BBC4

Wizaard

Well-known member
I agree with this. I don't think there is anything else in this country where a company can legally hound people in the manner done by TV licensing. Those who don't even own a TV (I know a youngish couple like that who choose not to) still get hounded after their initial declaration to check they still don't have one, something which doesn't sit right to me. It's like they cannot accept or believe someone doesn't watch TV.
Has anyone ever been hounded? I've never been approached about my TV licence.
 

BigHandsOliverKahn

Well-known member
Has anyone ever been hounded? I've never been approached about my TV licence.
People who declare themselves as not needing a licence still get hounded afterwards. The regulations allow the declaration to expire, so they get hounded again and again. The regulations even allow for search warrants on properties.

What other business is allowed to do all that if you chose not to buy something from them?
 

Lytham_fy8

Well-known member
People who declare themselves as not needing a licence still get hounded afterwards. The regulations allow the declaration to expire, so they get hounded again and again. The regulations even allow for search warrants on properties.

What other business is allowed to do all that if you chose not to buy something from them?
It's not a 'business' though, it's a state sanctioned corporation, everyone has to contribute through taxation for services they might not use, I'd make the licence fee compulsory and just call it a TV tax to shut the quasi libertarians up.

Paying taxes for services you might not use but others do is how any decent society operates.
 
Last edited:

BFC_BFC_BFC

Well-known member
It's not a 'business' though, it's a state sanctioned corporation, everyone has to contribute through taxation for services they might not use, I'd make the licence fee compulsory and just call it a TV tax to shut the quasi libertarians up.

Paying taxes for services you might not use but others do is how any decent society operates.
I’m not sure the fact that the corruption is state funded makes it any better FY8.

I don’t dispute that it might be better to fund the BBC through a normal taxation, but that’s not really the point.

The fact is that the Licensing authority use highly dubious and borderline fraudulent methods in the pursuit of licensing fees that are not required to be paid.

They set out to purposely mislead the public concerning the actual licensing requirement, they pressurise vulnerable people and use harassment and threats to obtain money that is not actually due....

If the Government wishes to change the Law and therefore change the basis for TV licensing then that’s fine by me.. What isn’t fine, is an organisation that operates in the shoddy way that they do at present...

As I’ve said the BBC is a fantastic media producer... The licensing authority is nothing short of a licensed criminal operation.
 

Lytham_fy8

Well-known member
I’m not sure the fact that the corruption is state funded makes it any better FY8.

I don’t dispute that it might be better to fund the BBC through a normal taxation, but that’s not really the point.

The fact is that the Licensing authority use highly dubious and borderline fraudulent methods in the pursuit of licensing fees that are not required to be paid.

They set out to purposely mislead the public concerning the actual licensing requirement, they pressurise vulnerable people and use harassment and threats to obtain money that is not actually due....

If the Government wishes to change the Law and therefore change the basis for TV licensing then that’s fine by me.. What isn’t fine, is an organisation that operates in the shoddy way that they do at present...

As I’ve said the BBC is a fantastic media producer... The licensing authority is nothing short of a licensed criminal operation.
I agree, that's why I said tax it and call it a 'digital tax' or something.
 
Last edited:

BigHandsOliverKahn

Well-known member
It's not a 'business' though, it's a state sanctioned corporation, everyone has to contribute through taxation for services they might not use, I'd make the licence fee compulsory and just call it a TV tax to shut the quasi libertarians up.

Paying taxes for services you might not use but others do is how any decent society operates.
That's a nice utopian dream but unrealistic. When the government ran British Rail, individual train travellers still had to foot the bill for their personal journies. Would you also expect to have a transport tax and make train travel free for all?

If done via a licence fee, would British Rail be allowed to hound people who claimed not to make journies? If not, why does the BBC get special privileges that no other 'entity' has?
 

Lytham_fy8

Well-known member
That's a nice utopian dream but unrealistic. When the government ran British Rail, individual train travellers still had to foot the bill for their personal journies. Would you also expect to have a transport tax and make train travel free for all?

If done via a licence fee, would British Rail be allowed to hound people who claimed not to make journies? If not, why does the BBC get special privileges that no other 'entity' has?
It's not Utopian at all, just tax for the BBC like I said. If you don't use it then it's irrelevant, we all pay tax for services we don't use.
 

Plumbs

Well-known member
It’s not against the law not to have one at all. However the BBC licensing agents certainly sail extremely close to the wind by the way they carefully (and in my view fraudulently) give that to impression to vulnerable individuals, through carefully crafted wording.

Unless you watch “Live TV broadcasts” or only BBC on catch up, no TV licence is needed. You can have a TV and watch Netflix ot iTV on demand without any need for a licence, perfectly legally.
Aye ok fair enough I stand corrected. Its fair to point out though that our national broadcasting service should be funded by the viewers, many of whom have no hesitation paying for subscription TV to get the best stuff.

Its a similar argument to equitable distribution of wealth in football essentially, which has gained momentum on here recently
 

Bloodtangerine

Well-known member
Well back in the day we used to hide behind the sofa.
We go more proactive now.....it’s more of a buzz. I let em see through the window that BBC1 is on but as they pull their phones out to take a picture one of my sons turns it over to Sky sports whilst flicking Vs out of the window and mouthing the word “Wanker” .....you should see the defeated look on their faces ..priceless 👍
 

Lytham_fy8

Well-known member
We go more proactive now.....it’s more of a buzz. I let em see through the window that BBC1 is on but as they pull their phones out to take a picture one of my sons turns it over to Sky sports whilst flicking Vs out of the window and mouthing the word “Wanker” .....you should see the defeated look on their faces ..priceless 👍
Speakers out the window with Pete Tong* on full volume?













*has no idea if Tong is still on Radio 1
 

Lytham_fy8

Well-known member
This was the anti licence man track round our way. Just look out of the window with a vacant unblinking stare.

 

Mexboroseasider

Well-known member
That’s a bit scary.

The screechy Robot Thingy.

Where does Freeview fit in?

Is it still free without the Beeb?

And how much do you have to pay never to see or hear from Piers Morgan and Andrew Neil ever again?
 

Mark_GT

Well-known member
Another shite decision from the BBC. Easily their best channel, partly because a lot of the content is older and pre-dates the embarrasingly missing the mark PC wannabe urban relevant cringefest infesting much of BBC one and two.
 
Top
X