Live aboard TV license

[Jerra]

1 minute ago, mrsmelly said:

Do you need a TV licence if you only watch independent TV channels? 

I suspect so, but you need a gun licence even if you just hang it on the wall and never fire it.

[mrsmelly]

Just now, Jerra said:

I suspect so, but you need a gun licence even if you just hang it on the wall and never fire it.

The answer is Yes you do need a licence even if you never watch any Beeb channel. That is ridiculous but true. Its outdated and needs change. It may well happen or it may not. 

[robtheplod]

Just now, mrsmelly said:

The answer is Yes you do need a licence even if you never watch any Beeb channel. That is ridiculous but true. Its outdated and needs change. It may well happen or it may not. 

The licence is odd in places as it struggles to keep up with technology..... one example is your kids are covered at Uni if they access TV on their phones/ipads etc, but if they plug in to charge they break the law....

[cuthound]

2 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

There were 2 TV channels when we were kids beeb and Itv. A new channel appeared in 1964 beeb 2.

There was still more on TV worth watching than there is today with 200 channels of unadulterated crap innitt. 

 

There is only a finite amount of quality TV produced, say 100 hours per week.

 

When there were only 2 channels almost everything was quality TV.

 

As the number of channels has increased, so has the need for "filler" programs to broadcast in between the quality TV.

 

Now the 100 hours of quality TV is spead thinly over many channels. It is known as the "raspberry jam" effect.

[Jerra]

4 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

There is only a finite amount of quality TV produced, say 100 hours per week.

Why is there only 100 ?ours of quality TV produced per week do you suppose.

[cuthound]

1 minute ago, Jerra said:

Why is there only 100 ?ours of quality TV produced per week do you suppose.

 

Becausè there are only a few people capable of creating it.

[john6767]

7 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

I think they work on the basis that not both locations are in use at the same time. I haven't read it for years

Yes, that is the difference for static caravans, but there is no such restriction with boats.

[john6767]

2 hours ago, robtheplod said:

The licence is odd in places as it struggles to keep up with technology..... one example is your kids are covered at Uni if they access TV on their phones/ipads etc, but if they plug in to charge they break the law....

I have mused about that one, I think the wording the “powered by internal batteries”, so you could argue that even when plugged in it is still being powered by the batteries.  I think the same would apply if you were watching your phone in the car, but plug into the car to charge and you potentially on shaky ground.  
 

My previous car had a TV tuner built into the entertainment system, again not really sure how you stand in that case.

[Jerra]

10 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

Becausè there are only a few people capable of creating it.

I would suggest more likely there are only a few prepared to pay for it.  I find it strange using your theory that the majority must work for the BBC.

[mrsmelly]

32 minutes ago, Jerra said:

I would suggest more likely there are only a few prepared to pay for it.  I find it strange using your theory that the majority must work for the BBC.

Its more a problem that youngsters dont even want quality programmes any more. One of the most watched programmes recently is Love Island, total dross of the highest order. There will have been many better programmes available at the same time when kids tuned in to that garbage. Thats not the fault of the Beeb or indeed independants its just what is wanted now 

[Wanderer Vagabond]

1 minute ago, mrsmelly said:

Its more a problem that youngsters dont even want quality programmes any more. One of the most watched programmes recently is Love Island, total dross of the highest order. There will have been many better programmes available at the same time when kids tuned in to that garbage. Thats not the fault of the Beeb or indeed independants its just what is wanted now 

No there wouldn't. The only programme worth bothering to watch on all freeview channels last night was the news and weather, that was it. When I look at what was available on pay channels (Prime, Netflix,Sky) there still wasn't anything worth wasting my life watching which made me glad that I don't waste any money on them. The likes of Love Island is just lightweight porn (a bit like Big Brother used to be, another crap programme fortunately despatched) and the advertisers love it since porn will invariably get some sad viewers to watch it.  

[mrsmelly]

Just now, Wanderer Vagabond said:

No there wouldn't. The only programme worth bothering to watch on all freeview channels last night was the news and weather, that was it. When I look at what was available on pay channels (Prime, Netflix,Sky) there still wasn't anything worth wasting my life watching which made me glad that I don't waste any money on them. The likes of Love Island is just lightweight porn (a bit like Big Brother used to be, another crap programme fortunately despatched) and the advertisers love it since porn will invariably get some sad viewers to watch it.  

You are right. What amazes me is who watch the stuff, I always thought it was numpties with little on the iq side. I was amazed and not a little shocked when a few years ago my very bright daughter with a job requiring well above average edumacational qualifications informed me she love Big Brother and always watched it  WTF............I blame the parents lol.

[blackrose]

15 hours ago, john6767 said:

Theee are some differences between boats and static caravans.  For boats you are covered if you have a licence at home, not sure about your example though if the one at the house is not in your name, I don’t think they clearly define that.

Well until it's clearly defined I'll just carry on.

[blackrose]

9 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

There were 2 TV channels when we were kids beeb and Itv. A new channel appeared in 1964 beeb 2.

There was still more on TV worth watching than there is today with 200 channels of unadulterated crap innitt. 

 

An old looking back with rose tinted specs cliche. I disagree completely. I think it was crap back then and there are some really interesting programmes on TV these days. Have you ever tried watching BBC4 for example? Full of really worthwhile stuff.

[blackrose]

9 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

Where's that wall when I need to bang my head on it. 

Perhaps we should enforce people who don't use other stuff to pay for it? You actually want enforced payment of people who never watch Beeb programmes. 

 

We already do that. We force people to pay for the NHS, police, fire service, local council services, etc, etc, who may not actually be using them, or do you wish to opt out of all those too?

Edited December 24, 2019 by blackrose

[cuthound]

11 hours ago, Jerra said:

I would suggest more likely there are only a few prepared to pay for it.  I find it strange using your theory that the majority must work for the BBC.

 

They don't. Some of the original output from Amazon Prime, Netflix and the commercial channels is of high quality.

 

My point was that you only used to need 2 channels to watch all of the quality TV, now you need several subscriptions as well as free to air if you want to watch all the quality TV.

Edited December 24, 2019 by cuthound
Clarification

[mrsmelly]

5 hours ago, blackrose said:

 

We already do that. We force people to pay for the NHS, police, fire service, local council services, etc, etc, who may not actually be using them, or do you wish to opt out of all those too?

I dont know anyone personaly and I doubt you do that has never used the NHS? even lucky people are born and more often than not in a hospital or at home with a midwife and go to a doctor from being a young child for jabs etc so thats bunkum. Police, fire service council services etc are neccesary for pretty obvious reasons. Having to pay for tv to one set of people when others support themselves is an entirely different matter, tv is not essential so choosing what you want to watch and not being enforced to pay makes sense and is fair, but you know that.

Edited December 24, 2019 by mrsmelly

[LadyG]

I listen to a number of BBC services, there is a world wide network of journalists, I assume they are also paid via the Licence. I would be willing to pay a smaller sum for the non TV services.

I don't have a licence, but I don't watch TV programs. 

The Licencing people seem to be able to identify those who watch programs via the internet.

[The Welsh Cruiser]

It's all about 'enforced sharing'.

 

Socialists types like lots of this. Unhappy for Britain to govern itself, they are happy for everyone in the country to pay so the country can be governed from the continent of Europe. These types extend this thinking well beyond the EU, they like the fact that everyone who wants watch t.v. is forced to pay, regardless of whether they watch the small number of channels that this payment provides funding for.

 

Non- socialist types, the majority, accept that some enforced sharing is necessary for the smooth operation of society but this should be kept to a minimum. On non essentials such as television, this majority thinks people should make their personal choices, and pay accordingly.

