Are you happy to pay for a tv licence?

[Goldstone1976]

i see the phrasing of my point early that taken this off on hair splitting, and sorry for that. but put it this way, you will have to provide your name and address to buy a TV for that purpose and if the TV licence people come round you have to show you arent using it for watching broadcasts. that the problem with the current mandatory licence, it is assumed you will be using TV for the primary, common purpose.

Yes, I agree with that point. Unlike most offences in the UK, where you are presumed innocent of an offence unless and until proven guilty, with TV licences there is a presumption of guilt, which does make me uncomfortable. It is certainly true that the vast majority of people who own a TV will need a licence, and it is presumably this fact that is the motivation behind the authorities coming to your house to check that you're not breaking the law. There are few situations which have such a clear presumption of guilt.

 

[GingerBeerMan]

i see the phrasing of my point early that taken this off on hair splitting, and sorry for that. but put it this way, you will have to provide your name and address to buy a TV for that purpose and if the TV licence people come round you have to show you arent using it for watching broadcasts. that the problem with the current mandatory licence, it is assumed you will be using TV for the primary, common purpose.

(and im sure that if you read the original legislation, rather than the guidance of how it is applied, you do need a licence for that TV if is capable of receiving broadcast. may have changed though)

Wrong again, you don't have to let them in. For someone talking with apparently authority on the subject you are spouting a lot of bullshit this morning.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

i see the phrasing of my point early that taken this off on hair splitting, and sorry for that. but put it this way, you will have to provide your name and address to buy a TV for that purpose and if the TV licence people come round you have to show you arent using it for watching broadcasts. that the problem with the current mandatory licence, it is assumed you will be using TV for the primary, common purpose.

(and im sure that if you read the original legislation, rather than the guidance of how it is applied, you do need a licence for that TV if is capable of receiving broadcast. may have changed though)

But strangely don't have to prove it - I've given false details before ( just to see if I could ). Shows what a pointless system it is.

 

[TheJasperCo]

I'm absolutely against it.

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

Never had a TV license, never will have one.

Been getting the same old recycled threatening letter for years, addressed to me at first, then the occupier. Even started sending them back, occupier not know at this address!

On the two occasions someone knocked on my door(after the first time when I was polite to them, and got aggression in return), they were promptly to told **** off, as will they be if they return.

The more people that take this stance, the sooner it will be abolished.

The license fee debt collectors, are liars, bullies, and frankly full of shit. The harass via visits and letters, all of which contains lies.

Bottom line is they need to catch you watching live TV to do anything. If you're TV is placed in a position that they cannot see it from the street, there is **** all they can do.

BBC don't help themselves, by placing everything on iplayer within hours.

You do not need a license to watch iplayer.

I mean, how many people would pay for seagulls player, if the club then uploaded everything to youtube one hour later??

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

i see the phrasing of my point early that taken this off on hair splitting, and sorry for that. but put it this way, you will have to provide your name and address to buy a TV for that purpose and if the TV licence people come round you have to show you arent using it for watching broadcasts. that the problem with the current mandatory licence, it is assumed you will be using TV for the primary, common purpose.

(and im sure that if you read the original legislation, rather than the guidance of how it is applied, you do need a licence for that TV if is capable of receiving broadcast. may have changed though)

You are simply wrong on this Mr Berohthelm. YOU DO NOT NEED A TV LICENSE if you own a TV. YOU DO NOT need to show a TV license when the debet collectors come around. They have no rights to access your property, and they have no power in law. They are just typical bully boy debit collectors on commission.

My reason for not paying for a TV license came from the way the "debit collectors" operate. When I saw their bully boy tactics first hand, I thought to myself, I fancy a bit of that, go for it boys, and after a number of years, all I get now is a monthly letter, addressed to the occupier, which resets every six months. The times I've been told a court case is due if I don't pay is laughable, because the next month you don't hear from them, and then the whole cycle of letter start again, with the court case threat about every 6 months!

 

[desprateseagull]

there are some great vids on youtube, giving the tvl bods grief..

 

[Notters]

You do not need a license to watch iplayer.

I mean, how many people would pay for seagulls player, if the club then uploaded everything to youtube one hour later??

Are you saying no one watches live TV? Hope they continue to harass you more and more.

 

[c0lz]

No I shouldn't have to pay one


If you subscribe to sky or virgin etc then it should be down to them to make it premium channel's , then giving you the choice to add or remove it.

 

[nwgull]

Never had a TV license, never will have one.

