see no benefit to me in co-operating with them. They will continue to assume I'm guilty whatever assurances I give them. Co-operating won't stop them coming back. There have been muddles when they've filled in their forms incorrectly. From watching videos of their visits it seems a fair few of them don't understand the law. They have a financial incentive to find 'evaders' and sell licences.

    It's just too risky to get involved with them, when it's easier and less hassle to just ignore their letters, and ask them politely to go away if they call.
    The public is under no legal obligation to respond to TV Licencing letters, or allow their represenatives into their homes.

    Report message48

  • Message 49

    , in reply to message 42.

    Posted by Permtong (U15934379) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    The onus is on them to prove that live TV has actually been watched or recorded - regardless of whether a particular device is capable of doing so.  That is not my understanding of how it works and I can't imagine how they COULD "prove" that you had done so.  They have to catch you at it. In the old days the TV re-transmitted a spurious signal from its local oscillator back up the aerial which could be picked up. Allegedly they could tell which channel you were watching, even if they couldn't do a peeping tom act throught the curtains.

    Presumably the BBC has the capaciity to collect IP addresses and usage, but as the law stands I don't think they are allowed to use the data. There would also be a wifi get out of jail card at the present time. Come the next fictitious 'war on terror' the government will clamp down on internet freedom and they will probably get the right to mine the information along with everyone else who you don't want to have it.

    It would be so much easier to charge on a pay as you go basis but the BBC has every reason under the sun in its own mind for not doing that. Any porn site or internet telephone can do it - but not the BBC. They are too scared to stand on their own feet I fear.

    Why on earth anyone would bother to watch as stuff is broadcast when the option to watch at a time of one's own choosing is available, is quite beyond me.

    Report message49

  • Message 50

    , in reply to message 49.

    Posted by TomcatRed (U8418886) on Saturday, 8th March 2014

    Why on earth anyone would bother to watch as stuff is broadcast when the option to watch at a time of one's own choosing is available, is quite beyond me.  So that you are "up to the minute" I would imagine, you could read yesterdays newspaper if you wanted to but who does.

    Report message50

Back to top

About this Board

The Points of View team invite you to discuss BBC Television programmes.

Add basic Smileys or extra Smileys to your posts.

Questions? Check the BBC FAQ for answers first!

Go to: BBC News Have your say to discuss topics in the news

Make a complaint? Go to the BBC complaints website.

BBC News: Off-topic for this board, so contact them directly with your feedback: Contact BBC News

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.


Mon-Sat: 0900-2300
Sun: 1000-2300

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Recent Discussions

Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.