 

What's interesting is the socialist types' thinking as regards who should pay what with all this 'enforced sharing' they so desire. With income tax, they are apparently unhappy that only half the country pays any income tax, after benefits are subtracted. This is very unfair they say, those earning more should pay more than they do now, despite the highest rate of tax being more than double the basic rate. "Those with the broadest shoulders should pay their fair share". Local taxes are collected by the council tax, different bands for housing of different values, different amounts to pay.

 

Having established the above, it's difficult to comprehend how a socialist type could support the funding system for the BBC. I remember the poll tax riots, socialists full of anger, it was so wrong that everyone should be expected to pay the same, regardless of their wealth or ability to pay. But now, 30 odd years later, the same socialists support a poll tax for owning a television.

 

It's a strange old world. 

[LadyG]

38 minutes ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

II

 

Socialists types like lots of this. Unhappy for Britain to govern itself, they are happy for everyone in the country to pay so the country can be governed from the continent of Europe. These types extend this thinking well beyond the EU, they like the fact that everyone who wants watch t.v. is forced to pay, regardless of whether they watch the small number of channels that this payment provides funding for.

 

Non- socialist types, the majority, accept that some enforced sharing is necessary for the smooth operation of society but this should be kept to a minimum. On non essentials such as television, this majority thinks people should make their personal choices, and pay accordingly.

 

What's interesting is the socialist types' thinking as regards who should pay what with all this 'enforced sharing' they so desire. With income tax, they are apparently unhappy that only half the country pays any income tax, after benefits are subtracted. This is very unfair they say, those earning more should pay more than they do now, despite the highest rate of tax being more than double the basic rate. "Those with the broadest shoulders should pay their fair share". Local taxes are collected by the council tax, different bands for housing of different values, different amounts to pay.

 

Having established the above, it's difficult to comprehend how a socialist type could support the funding system for the BBC. I remember the poll tax riots, socialists full of anger, it was so wrong that everyone should be expected to pay the same, regardless of their wealth or ability to pay. But now, 30 odd years later, the same socialists support a poll tax for owning a television.

 

It's a strange old world. 

deleted [political]

 

 

Edited December 24, 2019 by LadyG

[frahkn]

1 hour ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

It's all about 'enforced sharing'.

 

Socialists types like lots of this. Unhappy for Britain to govern itself, they are happy for everyone in the country to pay so the country can be governed from the continent of Europe. These types extend this thinking well beyond the EU, they like the fact that everyone who wants watch t.v. is forced to pay, regardless of whether they watch the small number of channels that this payment provides funding for.

 

Non- socialist types, the majority, accept that some enforced sharing is necessary for the smooth operation of society but this should be kept to a minimum. On non essentials such as television, this majority thinks people should make their personal choices, and pay accordingly.

 

What's interesting is the socialist types' thinking as regards who should pay what with all this 'enforced sharing' they so desire. With income tax, they are apparently unhappy that only half the country pays any income tax, after benefits are subtracted. This is very unfair they say, those earning more should pay more than they do now, despite the highest rate of tax being more than double the basic rate. "Those with the broadest shoulders should pay their fair share". Local taxes are collected by the council tax, different bands for housing of different values, different amounts to pay.

 

Having established the above, it's difficult to comprehend how a socialist type could support the funding system for the BBC. I remember the poll tax riots, socialists full of anger, it was so wrong that everyone should be expected to pay the same, regardless of their wealth or ability to pay. But now, 30 odd years later, the same socialists support a poll tax for owning a television.

 

It's a strange old world. 

I would not be surprised if you thought that I was a "socialist type" - I do claim to be a socialist so couldn't blame you.

 

I paid income tax  on my wages while working (some of it at 40%) and I now pay income tax on my retirement pension. I couldn't care less what others do or don't pay (though I smile when non-payers get caught and whinge about it). 

 

I subscribe for a TV channel and would do the same for the BBC if I had to (despite being on the boat, with no TV at all for about half of each year). But what this has to do with my political views escapes me.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

1 hour ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

It's all about 'enforced sharing'.

