I had this tw4t come round 2wks. ago who didnt identify himself.He asked for my sister(its her house)I told him she dont live here anymore to protect her.then he asked if I lived here and I said yes so he then cautioned me in front of the neighbours for not having a tv license No way am I paying it and I will get away with it but what a knob. He was on commission. I rarely watch bbc.Why are they so special. I could happily have a tele without bbc. what do you think?
2006-09-02 14:43:05 · 20 answers · asked by karlos 2 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Television
to be honest I could well live with out TV full stop, Ti's only a hand full of programmes over a year that I watch... The cost of a licence is incredible, and with all these extras they want you to pay, to see foot ball etc... We do have a licence, but I could find better things to spend my money on. If BBC did adverts too now, we would still have to pay for a licence... I bet they would not even reduce the cost either.
2006-09-02 14:47:50 · answer #1 · answered by dianafpacker 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Tv license is not going to go away, as with all thing that generate income for any government or public institutions like the BBC. The TV "license" was originally for Radios and then mutated over time to become just a "TV" license (mainly down to the availability of pocket radios). The TV licensing is controlled at source now so when you buy equipment such as TV's or receiving equipment your details are sent to the Licensing centre so that they can check if you have a license and if not send out a letter and then if ignored a "visit".
But as far as the question goes it doesn't matter if we refuse to pay a tv license now or the future it will just be moved on to the next technology e.g. in the near future the tv license may be add together with a broadband (video) license or such to continue the cash rolling in from the public.
Also the BBC never makes a loss does it?
2006-09-04 01:07:45 · answer #2 · answered by gillo_grumlin 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The TV licence fee also pays for all the BBC Radio stations, as well as the TV channels. It funds the BBC World Service and transmits programmes with a British slant all around the world.
By almost every household being a "subscriber" it ensures (or trys to ensure) that the output is free from the political interference that would ensue if it was wholly funded from the treasury.
I agree that programmes in recent years have deteriorated in quality, or have been "dumbed down" - but this is only in response to the lousy taste of a lot of the viewers, and competition from other channels. There are still some good programmes, if you hunt for them.
I cannot think of a better way to fund a public service broadcasting network, than by the public paying for it directly.
Abolish the BBC and leave American broadcasters to rule the English Speaking world.
Fund it by advertisements, and be bored rigid, with the same old ads. advertising the same old products we don't need.
2006-09-02 23:04:32 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
We are long overdue for a change in the way that the BBC is funded. The television licence is an outdated concept and an iniquitous tax.
The BBC should become a subscription-only channel and the license should be abolished.
I'd love to refuse to pay, but unless at least 20% of the population do the same it would be a futile and expensive exercise.
The best way, if not the only way, to effect a change is for everybody to write to their MP complaining about this unjustified tax and the unconstitutional and overbearing way that it is collected by a private company.
2006-09-02 14:52:40 · answer #4 · answered by boracic1 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
well I live in the USA and have recently been to England and Wales, and the BBC has a million times better TV viewing than in the states. I watch BBC in America, if you get rid of the licensing, you will be watching then crap we have to watch including commercials about ED (erectile dysfunction) and what kind of kotex you should wear, it is disgusting
We have probably about only 75% of the time to watch tv shows due to commercials and cable started at $5.00 per month 30 years and now is up to about $100.00 a month so in the usa if you can't pay $1200 in cable fees, tough luck and you get the crummy commercials every 8 minutes so you may not believe it but you have better quality than we ever had.
But I do agree that it is already horribly expensive in London that it would be hard to come up with the license money every year. I think only Moscow and Tokyo are more expensive cities than London.
2006-09-02 14:49:18 · answer #5 · answered by magpie 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Have a look at this site and join the revoltion.
TV licence is an outdated tax and the BBC would be more honest if it openly charged for it's channels or used advertising. I suspect most people would pay what it's worth, nothing.
I was astounded that BBC sent over 400 staff to cover recent World Cup whereas ITV 'made do' with about half that number.
2006-09-02 15:01:31 · answer #6 · answered by CeeVee 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
oh i'm so sorry for what happened to you. you must've felt terrible. and still, i cannot beleive the nerve that guy had when he didn't show you his i.d card and thus believed he had every right to go into your house without a proper warrant. i don't blame you for what you said to him because as you'd just said you were looking out for your sister's interests, and yet he offered you a caution for not have a tv licence, when you had rightly said you don't often watch the BBC? what a ****. who the hell does he think he is? and how did he find out where you lived? those tv license people are paid to make people's lives such as yourself difficult, never mind catching the bad guys.
i think bbc1 nowadays is a shite channel, almost all the programmes on that channel are virtually unwatchable in my eyes. the only thing that i tune into that channel is match of the day. the tv licence is one of the most disgraceful things ever invented by the government, in fact ever. it is almost a form of stealth tax used to rob people's pockets and thus this money when its gathered up together is used to make and fund its shitty sitcoms and trash like that 'maria reality tv show crap', of which i cannot remember the title. and because the bbc channels don't rely on advertising like channel 4, 5 and ITV1 do, the t.w.a.t.s get their money one way or another by targeting the public to watch their bollocks programmes. i think that we should be made to boycott the bbc- i used to think they were respectable and that its remit had served the public's needs. not anymore it doesn't.
2006-09-03 00:52:19 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You get the channels on Sky and NTL and Freeview so why should we pay £120 and pay our subscription to the digital networks. It's all a con and BBC have been getting away with it for far too long. We all need to start a petition to stop paying. It makes me laugh when they show a trailer about what they spend their money on. I sit there and think well I'm not impressed. Give it up BBC!
2006-09-03 00:43:00 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It is all going to change when they finally turn analogue off, 2008 - 2010, and go digital.
The license is for the receiver not the B.B.C.
So if you bin your T.V. and use the computer to stream programs, you still have to pay!!!!
Unfair YES.
The Government will make a fortune selling the spare bandwidth and make another fortune when they bring in subscription, just like SKY have.
2006-09-02 15:05:19 · answer #9 · answered by tattie_herbert 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, it's disgraceful. The licence was abolished here a few years ago and the tv is just as good. You have to put up with ads but you are already doing that in the UK anyway.
2006-09-02 15:03:58 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