TV Licensing

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Beats Me! The TV Licence pays a number of TV channels and radio, all without adverts.

How many minutes per hour, on average, do BBC1 have that do nothing but advertise their own programmes?

 

[Baxenden Bank]

The BBC on the other hand is a tax that you can't avoid, you may never watch or listen to a single thing on it but you'll still pay, that's what the problem is.
.....

No, if you don't watch (or record) TV programmes (on any channel or platform or media) as they are broadcast, you do not need a TV licence. Just sign the on-line declaration to confirm that, and they do actually leave you alone for 2 years. Alternatively, have some sport and keep the postie in his job by receiving the whole cycle of TV Licencing threatening letters.

The activity requiring a licence is the watching (or recording) of TV programmes as they are broadcast, no longer the mere ownership of a piece of equipment capable of receiving TV transmissions (as it used to be).

If, however, you do watch a single programme, then you do need a licence. The chances of being caught, who knows. The methodology employed to determine who are the likely evaders (and worth investigating therefore), and who genuinely does not watch TV is top secret and exempt from FOI requests.

That man hiding in the shrubbery opposite your house, that you thought was a peeping tom, is in fact an SAS trained TV Licensing investigator. That bloke in the pub, who innocently asks 'did you see Bargain Hunt last night' another investigator!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How many minutes per hour, on average, do BBC1 have that do nothing but advertise their own programmes?

You won't catch me out that easily, Paul S, top TV detectorman, posing as a retired consultant, what is this Bargain Hunt?

Having had a TV in the last hotel I stayed at, and having watched it just to confirm my prejudices' at how bad it all was, about 10 minutes per hour?

 

[SS4]

If you don't like Sky don't watch it then, that's easily sorted.

The BBC on the other hand is a tax that you can't avoid, you may never watch or listen to a single thing on it but you'll still pay, that's what the problem is.

One thing is certain the licence fee is definitely on borrowed time.

I have to hear the justification for this one. From my primitive understanding if one does not watch live TV one does not need a TV licence.

 

[Johnuk123]

I have to hear the justification for this one. From my primitive understanding if one does not watch live TV one does not need a TV licence.

Absolutely true so let's say that to the 96% of households who have a tv it's a tax they cannot avoid even if they only watch tv once a year.

 

[jon0844]

I like watching Doctors and repeats of Father Brown. It's more effective and cheaper than numbing the mind with alcohol.

Actually, I nearly got into Doctors and had to put my foot down to stop so I wouldn't get addicted! No time for soaps!

Now I generally have BBC News on in the background, with subtitles on and the sound turned down.

Father Brown is quite good though.

 

[maniacmartin]

In my old flat (Zone 2, London) there was a lot of electromagnetic interference from outside the property*, which caused ADSL, 3G data, many radio channels and the multiplex that has the BBC channels on to all not work. On some days non-BBC channels worked though. I tried a massive roof aerial, indoor aerials and signal boosters to no avail.

The licensing brigade were very reluctant to refund my license fee which I foolishly prepaid. They did eventually relent after my neighbours reported the same problem and amazingly didn't pay me a visit to check. I believe (but haven't checked) that even if you are unable to receive a BBC signal you are liable for the full amount if you watch other channels. That's a bit crazy in my opinion.

My other bugbear is how you have to buy in blocks of 12 months at a time. Last time I checked, even if you opted to pay monthly, you were actually signing up for 12 months' license. That's not too handy for many people, such as those with holiday homes or working abroad for long periods of time.

* outside the scope of this thread

 

[Kite159]

Although I believe you can claim a refund on unused full months, as I know some students do that at the end of their year at university

 

[SS4]

Absolutely true so let's say that to the 96% of households who have a tv it's a tax they cannot avoid even if they only watch tv once a year.

How is it unavoidable for 96% of households then? It seems quite simple to me: you can avoid paying for a tv licence by not watching live TV thus making payment avoidable.

Alternatively if it's a mandatory tax are you going to prosecute the 4%?

 

[Bevan Price]

I think the TV licence is imperfect but possibly the best way of funding BBC. Maybe an addition to everybody's income tax would be simpler, but it would be even more susceptible to political "manipulation" than a licence fee. There are things about the BBC that I don't like - too many soaps and endlessly recurring "dramas", too many cookery/food programmes, too much coverage of MUFC and failure to give balanced coverage to many other football clubs, too narrow a range of "rock" music, etc., etc. But it is still far better than the alternatives. (And I would never willingly pay for Sky, or anything else that contributes to the Murdoch family fortune.)

Without the BBC, we would be likely to get more slanted coverage of politics, resembling the (generally pro-Tory) propaganda masquerading as news in much of the press.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I think the TV licence is imperfect but possibly the best way of funding BBC.

That being so, I object to the BBC buying in third-rate dross such as "Bargain Hunt" with the licence fee monies raised.

 

[Bevan Price]

That being so, I object to the BBC buying in third-rate dross such as "Bargain Hunt" with the licence fee monies raised.

I expect there are lots of programmes on all channels that some people think are a waste of money. And, for reasons that some of us cannot comprehend, there may be other people who like such programmes.

For example assorted programmes featuring nonentities who would like people to think they were important celebrities.

 

[Busaholic]

Unlike others who claim never to watch BBC TV programmes, I ONLY watch BBC on my television. Before you berate me for bring a snob, or whatever, I'd like to point out that when the SW became the first area to go digital I paid a firm £10 to adjust my set and it's received nothing else since. If I desperately want to see one of the other channels I use catch-up when I can be bothered, which is extremely rarely.

 

[Johnuk123]

.....

 

[NSEFAN]

A TV licence is required for the reception of live television, either by broadcast or via online live streaming. Catch-up services, watching shows/films on demand and playing DVDs do not require a licence.

 

[Johnuk123]

A TV licence is required for the reception of live television, either by broadcast or via online live streaming. Catch-up services, watching shows/films on demand and playing DVDs do not require a licence.

You do need a licence if you only record live broadcasts, if you don't ever watch them it makes no difference.

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one

You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder.

 

[NSEFAN]

You do need a licence if you only record live broadcasts, if you don't ever watch them it makes no difference.

I know. My point was that it's perfectly possible to own a TV and use it, just not watch or store content as it's being broadcast.

Edit: I'm surprised we haven't gotten onto TV detector vans yet!

 

[Johnuk123]

I know. My point was that it's perfectly possible to own a TV and use it, just not watch or store content as it's being broadcast.

I agree, but you will find that there are very few people in this country who do that.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I agree, but you will find that there are very few people in this country who do that.

I would disagree with the use of "very few". Certainly in terms of percentages you are correct, but you will find that in some demographics (mainly students and young adults) a much higher percentage than what you may think do exactly that.

 

[Johnuk123]

I would disagree with the use of "very few". Certainly in terms of percentages you are correct, but you will find that in some demographics (mainly students and young adults) a much higher percentage than what you may think do exactly that.

I was talking in percentages.

 

[jon0844]

Edit: I'm surprised we haven't gotten onto TV detector vans yet!

Does anyone still think these exist, as against simply looking at address lists and targeting people directly - and seeking to get access or an admission from people?

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I agree, but you will find that there are very few people in this country who do that.

7% of households in the UK do not have, or need, a TV licence. So that's around 1.5 million households or 6.6 million people at 4.4 per household.

That's quite a number who will not have the benefit of the televised party leaders debates in the next few weeks. Perhaps PM Cameron should rush out emergency legislation to allow the licenceless a temporary exemption to ensure we do have the chance to see the debates in all their glory!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Does anyone still think these exist, as against simply looking at address lists and targeting people directly - and seeking to get access or an admission from people?

I thought they only contained a man sat at a table with a paper copy of the electoral role and a paper list of licenceless addresses anyway.

 

[cjp]

7% of households in the UK do not have, or need, a TV licence. So that's around 1.5 million households or 6.6 million people at 4.4 per household.


I thought they only contained a man sat at a table with a paper copy of the electoral role and a paper list of licenceless addresses anyway.

I took an opportunity given to me about six years ago to look around inside a detector van and they do seen to have lot of gadgets and stuff ini the back.

Not that I care as I have neither a licence not a Tv - Iplayer is good though to look back over things.
I do regularly get letters which I do not even bother opening and a couple of times in the last twenty years people have called - they don't get in, just get told the truth - no TV and they go away.

On the subject of I player currently available (for the next seven days) is this gem about Tubular Bells
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03cw8g0/tubular-bells-the-mike-oldfield-story
which includes Sir Richard Charles Nicholas Branson speaking about how he started and helped Mike Oldfield to help the Virgin label.

Good Music

 

[richw]

I thought they only contained a man sat at a table with a paper copy of the electoral role and a paper list of licenceless addresses anyway.

Correct. I saw one with a door open and had a look in. It had a bench like thing, and some A4 booklets. Nothing technical.

 

[jon0844]

The supposed technology to detect a TV would arguably be less usable these days anyway. No chance of detecting a tablet and LCD display, or anything being streamed over the Internet.

I suppose in the future, you could possibly have ISPs forced to monitor traffic and report anything streamed from the BBC that's live, which can be cross referenced with records on who has a licence. But it would be quite difficult to set up, probably trigger riots, and also be easy to get around anyway.

 

[455driver]

Does anyone still think these exist, as against simply looking at address lists and targeting people directly - and seeking to get access or an admission from people?

All you have to do is inform them that you are removing their implied right of access to your property and there is nothing they can do!

 

[jon0844]

Yes, but a lot of people get tricked.

 

[Tetchytyke]

They don't get tricked, they get bullied. When you have some 16-stone yob screaming and spitting in your face- a thug who is paid by Capita (yes, them again) purely based on the number of people he "catches"- it takes a lot of strength to get him out. Even if you know your rights and are not easily bullied, it takes a lot to stay calm and force him to leave.

As for the TV detector vans, they're mostly gone now because people know the technology can't exist. Even if the technology existed it wouldn't be able to tell which flat in a block of ten had a TV switched on. The way they catch people now is an electoral roll, a list of unlicensed properties, and peeking through your curtains.

 

[muz379]

indeed to the best of my knowledge the only way anybody has ever successfully been prosecuted for TV license evasion is by making a statement under caution incriminating themselves .

They where never prepared to reveal how these TV detector vans allegedly worked so they could not be used in court as evidence . And as the tv licensing "officers" where merely civilians they had no right to enter your property to conduct a search

 

[sprinterguy]

I agree, but you will find that there are very few people in this country who do that.

Yes, but the option is there (and is one that my partner and I use). It is not true that the 96% of households that own a TV are being held to ransom or anything like it by the TV licensing requirement, they have a choice in whether to watch/record live TV or not.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It is not true that the 96% of households that own a TV are being held to ransom or anything like it by the TV licensing requirement, they have a choice in whether to watch/record live TV or not.

It depends how you want to look at it.

The BBC's view is that if you don't like the TV Tax you can do without a TV.

Their competitors' view is that you should only have to pay for a product or service if you actually use that product or service.

The analogy with car tax doesn't work as you are actually using the roads.