PDA

View Full Version : TV Licence



fred
18-Jan-07, 12:17
It has been announced that the cost of a TV licence is to rise by 3%.

I am not opposed to the principle of having TV channels not influenced by the commercial sector but is the present system fair?

In one house there can be a family with a large flatscreened TV in the living room, a smaller TV in the kitchen which is turned on at dawn for Breakfast TV and three children each with a TV in their bedrooms. In another house there is someone living alone and on low income who does other things most of the time and only switches their little portable on for the news and an occasional documentary, yet they both pay the same licence fee.

Wouldn't a one off point of sale tax on televisions be a much fairer method of financing the BBC? As it is the poor are subsidising the rich and it would save a lot of money presently spent on enforcing an unjust law.

Angela
18-Jan-07, 12:26
I agree, but then I have only the one TV...
When does the cost go up? -mine's due the end of February.
I do enjoy programmes that aren't interrupted by ads, but there don't seem to be all that many good new programmes on, and I'm not sure that I wouldn't prefer to have the ads and not have to pay for the licence. :confused

henry20
18-Jan-07, 12:29
I grudge every penny I pay for my TV Licence as I don't think its good value for money. I refuse to pay for sky just so I can get a wider choice of rubbish to watch! Don't get me wrong, I do watch TV, but I choose to watch whichever is the least boring rather than the one I enjoy :roll: When I first bought my house I never had a tv and part of me wishes I'd never bothered - although I do need something to watch my dvd's on and for hubby to play his playstation.

j4bberw0ck
18-Jan-07, 12:41
It's the ludicrous inefficiency of the TV License that bemuses me - not to mention the bluntly threatening ads they were running on TV a while back. In order to collect a tax of just over £100 a year, there are hi-tech vans, a quango and threatened prosecutions left, right and centre. If you choose not to have a TV, it's up to you to prove you don't have one. Civilian staff are authorised to interview you subject to the Police and Criminal Evidence Acts and to issue legal cautions. They have a special data feed from the Post Office, daily, to update their database of addresses. Having done that, they can't even manage their data properly.

Got home from work yesterday to find a red-edged letter from them threatening me with prosecution and informing me it is now illegal for me to use any TV equipment at the address. The letter is dated 2 January and requires, it says, a response from me by 16 January. It arrived on the 17th. In addition to which TV Licensing was the first government outfit I informed of change of address - and I have the reissued licence to prove it!

So now I'm to be reported to their local Investigators - all because they screwed up the postcode in their records and so generated a near-duplicate record. Just to cap it all, the letter is signed by "Customer Services" :lol: . The letter is in the shredder and I await the 4 a.m. tap on the door with interest.

In any rational country they'd just add the tax to income tax and have done with it. Then if you don't pay tax, you don't pay the fee. If you pay 40% tax, you pay more. Easy.....

fred
18-Jan-07, 12:42
When does the cost go up? -mine's due the end of February.


It doesn't say, in the budget in April I would think.

Angela
18-Jan-07, 12:44
I grudge every penny I pay for my TV Licence as I don't think its good value for money. I refuse to pay for sky just so I can get a wider choice of rubbish to watch! Don't get me wrong, I do watch TV, but I choose to watch whichever is the least boring rather than the one I enjoy :roll: When I first bought my house I never had a tv and part of me wishes I'd never bothered - although I do need something to watch my dvd's on and for hubby to play his playstation.

My daughter "lent" me her digibox since she moved to Perth where there's no coverage for digital TV. So I watch freeview as well, since it IS free - I agree it's mostly just a wider choice of rubbish, and finding the thing you dislike least! There is the odd good thing though for a winter evening.

I was thinking of joining up for DVD rentals by post - from Amazon probably.
When I take a DVD out of the local shop I find I never watch it in time. :(

Angela
18-Jan-07, 12:49
Our TV licence was in my husband's name when he died. (some things were in my name, some in his)
It wasn't the first thing on my mind, but when payment was due for the next licence, I did get it changed to be in my name.
That certainly confused them - and I got letters telling me there wasn't a valid licence for my address...which took quite some time to sort out...and no apology either...

henry20
18-Jan-07, 13:00
Unfortunately freeview doesn't work in my house or I may have considered it. Although it would result in more channel hopping!

emb123
18-Jan-07, 13:06
I grudge every penny I pay for my TV Licence as I don't think its good value for money. I refuse to pay for sky just so I can get a wider choice of rubbish to watch! Don't get me wrong, I do watch TV, but I choose to watch whichever is the least boring rather than the one I enjoy :roll: When I first bought my house I never had a tv and part of me wishes I'd never bothered - although I do need something to watch my dvd's on and for hubby to play his playstation.
I don't have a TV - haven't had one for 8 years - don't want one either. They get on my nerves :) Saves loads of money too.

I watch DVD's on my PC - decodes the (AC3) surround sound no problem too. I have a very large monitor and the PC is located in a place where it's perfectly comfortable to push the chair out of the way and sit on the sofa. Gets round the DVD playback problem. For playstation you'd need a TV card either installed in your PC or a removable USB one which you just plug in as and when you need it.

Technically you need a TV license just for having a TV card I believe, but in practise if you never use it to watch TV (i.e. no antenna) but just for connecting the VCR or playstation to now and again then you'll have nothing to worry about. These people cannot insist that you let them have a look through your PC.

Of course, if you both want to do different things at the same time then you'll want two PC's!

As a by the by, although the detectors can detect and read your PC monitors (provided they are the old CRT type) it is illegal for them to do so (they operate at completely different screen frequencies and these people should not be looking at what you're doing on your PC - to do so would contravene so many laws that the use of detectors would probably be banned by Europe if word got out as an infringement of human rights (privacy), not to mention an offense under the Data Protection Act, so they keep it quiet that they can do it.)

Angela
18-Jan-07, 13:42
Unfortunately freeview doesn't work in my house or I may have considered it. Although it would result in more channel hopping!

Yes, I've found that to be the case. Anything I fancy watching is always on at the same time as something else that looks a possibilty! :(

I've been following the Big Brother thread on the forum -I've never watched BB and I'd no idea what was going on until I watched the news last night. I see there's yet another reality TV show coming up - Dancing on Ice - which I don't think is exactly providing viewers with value for money!

Of the 11 "celebs" taking parts, I only seem to have heard of one -obviously I don't watch enough TV! :confused

lassieinfife
18-Jan-07, 13:51
Apart from the David Attenbrough stuff all i have been following is Waking the Dead and Body of Evidence ......... both on at same time on mondays..... plus the odd afternoon movie so I really grudge paying fee.
I do have freeview but this area has limited no of progs available

Angela
18-Jan-07, 13:59
Apart from the David Attenbrough stuff all i have been following is Waking the Dead and Body of Evidence ......... both on at same time on mondays..... plus the odd afternoon movie so I really grudge paying fee.
I do have freeview but this area has limited no of progs available

Same here - I watch Waking the Dead and would've recorded Body of Evidence, but sadly my VCR's broken. I decided not to get a new one because I thought I'd only end up recording programmes I never got the time to watch!
Have you ever watched Meerkat Manor - I haven't, but I see there's a new series of it starting next week which I'm looking forward to - Meerkats just seem so cute (silly, I know)...
Has anybody noticed how UK series seem to get shorter and shorter (maybe only 3 progs) while US series seem to go on to about 25 progs in a row? :confused

lassieinfife
18-Jan-07, 15:08
Well if the BBC paid likes of Jonathan Ross /Terry Wogan/Bruce Forstyh less and spent more on producing new dramas etc we wouldn't need to get price hikes ........ no new decent progs,though plenty sport[sighs.....] and repeats and more of the second class presenters they keep foisting on us

henry20
18-Jan-07, 15:11
I'm sort of in agreement with you there - although I like Jonathon Ross, but thats where problems arise - you have such a wide variation of tastes, it must be impossible to please everyone. I don't object to sport being on - although I don't watch much of it, but as for repeats - surely if we have to re-new our licence every year, they should re-new the programmes :confused::roll:

cuddlepop
18-Jan-07, 15:20
At my daughters halls they are insisting that all the students have a tv license as well as the one the halls have for the tele in the common room.:eek:
Thought the building only required the one?

Angela
18-Jan-07, 15:22
Luckily I quite enjoy watching some sports, including football (depending who's playing).
I know tastes differ & you can't please everybody all of the time.
A lot of current progs just seem to be made because they're cheap to make though & they generate more-of-the-same spin-offs. There seem to a lot of not-very-good presenters as well.
Maybe BBC channels should only be allowed to show a certain percentage of repeats (or is that the case already?) :confused

henry20
18-Jan-07, 15:35
At my daughters halls they are insisting that all the students have a tv license as well as the one the halls have for the tele in the common room.:eek:
Thought the building only required the one?

No, each student requires a tv licence if they have their own tv. Same as a lodger in a house requires a seperate tv licence unless they only have access to the communal tv. If 3 students joint share a flat, they only need 1 licence as the household is in all names. If the houshold was rented by one of the students, then rooms rented out to 2 other students with tv's in their own room, 3 licences are required. Crazy really. A 5 bedroomed house could have 7 tv's and only 1 licence, but under different circumstances would require 5 seperate licences! :eek:

Angela
18-Jan-07, 15:46
I think I've just PMd the wrong info to Cuddlepop :eek:! When my daughter was at Stirling Uni staying in a Uni flat (no separate lving room) this came up, but in the end it seemed her little portable was covered by our home licence as she wasn't staying at Uni all the time. So she didn't need a separate licence. Did we maybe get the wrong info or have things changed recently?

henry20
18-Jan-07, 15:53
I looked into it a couple of years ago as I was taking in lodgers and they had to have seperate licences. I also checked the tv licence website earlier, so it is definitely current. It used to be that you could take a tv on holiday with you (ie to visit family with no licence or in a caravan) and your home licence would cover you. However, you are only covered by your home licence if no tv will be on in your home at the time (although they'd have to be pretty clever to be monitoring both at the same time)

Angela
18-Jan-07, 16:44
I looked into it a couple of years ago as I was taking in lodgers and they had to have seperate licences. I also checked the tv licence website earlier, so it is definitely current. It used to be that you could take a tv on holiday with you (ie to visit family with no licence or in a caravan) and your home licence would cover you. However, you are only covered by your home licence if no tv will be on in your home at the time (although they'd have to be pretty clever to be monitoring both at the same time)

Thanks for the info -it seems a crazy system though doesn't it? They don't give you a rebate if you go away on holiday and don't watch TV at all!:roll:
My daughter's just moved into a flat with friends & has, yes, the same small portable TV she had at Uni, in her own room. Again, there's no living area.
She pays her share of rent & council tax of course, but if the lease is only in one name, does that mean the other two girls have to have separate licences? I have a horrible feeling that it must do...:(

henry20
18-Jan-07, 16:49
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/students.jsp

Yes Angela, I'm afraid it does. :roll:

Stumurf
19-Jan-07, 01:40
i remember when i was saving some money and moving out of my home.. i didnt renew my TV licence as i only ever watched newsnight on it, and it had just started to be streamed online.
But after i didnt renew it, i was visited by the TV licencing people 5 times, each time trying to bully me with false accusations that i was watching TV without a licence.
I did have a TV in the house (to watch videos and dvds) but i had deliberately cut the CO-AX cable so it couldnt be connected and even taken the liberty of untuning the TV stations.

I was glad i had a sense of humour and took great pleasure in showing the 3 sets of people.. Yes two sets came back, after i had smuggly asked them to explain how i was watching a tv that wasnt tuned in and had no facility to attach an aerial, and informing them i knew i only needed a licence to watch broadcasted TV, not to own and use one to watch recorded material on.....

They all left rather sheepishly after a whirlwind tour of the house and after a few more letters from the authority i was finally left in peace.

Talk about being treated like a criminal.... but i had to laugh... thankfully....

as or the fee's going up...

