Paying for TV License

Go on the TV license website, fill in the form saying you dont use your TV for anything other than Gaming and Movies.

They send you a letter confirming receipt and say they wont bother you again. They say they will send a letter in 4 years time to see if anything has changed. But other than that nothing.

I've not heard from them in the 3 years I've lived at my home.

Theres no need for a hostile attitude towards them or anything =\
 
do_ron_ron said:
Not this one again!!. You pay to receive a television signal NOT to pay the BBC.
Click to expand...

No you pay to watch live broadcasts - watching iplayer live needs a licence, watching iplayer after the broadcast doesn't

A detector van can provide enough evidence.
Click to expand...

Doubtful - have you got an example of a TV detector van's evidence ever being used in a court in the UK... AFAIK no evidence from a detector van has been used in court.
 
LeeUK said:
Never had a licence for 7 years now.

Odd threat-o-gram addressed to the occupier through the post and the odd clown knocking on the door.

They have no right of entry and can't make you sign any paperwork. I just tell the clown that I don't require a licence and close the door.
Click to expand...

That is what i have been doing now for the last 10 years . Do not watch or want a tv , Have had a few try and intimidate in the past .They soon **** off once i get angry ,:)
 
Amp34 said:
Perhaps, however as they are the only broadcaster that does good documentaries and doesn't have adverts in the middle of programmes they are certainly the best for me...

I would begrudge spending £30 a month on TV and still have to watch 10 minutes of adverts for every 20 minutes of TV show (aka all sky/VM channels).



Need a licence... (edit: to clarify I mean tvcatchup.com, not iplayer/demand4 etc)
Click to expand...

The BBC tends to produce a certain type of show. You can argue whether its quality or not, much of that is about personal opinion and if you like it then thats grand. Whether you like it or not though, doesn't change the fact that it's unfair for anyone with a sky / cable subscription who has no interest in BBC shows. Course the world isn't fair and the people benefiting from that seem to like it that way.

DIABLO said:
People also seem to forget that the fee also pays for all the BBC radio stations that are advert free, so the £150 is a bit of a bargain i think.
Click to expand...

Only a bargain if you listen to them. It also apparently pays for institutionalized protection of child molesters but I'm sure Saville considered that a good deal too. =p
 
Last edited:
Old Man said:
Wondering why it was never set up to pay for as a subscription ??? As other networks have done...
Click to expand...

Because that would
A: Change the whole ethos of the BBC (where it is expected to do something for pretty much everyone*).
B: Require tens of millions of TV's, let alone STB's, PVR's etc to be changed.
C: Cost a lot more in admin etc, people complain about the cost of collecting the TVL, doing it subs would cost a lot more (as you need to license, install and maintain some form of encryption at both the playout end, and the customer end).

Sky did it on the back of being able to pick and choose what it went after, getting a few things with very high appeal and that people were willing to pay through the nose for (sports and movies).
Cable did it on a similar thing, but with an emphasis on the non TV services it gave you before BT was opened up to competition, and now BB.

It's also worth remembering that what they can do, and how the BBC can operate in the UK is largely set out in their charter, which places some strong limits on any commercial activities in the UK.

*As opposed to chasing after ratings winners all the time, and taking the short term view (as happened a lot with ITV and to a degree C4 where they were after lots of viewers of one type and were willing to give up on trying for many other viewers).
 
Werewolf said:
*As opposed to chasing after ratings winners all the time, and taking the short term view (as happened a lot with ITV and to a degree C4 where they were after lots of viewers of one type and were willing to give up on trying for many other viewers).
Click to expand...

We hear that argument a lot and today it may be true but the TV license was introduced in the 40's and I'd be surprised if that was genuinely an issue back then.

Also whilst it deals in a different types of shows and culture, I find what HBO puts out to both be quality programming and its not uncommon for their shows to fill out the full time slow much like the BBCs do.

Personally I think it's just the nature of things. Big business will almost always end up chasing maximum profit at the cost of quality. However there will always be those who love what they and have the desire to put out quality. All we need to do is make that possible and I don't think we need a taxed funded media company to make that happen.
 
Frankly, I'd have paid my tv licence this year for the coverage of the Olympics alone.

I pay mine. It's not a huge amount.

Just think of it as a mini tax, then you can hate it, but see that it's necessary. (I know it lacks many of the properties if a tax)

kd
 
If you never ate at McDonalds and then McDonalds started sending you threatening letters, accusing you of being a criminal because you don't eat there, even going so far as to send employees around to your home to check that you're not actually eating a McDonalds, there would be outrage, and quite rightly. But the BBC get away with it...

TVLicensing are a National disgrace, how the UK General public just put up with them is beyond me, absolutely no other company in the UK could get away with their actions, hell, even the Police can't send around letters accusing you of a crime without some actual proof!
 
They should scrap the TV license and just reduce the personal allowance. It must cost a small fortune to administer the it.
 
Is it archaic how the BBC can still charge for their services without us having a choice. When I hear of the high salaries, abundance of staff and cracking pensions, life must be good for them. Even with other perks such as claiming back tax on clothes worn for TV shows.

However, the iPlayer is excellent as is the 6-Nations coverage. The Olympics was great and there's the odd movie here and there without adverts, so it works out okay with me.
 
I went on their site filled out the form for not needing their licencesnd all was good. Now they keep sending Mr letters saying I purchased tv watching equipment from Argos. Oh no I did not idiots.
 
Also as if/when a licesen inpsector turns up tell him you've removed his assume rights of access to your property and if he doesn't leave close the door and call the police for tresspassing and harassment.
 
magick said:
Also as if/when a licesen inpsector turns up tell him you've removed his assume rights of access to your property and if he doesn't leave close the door and call the police for tresspassing and harassment.
Click to expand...

If you remove their assumed right of access then can get awkward. Its rare to have a search warrant issued but in most cases it is done when their assumed right of access has been removed.

Either don't answer the door or if you do, do not give them any details whatsoever, don't even confirm or deny having a tv - it is none of their business!
 
mixed feelings about the BBC. i do like no ads, and a lot of the programming.
i don't like the huge fee, £100 or under would be more like it, or at least options like a full package or reduced services.
the main reason i hate the BBC is the ridiculous salairies people are paid. cut wages and the fee could drop or go a lot further

good site that all the same
http://www.bbctvlicence.com/index.htm
 
Last edited:
UncleRuckus said:
Saw this on Youtube the other week apart from a nub tainting it by talking about David icke it's rather interesting.

The end is rather hilarious when the licencing chap tries to read them their rights :D

Click to expand...

I got bored after 2 minutes. The TV guy had a warrant to gain entry, but was unable to gain entry because...? Did they (successfully) argue the warrant was unenforcable? Or did they simply decide not to enforce it for PR reasons?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom