No TV Licence For Me...Part Two

[papagran40]

well , all I know is we pay it , grudgingly , but I must admit , that the beeb does make some brilliant progs and we are not getting adverts every ten minutes in what might be a good prog on the ordinary tv...but it is a bit off when you think it is only because of the beeb we have to pay the licence fee....the way tthe bbc sell their progs now , I am sure we should not need to pay....but as said....nice to watch a prog without adds........papa.

[KAYS6912]

What about the +1 programmes - does that count? You are not actually watching THOSE as they are broadcast but an hour later.

Think I mentioned before that I saw a "pie chart", detailing what the licence fee covers and I was fuming to say the least. I only watch BBC occasionally - David Attenborough programmes, Wimbledon and maybe one or two others, BBC2 RARELY and the other two NEVER. I don't use their website and I certainly don't listen to ANY BBC Radio programmes. And with regards to that, why am I paying for BBC World Service? It's all wrong! Surely it's against the law to be charged for services that are NOT rendered?

Think I'll take a leaf out of your book Moonie and ditch it!

[moonwitch]

As the article in Moonwitch's link suggest, many people don't watch tv anymore in the traditional sense, but use "catch up" means instead. Maybe that explains their very aggressive ways trying to get you to pay up for a license - fear of losing money in a perfectly legitimate way.

I think you have hit the nail on the head.

They must be losing money...the people sending threatening letters are bang out of order though.

Maybe a bunch of us should be getting together and complaining as a group

[Bohemian]

The licence people will regularly chase every two years. How do I know this ? I don't watch tv and regularly get hassled by them. Only last week, I filled in the online form stating that I do not watch tv and why I don't need a licence. They have stated to me that they must contact anyone without a licence, every two years
"it is their duty". So, they said "We may visit you...." can't wait :-)

[TonyBridger]

They can visit you but they cannot enter your premises without your permission so really they are just wasting their time in the hope that you will invite them in & they will find a tv.

[Oldandintheway]

Spot on Tony! This is the main reason our government dropped the licence system years ago. It costs more to try & catch people who are doing the wrong thing than its worth.
I predict the UK government will eventually comes to the same conclusion?
Their only alternative otherwise, is to keep increasing the fees.

If they want to get passed Rodney, then they're welcome to try!

[Oldandintheway]

PS. Finding a TV isn't enough - they have to find me using it as well.
I could have a house full of TV's & never switch them on, if I was so inclined.

[rokins_toys]

OH and I were discussing this only a few days ago (as a result of my earlier conversation with our neighbour). Our conclusion is that the whole system is "out of date" with modern technology/media/communications and should be done away with. As the article in Moonwitch's link suggest, many people don't watch tv anymore in the traditional sense, but use "catch up" means instead. Maybe that explains their very aggressive ways trying to get you to pay up for a license - fear of losing money in a perfectly legitimate way.

The BBC have made it clear you still need a license to what their iplayer or whatever the hell it is. It is just ridiculous. I rarely watch BBC channels. I get my TV though Virgin Media and as far as I am concerned, Virgin Media pay the BBC for their right to broadcast their channels which is included in the Virgin Media subscription so why should I pay for a license solely for BBC channels when the BBC are not directly broadcasting to my TV. I have no ariel, no receiver for digital signals, I have my Virgin Media box for which the BBC are not broadcasting to.

If the BBC wanted to, they could scrap the license and switch to advertising, they would triple their annual revenue especially for adverts during prime time soaps and other prime time rubbish they show, then they can pay their "stars" and their directors all the high wages they want. But if they want to keep the license, then wages need to come down so the rip-off license can come down in cost, it's just another greedy tax at the end of the day. Plus they make tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of pounds from selling programmes around the world, especially documentaries they make. And I don't care about adverts, as when the ad breaks come on, I pop on the computer, check email etc. make a drink and so on so I miss the adverts )

[Maelbrigda]

The BBC have made it clear you still need a license to what their iplayer or whatever the hell it is. I
)

you dont need a licence to watch iplayer
http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.u...rogs/tvlicence

[emdiecast]

I refuse to pay for a TV licence for the tripe they serve up. If I want to watch a series, say 24 or CSI, I just buy the box set and watch it at my leisure. When I have finished it I sell it on.

Somebody further up the page said that if the telly is not turned on nothing can be done. Wrong!!
If the inspector turns the telly on and it is tuned to the TV channels that is good enough for them to prosecute you. I spoke to a young lass at the TV Licensing and she said that the TV has to be off-tuned so no channel can be received. Mine is off-tuned just in case they carry out the threat to pay a visit, not that they would get any signal anyway because my aerial cable has been taken out.
I think the BBC should have to do the same as the other TV stations and that is advertise. The other channels don't get any money from the licence fee so why should the BBC have all the pie to themselves.