Onchanite Posted September 14, 2008 Share Posted September 14, 2008 Like Manshimajin said, it should be a case of being able to pay for what you want. I totally object to being told I have to pay for something that I am unable opt out of. I would happily go without ever seeing/hearing another BBC service again if there was a choice. With Sky, I can pick and choose what channels I can access and I pay accordingly. It shouldn't be called a TV Licence - we aren't paying to watch TV, we're paying for the so-called 'priviledge' to access the BBC's 'quality' programming. It should be called a BBC licence. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't think of another instance where we are forced to pay for something in this way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't think of another instance where we are forced to pay for something in this way. Loads of things, the National Heritage for example. The Beeb is well worth the dosh, and gets better year by year. I love the online stuff they're doing, iplayer is world beating and the olympics coverage was superb this year. We'd be bonkers to let that go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 It shouldn't be called a TV Licence - we aren't paying to watch TV, we're paying for the so-called 'priviledge' to access the BBC's 'quality' programming. It should be called a BBC licence. As John Wright said, the TV Licence is a tax - one levied on households with a TV. You are not paying to access the BBC. Even if you had a TV which had a chip that disabled access to BBC channels, you would still have to pay. Think of it as a tax just the same as the government could charge £130 p.a. to every household that owns a computer with an internet connection and use this revenue to pay for anything it wanted. In this case you are being taxed for having a TV receiver. With the TV Tax, most of the tax happens then to be used to partly pay for the BBC. The tax collectors behaving badly is one issue. Not liking what this tax money you pay is being used for is another. In New Zealand, TV Licence fee money didn't just go to TVNZ (a bit like the BBC except they show commericals and have ad revenue as well as TV licence fee funding). Licence Fee money also used to go to 'New Zealand On Air' / Irirangi te Motu - a commission who fund programmes which meets public service broadcasting criteria on any free-to-air channel (they also fund local music videos etc.). A similar system in the UK could mean that BBC's crass bad 'entertainment' programmes would not be taxpayer funded while the quality programmes and services would be. Quality programmes on commercial free-to-air channels would also be funded. The case of NZ shows that there could be a valid a gripe over the BBC having exclusive non-competitive right to funding for its 'public service programming' (some of which is indistinguishable from non-public service programming). In that sense I agree that this tax is a 'BBC Licence' - because of the BBC's priviledged blanket access to this funding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 I was duty advocate at the recent TV lience court, about 40 prosecuted, not many, and only twice a year. A lot more than are prosecuted in the Republic of Ireland or France for not having a UK Television Licence (even if they do tune in and watch BBC using Freesat). John - what is the relevant Act which makes it an offence to have a TV without a UK TV licence in IoM? It looks like the UK Communications Act 2003 extended to IoM by an Order in Council on 10th December 2003 with licence fee provisions taking effect in IoM from April 1 2004. 40 people seems a lot if they are being prosecuted for not paying a tax levied on IoM by Queen in Council, non-payment of which was made an offence in IoM by Queen in Council - none of which went through legislative process of Tynwald (including promulgation). I guess this is part of the 'special' constitutional relationship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BETTYBOO68 Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 we should have pay as you go bbc tv! then we have choice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 I was duty advocate at the recent TV lience court, about 40 prosecuted, not many, and only twice a year. A lot more than are prosecuted in the Republic of Ireland or France for not having a UK Television Licence (even if they do tune in and watch BBC using Freesat). Just like you are expected to pay a TV licence fee in the UK or on the IOM - even if you only watch French or Irish TV. But you don't get prosecuted for not paying the French fee (or an Irish licence if you live in Michael and watch RTE - or you have an Irish Sky card). In France you still have to pay an equivalent charge (similar to a TV licence). It's an opt out system - the assumption is that you have a tv. It would make no difference even if you tried to blag that you only watched British TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moghrey Mie Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 In relation to the IOM there is a specific problem I was duty advocate at the recent TV lience court, about 40 prosecuted, not many, and only twice a year. First they have a database of postcodes and house numbers from the Post Office Second they have their own data base of licences issued. Thye run the two and identify which house has no licence. Third it is not thye BBC or the Licence Agency, but a private, Irish company Fourth it is a tax, like any other tax. They write. No answer they send around the inpector. Most people let him in. There is no force or co oercion. They ask a few questions, which are rather non specific to rely on in court if there is a contest and ask you to sign the form and leave you with application and Direct Debit forms to fill in, send back or take to the post office A month later if no licence is issued they write again and a month later a second time. A month after that they issue a private summons First their systems are poor. Several people had licences. So at court if any one turns up with a licence, whenever issued the summons is dropped. Second they are inflexivle. if you are on benefit and have no bank account or crdit or debit cards you cannot pay by installments in the IOM. In UK you can obtain a payment card and pay by postal orders or in co operative shops, in cash, almost like the old stamps system. Not in the IOM, Several older oersons on benefit had tried and had their postal orders returned and paymentcards cancelled. The Magistrates were not impressed. The other thing which surprised me was that the number who could not afford £140 a year for the best programming in the world bar none could apparently happily find £30 or £40 per month for sky You don't mention the aggressive wording of the letters that are sent to people who haven't got a licence, don't need a licence and don't intend buying a licence because they don't want to have a television set. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 If you think its bad here, thank your lucky stars you don't live in Germany LINK Friedrich Schiller, one of Germany's favourite poets and playwrights, has received reminders to pay his television licence - despite having been dead since 1805. Two notices were delivered by GEZ, a licence-collecting agency, which threatened to mount legal action against the literary hero, who is best known for his poem Ode to Joy, which was put to music by Beethoven, unless he quickly settled his monthly €17 (£14) bill. They were sent to a primary school bearing Schiller's name in Weigsdorf-Köblitz, a town in the eastern state of Saxony. The second came despite the school's headteacher sending the agency a letter informing them that "the addressee is no longer in a position to listen to the radio or watch television". GEZ replied saying Schiller would only be exempt if he could prove he did not own television or radio sets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 If you think its bad here, thank your lucky stars you don't live in Germany Two notices were delivered by GEZ, a licence-collecting agency, which threatened to mount legal action ... unless he quickly settled his ... bill. GEZ replied saying Schiller would only be exempt if he could prove he did not own television or radio sets.[/i] Is it so different? Aren't people getting threatening letters - and doesn't the licence-collecting agency now seem to take the view that to be exempt you have to prove you do not own a television set? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x-in-man Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 Tossers the lot of 'em, just had another letter that says :- 'living off the mainland does not mean you do not need a TV licence' sharp intake of breath there - I still have to have my issue resolved - regards my short period 'new' licence. A quick check on their 'webshite' today still shows my address as missing, (and a shed load more round here as well - some of whom, I know, have a TV set that tunes in as rubbish shows, repeats and turds are beng broadcast). A quick flick though the TV the other day - I was met with junk, rubbish, repeats, tat and police video shows. What are they doing next? sending some gay, fat, faggot to the US so he can drive his fat, proky, rimmed out arse around 50 fat cheese eating, lard infested states at our expense FFS. Im still waiting for my polling card to come through the door for the US elections - the amount of coverage they give it - you would have thought I would at least have a vote by now. Right - you can tell my flu is getting better - off to kick next doors cat now for spewing a fur ball over the roof of my car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.