TV licence dodgers may no longer face prosecution

Given that Badger watch was getting millions of viewers, and that from memory it's an offence to disturb badgers your idea falls at that hurdle..

It also falls at the hurdle that things like Badgerwatch have presenters who can fill in the boring bits, and can have cameras set up to watch the sett all day and show highlights when it's not doing much.

I have badgers in my garden, I don't have a clue where they live, neither do any of my neighbours, I do know they've been seen on a busy (town centre) road at night as wll, but that doesn't really assist in locating their home.
What I do know is that at the first sign of a human being around they move, and they move very fast through ground that I, as a human cannot go through (for example they go through small holes in fences, they can make their way over a stream faster than I can get down the bank without breaking my neck).

And that is just one of the British species of wildlife that is fairly big and easy to locate, try getting to see a kingfisher in the wild catching it's food (we've got some of them in the field next to us, I've seen them feeding about 3 times in twenty years, including the time I ended up sitting quietly for about an hour after catching a glimpse of one), let alone the foreign wildlife or underwater.

The BBC tend to show a heck of a lot of stuff the commercial channels wouldn't show, either because it's "too risky" (IE they don't know if enough viewers will tune in to keep their customers happy*), or too critical of products - can anyone recall the last time ITV let alone Sky did any consumer affairs programming that was critical of big brands?
Top Gear apparently, despite being seen by some as a great advert for the car companies, has seriously ruffled almost all the manufacturers feathers at one point or another (there is a tale about I think a foreign car exec upon seeing one of their cars being criticized by Clarkson and co calling up the Euro HQ to demand the advertising was pulled on the channel that showed it - not realising it was on a non ad funded channel).


*We, the viewers are not the customers of most TV stations, we're the product tempted in with the shows, the customer is almost always the advertisers (even Sky aren't viewer driven as they sell adverts).
 
Don't use your ignorance as a defence for others.
Wut? :confused:

How the hell is walking not feasible?! You see those two things below your backside? It's what they're for.
It's a twenty mile walk for me, I could do it but I wouldn't expect anyone else to.
By your logic all educational and cultural resources should be free. No charge for books. University. Theatre. Cinema. Concerts. Need I go on?
No, there is no point in presenting another ad hominem, please stop.
All I suggested was that morally the BBC should fulfil its charter and where necessary provide it for free. Excluding people from society based on poverty is not justifiable.

Actually I paid for some of that University research so I'd like access to all those research papers too. It's pretty pointless requesting the same information to be passed around by hand when it's all online anyway. It's like making the Life and Thoughts of Kerry Katona a subscription only read.
 
It's an offence to disturb them. Not to watch them.

You're completely missing the point though werewolf. Badger based education is not a necessity. Nothing provided by the bbc is a necessity. It's a nice to have.
Food is a necessity. Should that be provided free of charge by the government?
 
Wut? :confused:


It's a twenty mile walk for me, I could do it but I wouldn't expect anyone else to.

No, there is no point in presenting another ad hominem, please stop.
All I suggested was that morally the BBC should fulfil its charter and where necessary provide it for free. Excluding people from society based on poverty is not justifiable.

Actually I paid for some of that University research so I'd like access to all those research papers too. It's pretty pointless requesting the same information to be passed around by hand when it's all online anyway. It's like making the Life and Thoughts of Kerry Katona a subscription only read.

It does provide it for free via its website. Something which can be accessed from a library or I'm pretty sure job centres have pcs with internet access. So it is available.

Also, Kerry Katona has thoughts? Take your nonsense out of here man! :p
 
It does provide it for free via its website. Something which can be accessed from a library or I'm pretty sure job centres have pcs with internet access. So it is available.

Again, the nearest public PC is twenty miles away and might as well be on the moon, so we are back at the TV being the only viable disseminator of culture and education to the masses.

I'd also argue that such a service is necessary in a modern society, having an educated and cultured society is part of creating a civilised world.

Look at Middle Eastern countries for clear examples of the opposite, backwards religious mono culture with a mass of uneducated peasants creates a vicious circle of under development and primitive attitudes.

Frankly I'd find it easier living without heating or waste collection than I would without the service the BBC provides, it is more of a modern utility than any of those.
 
Again, the nearest public PC is twenty miles away and might as well be on the moon, so we are back at the TV being the only viable disseminator of culture and education to the masses.

I'd also argue that such a service is necessary in a modern society, having an educated and cultured society is part of creating a civilised world.

Look at Middle Eastern countries for clear examples of the opposite, backwards religious mono culture with a mass of uneducated peasants creates a vicious circle of under development and primitive attitudes.

Frankly I'd find it easier living without heating or waste collection than I would without the service the BBC provides, it is more of a modern utility than any of those.

Most of them have free tv though. Lol. I've seen shacks on pacific islands with tv. Mud huts in Africa with them. Favelas have them.

It may also be major stereotyping but I don't think the majority of the poor in this country watch tv for education and culture. Hence why daytime tv is so utterly dire.
Additionally the vast majority of people in this country live in urban situations where the nearest free pc is a lot closer than 20 miles.
 
