Do you pay your TV license fee?

[WouldBe]

IIRC you need a license if you have equipment capable of receiving TV signals. Simply disabeling the aerial wouldn't count.

Theoretically if you only owned a Video but not a TV, to play tapes back on, you would still need a TV license.

 

[laptop]

I do not use the BBC's services, I do not pay for them.

1. Tory tendencies,
or
2. Possible employed-by-Sky status ...

Add:

and/or:
3. Fibbing about not using BBC services.

It is my experience that most people who claim "moral justification" for not paying turn out to be lying about not using BBC services. It only took me a couple of seconds to establish that JTG was fibbing.

If you want not to pay, get rid of the TV.

E2A: This has nothing whatsoever to do with, for example, a lone parent in a poverty trap who needs a TV to get some sanity respite from the kid and needs to feed it too. I have long advocated a sliding scale licence fee - including advocating it to people at a high level in the BBC. This is to do with fibbing.

 

[gentlegreen]

Worth every penny - 2 quid a week for the BBC, 22 quid for my cable package. I think I pay about a quid a week for Live365 radio.

Direct debits are the answer

(I'm old enough to have worried whether my home made crystal set was covered by my dad's radio license. (we didn't get a TV until 1969).

.

 

[mhendo]

I don't really watch much on the BBC, but don't object to the licence fee.

What I do object too is the BBC paying talenless fuckwits like Davina McCall £1m to present her chat show, which of course has been a total flop, and then unlike any other job where you would be fired if you were crap - the BBC says they are sticking by her and her show (her other BBC show 'He's Having a Baby' was a complete ratings disaster too)

ITV would have dropped her in a heartbeat due to commerical pressures.

Well, i've never seen the show in question, so i can't comment on whether or not it's crap. But your rant precisely misses one of the points behind the formation and the ongoing support of the BBC.

One of the reasons that the BBC exists is specifically to offer an alternative to the commercially-driven programming of other media outlets. One rationale behind the existence of public broadcasting is to provide programming that some people consider to have artistic or social or political value, even if the programs in question do not necessarily receive a very large audience.

Sure, the BBC could conform all of its programming to "commercial pressures," as you seem to advocate, but doing that would be giving up precisely what makes it the BBC in the first place.

 

[PacificOcean]

Well, i've never seen the show in question, so i can't comment on whether or not it's crap. But your rant precisely misses one of the points behind the formation and the ongoing support of the BBC.

One of the reasons that the BBC exists is specifically to offer an alternative to the commercially-driven programming of other media outlets. One rationale behind the existence of public broadcasting is to provide programming that some people consider to have artistic or social or political value, even if the programs in question do not necessarily receive a very large audience.

Sure, the BBC could conform all of its programming to "commercial pressures," as you seem to advocate, but doing that would be giving up precisely what makes it the BBC in the first place.

How is giving vacuous Davina McCall £1m to present a chat show full of Z-Listers (Jordan, Girls Aloud, Emmon Homes) an alternative to the crap that fills ITV?

 

[Rollem]

i never used to, but once i could afford to pay it, i did and have done for the past 4 years or so.

 

[Orang Utan]

How is giving vacuous Davina McCall £1m to present a chat show full of Z-Listers (Jordan, Girls Aloud, Emmon Homes) an alternative to the crap that fills ITV?

You could always watch something else on BBC4 and BBC3 - BBC1 is for plebs with no taste or brains, just like ITV

 

[PacificOcean]

You could always watch something else on BBC4 and BBC3 - BBC1 is for plebs with no taste or brains, just like ITV

Erm, BBC3 non stop repeats of Two Pints. BBC4 dull as ditchwater. More4 is far better.

Channel 4 should be the one getting the licence fee tbh from quality drama like Shameless to original (and acutally funny) comedy like Green Wing to factual shows like Relocation and Property Ladder.

I could'nt live without C4. The BBC I don't object to paying for, I just don't really watch much on it.

 

[Orang Utan]

BBC4 has some great arts programmes, you dullard.

 

[mhendo]

How is giving vacuous Davina McCall £1m to present a chat show full of Z-Listers (Jordan, Girls Aloud, Emmon Homes) an alternative to the crap that fills ITV?

Let me repeat, for the benefit of thick people who don't read the whole post: I've never seen her show, and i didn't even know what it was about.

