The licence fee also goes towards upkeep of the network FWIW. But legally speaking, they can't come into your property without your explicit permission or permission from the courts, and they will never get the latter. So you can tell them to GTFO all day long regardless whether you have a TV or not. Their only reprise is to try to enter your property without your permission, i.e. be careful of leaving your curtains ajar if you go out in the day because they will happily sneak up and try an peek in to see if they can see anything. Not that they have that right.
The Dutch system of TV and Radio licensing divides the available broadcast time to different license-sponsored broadcasting companies according to the number of viewers they attract. Each has its own political/religious orientation and tends to favour its own programmes (Veronica is much like Channel Five; IKON is a religious broadcaster, the Conservative Catholic KRO and Humanist Labour VARA are a bit like BBC and Channel 4, respectively. There are several others like the Progressive VPRO and the public broadcast NOS news and sports service). It is the best of both worlds: because they are partly License-sponsored, broadcasting companies do not have to cater solely to advertising or other market forces; they offer a balance of religious and political views and consumers get to influence how their fees finance companies through their majority viewing behaviour. News is kept relatively free from political bias through the NOS. I'd certainly support that over here in the UK, even though there are problems with it. Dutch TV is deplorably bad compared to what the BBC has to offer (and yes, I'm Dutch, I grew up in the Netherlands, and we have been able to receive the BBC 1 and 2 since 1985, so I have had many years to make an informed comparison. I'm not the only one either --the BBC channels are the most popular foreign channels in the Netherlands, coming ahead of the Dutch-speaking Belgian channels, Germany, France and Italy and often even favoured of Holland's own). Market forces aren't always a good thing. Ironically, the Dutch have the same problem that you highlight here: if they had a choice they'd rather not be paying a licence fee either. But they'd end up subscribing to the BBC. Majority consumer choice, it pains me to say, tends to lead to Setanta Sports and TV Soap omnibuses. Currently the amount of airtime allowed by the UK broadcasting regulator Ofcom for advertising is an overall average of 7 minutes per hour --10%, with limits of 12 minutes (20%) for any particular clock hour (8 minutes per hour between 6pm and 11pm), but with a US Commercial TV model that would go up to 18 minutes --30%. You may think that a BBC licence fee is a rip-off, but how about paying £25,-- a month so someone else can use your TV as their advertising billboard for a third of the time? That's the problem with giving people what they want: you end up with bread and games. I do not disagree with you on the licence fee system: it is an archaic left-over from the olden days when there was only the BBC, and it offered a valuable public broadcast service that nobody else could. Now things are different and perhaps the licence fee should be cut loose --let the public decide. It's fair, but we'll also end up with deplorably crap TV. You could say that the whole argument comes at its basis back to socialism vs. capitalism. Capitalism undoubtedly works --but to an extent. You do not always get higher standards of living; sometimes you just get Coca-Cola and Macdonalds, and that is not the same thing. Socialism may not offer quite as exciting consumer choices, but it gives a reasonable baseline standard of living for everybody. I would stop with the insults, by the way. They're tiring and unproductive and nobody takes you seriously anymore. That is a non-sequitor. You said that US TV was some of the best in the world, I said that was an opinion, not fact, just like I have an opinion about BBC TV. Sorry, I got that impression from: But if you don't watch BBC and don't pay for it, then why are you complaining?
You seem to have something of an irrational fear. Just because somebody pays the licence fee doesn't make them a puppet of the BBC / the government / blacks gay jews. So is that that you've been responsible for paying your own TV lisc for 19 years but never have, since you're such a proud champion of freedom, or is it that you're 19, still live with you mum and dad and they pay it for you? Oh and I'm not sure if Top Gear, The One Show, or Total Wipeout are left-wing propoganda. If you're so panicked about being brainwashed by the BBC News, you could just watch Cbeebies instead? Well I think we can rule out the champion of the people option, considering you're making everyone else pay for your hissy-fit. If you did pay the fee, like you're legally (and morally) obliged to, I think you'd have a more authoritative view-point. "2.3% of UK households do not have television" - fair enough. and "estimated evasion is 5.1% during 2007-8" - of which I imagine many belong to can't pay / can't be bother to pay (students). Curiously enough, the vast majority remaining still pay it and enjoy the range of services on offer. So ultimately you're just the stain in the pants of an effective (although not perfect) and worldwide highly regarded broadcasting system.
