TV licence dodgers may no longer face prosecution

It is nit just entertainment. Go read the BBC charter. It is education and has to cater for what commercial channels can't afford. It makes absolute sense to take it out of general tax. And is not even remotely comparable to phones.

Aye it's surprising how many people don't seem to realise quite how much of what the BBC does is effectively economic suicide for commercially run stations, either because it costs too much to do, requires too much risk taking over a long period of time, or because it would upset the advertisers.

IIRC something like 90% of the TVL is effectively spent on stuff that wouldn't make a profit for a commercial TV/radio station (almost none of the BBC radio would survive commercially as it involves too much actual content vs preset automated playlists) with about 10% of the rest either paying for itself, or making a profit that lets it subsidise the niche and educational stuff.

Even things like Topgear* wouldn't be made in the current format by a commercial broadcaster because no commercial channel is going to air something that puts down pretty much every car manufacturer on a regular basis - oddly enough the likes of Porsche (I think it is) don't like jokes about their cars having a risk of spontaneously combusting, whilst others don't like being compared to wet flannels, sheds, and comments about their electrics..

It's also funny how many people claim never to watch BBC content, but don't seem to realise quite how much commercial channels rely on the BBC either for content directly, for co-funding documentaries and like, or less directly, the fact that the BBC often does R&D (part of it's charter), and training of staff.


*One of the shows that actually from memory makes it's costs back via overseas sales and merchandising.
 
It is nit just entertainment. Go read the BBC charter. It is education and has to cater for what commercial channels can't afford. It makes absolute sense to take it out of general tax. And is not even remotely comparable to phones.

Where's your figures and how many of them should have a TV license. Most people who claim not to need one do need one.

25 million TV license
Estimated 26.8million households own a TV
Estimated 27.6 households in the uk

So yes a tiny percentage, especially when evasion rate is considered 5.2%, leaving just 1.3million homes that don't need a license. Out of 27.6million. That is a tiny amount.

Television is used primarily for entertainment. You can charter all you like, but the prime time shows are never documentaries or informative. They are sport, things like the voice or fantasy like merlin and dr who. My figures are the same as yours, from the TV licensing page.

You also completely failed to notice my point about multiple people per household. If you pay for tv licensing through taxation then the total number of people paying will be higher than the total households currently not paying. Which means the figure for people paying when they don't need will be higher when looked at as an individual basis.

You also seem to be confusing tv licenses in force, with total households. The "Licenses in force" part of the stats you copied off the tv licensing page caters for businesses and multiple room occupancies as well so your 1.3 million summation is very off.

It's never going to happen, despite how much you seem to blindly love the bbc.
 
Last edited:
Aye it's surprising how many people don't seem to realise quite how much of what the BBC does is effectively economic suicide


*One of the shows that actually from memory makes it's costs back via overseas sales and merchandising.

I hope this is true because it's frustrates me now when I watch it, becoming a waste of money with the same old stunts and jokes
 
Did I say it would happen? I said ur should happen. For a hole host of reasons.
I didn't ignore it, its just a totally stupid point, yes mire people will pay, but so what. Do you really think lots of households who pay fir license only have one out if the three occupants watch anything from BBC.
It makes no difference.

And the charter is very important. And is why it can not go commercial or encrypted.
 
Did I say it would happen? I said ur should happen. For a hole host of reasons.
I didn't ignore it, its just a totally stupid point, yes mire people will pay, but so what. Do you really think lots of households who pay fir license only have one out if the three occupants watch anything from BBC.
It makes no difference.

And the charter is very important. And is why it can not go commercial or encrypted.

I'll try and explain it more simply as you don't seem to be getting it.

In the households that currently aren't paying, which is easily several million. There is going to be a higher average occupancy than 1. So if we say theres an average of 1.7 working people liable for taxation that currently don't need to be paying then even your massively too low conclusion of 1.3 million is actually 2.2 million people getting taxed for other peoples entertainment (the license pays for all channels being broadcast so the number of factual shows on the bbc is miniscule compared to the entertainment shows on all the other channels, ergo... entertainment) when they shouldn't be.

The stats you suggested include business licenses as well so if say 1/5 of the licenses are for businesses (that's a guess as they refuse to state how many) then it's only 20 million that need a tv license. Out of 27 million with a tv thats 7 million households that don't need one and given the earlier average of 1.7 people per household that would be paying by income tax then you have 11.9 million people paying when they don't need to.

I know i've kind of pulled that out my arse in terms of numbers but it explains the point i'm trying to show you.
 
I understand you point, its just a stupid point. As I said before the number of people who dint need a license is pitfall compared to the number who do. Doesn't matter which way it is. The amount affect by household or per employed. Remains pretty much unchanged as the people per household is an average anyway.

And yes you have pulled that figure from fairy land.
 
Meh, its a form of entertainment anyway so whatever. Given your own logic, the number of factual shows compared to all the other shows that are broadcast that the tv license pays for (every live broadcast remember so channel 5 etc) then tv is fully entertainment and should be entirely opt in.
 
V F, you mention trash but watch Graham Norton :confused:

You missed the point. I said depends who's on it. When Russell Crowe, Amy Adams and Henry Cavill was on, it was funny.

Could see the sense if it was Parkinson.

I used to watch some of that as well but again it depends who's on it. The last episode was great with Peter Kay, Michael Caine etc

Plus apparently Parkinson is coming back but on Sky Arts.
 
When watching television programmes being broadcast, you are watching programmes that are the IP (Intellectual Property) of the broadcaster or the TV Company the broadcaster is licensed to broadcast on behalf of. You do not own what is being broadcast, however when you pay the TV license you are paying for the right to watch these programmes, if you don't pay for the license then you do not have the right (by law) to watch the programme. In very simple and basic GD terms this means you are "stealing" the program you are watching.

This does not extend to legally purchased DVDs as these include the licenses for private viewing as many of them say at the start.

However I too agree with removing it from being a criminal offense not to pay the license, however it should be a Civil offense due to the points I have mentioned above.
 
Last edited:
. Given your own logic, the number of factual shows compared to all the other shows that are broadcast that the tv license pays for (every live broadcast remember so channel 5 etc) then tv is fully entertainment and should be entirely opt in.

How on earth did you work that out, perhaps you should go read the BBC charter and actually see what they have to do. It encompasses basically everything. A lot of which just isn't commercially available.
 
Where's your figures and how many of them should have a TV license. Most people who claim not to need one do need one.
.

source and method of investigation ?

When watching television programmes being broadcast, you are watching programmes that are the IP (Intellectual Property) of the broadcaster or the TV Company the broadcaster is licensed to broadcast on behalf of. You do not own what is being broadcast, however when you pay the TV license you are paying for the right to watch these programmes, if you don't pay for the license then you do not have the right (by law) to watch the programme. In very simple and basic GD terms this means you are "stealing" the program you are watching.
What's next handling stolen goods for not owning a tv license ?
 
I would say BBC fails at meeting its charter. About 5% of the BBC content promotes a better society and is educational.

"The BBC must demonstrate that it provides public value in all of its major activities." FAILED!
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't mind the TV license so much if it was only required for watching BBC content, after all that's what it funds.

Don't see why I should have to give the BBC money in order to watch sky channels.
 
^^ Too sensible though, some here cannot see that though as :

Head-Up_Ass.png
 
Back
Top Bottom