TV Licence Super Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ken
  • Start date Start date
String said:
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. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Who has banned them, certainly NOT the BBC..... Dominic Cummings perhaps?

Certainly years ago ministers were queuing up to get on Newsnight and The Today programmes. Pity I like to see/hear them defending their positions, irrespective of their political stance.
 
Belly said:
Who has banned them, certainly NOT the BBC..... Dominic Cummings perhaps?

Certainly years ago ministers were queuing up to get on Newsnight and The Today programmes. Pity I like to see/hear them defending their positions, irrespective of their political stance.
Click to expand...

Yes, the Conservative leadership invoked the ban.
 
It's like them reputedly not being allowed to use the term brexit anymore .. but haven't heard enough HP live to corroborate

ISPs also won't hand out IP/connection details or logs without a court order.
Click to expand...
it's easier than you think https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.p...-deals-blow-uk-isp-internet-snooping-law.html
or, ambiguous .
The Court of Appeal has today dealt a blow to the UK Government’s internet snooping ambitions. The ruling effectively finds it unlawful to collect the nation’s internet activity and phone records, while letting public bodies grant themselves access to these personal details with no suspicion of serious crime.
Click to expand...
 
Thats public bodies. Which doesnt include the BBC. But even then they can only get very specific data, not just browse through it as they like.
 
stockhausen said:
I think that it refers to people who are too thick or lazy to use Google :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Don't take me for a **** :mad:

You know full well what i meant. In other words, why the hell is this even mentioned in a so called "public debate"
What anyone's "age, disability, gender reassignment, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation, marriage and civil partnership and pregnancy and maternity" has got to do with the decriminalization of the tv licence beggers belief.
 
Jez said:
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.
Click to expand...
Nasher said:
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.
.
Click to expand...
This ties back into my question, which nobody else seems to be asking and seems to me to be the most pertinent question of all? Surely they have no right to information from you, so how will the fine levels be set? It'll surely have to be one size fits all.
 
Nasher said:
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.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

Private companies hold more information on the public than some public companies do.

Experian, Google, Facebook, banks, insurance companies, etc.

You don't need authority to hold information on someone.
 
Psycho Sonny said:
What are you talking about?

Private companies hold more information on the public than some public companies do.

Experian, Google, Facebook, banks, insurance companies, etc.

You don't need authority to hold information on someone.
Click to expand...

But you have to have a reason to keep it and it has to be relevant. It also can't be used for something else.
 
ISP's are holding IP addresses, anyway, for potential security service use, so the idea that Capita couldn't access these to identify license breakers (aka copyright infringers ?) seems illogical; there's an article about lots of N.Ireland uni students being prosecuted, which (they don't take tv's on campus these days) must have been iplayer/live streaming abuse.

The BBC seem cagey about their/Capitas methods. .... people who have been prosecuted don't sign an nda that would prevent them revealing proof mechanism either.
 

Downing Street 'vows to abolish BBC licence fee'


"Downing Street is planing to scrap the BBC licence fee and replace it with a Netflix-style subscription model, according to reports.

Senior aides to the prime minister allegedly told the Sunday Times that the corporation would be forced to sell off most of its radio stations and scale back its website.

The plans also include reducing the number of BBC TV channels and banning the broadcaster’s stars from having “second jobs”, it is claimed.


“We are not bluffing on the licence fee,” the source was reported as saying. “It has to be a subscription model.

“They’ve got hundreds of radio stations, they’ve got all these TV stations and a massive website. The whole thing needs a massive pruning back.”

Before the general election, Boris Johnson admitted he was ”looking at” abolishing the licence fee.

He was also said to be considering the decriminalisation of non-payment of the annual charge.

The current royal charter – which sets out the governance of the BBC – runs until December 2027.

Earlier this week the BBC chairman Sir David Clementi warned the prime minister that attacks on the corporation will result in a “weakened United Kingdom” and urging the government “not to rush to short-term decisions”.

It comes after Downing Street refused to appear on BBC Radio 4‘s Today programme due to what they believe is its pro-Remain bias."



https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/bbc-licence-fee-could-be-axed/ar-BB102n0K
 
If they knock, answer the door, they will announce who they are, then say "oh bear with me just a moment, I'll be right back" then shut the door, and see how long they stand there. :p
 
b00merang69 said:
Downing Street 'vows to abolish BBC licence fee'


"Downing Street is planing to scrap the BBC licence fee and replace it with a Netflix-style subscription model, according to reports.

Senior aides to the prime minister allegedly told the Sunday Times that the corporation would be forced to sell off most of its radio stations and scale back its website.

The plans also include reducing the number of BBC TV channels and banning the broadcaster’s stars from having “second jobs”, it is claimed.


“We are not bluffing on the licence fee,” the source was reported as saying. “It has to be a subscription model.

“They’ve got hundreds of radio stations, they’ve got all these TV stations and a massive website. The whole thing needs a massive pruning back.”

Before the general election, Boris Johnson admitted he was ”looking at” abolishing the licence fee.

He was also said to be considering the decriminalisation of non-payment of the annual charge.

The current royal charter – which sets out the governance of the BBC – runs until December 2027.

Earlier this week the BBC chairman Sir David Clementi warned the prime minister that attacks on the corporation will result in a “weakened United Kingdom” and urging the government “not to rush to short-term decisions”.

It comes after Downing Street refused to appear on BBC Radio 4‘s Today programme due to what they believe is its pro-Remain bias."



https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/bbc-licence-fee-could-be-axed/ar-BB102n0K
Click to expand...

This has been needed for decades. The BBC funding system is fundamentally out of date and it has led to a company that has just failed to keep up with the modern competition.

The arguments the BBC put forward for maintaining the license just don't wash. If the BBC is as good as it keeps telling us it is, then why are they so afraid to adopt a business model that works for every other entertainment group in the world?State run TV in the West, in this day and age? Seriously? The BBC is a dinosaur from an era that no longer exists. This is one "de-nationalisation" that I would whole-heatedly agree with.
 
b00merang69 said:
“They’ve got hundreds of radio stations, they’ve got all these TV stations and a massive website. The whole thing needs a massive pruning back.”
Click to expand...

Good - the vast majority of their stations, content etc.. could just be run on a commercial basis.

Frankly they should spilt it in half and have a much smaller public service broadcaster - world service, news etc.. funded directly from taxation. The rest can go self funding...

Completely ridiculous that a fee needs to be paid to the BBC in order to say watch ITV, Sky, Channel 4 etc...
 
About time. I thought they would be scummy and stick it on general taxes, but seems not. The government makes a good choice for once :p

The BBC is going to have to improve if they want to sell though. They can't keep peddling the same low end crap they are atm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom