For UK members. If you own a TV you must have a licence. WRONG!

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy
reply to post by stumason

 

Lets not forget the lavish offices, and the £3.9 million they spent on artwork for their london HQ...the artists paid £8000 to cover scaffolding, £25,000 to fly a toy helicopter over the building to make a 2 minute film...then the ludicrous fees paid to the top presenters....such as Wossy

Then you have the £80 million a year wasted on poor staff management....the list is endless.

To be honest what they do with the license money is neither here nor there. There are plenty of other ways of raising revenue to pay for all the things you pointed out.

Its a stealth tax, like the Lottery

Can we now also add the 1 billion pound white elephant in Manchester that hardly anyone wanted to move to and now they (BBC) are spending more money on Hotels and chauffeurs for the 'stars', that didn't want to move 'up north' yet another vanity project at the behest of Labour for the left leaning BBC

reply to post by Revolution9


You blame the BBC, when it was channels like ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, MTV, reality TV and the "celebrity culture" which came with it that has turned everyone into a brainless turd?

The BBC was Johnny come Lately on the "reality" TV bandwagon. If anything, the BBC makes the only, genuinely decent programming, with Sky 1 following a close second (although a lot of theirs is imported).

reply to post by FFS4000


True!

I will say at this point I am not saying the BBC is perfect, but compared to the alternatives, it is a damned site better.

Just imagine if Murdoch got his way and killed the BBC in it's current form...

Just imagine...

urrrrgh.....

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Revolution9

 

You blame the BBC, when it was channels like ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, MTV, reality TV and the "celebrity culture" which came with it that has turned everyone into a brainless turd?

The BBC was Johnny come Lately on the "reality" TV bandwagon. If anything, the BBC makes the only, genuinely decent programming, with Sky 1 following a close second (although a lot of theirs is imported).

They are all delivering an AGENDA! They are deliberately shaping people psychologically, the lot of them! I see through it like the thin soup Woody Guthrie sings about, haha!

I only watch class films online like Orson Wells, Copola, etc.

The BBC, Sky or any other channels are not meeting my needs for intelligent media. I don't want the BBC filling me full of lies and authority biased, agenda based garbage. I want Shakespeare, Pinter, Wells, Copola. Look at all that great material available; all the literature, plays and poetry. Think of all the true musical talent out there that never gets to reach the ears of people through these channels.

They are totally selective of what THEY want people to watch, not what we want to watch. I despise this media. It is garbage; from the news to Eastenders, it is BS!

reply to post by Revolution9


Ok....

I can see you've lost the plot completely, so I won't waste my time.

I will just say that I don't watch much TV myself and leave what I do watch down to a few select programmes. Currently, they be Top Gear, Fringe, South Park and recently, the new Sherlock Holmes series, which is actually quite a good homage to Sir A.C Doyle.

Personally, it seems you're actually quite pretentious and believe yourself above others simply because you like crap from years ago, as opposed to crap from today.

Let's just say I pay for a package of TV, internet and phone. It's on a contract that I can't get out of for another 10 months. But this week I cancel my TV licence because I don't watch TV as it's being broadcast. I only watch iplayer 4oD, DVDs, or play games. When I fill the form in and tell them this how do they know I'm telling the truth? How much hassle will I get because they automatically don't believe me? Will they send umpteen threatening letters or men with badges to my door often? Do I have to put up with that?

Or, what if I get rid of my TV package and get a new deal of internet and telephone only? Do I have to let them in to check there's no aerial going into my TV? What about the lead going from PC to TV? They can then accuse me of watching live TV via my computer. Just how does one prove to them that you're not watching telly programmes as they are being broadcast? The whole scenario sounds so stupid.

reply to post by wigit


The onus, in a criminal case, is for them to prove guilt, not for you to prove innocence.

Being connected to anything bar an aerial (be it Terrestrial, Satellite or Cable) is not currently within the remit of the licence. That said, if they (or you) really want to prove that your TV connected to a PC doesn't watch live broadcasts, IP logs will show this.

reply to post by stumason
I


Sherlock is quite good, I didn't expect it to be!
It's a pity they only put out 4 episodes a season..

Sorry about the top gear quip

And I thought the "customer fee" I had to pay on my electric bill was a ludicrous thing. I pay for a cable package and I have to sit through annoying commercials. That's enough. Do you all get free, commercial-less television over there? Honest question. I had no idea you guys had to pay a "TV license" fee.

We can get free network channels over the airwaves, though they still have ads.

Now, If I could get free television, all channels I wanted without advertising, I'd pay a fee for that. I only ever watch 2 or 3 channels anyway.

reply to post by Mandrakerealmz


WOW I wondered if I was the only one who thought this is weird- a liscense to watch television through an arial antenae, strange, but then again I live in the US, other than the cost of cable or an internet provider-information is free here

Thank you for this. I've never heard of this TV license before and it is very strange. People controlling other people has gotten so out of hand that it is now beyond ridiculous. The future does not look good if this control keeps up.

reply to post by woodwardjnr


I enjoy BBC America whenever I can, especially for "Top Gear".

I feel the same way about PBS here in the US. They used to air Monty Python and Mr.Bean often.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by The Sword

 

Most TV networks get their funding from advertising or Product placement. The BBC has no adverts for commercial products so relies on a licence for it's funding.

More and more people are using laptops and other devices so the licence is becoming a bit of a defunct mechanism of gaining revenue.

I have never minded contributing to the license as I enjoy quite a lot of BBC content. Although it has definitely gone down hill recently.Personally, I think it would be a shame if we lost the BBC as a public broadcaster, but understand why people would not want to pay for something they don't use, with so much other choice now available.

I'm curious... is there any sort of product placement in the programs aired on the BBC? I would consider that advertising and the industry does as well. I'm guessing that shows produced in the US are aired on the BBC which are chock full of product placements.

Seem like a huge scam to me as I'm sure it does to you all across the pond.

They always inform the TV license people of your identity & address when you buy an electrical item, like a dvd player or a video player, then if you don't have a license registered in your name, they contact you and ask why you don't have one. The old chestnut of not needing one if you have a tv only for computer games etc, is wrong, they insist that if the tv receives a signal, you COULD watch it, therefore you HAVE to have one. A friend of mine threw his TV out of the window after this very situation arose, the police were there to either remove the tv, or see the license, he was telling the truth, but it got so heated, that he just threw it. He didn't have to get a license after that, but he got a fine for throwing the tv out of the window.

I am afraid they tell us to jump and we still say " how high ".

I read on a Wiki page that the TV license enforcement people are paid commissions based on the fines they levy? Is this true? If so, that seems like a HUGE gaping hole for fraud and a path to all kinds of nasty bullying tactics for them to hunt you down. Another useless agency with too much power and lot$ of motivation to use it

(sorry for the dollar sign..but it's shaped like an 'S' and fits. )

reply to post by CoherentlyConfused


BBC channels are ad free, all the others are not. Same for Radio.

reply to post by Blarneystoner


All programmes and channels in the UK have to be careful about having too much product placement, otherwise they may fall foul of OFCOM or the ASA. The BBC is very careful about it, not wanting to be seem to be "advertising".

As for US shows, they are mainly shown on Sky (the Murdoch owned Satellite channel). Other networks may carry them for a while but shows that are big, like LOST for example, end up selling their rights to Sky as they have big wallets, so midway through a series you'll get the show switching channels.

The BBC, as far as I am ware, does not show any US produced shows unless it has done it as a collaboration (Movies aside). In fact, the BBC are the only channels that can say it makes most of it's content.

reply to post by CoherentlyConfused


An easy way to avoid "being bullied" is to just pay the damn fee. It's only £11 a month and if you're elderly or disabled you get it free. People spend more on 3 pints down the pub, so I really don't see what the fuss is about aside from a matter of principle.

As for the commission, I honestly don't know. I have NEVER seen an inspector, even when I went 4 years without a licence. Got the letters, no show from them though. I only pay it now as I try to lead an "honest" life and pay my dues, which far to many people these days try to get out of.

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by loves a conspiricy

 

The license fee doesn't just towards the BBC News or their TV channels. In fact, it only covers around 75% of the BBC's broadcasting costs. They make 25% of their revenue selling their high value programming via the BBC World Service.

It also pays for a lot more besides, as well as a grant for Channel 4 (yes, that too is a state owned channel) and paying for the infrastructure over which the entire terrestrial TV service is broadcast (so ITV, C4, C5 etc etc). The BBC also do a lot of R&D into new technology which a "for profit" company wouldn't do.

It always strikes me that those who bleet about the licence fee rarely know what it is for. They make the assumption that it pays simply for the BBC without any thought as to what it is the BBC does.

I'm sorry Stu but that is incorrect. The terestrial network is owned and operated by a private company called Arqiva. Each TV sation that wants to broadcast over their network has to pay individually. As for BBC R&D that was all but dismantled years ago, Siemens look after most technical aspects of the Beeb now. Most of the BBCs share of the license fee goes on paying exorbitant wages to people like Chris Moyles whilst those earning minimum wage have a gun held to their head to pay the license fee wether they agree with what the BBC broadcasts or not. I don't see why a political propaganda machine like the BBC should be paid for by taxation. I have not paid my fee for 12 months and I will go to court if I have to.

reply to post by michael1983l


Preaching to the wrong man, matey.. I know!

I actually work closely with the BBC, Arqiva and Siemens in my day to day role... I actually thought after posting that was more of a historical fact, but the BBC still have to pay Siemens for their services. That all came about a few years ago as "punishment" for the BBC over the whole David Kelly thing by Blair. Prior to that, they ran the vast majority of their technical functions themselves.

As for the Arqiva thing, you are right on the money though. I knew they came about from the ITA and plain forgot they bought the BBC transmitters some years back... Ironic, as I actually did part of my apprenticeship on a BBC/Arqiva site back in '99...

So, I stand somewhat corrected, but to not distract from the thrust of the argument I was making, the licence fee is not solely for the BBC and it's TV shows. Channel 4 benefits as does Digital UK.

reply to post by michael1983l


And, I still do not understand the logic for tax avoidance... That is what it is.

Propaganda machine? Ok, fair enough, but what about the rest of your taxes? Would you refuse to pay your council tax, because you disagree with the council and their policies? What about income tax as you disagree with the Government?

Being part of society involves people paying their way. if everyone decides not to pay their way for whatever reason, where does it stop? If you want rid of the fee, set up a Parliamentary petition and get some backing. If people, as a whole, feel it is unfair and not needed, then surely it would be got rid of? As it stands, there is still a lot of support for the BBC and the fee as a whole, otherwise we would see mass tax avoidance.