TV Licence and iPlayer
- Thread starter Mesquite
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
100% correct and exactly what they did to my wife... and two babies...
(Hey ?! Hang on...)
��
That's also the reason we cancelled , the kids don't watch it , we rather chat , laugh , read and listen to music.
Glad to hear others do too...
Besides by the time school is finished and swimming and/or homework and dinner is done is nearly bedtime.
The mrs also looks after the horses and we have a dog that we love taking out on big walks.
She does the horses everyday and sometimes evenings too, we all get to have a go at weekends !
How do people even have time for TV?
My down time , I like to come here and learn and read and participate in discussions , getting ideas for our little family escapades...
Just found myself smiling reading what you've written... we're probably not so odd on here the way we interact with our families, but outside of BCUK... I have friends who laugh at me for taking my kids camping in Yorkshire so we can go fossil hunting on the beach. I get friends laughing because we play board games as a family, or I sit in the garden with the kids making them hot chocolate from my kelly kettle. We're very lucky to have BCUK where, although we may disagree about some issues, we mostly all agree there is more to life in the outdoors than there is sitting in front of the latest rubbish on the telly.
Going back to the threats/intimidation, it is strange that they didn't try that with me when I answered the door. I stuck to the facts, was open and honest... but when I was working away, my wife would ring my mobile and let me listen in to how they spoke to her. The only comparison I have to their manner and tone was that of loan sharks back in the 90s. I remember hearing the same pace, tone and manner on the doorsteps of the Wirral when a single mum fell behind with a payment to the local 'loan' company. It was infuriating then and it was infuriating to listen on the other end of a mobile to someone hassling my wife over a 'license' we did not need to have.
Respectfully I have to completely disagree. Nothing would suit their companies more than a very public prosecution in court, splashed across the pages of the red tops the following day. The threat would be more real for those who read it and thought twice about whether they want to just pay the £145 or argue the point.
There is no distinction btw between Capita and the BBC. The BBC may not send Bruce Forsyth to your door demanding money, or ask Jimmy Tarbuck to sign a letter demanding you pay... but they employ a 3rd party to collect, regardless of the situation. The BBC are the people chasing people and they are the people who demand the TV license remains in place.
Here's an idea... and I like this one a lot because it makes people put their money where their mouth is.
You like the idea of the BBC? You want to pay the TV license? Excellent... lets make it a voluntary payment. If enough people are in favour of the BBC and its programming, then the BBC survives. If not, or if say it is only 60% of the population... the BBC survives on what it gets in. If that means we have to lose BBC 3, BBC 4, the iPlayer... whatever really... let democracy decide. If you believe in the BBC as an institution, then put your tick in the box.
Or... and this is me just being me... but how about we say to people they have to pay the £145, but they get to decide... does it go to the BBC or does it go to their local hospital. 1 in 3 of us will experience cancer in our lifetimes, and I personally have lost 3 people in the past 6 years to cancer, more than that in my lifetime, but given the option of giving some support to the nurses and support staff that have made a real difference to people's lives, or giving money to Esther Rantzen to pretend to give a monkies about abused kids... well you know what, I think my local hospital will spend the money better and let families spend more time together... in front of the telly or not.
They would say that of course but it is absolute bull****, the burden of proof is on them to prove that you were watching East Enders on catch up, not on you to prove that you were not, no judge in there right mind would accept that you have to prove that you were not watching TV as that is like trying to prove there is no Santa Claus.
They would if they could get away with it tax you for watching youtube, and let us make no mistakes about this, it is not a subsidy for the BBC but a general tax on compulsory TV ownership.
When they write to me about the new rules I shall write them an elegant letter back, and if the idiots want to see me in court they will be the ones who are wasting public revenue not I.
And that would depend upon them being able to break down your door and get a screen capture of what you were (allegedly) watching at precisely the right moment, well it ain't gonna happen is it. If you do not watch the propaganda machine that the BBC has become by any means then that is what they really fear, because the sub text of this is not that it is illegal to watch TV without a licence, but that they want it to be illegal for you not to be hooked into the big brother propaganda machine.
I couldn't have said that better.
The NHS saved my little boy's life twice now , and I mean it was close.
There's is no amount of money that I can ever pay, to make up for that.
I'm eternally grateful to the men and women that worked on him, and in fact we became good friends with one of the nurses on duty on that night.
And these people actually do this everyday!!!
I agree with Dewi on the volunteer payments for the license , we'd soon find out if it sink or float for them.
Last edited:
The only way they will catch you, is if your address is not on their database, so make sure it is and they will leave you alone, and the cheapest way to do that is to get a B&W TV Licence,(£49) your on their database, they wont bother you, as Capita get paid by results, they aren't going to spend money checking up on you, another way is if you have a relative over 75, as long as they spend time at your house, you are legally entitled to a free Licence, also if you have a blind person visiting( I could never work out why a blind person has to buy a TV Licence) you can get a Blind Persons Licence.What should be asked is, why don't people who live in Caravans need a TV Licence, it is assumed they have one for their home, but those who live permanently in a caravan are never asked about it, here in Cornwall we have a large European Community working on the farms, and living in caravans on the farm, they don't pay rates, TV Licence, and in most cases Car Tax, but dont fret, we pay extra to cover the costs of so called free Licences, so the BBC and their cronies, and Capita get their dosh. Just like the Euro Lottery when it goes up to £2.50 this month, we will still pay more than our European cousins pay.
Imagine if Netflix decided that everyone must pay £7.99 a month unless they could prove they didn't watch it. And if you didn't pay they would be threatened with court and large fines. It's seems ridiculous to say it our loud.
Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk
Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk
The NHS wouldn't need the extra cash IF the people on the ground were allowed propper control of the funds...
You already did pay for it. Unless you are going through the bahamas?
The water & sewage companies and your binman save his life every week, but it's not as dramatic?
Swallow, I have paid national insurance forever and will continue to gladly do so for many years to come, its not the point.
The point was that the TV license does not contribute anything useful for the upbringing or health of my children.
In fact quite the opposite effect.
And going on what Dewi had said , where the money would be better spent, I made that concurrence and expanded on a subject dear to my heart.
How that compares to the bin men and sewage people saving my kids life I don't really understand.
Its a cold and callous comment.
I know their work contributes to our well being , but we live ( and pay ) in a (semi) civilised society where this, is already set out for you , with more obstacles to have alternative arrangements than not.
The only other option would be for us to live in wilderness and/or off grid and purify our water and have compost toilets and bins.
This is something we thrive to obtain and I'm still trying to save and work towards that goal.
As well as learning and practising these ideas .
And I do think it's actually very doable.
How we would fare without the NHS around , I'm not so sure...
Hedgerow medicine is a hobby and my knowledge is miniscule in comparison with the vast subject , and not sure it would treat cardio vascular complications, septicemia and or meningitis which on different occasions have almost taken my family apart.
Dramatic doesn't even cut it, it's more like a nightmare you can't wake up from.
But then you wouldn't know that until you experience it first hand.
regarding the disagreement on this thread about wether you need a tv licenece if you own a tv but don't actually watch it I can give an actual true account about it. My brother has a television, it needs a minor repair to the sound volume but otherwise works fine, it's no problem for others to watch and listen to the tv but he is hard of hearing himself and can't turn the volume high enough to hear it, he has fell on difficult times recently financially so doesn't want to spend money having the volume repaired, however he also doesn't want to get rid of the telly because he may be able to have it sorted if finances improve at a later date, he has always had a tv licence. He phoned up the tv licencing authority personally and told them all of the above and asked them that if he kept his telly but never actually turned it on did he still need to buy a licence, they said NO, they said you do not need a licence just to own a telly you only need one if you turn it on and watch it, furthermore he asked if they could provide a letter stating that he did not need a licence if he owned a television but never turned it on so he could show it to the tv people who knock on the door of folks who don't have a licence, they did indeed provide him with such a letter and said as he had informed them the tv authority will not come knocking at his door for a period of two years. All this is absolutely true, my brother has a letter straight from the tv authority stating he does NOT need a licence if he owns a tv but never turns it on, I have seen the letter myself.
There is a moral in this true story, if want to know the facts not gossip then ask the actual authority themselves.
There is a moral in this true story, if want to know the facts not gossip then ask the actual authority themselves.
Or alternatively the moral of the story is that this is your brother's experience with the television licensing people, purely anecdotal and may not be an accurate representation of other people's experiences.
You state it is an 'actual true account' and 'all this is absolutely true' but it is a singular case. If the authorities dealing with this were one hundred percent consistent, it would be relevant, but as the authorities are clearly not one hundred percent consistent, the only real response that matters is hopefully your brother's finances improve and he can get his telly fixed.
Back in the eighties I went to boarding school with a boy we nicknamed Spenny. Can't remember why, but its actually true, his nickname was Spenny. He was given a packed lunch one day on a school trip and inside was a packet of crisp. He opened the packet and found just 3 crisp in it. I know this is absolutely true because I was sat next to him and saw it with my own eyes. So Spenny kept the crisp packet, wrote a letter, put the crisp packet in with the letter and sent it to the manufacturer. About 3 weeks later a box of crisps was delivered to the school and an letter of apology from the crisp company.
Being a giddy teenager and a touch jealous of Spenny's windfall, I repeated exactly what Spenny had done, but disingenuously included a crisp packet that had indeed held more than 3 crisps in it. I sent the same heartfelt letter of disappointment that I'd opened my packet of crisp and had been crushed to find only 3 crisps in it.
Weeks passed by and I never did receive a box of crisps.
There is a moral in this true story, if you want a box of crisps, you can't always con them out of a large company with a sob story letter. And just because the company did something once, doesn't mean they'll do the exact same thing twice.
You can't log onto netflix unless your paid subscription and password are up to date.
The beeb costs 40p a day, less than a packet of crisps and you get one of the most used web sites in the world, globally respected news coverage, award winning programming, a great catch up service and perhaps the best radio stations in the world and yet...people moan about the fee; beggers belief in my eyes.
Put £12 a month on the household council tax bill and everyone is covered.
Back to Spain on the 12th for three weeks and I'll watch bits of UK TV via Filmon with a clear conscience as I happily pay my license fee.
But arguably the packet of crisps is more entertaining and contains less bias... well, as long as its a complete packet of crisp rather than those 3 crisp wonders of the eighties.
Always reminds me of the argument that the Royal family cost each household just 70 pence a day, as if that justifies anyone paying money to one of the richest families on the planet. Likewise with the BBC, if it really is globally respected, has such a great service, then tell people their contribution is voluntary. What is wrong with that? Why enforce the payment for the service by law if the BBC is such a fantastic organisation, I mean surely people would voluntarily pay for the BBC without any threats or cajolement if its the best thing since sliced bread?
Your TV gives off an electromagnetic signature, it's detectable. And why are people assuming the license is a BBC thing, it's required for any equipment capable of receiving a broadcast signal.
Similar threads