You need to have a look at your definitions of "fact" and "opinion". It is sunny outside my window - This is a fact. Whether a million people disagree or agree, this is a fact. The BBC should be gotten rid of - This is an opinion, and can only ever be an opinion. Whether a million people agree, disagree, or do not care, it is and will always be an opinion. It can be a fact that millions of people agree with this opinion, but this opinion can not be a fact. You have consistantly presented your own opinions as fact, while accusing others of bringing nothing to the table but opinions. The sooner you realise that this debate is one of opinions the better. Those opinions can be supported by fact, as both sides of the debate have done at times, but ultimately it is a matter of opinion. Bottom line is, the TV licence is most simply looked at as a tax. Just like many other countries in the world, there is publicly funded television. Except with the TV licence you have the ability to opt out, in the event that you don't actually watch TV. Similar to road tax I suppose. But in these times of increasing rejection of the TV and increasing adoption of other methods of media viewing, the era of the TV licence being an effective method of taxation is coming to a close. The obvious solution of course is just to include the bill in the annual budget. Most people won't complain, most people won't care. Then the issue of disliking publicly funded broadcasts comes down similarly to one not liking the fact that jobless people get money which has been forcibly removed from working people just so they can remain jobless. Or young ladies getting breast enhancement or reduction surgery on the NHS because they want bigger/smaller boobs. Or old people getting free bus travel simply for being old. In a society, almost every individual who cares enough to be aware is going to find problems with the way some of their money is spent. The television licence is only different in that because up until now it's been possible to enable those who do not use a television to not pay it, people seem to feel it should be entirely optional under their own terms. You want change, write to your MP.
I really like and watch / listen - BBC News - Daily Politics - BBC Three - Radio 1 For £11 a month, i'm pretty happy with the amount of enjoyment i get out of the BBC. Also quite proud we've got something like the BBC, which many countries actually envy. Reputation the BBC has globally is quite something. Everyone else who doesn't like the BBC or paying for it - Unlucky and cheers for contributing .
ORLY? So far you have dismissed people as "lefties" whose agenda it is to push their "propaganda machine" on you, you have called them liars, and low people who have their head up BBC's backside. Compelling argument, I'm sure. Opinions are not more valid just because they are held by a majority, if that is what you are getting at. Think about it. You have, and you can even voice your opinion here. And you can quote facts to support your opinion. What you cannot do, however, is call people "low", "liars" or dismiss them as lefties with their heads up the BBC's ass. Those are not valid arguments; those are ad hominem attacks. And surely your opinion is based enough in fact and rational logic not to have to stoop to that? Thought so. Keep it civil, please.
The dutch bbc haters forum, great. You're entitled to express your opinion as much as anyone, but calling everyone who disagrees with you opinionated brainwashed lefties is a little too much, maybe if you weren't so derogatory to everyone else who expresses an opinion maybe they will listen to what you have to say and not think you're some 'righty-law-breaking-loony'. You do realise he agrees with your viewpoint right? Its my opinion (that's right one of those opinions that arent worth anything unless backed up with facts :O ) that you aren't even reading what people are saying, and you certainly arent taking they're arguments on board as you keep spewing the same rubbish over and over again. In a word, just chill, we're not the government deciding on whether or not to keep funding the bcc with the license fee or not, we are merely people expressing our opinions on a public forum. I think the bbc is a great institution, i think its worth the money just for the web side of things, and i know they do make a lot of crap (eastenders to use defiants example) but at least its original programming and not just some show bought from elsewhere (im looking at you dave), they make great shows like ashes to ashes, being human, doctor who, have i got news for you, QI ect ect. The main reason i want to keep the bbc and the license fee is because it won't be the bbc, it will be some ITV like channel, do we really need another ITV, i thought 1 ITV was bad, never mind 4 or however many channels they have D: (yea probably be more like channel 4 which i like but meh ) By the way defiant, everything i wrote was a FACT :O (Probably >.>)
I think the BBC must have turned him down for a job in the dim and distant past. I'd love to see the line of reasoning which led to me becoming a 'BBC fan' too - having worked for the BBC, albeit for a fairly short time as a contractor in the News Interactive team (they're the people who're responsible for news.bbc.co.uk, amongst others) I've seen first hand what a twisted organisation it is and have no real desire to work for them again - the levels of waste, in terms of time and manpower, were just mindblowing IMO. All that said, between the BBC and Murdoch I think the Beeb is the lesser of two evils but nothing changes the fact that 99% of the BBC's output is utter, utter crap and it's deeply ironic that the only programmes that seem to be worth watching these days are ... the American imports ("The Big Bang Theory" Cheesecake ...)
I don't watch Eastenders, but it's nice that you picked Eastenders to imply I'm some sort of idiot for watching it, and that you're above me for that. I presume you're favourite shows (non BBC obviously) include Big Brother and Britain's Got... dancing people. So why do mighty I pay for 'lesser' people to watch lesser shows like Eastenders? Why do I pay for old people to listen to radio 4 when I only listen to radio 1? Because it works both ways. There will be millions of people out there sitting watching EastEnders and wondering why they pay for me to watch boring documentaries. The BBC is obligated due to the nature of it's funding to provide a wide range of programs, including ones which wouldn't be commercially viable as they won't attract enough audience. While channel 4 and ITV (to a lesser extent) have a remit for public service broadcasting, the many satellite and freeview channels don't. Nor does commercial radio, or websites. Specofdust touched on some very good points. I've had to stomach the full lisc fee cost living alone, yet a shared household get to split their cost? I do agree, a switch to funding through general taxes would be more fair. But then the few with no TVs would be disadvantaged, and uppity people like yourself Mr Defiant wouldn't be able to evade it. Would you prefer that? Because it seems like the only realistic option. You've also mixed up my and Nexxo's quotes in post #97, can you change that? You're making me look smarter than I am.
my major problem is that they compete with the likes of ITV for sport when really they should be helping ITV /4 get more sport i dont mind if there are adverts at half time i go make toast anyway also i really cant remember the last time i watched BBC 28
Maybe we should get a bit-tech poll going: - Happy to pay the licence fee - Don't pay but do watch - Don't pay or watch The thing that gets me is the letters they send always say "we caught x offenders last month" where x is usually in the region of 30,000, yet I don't know of anyone who's been caught, and neither does any one else I've asked. Does anyone here know of anyone who's been caught? As apparently they're catching 360, 000 people a year...
Just as well you're not watching cricket then .... ad breaks at the end of each over, which was the norm when I finally gave up on the electric s**t-pump, would mean you'd be making a hell of a lot of toast
Yes, but only one person - a guy I studied with at university got busted when one of his housemates let one of the enforcement goons in and he got caught in the act trying to hide his telly under his bed Think he got fined a couple of hundred quid - this was back in 1990, though. Like everything that Crapita, in their TV Licensing guise, come out with I'd be inclined to take it with an unhealthily large pinch of salt.
Well seeing as I don't actually watch TV at all and our unused Virgin box is now broken anyway, should really get my dad to cancel both and save a few bob a year.
Well I didnt think there would have been a response like this when i created this thread. It's good to know that some people share the same views as me. For those that don't.....that is your choice, If you enjoy the BBc programs, and radio shows fair play, go enjoy. But please don't get on your soap box and quote figures and sasticis at me, I have made my choice not to watch the BBC and not pay the licence. I have taken advice from here and the webpage quoted earlier in this thread, I have written to the Tv Licence people and have stated that I do not receive a Tv signal, nor do I wish to receive one in the immediate future, I also added that unless they attend my property with written documents, signed and dated by my local court, that they have permission to enter said property. We are all entitled to our views and opinions.
I've just taken that very action only take bb from vm now, i use sipgate for the phone and freeview for live telly. Cheeky *******s phoned my wife to check she was aware i cancelled the products!
We are, and as long as everybody expresses them rationally, respectfully and friendly (like yourself) we're all good. I think that people's problem with Deviant1337 is not so much his opinion (I can see where he is coming from) but the way he expresses them and dismisses others'.
well I would suggest that you ring them again as according to your post they can came and enter whenever they like.
Unless they have an Official Warrent of Entry from the Court (Either Magistrates or County, i Can't be sure) They have no authority to enter my property, even if they have sufficient evidence they must by Law have written docs signed and dated by the District Judge. It is only the Police that can enter property on a whim, if they believe that an offense/crime is being committed. (This happened to me a while ago when the police raided my house looking for Drugs, the silly buggers got the address wrong and it was the neighbours. Funnily enough they didnt get the drugs, just the hydroponic equipment in the basement.) Or so I think. I may be wrong, but my understanding of the law is such.
The wording in your post (which Ryu is quoting) should say "That they *do not* have permission to enter said property" as it stands the wording makes it look like your giving them permission to enter unless they have documents signed by the local court (sort of the opposite effect of what your going for ).
