Login Register
 °

Discussion

“PLEASE COMMENT IF YOU DISAGREE OR AGREE IF YOU HATE PAYING FOR YOUR T.V LICENCE!
IF U THINK IT IS DATED AS SOME OF US CHOOSE TO HAVE SKY OR VIRGIN
IF WE CHOOSE TO PAY FOR ANOTHER COMPANYS SERVICE WHY SHOULD WE PAY A T.V LICENCE?
T.V LICENCE IS A WAY OF TAXING EVERY HOME IN THIS COUNTRY!
WHY AS TECHNOLOGY GETS BETTER THE T.V LICENCE FEEL THEY CAN TAX US LAPTOPS PHONES ECT.
REMEMBER WHEN THE T.V LICENCE WAS CREATED A LOT OF THE SERVICES WAS NOT HERE.”

By BURNINGWORDS Posted: November 08, 2012

25 comments

25 replies

Start the discussion

max 4000 characters
  • Truro_Kernow  |  November 09 2012, 12:03AM

    I agree with you. We don't need their BBC any more. A relic of their lost Empire, corrupt and rotten to the core much like their political system. So why pay for it? I read elsewhere that the TV licensing have no right of access to your property, no right to question you so why not refuse to deal with them? What can they do? More and more are refusing to pay. Read all about it: http://tinyurl.com/bfaylsn Watch how to deal here: http://tinyurl.com/b5xh822 Kernow bys vyken!

  • Cadoc  |  November 09 2012, 11:00AM

    I expect many will be refusing to pay their licences from hereonin after what is slowly being revealed at the BBC. With an 'auntie' like her, beware the English 'uncles' I say!

  • Slimslad  |  November 09 2012, 3:13PM

    "BURNINGWORDS", perhaps. But not a lot of sense in those "WORDS". Plus, not much agreement, it seems? "In 2001, an Ofcom report found that the vast majority of those it interviewed, including owners of digital television equipment, supported the principle of a licence fee to fund public service television and radio." http://tinyurl.com/3ytgcx

  • blackguyfawke  |  November 09 2012, 5:27PM

    Something you should all be thinking when paying for the BBC "I am more concerned and angry that my money has been used to support the employment of certian people (Jimmy Saville etc) who we now know to have committed the most terrible crimes against frightened, vunerable children. I doubt we will ever know just how high and wide the knowledge of this (or even suspicions) reached but I no longer trust the BBC. And I strongly object to them receiving any more money from TV Licences. Maybe the BBC should give the money made from licences over the last 30 years to the victims and their families? But the BBC should not benefit any further from the fees paid by the public. They should be ashamed

  • Slimslad  |  November 09 2012, 8:10PM

    Maybe the BBC should give the money made from licences over the last 30 years to the victims and their families? Why stop there? Why not compensate the victims of the tyrants various governments, (including the British) have supported since the end of the the Second World War? The list is far longer.

  • Cadoc  |  November 09 2012, 11:54PM

    Great article in the Torygraph as more and more just don't bother with TV licences: http://tinyurl.com/a4sdrha

  • BURNINGWORDS  |  November 10 2012, 7:10PM

    That would all be well and good DB if we were treated as shareholders and not forced subscribers. The license is a BBC protection racket tax. You can't watch any other channel without paying it legally. It's like picking up a copy of the Times only to be told you can't read that unless you purchase the Guardian as well!

  • BURNINGWORDS  |  November 10 2012, 7:10PM

    "For those who say is rubbish lets enlighten you,sky provides me bbc england,bbc scotland and bbc wales,am i paying twice? as i would have it on normal tv and then if i have sky i have it on there as well,for those who dont like adverts there is a thing called pre record,pause fast forward and rewind,also bbc claim they are the only ones who dont have adverts they are lying because they advertise £1000 fines for not having a tv licence,if you watch sky premier movies they dont have adverts,sky brings cinema movies to our homes,so you must think going to the cinema is rubbish as well.Some of you must be right because they provide the bbc to