The point of my post was not to defend or criticize any particular show. Now was i trying to argue that the BBC only does highbrow programming. I was simply offering a general corrective to your assertion that the BBC should take more account of the same "commercial pressures" that dictate content in other media outlets.

 

[PacificOcean]

Let me repeat, for the benefit of thick people who don't read the whole post: I've never seen her show, and i didn't even know what it was about.

The point of my post was not to defend or criticize any particular show. Now was i trying to argue that the BBC only does highbrow programming. I was simply offering a general corrective to your assertion that the BBC should take more account of the same "commercial pressures" that dictate content in other media outlets.

Without being rude, no fuck it, if you are going to call me thick....

As someone living in America why do you even care? You don't pay any licence fee and thus should have no opinon on this matter.

Do I sit here and argue the toss over American taxation policies?

 

[mhendo]

Without being rude, no fuck it, if you are going to call me thick....

As someone living in America why do you even care? You don't pay any licence fee and thus should have no opinon on this matter.

Do I sit here and argue the toss over American taxation policies?

I don't know whether you do or not, but if you did it might allow you to expand your apparently rather narrow worldview.

I guess it's a reflection of your intellectual poverty that, instead of addressing my argument, you indulge in an ad hominem attack based upon where i live. That's a pretty juvenile debating tactic.

But if it's all you've got, i guess i'm not going to get an intelligent response from you. I'm done here.

 

[Fledgling]

I have thankfully left the UK for a brief period but think the licence fee is one of the worst taxes on people and should be scrapped straightaway.

People who only use their TV for watching DVDs/VHS have to buy a licence, people who only watch non BBC channels have to buy a licence, the licence is flat rate (OK, some exceptions) so disproportionately affects some people, the licence fee subsidises freeview/digital TV a lot of people can't even get, the organisation itself is very large and inefficient by any businesses standard, the licence fee funds are constantly wasted on programmes a lot of people don't want to watch, the licence fee goes into paying for radio and BBC advertisements which many cannot access or are sick of paying for. Plus many BBC shows are then accessed for free by people abroad on commercial channels but since UK viewers can't receive these channels they have to pay for the programmes.

It is the biggest waste of money ever, the only thing it is good for is online news and even that could be funded another way through advertising as the bbc website gets plenty of hits. And this idea that the beeb makes loads of quality and unbiased programmes is simply nonsense, as far as I can tell they try to imitate the trash channels like ITV. I hate ITV but I don't have to pay for it. The BBC is unecessary and something we shouldn't be paying for as it cannot distinguish itself above any competitor.

 

[laptop]

It is the biggest waste of money ever, the only thing it is good for is online news and even that could be funded another way through advertising as the bbc website gets plenty of hits.

I have three windows open all day.

http://news.bbc.co.uk - www.urban75.net - the site I maintain.

Why? No fucking adverts!

And since I frequently have little pieces turned down because magazines have a rule not to take the piss out of their own advertisers, I know more directly than most here what that's about.

And this idea that the beeb makes loads of quality and unbiased programmes is simply nonsense, as far as I can tell they try to imitate the trash channels like ITV. I hate ITV but I don't have to pay for it.

Please engage critical faculties before posting. Please do not compare the worst of the BBC's output with... well, I was going to say the best commercial, can't think of anything English-speaking to compare it with in the past two years.

The BBC is unecessary and something we shouldn't be paying for as it cannot distinguish itself above any competitor.

How long have you worked for Mr Murdoch, then?

 

[Fledgling]

Please engage critical faculties before posting. Please do not compare the worst of the BBC's output with... well, I was going to say the best commercial, can't think of anything English-speaking to compare it with in the past two years.



How long have you worked for Mr Murdoch, then?

Strictly dance fever, faculties switched on. I don't believe ITV or BBC make quality programming, in fact I find barely any TV quality programming. What I object to is the way programmes are funded. The BBC take up a considerable amount of their schedules with advertisements for digital TV, radio and forthcoming programmes. They could put advertisements in there instead. Anyway why shouldn't I compare the BBC to any other station? After all all programmes are going to generate opinions and why is my opinionless valid for saying BBC produces as mush crap as other channels than someone who says BBC provides more quality programming?

Never wokred for Murdoch and don't really want to. Wouldn't choose to be a journalist unlike other people who by making the choice to work for Murdoch should be pretty aware who they are working for. Is there some objective here that we should should be paying to make sure journalists have a nicer working environment? I don't particulalry rate sky but Sky don't force me to pay for their TV so I can avoid it at leisure.

 

[mhendo]

Plus many BBC shows are then accessed for free by people abroad on commercial channels but since UK viewers can't receive these channels they have to pay for the programmes.

But the people overseas do, in fact, pay for these programs.

The overseas commercial stations pay the BBC for them, and then get the money back by scheduling advertisements during the broadcast of the shows. And who do you think pays for the advertising? Consumers do, through higher prices for the goods they buy.

There is, as the economists like to say, no such thing as a free lunch. We always pay for the television we watch. If it's a British person watching the BBC, they pay through the licence fee. If it's an American person watching commercial TV, they pay when they fork out $1.50 for a bottle of Coca-Cola that has ingredients worth 3c. Soft drink companies, car companies, banks, pharmaceutical companies, and just about every other company with something to sell, all commit a significant proportion of their budget to advertising, and they get that money back in the price of the products they sell.

As i said, we always pay for our entertainmment. At least the BBC asks for the money up front, rather than ruining the viewing experience with hours of advertising for crappy products every day.

It is the biggest waste of money ever, the only thing it is good for is online news and even that could be funded another way through advertising as the bbc website gets plenty of hits. And this idea that the beeb makes loads of quality and unbiased programmes is simply nonsense, as far as I can tell they try to imitate the trash channels like ITV. I hate ITV but I don't have to pay for it. The BBC is unecessary and something we shouldn't be paying for as it cannot distinguish itself above any competitor.

And yet millions of people in the UK and around the world believe that the BBC does, in fact, distinguish itself from its competitors every day.

You yourself point out that the BBC website gets plenty of hits. Why do you think that people all over the world go out of their way to look for news on the BBC rather than on other websites? The BBC has a reputation for news gathering and reportage that is second to none.

You yourself point out that many television stations in other countries air BBC shows. Why do you think that hundreds of stations all over the world spend good money for BBC-produced television shows? It's because the BBC has a reputation for producing television that is not only of high quality, but that also attracts significant numbers of viewers.

Sure, not every BBC program is great. There are some i wouldn't touch with a barge pole. But the variety of programming over all its channels is another thing that makes the BBC what it is.

 

[laptop]

Wouldn't choose to be a journalist

On behalf of sub-editors everywhere, I thank you for staying out of the trade.

Can anyone else provide a translation of the rest?

 

[Fledgling]

On behalf of sub-editors everywhere, I thank you for staying out of the trade.

Can anyone else provide a translation of the rest?

Is that really the best you can put up?

mhendo actually bothered to answer on a few points which I'll come to.

But for people like you who are only able to respnd to opinions you don't agree with by pathetic remarks I'll put up a summary.

Fledgling's summary for laptop

Example of IMO crap BBC programme

BBC could advertise instead of taking up lots of time with forthcoming shows and digital TV advertisements, many people paying the licence fee canot or do not want this service.

Response to your request that I don't compare BBC to other stations. I stated that my opinion was as valid as yours.

It may be bad working for Murdoch. People choos e to do that and should accept the environment as part and parcel of the job.

Were you suggesting that we the public should subsidise journalists' working environment?


Sky may be questionnable but they don't make me pay for their services.

I will repsond to mhendo soon, raised some good points. you on the other hand clearly disagreed with me.

Fledgling edited this post after laptop replied with a good argument.

 

[laptop]

Example of IMO crap BBC programme

I asked you not to resort to the common thoughtless knocking tactic of comparing the worst of the BBC's output with... anything, really.

BBC could advertise instead of taking up lots of time with forthcoming shows and digital TV advertisements, many people paying the licence fee canot or do not want this service.

The whole point of the BBC is that it is free of advertising and the pressudes on content and news coverage that come with it.

Response to your request that I don't compare BBC to other stations.

You have entirely misread. I did not. See above.

It may be bad working for Murdoch. People choos e to do that and should accept the environment as part and parcel of the job.

Were you suggesting that we the public should subsidise journalists' working environment?

Eh? What's that about?

You really have no idea about the debate in the UK, do you? Where do you live?

The BBC debate for beginners: Rupert Murdoch hates the BBC.

Rupert Murdoch hates the BBC because it pushes up his costs.

The BBC pushes up Rupert Murdoch's costs because the quality of its programming - the average quality if you like - means he has to spend more to compete.

Therefore, people working for Rupert Murdoch knock the BBC at every opportunity, since they see their fianancial self-interest as depending on his.