 

Socialists types like lots of this. Unhappy for Britain to govern itself, they are happy for everyone in the country to pay so the country can be governed from the continent of Europe. These types extend this thinking well beyond the EU, they like the fact that everyone who wants watch t.v. is forced to pay, regardless of whether they watch the small number of channels that this payment provides funding for.

 

Non- socialist types, the majority, accept that some enforced sharing is necessary for the smooth operation of society but this should be kept to a minimum. On non essentials such as television, this majority thinks people should make their personal choices, and pay accordingly.

 

What's interesting is the socialist types' thinking as regards who should pay what with all this 'enforced sharing' they so desire. With income tax, they are apparently unhappy that only half the country pays any income tax, after benefits are subtracted. This is very unfair they say, those earning more should pay more than they do now, despite the highest rate of tax being more than double the basic rate. "Those with the broadest shoulders should pay their fair share". Local taxes are collected by the council tax, different bands for housing of different values, different amounts to pay.

 

Having established the above, it's difficult to comprehend how a socialist type could support the funding system for the BBC. I remember the poll tax riots, socialists full of anger, it was so wrong that everyone should be expected to pay the same, regardless of their wealth or ability to pay. But now, 30 odd years later, the same socialists support a poll tax for owning a television.

 

It's a strange old world. 

There is a small but significant difference between the Poll Tax and TV licence, I can choose not to buy a TV licence and not watch TV, there was no option of not paying the Poll Tax so your derision of 'Socialists' is totally unfounded. I would call myself a socialist because I choose to live in a society as opposed to your self interested 'utopia'. If you don't want to live in a society where those who can afford to, pay towards the maintenance of it, there are plenty of unoccupied islands or even Amazonian jungle where you can live and have to do everything for yourself from killing your own food to obtaining your own water.

[The Welsh Cruiser]

1 hour ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

There is a small but significant difference between the Poll Tax and TV licence, I can choose not to buy a TV licence and not watch TV, there was no option of not paying the Poll Tax so your derision of 'Socialists' is totally unfounded. I would call myself a socialist because I choose to live in a society as opposed to your self interested 'utopia'. If you don't want to live in a society where those who can afford to, pay towards the maintenance of it, there are plenty of unoccupied islands or even Amazonian jungle where you can live and have to do everything for yourself from killing your own food to obtaining your own water.

That's a bit extreme isn't it? Happily I'm amongst the majority in this very country, no need to go to any jungles. A referendum an whether to maintain or scrap the BBC licence fee would certainly go to 'leave', just as it did on the Europe issue.

[tree monkey]

5 hours ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

 

 

Having established the above, it's difficult to comprehend how a socialist type could support the funding system for the BBC. I remember the poll tax riots, socialists full of anger, it was so wrong that everyone should be expected to pay the same, regardless of their wealth or ability to pay. But now, 30 odd years later, the same socialists support a poll tax for owning a television.

 

It's a strange old world. 

And I remember the poll tax protests, what I remember is a very wide range of participants, old and young, left and right, hippies,bikers, families and retired servicemen. 

I remember it quite well

[Wanderer Vagabond]

4 hours ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

That's a bit extreme isn't it? Happily I'm amongst the majority in this very country, no need to go to any jungles. A referendum an whether to maintain or scrap the BBC licence fee would certainly go to 'leave', just as it did on the Europe issue.

Haven't we had enough of referenda? The same would probably vote for  Capital Punishment and who knows the result of a vote on the Monarchy would be (particularly after Andrew's efforts). Doesn't make either outcome right (although I suppose the abolition of the BBC would satisfy the extreme right!)

1 hour ago, tree monkey said:

And I remember the poll tax protests, what I remember is a very wide range of participants, old and young, left and right, hippies,bikers, families and retired servicemen. 

I remember it quite well

Yes, and if I could have done I would have joined it, job at the time made it impossible. As it turned out my only allowed protest was to pay the sum monthly in a bag containing mixed coinage of the maximum allowed of each denomination, which wasted a whole lot of time sorting and counting, my means of expressing annoyance at such a crap tax system.