I dont really understand why all the licence fee goes to the BBC, the other stations get revenues from adverts, but how much revenue does the BBC now get from sales of program related mercendise and actualy selling its programs to other countries... I did read a while ago that the licence fee was supposedly getting shared out between the stations... does anyone know if that is stll happening?

Dont get me wrong, the BBC make some fine documentaries and its news is one of the remaining few that aren't massively tainted/heavily editted by its owners, but from the revenue the BBC now makes as apposed to it initially making none should mean that the licence fee should be going down... shouldnt it?

JAWS
19-Jan-07, 02:47
Fred, I agree with almost every comment you made in your post, the whole thing is a complete nonsense in need of total reform.

Much is made, by the BBC of course, that they are totally independent of Government and to prove this need to have a Licence Fee in order to prevent Government Interference.
This sounds very persuasive and praiseworthy. Just who do they think they are fooling? The Licence Fee may well go straight to the BBC without going via Government but who sets the amount the Licence Fee is set at? Well, surprise, surprise, it’s the Government. The Licence Fee is nothing more than a form of Taxation and any pretence that it isn’t is ridiculous. There is nothing to stop any Government simply saying to the BBC, “Sorry, the Licence Fee (and therefore the BBC’s budget) is going to be halved.” (Yes, I know it won’t happen but there is nothing to prevent it).

Very few people indeed never ever watch TV or listen to the Radio. Why is the BBC not just payed directly from Taxation and the Licence Fee got rid of. It may not be the best of solutions but it has to be a lot fairer than the present one and it saves all the wasted money on chasing round trying to find premises with a TV and no licence.

Over the years I have twice had the “Threats” from the TV Licensing, both times due to their mistakes. Both times I have had a current licence with no breaks from the previous one. The last time was not long after I moved to Caithness. I spoke to them on the phone and after a lengthy discussion it became obvious that they had made a complete botch of the situation. They had got me completely mixed up with somebody else as became obvious when they asked if I had ever lived in Oxford. I had to confess at that stage that I had driven past there once.

Register a new property to get post delivered and one of the first things you get is a threatening letter from the Licensing People telling you to get a TV License or else! The fact that, at that stage, you may not have electricity, let alone a TV, is totally irrelevant to them.
You have an address therefore you must have a TV therefore you must be a criminal because you have no Licence! So there! How dare you not have a TV so we can charge you a License Fee!

emb123
19-Jan-07, 11:28
Fred, I agree with almost every comment you made in your post, the whole thing is a complete nonsense in need of total reform.

Much is made, by the BBC of course, that they are totally independent of Government and to prove this need to have a Licence Fee in order to prevent Government Interference.
This sounds very persuasive and praiseworthy. Just who do they think they are fooling? The Licence Fee may well go straight to the BBC without going via Government but who sets the amount the Licence Fee is set at? Well, surprise, surprise, it’s the Government. The Licence Fee is nothing more than a form of Taxation and any pretence that it isn’t is ridiculous. There is nothing to stop any Government simply saying to the BBC, “Sorry, the Licence Fee (and therefore the BBC’s budget) is going to be halved.” (Yes, I know it won’t happen but there is nothing to prevent it).

Very few people indeed never ever watch TV or listen to the Radio. Why is the BBC not just payed directly from Taxation and the Licence Fee got rid of. It may not be the best of solutions but it has to be a lot fairer than the present one and it saves all the wasted money on chasing round trying to find premises with a TV and no licence.

Over the years I have twice had the “Threats” from the TV Licensing, both times due to their mistakes. Both times I have had a current licence with no breaks from the previous one. The last time was not long after I moved to Caithness. I spoke to them on the phone and after a lengthy discussion it became obvious that they had made a complete botch of the situation. They had got me completely mixed up with somebody else as became obvious when they asked if I had ever lived in Oxford. I had to confess at that stage that I had driven past there once.

Register a new property to get post delivered and one of the first things you get is a threatening letter from the Licensing People telling you to get a TV License or else! The fact that, at that stage, you may not have electricity, let alone a TV, is totally irrelevant to them.
You have an address therefore you must have a TV therefore you must be a criminal because you have no Licence! So there! How dare you not have a TV so we can charge you a License Fee!
I agree with every word. Paying the BBC through indirect taxation is a far more appropriate method and would save the need to pay people to go around trying to catch people out - they'd die of old age trying to catching me with a TV! Nothing to stop a Government from setting a determination date for the TV License system altogether, especially as those that want to watch TV nowadays tend to be paying for it up-front anyway from digital services such as Sky and others.

TV Licensing are unbelievably rude, arrogant, aggressive, they use a letter writing style that does not actually stop before crossing over the line into harrassment and they only just stop short of entering the realms of Defamation of Character by insinuating that one is surely lying when claiming not to have a TV.

If like me you don't have a TV and get fed up with the nasty letters I have found it does help to have a go at them - threaten them with legal action if they cause you any further harassment, be very nasty to them and make sure they know you mean it - don't be nice, or polite (but don't swear). Having gone that route (admittedly I lost my taurean temper even before I phoned them to demolish the cocky and arrogant young man who answered the phone), I've found they're now extremely cautious, polite and infrequent with their letters to this address, which I ignore.

Definitely a ludicrous system and with the advent of pay TV and the wider TV broadcasting marketplace, high time it was phased out entirely. It's just another insidious and irrelevant tax.

the nomad
19-Jan-07, 11:45
STV, C5, and C4 don't get any money they are funded by advertising and in my opinion seem to have better TV. Scrap the licence completely and fund by advertising it's the only sensible way.;)

fred
19-Jan-07, 14:43
STV, C5, and C4 don't get any money they are funded by advertising and in my opinion seem to have better TV. Scrap the licence completely and fund by advertising it's the only sensible way.;)

Then you end up with the ludicrous situation like the have in America where Republican Senators call for advertisers to boycot any TV stations which do not support their crimes against humanity and major corporations like Chrysler insist on approving the content of all the magazines they advertise in before they go to press.

Watch this (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6435.htm) and you'll see what I mean.

Now the BBC is nowhere near as unbiassed as people think. I knew someone who was a policeman in South Yorkshire in the miners strike, they were ordered to make a baton charge against miners picketing legally and the miners responded by throwing rocks. When it was on the BBC news the film had been edited to show the miners throwing rocks first then and the police starting their baton charge second. No the BBC are not unbiassed but they provide an alternative, the propaganda isn't all controlled by the same people
which limits the effectiveness of both sets.

North Rhins
19-Jan-07, 15:53
You never miss an opportunity to have a dig at the Yanks, do you Fred? Although you must be feeling a bit exposed these days since ‘Conscience’ got the elbow.
Perhaps you could expand on this story of the miner’s dispute. This person who you knew in South Yorkshire which force did he serve in, and which pit did this incident take place? I only ask Fred because I was a serving police officer at the time and I spent a rather unpleasant time dodging bricks, flares, oranges studded with nails, screws and pieces of glass and plastic bags filled with Nitromors paint stripper. You never know Fred he might even have stood next to me.

fred
19-Jan-07, 17:44
You never miss an opportunity to have a dig at the Yanks, do you Fred? Although you must be feeling a bit exposed these days since ‘Conscience’ got the elbow.

No, threats and bullying won't work with me, I just tell it how it is and hang the consequences. If you manage to get me thown off to shut me up you can come back and gloat about that as well.



Perhaps you could expand on this story of the miner’s dispute. This person who you knew in South Yorkshire which force did he serve in, and which pit did this incident take place? I only ask Fred because I was a serving police officer at the time and I spent a rather unpleasant time dodging bricks, flares, oranges studded with nails, screws and pieces of glass and plastic bags filled with Nitromors paint stripper. You never know Fred he might even have stood next to me.

If you were at Gargreave in 1984 he might well have.