  • BURNINGWORDS  |  November 10 2012, 7:13PM

    Wasn`t the license originally introduced to control who or what is broadcast over the airwaves? I always thought it was just to pay for regulatory controls to prevent all and sundry from experimenting and clogging the available bandwidth with twaddle . Since regulations should be passed through parliament , with a non-fiscal cost , then surely the broadcasting license is paid by the broadcaster involved and should not necessarily be passed to EVERY person in the land whether they use that particular broadcaster or not. How come the license fee is only ever advertised on BBC ? Why is it not shown on other channels ? What if someone never watches the BBC - Could they argue that they had no idea that a license is a requirement to OWN a TV never mind watch one ? What if someone just uses a TV to watch DVDs or use it as a monitor for their computer? Is it actually a legal requirement to pay for a company rather than a service? How come that this country , which is an advocate of free speech , could fine or send to jail those who persistently insist on that freedom to choose what they watch and pay for? I do not use SKY myself but those who wish to watch this service pay this broadcaster to provide the service THEY want . Similarly those who use Virgin Media pay for that service through subscription. This means that those viewers are forced to pay TWICE . Isn`t it time that the BBC is brought up to date . Many people argue that the BBC broadcasts quality TV and is worth every penny but if that includes such programs as Eastenders or Strictly Come Dancing then I raise my hands in disbelief. Whenever these , or other programs of the same ilk - that includes Coronation St et al , are on I usually change channels in order to find some real entertainment. It was not intended to pay for overpaid so called celebrities to live the life of luxury in the name of so-called entertainment. Also I do not use BBC radio either - I have no truck with using commercial Radio complete with some of its banal advertising.

  • blackguyfawke  |  November 10 2012, 7:21PM

    've lived at my current address for 15 years, and I've always had a TV, but I've never had a license. It's a total rip off. It's not a subscription, it's a sweeping, across the board backdoor tax. And you've already paid the Tax on your TV. All the license fee does, is subsidises the BBC. And they can totally afford to operate in the same way that other broadcasters do. I get letters telling me there's no license registered at my address, and threatening to send their people around every three months or so, I don't even bother opening them. When their chap comes around, as they do eventually, I'll open the door, and tell him I don't need a license, and when he asks why, I say that I don't own a TV. Yes, it's a bare faced lie, but I don't suffer any twangs of guilt over it. They write down that I haven't got one, all really polite, then say that they just need to come inside to check. And I'm like, What? He'll repeat himself. "I just have to come in and check what you've told me is true, for my records" Again, I refuse. I've just seen him fill in his records I'll say. And they get really persistent. "Why can't I come in"? I say that I've already given him all the information he needs for his records. And that he can't come in, because it's not convenient. Now, I know that I've just lied to him, but he doesn't know that, and he's standing on my doorstep, having already been given all the information he's entitled to, and he's there, calling me a liar to my face. I repeat, firmly, that no, he is not coming in. He threatens to come back with an "Enforcement Team" and I say, "OK , go and do that then. You still won't be coming in". I know they have no right of entry whatsoever, even if they can hear a TV in the background. Now he's just trying to Bully his way in, and I don't respond well to Bullies. If I was a little old Lady, or a single mum, I would be feeling really intimidated by now, and would probably have capitulated and let the little twot in. That is how they get away with charging this ridiculous Tax on people. It's demanding money with menaces. They can only take you to court, if they have been inside and seen you with a TV on. If you just ignore the letters, and don't let them in, there's nothing they can do. Better still, don't answer the door to them. Just because they knock, doesn't obligate you to answer. There's no arrestable offense being committed, so there's no Police action applicable. They can't apply to a Court for a warrant, and they can't make you pay, if you really don't want to pay. That's how I deal with them anyway.

  • blackguyfawke  |  November 10 2012, 7:25PM

    But I don't blame people for coughing up year after year really. It's worth the money just not to have all the hassle for most people, I can see that. But it's still wrong, and a sneaky, bullying way to squeeze a little bit more money out of people who have already paid out for VAT, Sky subscriptions, TV Setups, etc

  • blackguyfawke  |  November 10 2012, 7:28PM

    The BBC don't need licence fees to remain impartial. That just needs integrity. Integrity is free. Aside from The Thick of It, which is brilliant, I don't think I have watched a single BBC programme all year. Quality TV is debatable and all comes down to personal taste. The BBC also caters for the lowest common denominator as much as many other channels. As their output deteriorates, other channels are raising their own standards with home produced programming, and also showing the cream of US television, which for about ten years or so, has been producing fine quality, thought provoking shows that have equalled and in some cases surpassed anything we have produced. The licence fee should be phased out. There is a lot of choice out there and paying for the BBC should be just that; a choice. For all those who dont mind paying, a subscription fee could be implemented. £6-8 per month for access to all BBC services. Those who object would no longer have to pay and in turn would not have access. Commercialism would no doubt soon follow, but there is no rule stating that the BBC have to adhere to other channels trends of having so many commercial breaks. In fact, the BBC could quite easily run a premium service with no commercial interuptions at all for an extra fee. None of this is unrealstic with the way digital services are in place. It is outdated and clearly divides opinion."

  • Cadoc  |  November 10 2012, 7:43PM

    Good points! I have just cancelled my TV licence direct debit!