The TV licence doesn't even fall under normal laws like theft and fraud, they had to create a specific offence of not owning a TV licence, that alone shows how stupid the law is.
 
It may also be major stereotyping but I don't think the majority of the poor in this country watch tv for education and culture. Hence why daytime tv is so utterly dire.
I'm quite happy for Game Shows to be pay per view.
£100 per second seems fair.
Additionally the vast majority of people in this country live in urban situations where the nearest free pc is a lot closer than 20 miles.
You really are flogging a dead horse here, the easiest way to do this is via some form of freely accessible broadcast, not to expect the infirm, elderly, bed ridden, agoraphobic or in fact anyone to leave their home and use a library's facilities.
 
I'm quite happy for Game Shows to be pay per view.
£100 per second seems fair.

You really are flogging a dead horse here, the easiest way to do this is via some form of freely accessible broadcast, not to expect the infirm, elderly, bed ridden, agoraphobic or in fact anyone to leave their home and use a library's facilities.

We're not talking about the ill, whether mentally or physically, we're talking about the poor. People who are perfectly able of accessing the information that you deem to be essential elsewhere.
Those that you mention and the fact that the tv may be their only possible source of well...anything is a totally different issue. One where perhaps they should be freely entitled to it, no matter what their wealth. However it may well be that the expense is already taken in to consideration in benefits and pensions.
 
So why should people who don't watch the bbc subsidies your viewing?

why do we not get a return for our investment? basically they're being funded by us to make a product and then sell it on, but do not give us our share of the profit from the venture.

I'm sure there are very, very few people in this country who are totally untouched by the BBC. You'd have to never watch any BBC channels or programs, listen to any local or national BBC radio stations, or use any BBC online services. When you compare all this BBC stuff for £145.50/year to what you get from Sky or Virgin I think the numbers speak for themselves. The cheapest Sky package will cost you £258/year and you get 35 rubbish channels full of adverts, no radio, and little online content.

Regarding "why should people who don't watch the bbc subsidies your viewing?" - that's exactly the opposite idea to how a public service broadcaster like the BBC works. It's a bit like the NHS. Everybody pays in, and it makes it free at the point of use, for the greater public good.

Interesting that you see the license fee as an investment. Do you also think of subscription charges (Sky and Virgin) as an investment? For the cost of the license fee everybody in the country gets so much more back than anybody does from the commercial outfits. Sky even has a larger operating expenditure than the BBC (£5.9 bn to £4.8 bn) - where the hell is all this money going? Everything they do is covered in adverts and they don't produce any of their own shows.

In the end I believe we're so much richer as a result of these national/socialised projects than left to the market. Just look at TV in the USA for the end result when there isn't a body like the BBC with the aim to "inform, educate, and entertain". It's dire.

Edit: also Werewolf's point about being immune from market forces means you get unique types of programming, e.g. everything David Attenbourgh has ever done.
 
Last edited:
Regarding "why should people who don't watch the bbc subsidies your viewing?" - that's exactly the opposite idea to how a public service broadcaster like the BBC works.

Yes and that's what we are opposing. People can't afford food yet they are being harassed for money for luxuries like TV licensing. Public service broadcasting is unethical.
 
Yes and that's what we are opposing. People can't afford food yet they are being harassed for money for luxuries like TV licensing. Public service broadcasting is unethical.

What you've written doesn't make sense. If someone "can't afford food" then they probably haven't got "money for luxuries" :confused:

I don't believe being able to watch live TV is a right, so if a household can't afford £145.50/year for a TV license then I don't think they shouldn't be watching it. There are plenty of ways for people to access news and entertainment by other means until they can get back on their feet and can afford the 50p/day for the license fee.

As for "unethical", the "public service" part means anybody who really can't afford a TV still has access to quality content on the radio or online (e.g. at the library) at zero cost.
 
What you've written doesn't make sense. If someone "can't afford food" then they probably haven't got "money for luxuries" :confused:

That's exactly my point, they don't. The licensing authority harass people for money for a non-essential service they aren't even using. It's not the NHS and it's not means tested. Unethical.
 
this.

TVL take you to court as soon as you give them your name, whether you need a license or not.

Best bet = don't talk to TVL, ever.

Hopefully... if they can't take you to court, they might stop sending goons round to our houses and sending threat letters every other week.

Funny that,

I game them my name, address and in fact filled in the whole online form to declare I did not require a TV licence in a property.

I got an email back to confirm and nothing else since. No more plz pay tv licence letters.

Perhaps your resistance to give them the details they want is backfiring?
 
They will bother you again in the future, best thing is never have any contact with them period.

They feel they still have the right to come into your home to see you are not receiving a signal.
 
Why dont they just scramble the bbc channels, if you want them you pay the licence fee. If you dont, then leave them scrambled. The ability to do so is there. Personally i do pay my telly licence, but theres only so much on the beeb i watch. Mainly science/natural history, which quite often i will end up buying on dvd/blu ray anyway so the bbc is still being funded.
 
Back
Top Bottom