Blackajah Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 TV Licence Dodgers Targeted Why do they still try to tell us this nonsense about TV detector vans? Who believes this rubbish? Also how the hell were 700 people caught without a licence when you are under no obligation to let the TV licence person into your house. When I was at Uni we just refused to let them enter and while they went to get a warrant we would hide the television or lend it to the neighbours. How does the island benefit from this clampdown. The article on the (as always, news free) IOM Newspaper website appears to be nothing more than a threat. Do you bother to buy a licence? I'd be happy tro buy a licence if the price was related to earnings (i.e. fairer) and if the BBC made an attempt to modernise and use commericals to reduce the burden on the licence fee payer. I will by a licence when we get the full range of services here, ie Freeview. Until then no way - I only watch about an hour a week anyway. I refuse to subscribe to Sky as it is owned by the Antichrist aka Rupert Murdoch! Roll on full digitisation. Hopefully we'll be able to get some good radio stations like XFM too. Bonus! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryMcCann Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 I still have a licence from 2001. Seeing as they are still showing the same old crap I don't see the need to buy another Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Survivor Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 the man at the post office told me not to bother renewing mine seeing as i was leaving the country - said it would be too much hassle for me to get a refund for the rest of the year as i couldn't pay for a few months only very nice man he was Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deejay Denzel Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 Instead of renewing your tv license... buy a new one each year. It gives me great pleasure watching them xxxxs waist so much unneccessary time pissing about. I highly recommend it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
germann Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 Here in Poland we get BBC Prime and BBC World yet both have no adverts and no money from the Polish licence fee goes towards the BBC. They may get some money from cable/sat fee payers but I would reckon the rest is funded by you lot paying licence fees in the UK. Your local cable operator pays a subscription for BBC Prime, not that it's worth paying for, and BBC World does have adverts- Ramsey-based company Ocra even sponsors the stock market ticker in the breaks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northline Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 I also keep getting increasingly snotty reminders at my work address which is irksome...can't wait for the detector man/van to turn up and give him/her the benefit of my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 Here in Poland we get BBC Prime and BBC World yet both have no adverts and no money from the Polish licence fee goes towards the BBC. They may get some money from cable/sat fee payers but I would reckon the rest is funded by you lot paying licence fees in the UK. Your local cable operator pays a subscription for BBC Prime, not that it's worth paying for, and BBC World does have adverts- Ramsey-based company Ocra even sponsors the stock market ticker in the breaks. BBC World is distributed for re broadcast with gaps for the ads. The satellite and cable re distributors <insert> their own advertising. This may include ticker breaks. BBC World and BBC Prime are not funded or cross - subsidised by the UK licence fee. Both channels are owned by BBC Worldwide Ltd - which is one of the BBC’s commercial subsidiaries. The programmes are bought from the BBC. Not to be confused with the BBC World Service (radio) which is funded by the Foreign Office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 On one point of the initial poster - in the UK I believe licence inspectors can insist on entry into the premises I don't think they can. At one time during my "struggle" with then I had downloaded a large document from one of their sites and I'm sure said they had no right of entry. Edit to add - this isn't the same one, but it states - http://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/docs/finance/lice...TVLicencing.htm They will seek permission to enter a person’s property, simply to take a brief view of the main living areas. If the Officer verifies the fact that no television is used, we will then cease all forms of enquiry to the named person at their address for a period of three years. The Occupier is under no legal obligation to allow entry but it does enable us to place the long-term stop on further enquiries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDave Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 I will by a licence when we get the full range of services here, ie Freeview. Until then no way Regardless of what the licence fee is actually spent on, all a TV licence gives you is the right to operate TV reception equipment, it does not give you the right to receive all or even any broadcasts. Maybe that's unfair, but I'd rather just pay in full for what I can get and keep the system simple rather than pay a lot more for an extra layer of admin in finding out what people can receive and licencing them accordingly. I think BBc programes should be scrambled, and on getting a licence you should be given a pin number to watch BBc, this will stop the licence dodgers. This will happen eventually. When analogue is a distant memory and all new TVs have CAMs the TV licence will be in the form of a subscription based smart card, and it'll be a lot more expensive when their revenue drops like a stone with all the people opting not to bother with the BBC!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theintelligentthug Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 i dont own a tv, and thusly dont have a tv licence. id have a tv if i could opt out of the BBC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 It looks like this useless shower of **** are up to their old tricks again I and four people I know all received letters yesterday saying that the address didn't have a licence, despite us all having licences I still can't believe how useless and incompetent they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 It may have changed since I left the UK/IOM. I wouldn't be suprised. Here in Poland we get ................ So let me check if I have got this right. You start of a topic moaning about the BBC licencse fee only you do not live in the UK or IoM so it does not apply to you. I think I am with you. We really should do something about the prices of taxis in New York! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
localyokel Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 The licenses are basically a rip off. You should pay a fee to the BBC for using BBC services (like you do with Sky) rather than paying a fee just because you own a telly. For example: Lots of people pay for two licenses - one for their own home, and one for their kids at Uni. The BBC is a complete rip off when it comes to students - you can have 300 students living in halls in the same buliding, all connected to the same arial but all paying for their own license when the Uni already has a license of its own for its own TV's. Its just a complete con. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 The licenses are basically a rip off. You should pay a fee to the BBC for using BBC services (like you do with Sky) rather than paying a fee just because you own a telly. Fair enough but at the same time we should ban adverts on TV as I pay higher prices for goods and services to cover the costs of advertising on TV, many of those adverts and linked or in the intervals of programmes I do not watch! The only totally fare way is to pay to view either each programme or each channel you watch. I always am amused at those to moan about the BBC license fee but are happy to pay three or more times as much for Sky, which still has adverts and on top of this you have to then pay to view some programmes as well. Programmes that previuosly might have been part of the subscription Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
localyokel Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 I always am amused at those to moan about the BBC license fee but are happy to pay three or more times as much for Sky, which still has adverts and on top of this you have to then pay to view some programmes as well. Programmes that previuosly might have been part of the subscription Don't get me on to Sky. That to me is the ultimate rip off - you pay a (not cheap) subscription each month and then have to watch the bloody ads as well. I'll never pay for Sky as long as I live on that basis as I think its taking the piss, but some sort of balance is necessary. I don't deny the BBC is a valuable service but there are tens of thousands of people out there paying for a service they never use. It also annoys me that they employ w@nkers like Jonathan Ross on £18m contracts, when they are not in a rating war with other stations. As long as the quality and impartiality are there they shouldn't care whether they have 10 viewers of 10m viewers because they are not appealing for advertisers revenue. The BBC should be devoting its money to backing new talent, and if they reach a level of fame at which commercial TV will pay them more to move, then rather than offering them huge sums to stay they should let them move and then find another new talent to take over. That is where they are going seriously wrong, competing with other stations on commercial terms when they are not a commercial entity. Its plain stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.