TV Licence

[Guest]

So are you saying that the "holier than thou" brigade that had a very nice cash job on their house extension last week are ok because they keep their immorality under wraps? And they're doubly ok by proclaiming that if they were ccer's they would on "principal" sic find a way to pay their TV licence.

Confirming some of this was aimed at me unsurprisingly, BTW how immature to pick up on somebodies spelling and use of grammar (usually considered bad form in an internet forum unless being done in jest which this clearly wasn't) but any way, the last house extension we had built was a conservatory and from memory I paid by cheque but definitely paid all our dues and taxes as we dealt with a reputable company.

 

You don't have to 'find a way' to licence a TV as a cc'er living whole time on a boat as it is simple and how to do it has been explained numerous times. It now seems pretty obvious whether you are breaking the law on this matter or not, or would I be wrong?

 

 

 

edit to correct spelling - before the spelling police arrive.

Edited August 8, 2014 by The Dog House

[nicknorman]

That's where the discussion gets very interesting,in my view. My point was that this is an area of zero enforcement, and we have so many holier than thou joes that proclaim that although they could get away without buying a TV license as a ccer they would jump through hoops because of their moral duty towards society.

 

My thoughts are that most of them have, at some point in their lives, not paid their full dues to society and should therefore not be so keen to take the moral high ground.

So are you saying that the "holier than thou" brigade that had a very nice cash job on their house extension last week are ok because they keep their immorality under wraps? And they're doubly ok by proclaiming that if they were ccer's they would on "principal" sic find a way to pay their TV licence.

Your argument seems to revolve around the principle that unless one is perfect, one may not criticise others. I suppose that is a good ethic for someone who doesn't want to receive any criticism, but fortunately in life it doesn't work like that. Just as well for my profession (aviation) for otherwise no instructor or examiner would be able to point out any errors or areas of weakness in pilots they were training or testing, unless they themselves were perfect (which, trust me, examiners and instructors certainly aren't). The net result of your attitude would be that you would probably die the next time you took a flight, since the pilots would never have had their bad practices and skill brought to their attention.

 

Use the same example on the issues surrounding bringing up children if that is closer to home for you. It is very much a case of do as I say, not as I do, and it has to be thus.

 

We all do things that are wrong, but usually we are not proud of them to the point of proclaiming them on a public forum and advocating others to join us. Taking pride in wrongdoing seems a quantum step further than erring occasionally and feeling a twinge of guilt.

[b0atman]

If one ccer has a tv licence and puts address as CRT canals.

Then are we all covered.

[Delta9]

I don't see what is immoral about not paying the licence fee. It is an unfair tax that is enforced in a horrible way, if anything supporting it by paying the fee is immoral.

[Guest]

I don't see what is immoral about not paying the licence fee. It is an unfair tax that is enforced in a horrible way, if anything supporting it by paying the fee is immoral.

Paying it keeps you within the law.

 

Keeping within the law is not 'immoral'.

[Grace and Favour]

I don't see what is immoral about not paying the licence fee. It is an unfair tax that is enforced in a horrible way, if anything supporting it by paying the fee is immoral.

It's not a tax - it's a purchase cost of buying a service for a year.

[Guest]

It's not a tax - it's a purchase cost of buying a service for a year.

Indeed, a bit like a licence to be on CRT waters......

[b0atman]

But why pay for a service that your not using ?

[Delta9]

Paying it keeps you within the law.

 

Keeping within the law is not 'immoral'.

Laws aren't based on morality. Breaking the law isn't always immoral, and staying within the law isn't always moral.

It's not a tax - it's a purchase cost of buying a service for a year.

Call it whatever you want, it is forced on people that don't use that service.

Indeed, a bit like a licence to be on CRT waters......

Except CRT don't assume everyone in the UK owns a boat, and don't threaten non-boaters with legal action.

[Guest]

But why pay for a service that your not using ?

Because the law says even if you don't watch or listen to the BBC you have to, just how simply can this explained?

 

Also it has been suggested in an earlier post that the licence fee contributes to transmitter installation and maintenance including those that broadcast none BBC channels.......I have no idea if that is correct but if it is it sounds fair enough to me.

Laws aren't based on morality. Breaking the law isn't always immoral, and staying within the law isn't always moral.

Call it whatever you want, it is forced on people that don't use that service.

Except CRT don't assume everyone in the UK owns a boat, and don't threaten non-boaters with legal action.

If you don't like it just don't pay, I couldn't give a monkeys if you choose to be a law breaker or not....

[carlt]

Except CRT don't assume everyone in the UK owns a boat, and don't threaten non-boaters with legal action.

Unfair enforcement does not make the charge unfair and there are many examples of unfair enforcement on the waterways.

[Delta9]

If you don't like it just don't pay, I couldn't give a monkeys if you choose to be a law breaker or not....