North Rhins
19-Jan-07, 18:04
I wasn’t at Gargreave Fred, however I was at Orgreave Coking Plant in 1984. I didn’t know that they had a pit at Gargreave please fell free to correct me on that point.
Getting back to Orgreave, if that is where you meant, I can’t remember any orchestrated ‘baton charge.’ I can however remember a colleague losing an eye to a distress flare thrown by, I assume, one of the pickets.

fred
19-Jan-07, 19:21
I wasn’t at Gargreave Fred, however I was at Orgreave Coking Plant in 1984. I didn’t know that they had a pit at Gargreave please fell free to correct me on that point.
Getting back to Orgreave, if that is where you meant, I can’t remember any orchestrated ‘baton charge.’ I can however remember a colleague losing an eye to a distress flare thrown by, I assume, one of the pickets.

I'm sure when a situation like that occurs there are injuries on both sides.

Which makes it all the more important to have an unbiased media. I mean if they were to just say that a policeman lost an eye without mentioning that pickets got injured as well the public could get entirely the wrong impression.

North Rhins
19-Jan-07, 19:42
So the BBC were biased in their reporting of an incident that you claim was told to you by some policeman from South Yorkshire that was at a ‘Baton charge’ at a pit that doesn’t even exist?
If you are going to post twaddle I respectfully suggest that you do more research before the righteous mantle slips even further.

fred
19-Jan-07, 20:41
So the BBC were biased in their reporting of an incident that you claim was told to you by some policeman from South Yorkshire that was at a ‘Baton charge’ at a pit that doesn’t even exist?
If you are going to post twaddle I respectfully suggest that you do more research before the righteous mantle slips even further.

Looks to me like you're claiming that the BBC couldn't have been biased because they were on your side.

So if I post things off google I get hammered by Gleeber2 and if I post recolections from real life I get told I should do more research, can't win can I.

OK I've done some research, I googled it and came up with this. (http://www.workersliberty.org/node/2366)

If this had been a thread about the miners strike I might have googled it first but it isn't, it's a thread about TV licence fees.

North Rhins
19-Jan-07, 21:00
Come on Fred, where do I claim that the BBC was on our side?
You posted a reply claiming certain facts. You couldn’t even get the place name right let alone the facts surrounding it. You weren’t there neither was your fictitious informant. You’ve been caught out posting drivel. As for your link, do you claim this to be unbiased? I will leave that for others to decide for themselves.
This was a thread regarding TV Licensing but once again you have engineered it to fly off at a tangent in order that you spout more of your pap. Is this what you get off on or is it just another coincidence? Remember, he who lives by the keyboard also dies by the keyboard.

fred
19-Jan-07, 21:39
Come on Fred, where do I claim that the BBC was on our side?
You posted a reply claiming certain facts. You couldn’t even get the place name right let alone the facts surrounding it. You weren’t there neither was your fictitious informant. You’ve been caught out posting drivel. As for your link, do you claim this to be unbiased? I will leave that for others to decide for themselves.
This was a thread regarding TV Licensing but once again you have engineered it to fly off at a tangent in order that you spout more of your pap. Is this what you get off on or is it just another coincidence? Remember, he who lives by the keyboard also dies by the keyboard.

No I didn't claim that the link was unbiased, just less biased than you are.

It's looking to me like your memory isn't too good, you say you don't remember a batton charge yet from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Orgreave


When the miners didn't move back, a third mounted advance was initiated, with the short shield squads in pursuit. The result of this third advance was general panic amongst the strikers, and an increasing amount of hand to hand fighting between the two sides.


What is a short shield squad?

And to get back to the original point, from the same web page:


Television coverage of the event appeared to show the police in a favourable light, although it was later revealed that the BBC news had shown events in a different order from that in which they had occurred. Later allegations of police brutality in the field, the village, and in custody showed the police in a less favourable light.

North Rhins
19-Jan-07, 21:59
You’re starting to get the hang of it now aren’t you, Fred. The way it goes is, you do the research and then you post your reply, not the other way round, simple really.
As for Orgreave, not Gargreave, you weren’t there I, unfortunately, was. I would suspect that you cannot in your worst nightmares imagine what it was like, for both sides. So if I was you I would let it drop.
By the way, short shield squad is a snatch squad, tactics we learnt at Toxteth and Moss Side, yes I was there, something else for you to disapprove of no doubt.

mareng
19-Jan-07, 22:11
With the amount of revenue-earning phonecalls that the BBC elicits and the invitation to viewers to send in their own clips and photographs for inclusion in their "news" programs - I'm amazed that they have the nerve to charge any license fee, never mind - an increase!

