Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
I pay because I watch the BBC and believe in a non ad-funded broadcaster (ad funding leads to control and manipulation of content in different ways, just by corporations instead of politicians) but I also know that if I didn't want to pay, nothing would stop me.
TV licensing relies on sending letters and maybe some doorstep visits. You can ignore both and that's all that will ever happen. Every letter could be binned with nothing they ever threaten actually happening.
I am sure being swamped with letters would get annoying though.
Anyone can officially declare that they do not require a TV license via the TV licensing website.
Obviously beware of falling foul of this as it is a contract. I’m contacted by them every 2 years to ask if I still do not require a license.
Anyone can officially declare that they do not require a TV license via the TV licensing website.
Obviously beware of falling foul of this as it is a contract. I’m contacted by them every 2 years to ask if I still do not require a license.
It’s not a contract, it’s the absence of one. It’s a declaration and if it is false you can end up in very hot water…if TV Licensing can ever catch up to you that is. They have almost no powers.
Actually I was being too generous to Professor Lineker. At the moment, in the eyes of the law, he is a tax evader (not paying the taxes you legally owe), and only if he wins his appeal, does he return to being merely a tax avoider (using legal but ethically questionable means to reduce your tax bill).
He dodged nearly £5m in tax over five years. That's a fair few NHS nurses right there.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
What do you mean by "evident support"? If you had stopped at "Impartiality if about presenting all views deemed suitable for broadcast", I'd be agreeing with you. In this case you clearly don't agree with Lineker's point of view, therefore you don't think it's suitable for broadcast.
You've no idea when I was born. Stop being so patronising.
I'm sorry if you find it patronising or condescending, but all you need to do to understand what is meant by evident support, is read what I wrote. The BNP's opinion was only considered worthy of of broadcast by the BBC once they'd shown a certain level of electoral support.
My opinion that Lineker is an ignorant Idiot who needs to read a few history books before speaking about things he clearly doesn't understand, doesn't matter, because I am not in charge of BBC editorial decisions.
The BBC is under no obligation to treat everyone's opinion as if it was equal and special. If that's what you think impartiality means, then to my generation, you are showing how old you are, because believing everyone is special and nobody's firmly held beliefs can be challenged even if they are talking nonsense, is a very recent phenomenon.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
We're better off with the BBC than without, but it really needs reform. Aside from the recent issue of political appointments in it, for a long time it has seemingly tried to take impartiality too far by giving more weighting to groups than their representation in society, and also trying to give voices to those pedalling factually incorrect stuff to "balance" against factual stuff. We saw this with Fiona Bruce's remarks about domestic violence on Thursday's Question Time, which has now led to her stepping down from Refuge, albeit the Lineker affair largely overshadowed it.
If there is one thing I'd advise the BBC to do, it's to learn this quote: "If someone say's it's raining, and another person says it's dry, the job of a journalist is not the cite both, it's to look out of the [expletive] window and see who is correct."
I don't know where you get your information from, but the BBC have always taken the view that balance is not about airing nonsense alongside truth. And the BNP controversy was all about the often very difficult task of giving the right weight to opinions.
My opinion that Lineker is an ignorant Idiot who needs to read a few history books before speaking about things he clearly doesn't understand, doesn't matter, because I am not in charge of BBC editorial decisions.
You can’t describe him as an ignorant idiot when his tweet had truth behind it. Whether the reference to 1930s Germany was lazy or not, it is true that some of the language being used by some members of the Tory government right now is very similar to the language which was prominent at the time in 1930s Germany.
Note, for the 94th time, that Lineker did not compare the Tories to the Nazis. Obviously there is a link to what he said, but dehumanising language was very prominent from both members of the Nazi party and by ordinary civilians.
It’s not a contract, it’s the absence of one. It’s a declaration and if it is false you can end up in very hot water…if TV Licensing can ever catch up to you that is. They have almost no powers.
I chose the wrong wording, true. It is a declaration or a claim as the BBC word it. I have my paper documentation from the BBC confirming I have claimed my status to be No Licence Needed.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.