tv license inspection deemed as "no proof either way"
- Thread starter krisboats
- Start date
You can't afford 30p a day?
So in other words, they lied about what the law required of people to not have to pay for a TV license.
as a spoon fed sad ****** (and I know you were not explicitly imlying that
) i would suggest that there is a lot more to BBC programming than eastenders, dr who et al. There is some of the best documenrary, news, drama, original comedy available anywhere in the world (and some utter **** but that is the nature of having to make programming for all, as per their remit). Hope you enjoyed your rant anyway, you seem to know quite a lot about television for someone who doesn't watch it.
Do you use Iplayer? (this is not a legal question about whether using Iplayer means you are obligated to pay your fee - more a question of where do you think the prorgamming comes from.)
Fight the power! (with your microsoft xbox and love film subscription or whatever)
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 1,038
- Location
- Colchester, Essex
@StewartMG: you don't have to
@Viper²: that's not really an argument, he doesn't need one anyway, and that 30p a day could go towards something different (a new xbox game every 3 months-ish)
If he doesnt use his TV to receive channels then why should he pay it?
I never said he should.
No they quoted the most satisfactory way of satifying the tv license inspector bods as to a persons inability to receive a broadcast, whilst ommiting the fact that you could just unplug the aerial and de-tune your tv.
The tv licensing collections, setting up accounts and chasing non-payers isn't done by tv licensing themselves, it is/was done by Capita, who had to tender for the contract and achieved the winning bid by stating certain improvements in the revenue collection for tv licensing.
Some of these involved things like a yearly increase in direct debit payments, an increase in full c/c payments in march (don't ask me why something to do with the end of year accounts\o/ ) and mainly making non-payers pay. This was achieved by sometimes utilising under-hand methods ( not uncommon in debt collection ), so when someone called in to state that they didn't need a tv license even though they had a tv then you as an operative of the centre were required to give the spiel designed to attain a payment from said person with tv preferably a direct debit setup from which the operative would gain a bonus.It is a business after all.
Obviously they were never destined to get away with this for too long and since there has been an increase in people questioning this point and an increase in failure to prosecute then they have had to stop doing this.
I have to point out at this point that this was amongst the many reasons I left as I completely disagreed with their methods, another one being the letters they sent out that frightened the bejesus out of the friler members of the public.
as a spoon fed sad ****** (and I know you were not explicitly imlying that
Hope you enjoyed your rant anyway, you seem to know quite a lot about television for someone who doesn't watch it.
Do you use Iplayer? (this is not a legal question about whether using Iplayer means you are obligated to pay your fee - more a question of where do you think the prorgamming comes from.)
Fight the power! (with your microsoft xbox and love film subscription or whatever)
No, i meant spoonfed in that i'm not one of the hundreds who think i own a tv therefore i must pay a license. I guess you only fall into that sad category if you watch eastenders or similar girly soap "dramas"
I've used iplayer a handful of times, mostly on my mobile phone. My girlfriend uses it if she's bored. I know where the programming comes from, but at the same time the other channels all manage to find programs without forcing a tv license and the bbc don't adopt an advertisement based revenue of income. Of course i know a lot about television, i've said i used it in this very house before when we used to have a license. But as it stood even then i never used the tv anyway and whenever i did it was only to watch a film that i was too lazy to find the dvd for from the dvd rack. I occasionally watched scrubs, but again, I own the dvd boxset.
I'm not trying to fight the power but if i'm not going to use it in the methods they've laid out then why should i pay for it? If they didn't want to have people without a tv license watching iplayer they'd have made use of iplayer, in its entirety, illegal without a valid license.
If they are as bad as people say they are in terms of enforcing people to pay for the licensing and within their own terms they say i don't have to pay then i don't feel morally obligated to pay towards non-live iplayer usage at all. I would be mad to feel bad about watching it.
No sir, I don't watch TV on that, that's hooked up to my HTPC, where I watch all my illegally downloaded films and TV series'
not the only one
I personally don't pay for a licence for several reasons:
1.) i don't have a TV.
2.) i don't watch live TV.
3.) i don't pay for things i don't get
So why should they tell me to pay for one
But i don't think they realise that some people just don't watch TV and EVERYONE must watch tv...