Why respond to my comments then?

Unfair enforcement does not make the charge unfair

The charge is unfair for multiple reasons.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Delta9

[Guest]

Why respond to my comments then?s

Because it's a discussion forum....

[carlt]

The charge is unfair for multiple reasons.

In your opinion.

 

I happen to believe the charge is fair though, like most public bodies, there is a lot of waste and I think some misguided spending.

 

If anybody does feel they are exempt from paying there is an online form that they can fill out.

[b0atman]

So are we saying that these other broadcasters do not pay for the use of these transmitter masts . Of course they do so that throws that licence justification out of the pram .

[Guest]

So are we saying that these other broadcasters do not pay for the use of these transmitter masts . Of course they do so that throws that licence justification out of the pram .

Where does any body say such a thing?

 

Ps - What has prams got to with things?

[b0atman]

The revenue from the TV licence does not just go to the BBC, it also pays for all the transmission masts that broadcast all the other, non-BBC stations and all the radio stations.

But then those that encourage the illegality seem to forget that!!

post 39

[Graham Davis]

 

Call it whatever you want, it is forced on people that don't use that service.

 

 

What service?

If you receive any television broadcast from any channel you are using the transmission service that is provided via the TV licence.

It is not just the BBC!

 

 

The charge is unfair for multiple reasons.

 

Said instead of making bloody stupid bland statements explain those reasons!

Edited August 8, 2014 by Graham Davis

[Delta9]

 

 

What service?

If you receive any television broadcast from any channel you are using the transmission service that is provided via the TV licence.

It is not just the BBC!

 

Source? I can find no evidence that the licence fee pays for transmission of non-BBC channels.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/whoweare/licencefee/

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Licence_fee_expenditure

 

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/what-does-your-licence-fee-pay-for-top13

 

 

 

 

Said instead of making bloody stupid bland statements explain those reasons!

 

 

 

re-read the thread, plenty of reasons have been mentioned.

Edited August 9, 2014 by Delta9

[Jerra]

. It is an unfair tax

So is the license to operate a VHF radio an unfair tax? It is like the TV license just a license to operate a certain kind of equipment.

[Graham Davis]

Source? I can find no evidence that the licence fee pays for transmission of non-BBC channels.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/whoweare/licencefee/

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Licence_fee_expenditure

 

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/what-does-your-licence-fee-pay-for-top13

 

 

 

 

 

re-read the thread, plenty of reasons have been mentioned.

 

Second sentence of the first paragraph of the last link!

The fee you pay provides a wide range of TV, radio and online content, as well as developing new ways to deliver it to you

 

So clever clogs, who do you think pays for the transmitters?

[Delta9]

 

Second sentence of the first paragraph of the last link!

The fee you pay provides a wide range of TV, radio and online content, as well as developing new ways to deliver it to you

 

So clever clogs, who do you think pays for the transmitters?

New ways to deliver BBC content to you.... clever clogs

 

The license fee doesn't fund transmitters for non-BBC channels. You have made up that "fact" and have no evidence to back it up...

Edited August 9, 2014 by Delta9

[andyscott]

At this point the BBC is just a corporation with state backing. There's a lot of great programming on the BBC, but why should I pay for it if I don't watch it? Must I be taxed for the mere privilege of owning an LCD panel?

 

Apparently the BBC is the only broadcast company in the world that can't compete in the free market and charge subscriptions for it's programming, so instead they use a legalise type system of quasi state enforcement to extort money out of us...and people support this?

 

This wouldn't even be so bad if the BBC actually stuck to the original principles for which the license fee was agreed upon, ie. a broadcast company that was free from political/state/commercial influence and interest. Have you ever heard of BBC worldwide? It's the BBC's run for profit arm that banks BILLIONS of pounds a year from broadcasting programming paid for and produced with your license fees.

 

It always gives me a chuckle when I read a BBCnews article and they're derogatorily mentioning Russian or Chinese 'state run media', the implication being those organisations are publishing bias or politically motivated content(which lets face it, they are). Meanwhile in Britain we have the most sophisticated and well funded system of state media the world has ever known.

 

[Delta9]

So is the license to operate a VHF radio an unfair tax? It is like the TV license just a license to operate a certain kind of equipment.

VHF radios transmit, so incorrect use would cause problems. You can't cause problems for other TV users by operating your TV incorrectly.

 

They are not even remotely comparable...

[Graham Davis]

New ways to deliver BBC content to you.... clever clogs

 

The license fee doesn't fund transmitters for non-BBC channels. You have made up that "fact" and have no evidence to back it up...

 

So who does fund the transmitters?

You haven't produced evidence it doesn't, plus when I have a complaint about the transmitter here in Llanidloes the number I find in the telephone book and the name given when it is answered is BBC!