They now have the ability to produce programs at no cost to themselves.

Well done, boys.................. now - how can I buy shares in that little enterprise??

fred
19-Jan-07, 22:15
You’re starting to get the hang of it now aren’t you, Fred. The way it goes is, you do the research and then you post your reply, not the other way round, simple really.


No I got it right from the start, what I said about the BBC being capable of biased reporting was true, the research only backs that up and shouldn't have been neccessary.

Bobinovich
19-Jan-07, 22:30
Well we're Sky subscribers and don't have terrestrial ariels at all. If it would make us exempt from a licence we'd happily disable/remove all the terrestrial tuning facilities from all our TV's. We only watch a tiny fraction of BBC (and that through Sky) and feel that the Sky monthly payment should cover any BBC charges we would be required to pay.

Personally I'm all for getting rid of the licence fee and wouldn't care if it was converted to advert-funded - we're used to them and they provide breaks for a pee or tea! So long as they showed films without adverts (a la Sky's own movie channels) I'd be happy.

Sapphire2803
19-Jan-07, 23:03
You can get a sky version of freeview, it's not completely free, but at £20 for 2 years (at least I'm 90% sure that's how long it is) it's great if you're not in a freeview area. You can buy it as a package including the sky box and dish, but I don't know how much that is. If you have an old dish on the wall or you can buy one second hand it really is a cheap deal.

JAWS
20-Jan-07, 05:38
Looks to me like you're claiming that the BBC couldn't have been biased because they were on your side.

So if I post things off google I get hammered by Gleeber2 and if I post recolections from real life I get told I should do more research, can't win can I.

OK I've done some research, I googled it and came up with this. (http://www.workersliberty.org/node/2366)

If this had been a thread about the miners strike I might have googled it first but it isn't, it's a thread about TV licence fees.
And from the same site "The other history of American Trotskyism" http://www.workersliberty.org/taxonomy/term/555

And a page called, "Where We Stand" announces that they want to, "Overthrow Capitalism" and also "Want Socialist Revolution".
(I will make no comment on the "Revolution" part as mentioning it seems to cause a certain amount of upset!) http://www.workersliberty.org/taxonomy/term/406

Need anymore be said about "Biased Reporting"?

And who was it who introduced the "Miner's Strike" into a thread on TV Licensing in the first place?

Rheghead
20-Jan-07, 08:51
It has been announced that the cost of a TV licence is to rise by 3%.

I am not opposed to the principle of having TV channels not influenced by the commercial sector but is the present system fair?

In one house there can be a family with a large flatscreened TV in the living room, a smaller TV in the kitchen which is turned on at dawn for Breakfast TV and three children each with a TV in their bedrooms. In another house there is someone living alone and on low income who does other things most of the time and only switches their little portable on for the news and an occasional documentary, yet they both pay the same licence fee.

Wouldn't a one off point of sale tax on televisions be a much fairer method of financing the BBC? As it is the poor are subsidising the rich and it would save a lot of money presently spent on enforcing an unjust law.

Be careulf what you get in the licence's place if it does get changed. Like when the poll tax changed to the council tax, you may get something even more unfair.

emb123
20-Jan-07, 11:35
Be careulf what you get in the licence's place if it does get changed. Like when the poll tax changed to the council tax, you may get something even more unfair.
Wouldn't that be the way of it ?! Case of "be careful what you wish for!"

fred
20-Jan-07, 11:59
And who was it who introduced the "Miner's Strike" into a thread on TV Licensing in the first place?

Isn't it time you were checking under your bed?

fred
20-Jan-07, 12:07
Be careulf what you get in the licence's place if it does get changed. Like when the poll tax changed to the council tax, you may get something even more unfair.

If you read my first post in this thread you will see that I suggested a one off point of sale tax on television equipment to finance the BBC. There could be other sources, like the money the government gets from auctioning off the terrestrial frequencies to mobile phone companies when we go digital, that should be a nice little earner.