  • BURNINGWORDS  |  November 11 2012, 6:01PM

    @ Cadoc lol

  • BURNINGWORDS  |  November 11 2012, 6:03PM

    Do your maths the population 62,641,000 times that by a £145.50 and see how great the bbc empire is!funds what they must have a hole in there pocket because the amount of money they have forced on people to pay they should be running more then the bbc

  • Slimslad  |  November 11 2012, 6:13PM

    I would seek help,BURNINGWORDS. I detect a case of "warandpeaceitis" Or are you Rupert Murdoch?

  • Slimslad  |  November 11 2012, 6:15PM

    "I have just cancelled my TV licence direct debit!" Well done.. Freedom-fighter! LOL

  • PaddyTrembath  |  November 11 2012, 6:37PM

    BURNINGWORDS wrote:- "Do your maths the population 62,641,000 times that by a £145.50 and see how great the bbc empire is!funds what they must have a hole in there pocket because the amount of money they have forced on people to pay they should be running more then the bbc" Except that the TV licence is not required for each person, just each separate address where a TV, or other equipment capable of receiving live TV broadcasts, is kept. The approximate number of homes in the UK is about 25,000,000, add another 5,000,000 for business use, giving 30,000,000, less than half the number you offer. Giving a figure of £4,365,000,000, as opposed to your £9,114,265,500. From those figures, you have to remove those who are over 75, and also make a further reduction for those who are blind, who pay either nothing, or a very reduced amount. Now, I have told you a billion times already, do not exaggerate.

  • BURNINGWORDS  |  November 12 2012, 12:01AM

    It was just an estimate of what the bbc are expecting us to pay as children grow up they will be expected to pay,when ones child becomes a student in his one room with a laptop he will be expected to pay because his laptop can pick up a bbc channel,every household in this country are expected to pay. Must i buy the evening post befor im allowed to read the daily mail? anyway thats how big the empire is.How many billions have already been paid? Even prisioners pay a fee to have a tv in there cell,thats how far the empire stretches. The next time you watch the lottery and you see the rollover thats what the Tv licence makes now dont be fooled"

  • BURNINGWORDS  |  November 12 2012, 12:08AM

    I did hear through the grape vine its spreading quiet fast through facebook usersl lol The spreading of the peoples words

  • BURNINGWORDS  |  November 12 2012, 12:16AM

    Share if u think the Tv licence is out of date as we pay for other services eg sky,virgin,why should we pay the bbc to use another service,it's like buying a news paper and not being allowed to read it beacuse you have not bought another news paper FACEBOOK

  • JayPaulUK  |  November 12 2012, 12:27AM

    I don't see how the BBC can continue to operate as it does, and failing to understand why we're paying for the licence. The web is very much if not already becoming the best source to access media, and I am aware of the fact that you must have a licence to be able to watch live streaming media..but really with the exception of the media...why even have live streaming media. BBC iPlayer, ITVplayer,4OD etc all offer choice, Youtube offers choice and original content, Netflix and services like it offer the ability to watch series and movies. BT Vision, Virgin Tivo.. SKY ... the list goes on and is endless. The world is changing and online free programmes and games are supported by ad bases content which is working and continues to work. As someone already said, if we're paying for something like sky, why are you then therefore paying for a licence on top? The Outgoing Director General is going out with one hell of a wad of licence payers money too!

  • BURNINGWORDS  |  November 12 2012, 7:26PM

    Its good to watch the news today to know that the bbc are getting it hard,and even the big guns want rid of the bbc so do the people really want the bbc?I think not

  • JJLee  |  November 13 2012, 8:42AM

    ..The web is very much if not already becoming the best source to access media It is only a matter of time before it is regulated. It is already making a mockery of the law

  • blackguyfawke  |  November 13 2012, 7:35PM

    The BBC's credibility is beyond recovery. The BBC has been institutionally biased for years, and years. It has failed over a very long period of time to conduct itself in an impartial manner, and as a Public Service Broadcaster funded by tax payers that contravenes the terms of its charter. It has viewed itself beyond reproach and its arrogance is amazing. The BBC has even managed to politicise the Archers ! Time for Licence Fee to be abolished and let the public decide what they want to watch and who they pay for their services. Not content with the huge amounts of monies it receives from the Licence Payer, it has received funding from the European Union, as well as a £141 Million loan from the European Investment bank on favourable terms. That raises the question what influence the EU exerts over the BBC ? How can a public service broadcaster demonstrate genuine impartially on European issues if it's in receipt of EU funds?

View all Comments
 
 

START A DISCUSSION

Something about your area!