Are you happy to pay for a tv licence?

[seagull_in_malaysia]

No they don't. Unless you get a different version in Malaysia??

No I'm in the UK. Whenever I watch it they've got ads for other shows in between programmes.

 

[beorhthelm]

Watch the second video my friend, and see just how they are not backed by legislation.

yet you've acknowledged in a couple of posts its law, and even used "prosecuted" in this one. you cant be prosecuted for something that isnt against the law. fact is, the law states you must have a licence for a TV, then theres a bunch of technical and legal details to qualify the meaning of that. it use to be a safe assumption that you could only use a TV to watch TV, it changed a couple of times to accomodate advances yet its already out of date. the only reason there are agents of the state pestering you about it is because theres a law for them to enforce. you seem to have issue with the method of enforcement, but saying the only way they can enforce it is "if you admit to using it, or they catch you", could apply to everything from speeding to armed robbery or worse.

I dont know why you are geting narky about it, as i agree that it shouldnt be this way if one doesnt want to watch BBC, and the whole enfocement thing is a farce. i actually started by saying i dont like it and it needs to change.


as for myths you say... from the most recent, The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004:

Meaning of “television receiver”

9. (1) In Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV reception), “television receiver” means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose.

(2) In this regulation, any reference to receiving a television programme service includes a reference to receiving by any means any programme included in that service, where that programme is received at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by members of the public by virtue of its being broadcast or distributed as part of that service.

have the arguement in a court.

 

[DNB_Seagull]

Yes, but they could cut the channels and radio stations down a bit to keep the costs down.

Just cut the shit that sky and freeview do. Don't cut the documentaries!

 

[Nitram]

Well worth the fee - just as long as there are no ads

*** awaits one of the conspiracy crew posting some claptrap ***

No ads? They are always promoting their own programmes, especially rubbish like Eastenders.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

No ads? They are always promoting their own programmes, especially rubbish like Eastenders.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Promoting your own programmes is not the same as taking your funding from advertisers who may have a political agenda, and may want to influence programming.

 

[fataddick]

Don't pay for a TV licence. Don't own a TV. Don't watch TV. Genuinely don't understand why anyone would. I guess some people must have sad empty lives, but I'm glad to say I don't know any other TV owners personally either. Didn't think Brighton was the sort of place where anyone would need a TV. Enough things to do here without having to resort to rubbish like that. OK, if you live in Worthing or somewhere, maybe you need a TV to keep yourself from dying of boredom, but anyone in Brighton who owns a TV wants to get their head tested. TV watching is like smoking, taking heroin or addictively playing fruit machines - I understand there are plenty of people out there who do it, but I can't imagine any of them really want to, and I think they should be more help on offer to get them to stop.

 

[looney]

No TV so no license.

3 reasons.

1 Does not provide anything I cant get elsewhere. On the rare occaision i have downloaded from iplayer but that i can do without

2. Its news and political coverage is so left wing its beyond a joke. I'm not paying for a media version of the grauniad newspaper.

3. Its not a license its a Tax, one that is regressive and arbitary.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Don't pay for a TV licence. Don't own a TV. Don't watch TV. Genuinely don't understand why anyone would. I guess some people must have sad empty lives, but I'm glad to say I don't know any other TV owners personally either. Didn't think Brighton was the sort of place where anyone would need a TV. Enough things to do here without having to resort to rubbish like that. OK, if you live in Worthing or somewhere, maybe you need a TV to keep yourself from dying of boredom, but anyone in Brighton who owns a TV wants to get their head tested. TV watching is like smoking, taking heroin or addictively playing fruit machines - I understand there are plenty of people out there who do it, but I can't imagine any of them really want to, and I think they should be more help on offer to get them to stop.

Rubbish.

There are many fantastic drama programmes, sports programmes, documentaries, current affairs programmes etc. that stimulate, educate and elucidate. What other media would you write off? Cinema? Theatre? Reading books?

Some people see not owning a TV as a badge of honour - "Look at me, I'm avant garde, I'm not one of the herd, I'm better than you." Really, it's about how you use your TV. And the BBC provides many opportunities to use it positively.

 

[Nitram]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Promoting your own programmes is not the same as taking your funding from advertisers who may have a political agenda, and may want to influence programming.

Different argument but out of interest what conspiracies are you alluding to?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Different argument but out of interest what conspiracies are you alluding to?

Oh dear God.

I am not alluding to any conspiracies. I am suggesting that if a company did not agree with the political slant of a particular programme they may choose not to have their advert on during it.

If programme makers have to rely on advertising revenue, this must affect editorial control in the long run, as if the advertisers won't pay, the programme won't get made.

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

So what you are saying is that people should lie about watching live TV and or BBC broadcasts? But I am aware of this a loophole.

The lying debate deserves a seperate thread tbh.

Ever heard of the TV detector van? If one side can lie, why shouldn't the other.

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

yfact is, the law states you must have a licence for a TV, then theres a bunch of technical and legal details to qualify the meaning of that.

NO IS SIMPLY DOES NOT! THAT IS NOT A FACT! For christ sake, give it up and admit you are wrong,. enough people on here have told you!! You do not need a TV License to own a ****ing TV. Please, before repeating yourself over and over again, and stating facts, which are no such thing, go and read up on it.

You DO NEED a TV license for watching or recording TV programmes from any channel, as they are begining broadcasted.

YOU DO NOT NEED ONE for watching BBC programmes an hour or two later on iplayer or any other internet based catch up TV or owning a TV

YOU DO NOT NEED A LICENSE for owning a VCR or TV

YOU DO NOT NEED A LICENSE for playing computer games or owning a TV

FFS This is from TV Licensing own site

QUOTE You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast

Its hidden away but if you search you will find

If you use the BBC iPlayer to watch TV programmes at the same time as they are being shown on TV (live) then you will need to be covered by a valid TV Licence. You can buy a TV Licence online.
If you use the BBC iPlayer to watch BBC programmes after they have been broadcast either to download or via streaming on demand then you will not need a TV Licence.

That's from the thieving *******s own site

Please accept it once and for all, you do not need a TV livence own to bloody television set!

LOOK AT IT http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ103

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

Don't pay for a TV licence. Don't own a TV. Don't watch TV. Genuinely don't understand why anyone would. I guess some people must have sad empty lives, but I'm glad to say I don't know any other TV owners personally either. Didn't think Brighton was the sort of place where anyone would need a TV. Enough things to do here without having to resort to rubbish like that. OK, if you live in Worthing or somewhere, maybe you need a TV to keep yourself from dying of boredom, but anyone in Brighton who owns a TV wants to get their head tested. TV watching is like smoking, taking heroin or addictively playing fruit machines - I understand there are plenty of people out there who do it, but I can't imagine any of them really want to, and I think they should be more help on offer to get them to stop.

Not everyone can afford to entertain themselves in Brighton every single night. Be a bit of a **** trying to watch all the World Cup games in Brazil without one wouldn't it! Note to poster. Remove head from own arse!

 

[symyjym]

Ever heard of the TV detector van? If one side can lie, why shouldn't the other.

I think you find that the TV detector van was in response to people lying about not having a TV. All it did was make people conscious of it, and bearing in mind that was in the days when we only had BBC1, BBC2, BBC Radio and ITV.

I have more of a problem with lining Sky Murdoch's pockets, at least the BBC is ours and has to answer to us.

 

[Nitram]

Oh dear God.

I am not alluding to any conspiracies. I am suggesting that if a company did not agree with the political slant of a particular programme they may choose not to have their advert on during it.

If programme makers have to rely on advertising revenue, this must affect editorial control in the long run, as if the advertisers won't pay, the programme won't get made.

Channel four, sky and ITV seem to make plenty of programmes without these worries as do many minority programme makers, it's a poor argument you are making with lots of assumptions that dont get borne out in reality. Plenty of sponsors will support different views.

 

[Justice]

Don't pay for a TV licence. Don't own a TV. Don't watch TV. Genuinely don't understand why anyone would. I guess some people must have sad empty lives, but I'm glad to say I don't know any other TV owners personally either. Didn't think Brighton was the sort of place where anyone would need a TV. Enough things to do here without having to resort to rubbish like that. OK, if you live in Worthing or somewhere, maybe you need a TV to keep yourself from dying of boredom, but anyone in Brighton who owns a TV wants to get their head tested. TV watching is like smoking, taking heroin or addictively playing fruit machines - I understand there are plenty of people out there who do it, but I can't imagine any of them really want to, and I think they should be more help on offer to get them to stop.

You made a choice not to own a tv big ****ing wow. Im pretty sure if my tv stopped working tonight Im not going to need a course of methadone to see me through the week.

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

I think you find that the TV detector van was in response to people lying about not having a TV. All it did was make people conscious of it, and bearing in mind that was in the days when we only had BBC1, BBC2, BBC Radio and ITV.

I have more of a problem with lining Sky Murdoch's pockets, at least the BBC is ours and has to answer to us.

Was it? So we lied, they lied, we lied etc etc. Bottom line is the TV detector van, done no such thing. It was just an empty van. In my eyes, trying to trick people into believing something it was not. Much like their claims that some still believe, when their debit agents misinform people they need a license to own a TV. Around the time of the TV detector van scam, I like many believed you needed a license to own a TV whether you used it for not. Sooner the TV license it abolished the better IMO, although in my case, it won't make a lot of difference.

 

[Triggaaar]

interesting of the three programmes I listed you selected what is quite clearly the cheapest to make!

I selected Pointless precisely because it is cheap to make. I think the BBC could make less programs and save some money, but I wouldn't suggest they cut a popular program that is so cheap to make.

Perhaps you could actually answer my first response and let us know what exactly it is you believe the BBC do best.

What? You didn't ask me what I think the BBC do best, so I'm not sure why you're being like that.

In all likelihood I will probably agree with you but I still believe that they have to cater for all tastes.

I agree that they have to cater for all tastes, and particularly minority tastes that aren't so well covered by other channels.

 

[beorhthelm]

Please accept it once and for all, you do not need a TV livence own to bloody television set!

what an odd rant, you seem to be arguing against a bunch of things i never said, while ignoring a quote from the legislation that backs the bit i did say.

oh, and despite what it may do to your blood pressure, how do you know there were only empty vans? it's quite possible to detect if you had a TV, you can detect the radiation given off by the CRT. no good on LCD and plasmas of course. technically one could also detect signal loss by way of a "shadow" behind a live aerial, but you'd need to be at roof level for that to work. for all the claims they did or didnt have real detector vans, either way, they had the means and the motivation.

 

[symyjym]

Was it? So we lied, they lied, we lied etc etc. Bottom line is the TV detector van, done no such thing. It was just an empty van. In my eyes, trying to trick people into believing something it was not.

No different to putting a sticker on your car or sign on your property saying it is alarmed when it is not, or putting up fake surveillance cameras as a deterrent, or farmers putting up scarecrows to scare the birds and protect their crops for that matter.

If they had the technology to make a detector van work they would have done, but the next best thing was to make people believe it did. Clever really, but it never cheated anyone, just encouraged payment for a service we all used.