Been getting the same old recycled threatening letter for years, addressed to me at first, then the occupier. Even started sending them back, occupier not know at this address!

On the two occasions someone knocked on my door(after the first time when I was polite to them, and got aggression in return), they were promptly to told **** off, as will they be if they return.

The more people that take this stance, the sooner it will be abolished.

The license fee debt collectors, are liars, bullies, and frankly full of shit. The harass via visits and letters, all of which contains lies.

Bottom line is they need to catch you watching live TV to do anything. If you're TV is placed in a position that they cannot see it from the street, there is **** all they can do.

BBC don't help themselves, by placing everything on iplayer within hours.

You do not need a license to watch iplayer.

I mean, how many people would pay for seagulls player, if the club then uploaded everything to youtube one hour later??

I think I might take this attitude when paying my tax bill. Maybe they'll abolish that as well.

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

I love these videos. Second one with the police is class.

Mostly complete norses, but still funny. I find a good old fashioned **** off, does the trick just as well.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRQTkOk__48

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

Are you saying no one watches live TV? Hope they continue to harass you more and more.

No, what i am saying is why should you be forced to pay for a service I do not want, just to watch TV provided by other private companies.

TV license is out dated. It was fine when there was one channel, but it is no longer relevant IMO. So I refuse to pay it. Not been fined in court yet, and never will be, because there is nothing they can do.

If you are happy to pay to a company that harasses and lies to people, "TV Detector Vans" the classic example... don't exisit.... just empty vans, then that's your right. I choose not to.

 

[brakespear]

Absolutely happy to pay a TV license, you get a fantastic amount for the money. Imagine if there was just another ITV instead.

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

No I shouldn't have to pay one


If you subscribe to sky or virgin etc then it should be down to them to make it premium channel's , then giving you the choice to add or remove it.

But the problem is the "law" does not allow that. You still need to pay the BBC, even if you never use any of their services. If you watched nothing but Sky One for example, you still need a license if you watch it as it is broadcast.

Too me its no different to owning a mobile phone with say Vodafone, only for BT to bill you for using a phone, even though you use none of their services.

 

[happypig]

I've always had a license when I've had a TV and I think that the BBC is much better for being funded this way.
However, TV licensing enforcement is a joke; generally the people they catch are naive and unfortunate in that they just happen to be the ones opening the door. Anyone who is deliberately avoiding paying the license is likely to know one or more of the several cast-iron ways of not getting reported/prosecuted.

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

Absolutely happy to pay a TV license, you get a fantastic amount for the money. Imagine if there was just another ITV instead.

Fair play mate. If anyone is happy to pay it and gets a lot from it, then why not pay for it.

I'd pay for services I use and am more than happy to do so.

Just don't use the BBC, and need bullies to try and force me to pay for it, whilst lying and giving force information.

As I say, the videos above are quite amusing. The people filming are generally knobs in the way they conduct themselves, but they are correct!!

 

[nwgull]

It's not advert-free though is it. They play adverts in between shows on BBC1 etc, just not in the middle of them.

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

 

[beorhthelm]

You are simply wrong on this Mr Berohthelm. YOU DO NOT NEED A TV LICENSE if you own a TV. YOU DO NOT need to show a TV license when the debet collectors come around. They have no rights to access your property, and they have no power in law.

except when they obtain a warrant, backed by the legistalation that enforces the existance of the licence fee. never mind that people have been prosecuted and there a history of case law of all the excuses under the sun being rejected. just because they display some inept application of the enforcement process, doesnt mean that it isnt law.

 

[Justice]

If your happy to line the pockets of those shite actors on eastenders then pay it I guess.

 

[Paul Reids Sock]

To me, the cost isn't the issue. It's he principle that everyone with a television has to pay it. There are a lot of talentless (in my opinion obviously) people on there that do not deserve such high salaries just because the bbc has a guaranteed income.

I rarely watch anything in the BBC and have a sky subscription. I used to watch all the football highlights but now will usually watch it live on sky or online highlights.

I think less people would mind it if it was built into packages like sky, a bit like line rental. It will probably never happen.

I was having this same discussion with an American the other day who was saying she thought it was great and watched it all the time back home. It raised the question of if they have to pay - which they obviously don't. So why should my money go to funding an overseas channel? Very much devils advocate but you can see why some people will find reasons for it not to be there anymore.

Having said all that I work for a water company and face the 'why am I charged for an essential service and have no option to change' argument a fair bit so I am in no place to question!