I stated that my opinion was as valid as yours.

Are you actually trying to disprove this fond belief?

 

[Fledgling]

I asked you not to resort to the common thoughtless knocking tactic of comparing the worst of the BBC's output with... anything, really.



The whole point of the BBC is that it is free of advertising and the pressudes on content and news coverage that come with it.



You have entirely misread. I did not. See above.



Eh? What's that about?

You really have no idea about the debate in the UK, do you? Where do you live?

The BBC debate for beginners: Rupert Murdoch hates the BBC.

Rupert Murdoch hates the BBC because it pushes up his costs.

The BBC pushes up Rupert Murdoch's costs because the quality of its programming - the average quality if you like - means he has to spend more to compete.

Therefore, people working for Rupert Murdoch knock the BBC at every opportunity, since they see their fianancial self-interest as depending on his.



Are you actually trying to disprove this fond belief?

Worst and best are entirely subjective so my comparisons are not unfair, why did you make a request not to compare the worst of bbc programmes with anything else another station has to offer when you know full well that worst is simply subjective?

Yes the whole point of the BBC is that it is advertising free. I stated I don't want the licence fee and if that means bringing advertising I don't have a problem. I argued that I don't want to pay a licencing fee. If that means scrapping the BBC I'm not concerned. My objection was the fee, not the corporation.

I live in the UK, apart from the last 4 months which is temporary. I was not aware of the murdoch debate. Do you really think I should care about the Murdoch press sniping at BBC journos? I don't endorse Murdoch, I don't use his media much and I don't like his attitude much. But I can't see how Murdoch journalists attacking BBC has anything to do with licence fee paying.

My opniion is still as vaild as yours, but given that you have replied to my post I'll remove the cheap insult. Are you going to do the same or will you continue to have a problem with the fact that not everyone likes the BBC approach?

 

[audiotech]

Knock at door just now.

Answered.

Man I didn't recognise starts asking me details of who I am?

Me: Sorry, who are you?

Man: TV License

Me: OK, how can I help you?

Man: You've told us you don't use a TV?

Me: That's right.

Man: Can I check?

Me: Nope.

Man: Well in that case I have to inform you that a TV detector van will come round to your house three times to check whether you have a TV.

Me: Fine, I don't use a TV.

Man: I suggest that if you do have a TV you buy a License iin the next few days.

Me: I've already told you I don't use a TV.

Man: OK sir, thanks for your time.

Me: Bye.

 

[blossie33]

They just don't believe you do they?
I haven't had the pleasure of an inspector coming to check yet.

 

[TopCat]

Never ever paid.

 

[TopCat]

People who only use their TV for watching DVDs/VHS have to buy a licence.

No they don't.

 

[stuff_it]

They just don't believe you do they?
I haven't had the pleasure of an inspector coming to check yet.

No, they really don't believe you...it takes years of having the come round the same address and actually show them the no telly to even begin to stop the letters and visits. They really don't like it if you don't have one. Really don't. Funny as fuck really.

Of course there is no such thing as detector vans either.

 

[TopCat]

You only get really hassled if you have had a licence in the past and do not renew it.

 

[_angel_]

Voted pay it but would rather not. Actually I don't mind paying it as I can just about afford to and we get our moneys worth in CBBC alone. However the flat rate is wrong (someone with no money gets charged the same as a millionaire) there should be a sliding scale, or tie it into income tax. The enforcement tactics and bullying of people who don't have a TV isn't on, either.

 

[blossie33]

When I moved into my newly built flat four years ago there were already 3 letters from the Licensing Department in my mailbox saying they noted there was no license registered for the address - well, no, there wouldn't be anyway would there....

 

[Doppelgänger]

Here is awarning for any of you guys who do pay- the refunds are only done in full quarters.

I didn't realise, so I pay monthly direct debit- which they are happy enough to take, but potentially you could be giving them upto 2 months free money!

My advice is if you know you no longer need one or are moving abroad or something, then cancel your direct debit before hand to time it in such a way you only pay the correct money.

I did also ask them why they have such a shockingly bad system in place for refunds and the answer was: "it's our policy".

Pretty rubbish really, especially when you consider utilities and even the council will calculate things to the very day you move out.

 

[machine cat]

No.

Never had a visit or anything but the cycle goes like this: two letters asking us politely to pay up and then a big, red "Your property is now under investigation" letter, nothing for 6 months and then the they start again.