TV Licence Super Thread
- Thread starter Ken
- Start date
Finally got round to cancelling mine today, can’t remember the last time I watched live TV at my house although I did watch top gear at my parents recently
ironically the price rise announcement reminded me to cancel.
Fairly straightforward, just awaiting the deluge of letters now......
ironically the price rise announcement reminded me to cancel.
Fairly straightforward, just awaiting the deluge of letters now......
I suspect they wouldn't get as much money if they went to subscription only. So they are hanging on as long as they can.
It's actually barbaric to be bringing someone to court, clogging up the already busy day, to fine or potentially jail them for not paying some money to watch a box in the corner of the room.
You'll get your propaganda and pay for the privilege
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 12,234
- Location
- UK
done ty
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,666
Yes, you'd rather lose your freedom than pay £157.50. Righto.
Some would do it to make a statement and it would be a very good statement considering how much it would cost to house someone in prison at the taxpayers expense vs that £157.50
Probably zero. Given the fact they don't actually track freeview signals, nor bother to determine who lives at an address that doesn't have a TV licence, it's very unlikely they'll be bothering to track IPs. They spend most of their money on letters and red envelopes.
"What is the potential impact on licence fee payers, particularly the most vulnerable and those with protected characteristics?"
Protected characteristics, what the hell does anyone think that is supposed to mean ?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2019
- Posts
- 2,570
The only question I have regarding this (I couldn’t really care less about which way it goes);
If this goes civil rather than criminal, how will the enforcement for the fine have access to financial data for means testing?
What I am getting at, is will the fine come down as it’ll need to be a fixed fine to suit all, whereas via a court I’d certainly always get the full fine.
If this goes civil rather than criminal, how will the enforcement for the fine have access to financial data for means testing?
What I am getting at, is will the fine come down as it’ll need to be a fixed fine to suit all, whereas via a court I’d certainly always get the full fine.
They can't really monitor the TV signals like that, not without military equipment. It's unlikely the BBC has access to that.
ISPs also won't hand out IP/connection details or logs without a court order.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
I think that it refers to people who are too thick or lazy to use Google
Such facilities must be becoming more easily available, built into the (
and will filter down
... why is it not, just like accessing a registration plate database ? re-invoking the private parking fines analogy.
If TV license civil cases lead to black marks in folks credit records (do criminal prosecutions if they can't pay) repercussions may be significant too.
For TV licencing you're going to get someone like a Capita monkey asking for information. Who would automatically be told to get lost. A private company does not have any authority to gather that kind of information on someone.
For a paeodophile it would be the police, probably already with a warrant and forensics experts ready to go. There is a big difference.
Last edited:
I suspect they wouldn't get as much money if they went to subscription only. So they are hanging on as long as they can.
It's actually barbaric to be bringing someone to court, clogging up the already busy day, to fine or potentially jail them for not paying some money to watch a box in the corner of the room.
You'll get your propaganda and pay for the privilege
Indeed BBC would fail as a stand alone service (ie if you could remove BBC from your sky package and save 160 per year)
I actually hope they don't decriminalise
If they do it's either the death of the BBC or everyone pays in general tax.
I don't want either of these!
The police have absolutely no access to internet or mobile infrastructure like that. Information is provided by the companies that run the networks, the police don't just dive in and access it themselves.
I wonder how the modern BBC website will choose to headline the article about it, maybe something like:
Why is this business giving up £3.69bn of revenue?
or
26 million people will never have to pay this ever again
the majority of the website articles have turned into clickbait, or concern themselves with utterly ridiculous things (see: How do I tell my cat I've split with my boyfriend? - no I'm not making this stuff up..) that the news org is losing it's credibility and lustre fast.
Why is this business giving up £3.69bn of revenue?
or
26 million people will never have to pay this ever again
the majority of the website articles have turned into clickbait, or concern themselves with utterly ridiculous things (see: How do I tell my cat I've split with my boyfriend? - no I'm not making this stuff up..) that the news org is losing it's credibility and lustre fast.
If it is decriminalized it would probably cost the BBC more money to take "offenders" to civil court. This might result in bailiffs turning up at "offenders" houses and seizing assets. I'm NOT sure if such cases can be heard in the absence of the offender and from watching a number of programmes on TV some offenders were unaware that the case was or had been heard and the first thing they knew about it was when the bailiffs turned up. The unintended consequences might be that the licence fee has to increase.
I'd suggest that the present government (I voted for it) is angry with the BBC. Has anyone noticed that there seems to be a lack of Tory Ministers appearing on BBC2 Newsnight, Radio 4's Today programme?
I expect Boris Johnson is still licking his wounds from his grubbing by Andrew Neil in the Tory Leadership interviews.
I personally don't like adverts on TV. I record most programmes rather than watch them live that way I can skip through the adverts. If I know a programme is on Catch-up I'll download that; there seems to be fewer adverts than the original showing.
I'm happy to pay the licence.
I'd suggest that the present government (I voted for it) is angry with the BBC. Has anyone noticed that there seems to be a lack of Tory Ministers appearing on BBC2 Newsnight, Radio 4's Today programme?
I expect Boris Johnson is still licking his wounds from his grubbing by Andrew Neil in the Tory Leadership interviews.
I personally don't like adverts on TV. I record most programmes rather than watch them live that way I can skip through the adverts. If I know a programme is on Catch-up I'll download that; there seems to be fewer adverts than the original showing.
I'm happy to pay the licence.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 22,181
- Location
- Rollergirl
That's mostly down to the fact they're banned from appearing on selected BBC shows.
But yes, the current government consultation is completely coincidental and unrelated to all that.