Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

400,000 Households Avoid Paying For A Tv Licence By Watching Bbc Programmes On Iplayer


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What an earth has being forced to pay for something i dont use, not even an essential service, got to do with 'responsibility'?

Its theft.

Like it or not, it's the law of the country you live in. You have a responsibility to obey the laws of that country, not just the ones you agree with.

The fact that paying for this service can be easily dodged encourages theft of that service. I suspect <5% of those caught without a licence genuinely do not watch BBC programs, never mind not watching live transmissions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the BBC for its documentaries and factual programmes that are usually of the very highest standard. I get angry with them in equal measure, however, for there continual property ramping and programmes that showcase people making money. e.g. cash in the attic, homes under the hammer etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the BBC for its documentaries and factual programmes that are usually of the very highest standard. I get angry with them in equal measure, however, for there continual property ramping and programmes that showcase people making money. e.g. cash in the attic, homes under the hammer etc.

It is to generate a feel good factor......makes the people that own stuff feel comfortable and wealthy? ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
The figures show that 428,359 households declared last year that they did not need a TV licence, up from 425,590 the previous year.

Befuddled by this. Why is this being discussed? Maybe it's....

- That people try to blag not paying the licence. Fail - not news.

- That there is evidence showing a dramatic increase in numbers doing this. Fail - not true.

- That the statistic used to measure this is likely to reflect the amount of illegitimate viewing in the first place - Fail. Game over.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a TV in the house and have no intention of getting one so I'm happy with the current situation. But I'd far rather have an internet tax than pollute the BBC experience (on iPlayer or whatever format) with adverts.

What? You don't watch it but are OK with paying for it? :blink:

I don't touch the BBC at all, not even the iplayer. I do have an internet connection though. If they think that means I should fund their garbage they can get fecked.

This sort of thing is why Archbishop Sentamu is so bass-ackwards. It's not a moral duty to pay tax, quite often it's a moral duty to avoid it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

This. Advert-free content is worth every penny.

Interestingly it's the same muppets who constantly bitch and moan about the BBC who are most likely to be paying hand over fist to Murdoch every month.

I don't have a TV in the house and have no intention of getting one so I'm happy with the current situation. But I'd far rather have an internet tax than pollute the BBC experience (on iPlayer or whatever format) with adverts.

You won't mind paying a subscription fee to watch the BBC and leave those who don't want it alone then, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

TV licence is extortion. I have not signed any contract with the BBC or asked for any services from them, for this reason I will not be sending them any money.

You haven't signed a contract for border control, police, courts, schooling, NHS, military etc etc either. I assume you agree that they are extortion too and that you shouldn't have to pay for them either?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Befuddled by this. Why is this being discussed? Maybe it's....

- That people try to blag not paying the licence. Fail - not news.

- That there is evidence showing a dramatic increase in numbers doing this. Fail - not true.

- That the statistic used to measure this is likely to reflect the amount of illegitimate viewing in the first place - Fail. Game over.

Seems the only reason this is being discussed is the Beeb's reticence to disclose it without a fight.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight

You won't mind paying a subscription fee to watch the BBC and leave those who don't want it alone then, right?

Quite. Their current funding model is akin to me ringing people up then invoicing them if they answer. However the very last thing the PTB want is for people to stop watching the state propaganda organ, so encryption is a definite no no.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Corporations often spend large sums on grandiose projects just as their inevitable decline begins to set in. In the future, we will become used to watching (free and online) the footage of an elderly monarch paying a visit to her state-funded broadcaster. A sea of grinning faces; the smell of new carpet; the belief that nothing has changed. Rather than a fresh start, people will see that moment as the beginning of the end. In the future children will ask, 'What's a broadcaster? What's a TV? What's the BBC.' Maybe they'll even ask 'What's a monarch?'.

Enjoy:

You are watching this clip free and online. Would you pay to see it? Of course not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

they're funded by crown taxes and are answerable to the govt we elect.

The BBC isn't funded by a crown tax and decides what it'll do with the money without the Govt getting a say so.

By that rational, if it was paid for by 'crown' taxes, you think it would be fine to force people to pay for it then?

The TV Licence is just a telly tax in everything but name.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing is free, there are many costs involved with viewing your clip.

And there's the BBC's problem. The viewer does not perceive online content like YouTube as having a cost (even though it does), whereas there is a very clear cost associated with viewing live BBC content - A perception not helped by the threatening language the state broadcaster uses to maintain its out-dated business model.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You won't mind paying a subscription fee to watch the BBC and leave those who don't want it alone then, right?

No. There are significant benefits to this kind of public provision, i.e. a commercial-free space with relatively independent funding and a legal remit to be unbiased.

Both Labour and Conservatives have complained very strongly about perceived bias against them in the recent past. Which is a good thing and it shows that they are annoying those in power.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No. There are significant benefits to this kind of public provision, i.e. a commercial-free space with relatively independent funding and a legal remit to be unbiased.

Both Labour and Conservatives have complained very strongly about perceived bias against them in the recent past. Which is a good thing and it shows that they are annoying those in power.

That line makes me bristle a bit, as it can also apply in the situation where their coverage is just terrible, irrespective of bias. There are many items in many media outlets, Beeb included, where it is quite clear the authours have not understood the basics of what they are writing about. It's often used as convenient cover for pisspoor journalism imo.

The Beeb's "Devil's advocate" interview style is pretty poor at times, it often just results in a heated exchange amounting to a statement of differing positions without shedding much light on the matter at hand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The interesting thing is how few aren't paying the licence and how small that number is growing each year. Both tiny percentages.

I doubt the BBC is particularly concerned at the moment.

Indeed - I would like to know if there is a net increase or decrease in 'subscribers' but I can't be arsed to find out that data myself!

Link to post
Share on other sites

No. There are significant benefits to this kind of public provision, i.e. a commercial-free space with relatively independent funding and a legal remit to be unbiased.

Both Labour and Conservatives have complained very strongly about perceived bias against them in the recent past. Which is a good thing and it shows that they are annoying those in power.

That would be great if Labservative weren't one in the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No. There are significant benefits to this kind of public provision, i.e. a commercial-free space with relatively independent funding and a legal remit to be unbiased.

Both Labour and Conservatives have complained very strongly about perceived bias against them in the recent past. Which is a good thing and it shows that they are annoying those in power.

If you want commercial-free space, get them to use a voluntary subscription model.

If you want independent funding, convert the organisation to a cooperative with a one share (which doubles as a subscription fee) per person policy.

If you want a legal remit to be unbiased, ensure it is put into the articles of association and require the organisation to abide by third party judgement.

You don't need to use force to extort money from people to do any of the above.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"428,359 households declared last year that they did not need a TV licence"

is not the same as

"...do not need a TV licence because they only watch the broadcaster’s iPlayer service. "

The possibility that anyone might not want to watch crappy TV programmes seems to be completely unthinkable, impossible, maybe even criminal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Roads, service supplies and council services are provided to all, just pointing out that using any of them without paying is illegal. I don't see anybody bitchin' about paying for those services?

Suppose cycling is out of the question? for the record, I don't have a TV licence, but thanks for the free I Player BBC ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 433 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.