PDA

View Full Version : TV Licensing


Turkey Machine
27-03-2009, 23:50
Discuss. :)

Today, our halls received in bulk some very RED envelopes, inside of which the letter goes something like this:


"We have tried to contact you between September 2008 and February 2009 about buying a TV Licence, and haven't received your response. If you watch or record TV at this address as it's being broadcast, and you're not covered by a valid TV Licence, you are breaking the law. This applies whether you watch TV with atelevision set, laptop or any other device.

This letter, therefore, will tell you what you need to know if you find yourself being prosecuted for not being covered by a valid TV Licence.

1. You will be notified in advance of the date and location of our court hearing. Be sure to keep these details safe.

2. You aren't required to turn up to your court hearing, but you should remember that you can be found guilty and fined in your absence.

3. You are allowed to represent yourself in court. If you don't want to represent yourself, the Citizens Advice Bureau can advise you on where and how to find a solicitor.

4. It's best to turn up slightly early to a court. Most court buildings have several actual courts in them, so be sure you leave yourself time to find when and where you're going.

5. If you are fined, the magistrate will often allow you to pay over several instalments, particularly if the fine is a large one.

If you don't watch or record TV at this address, please let us know by calling 0844 800 6707. We may send officers to confirm the situation."

Below this, they say "You can still pay your TV Licence" etc...

And the letter's signed

"Yours faithfully,

Carl Shimeild
Operations Director"

On the back, they outline situations when you need or don't need a TV licence.




What really jars me off is the fact that "letter" (it amounts to toilet paper as far as I'm concerned) is worded to make it sound like the recipient is guilty already.

Plus, the fact it's not addressed to me (it was addressed to "The Legal Occupier") means they need to use "Yours sincerely" as a sign-off instead of "yours faithfully". At least that was what I was taught to write.

Anybody else have these? I generally file them appropriately, i.e under bin!

Russ
27-03-2009, 23:52
*groans....

Another "admin's nightmare" topic....

WHISTLED
28-03-2009, 00:04
Or you could try getting a TV license like the rest of us - Assuming yuu dont by your tone

Gary L
28-03-2009, 00:10
*groans....

Another "admin's nightmare" topic....

:D I love this topic!

---------- Post added at 23:10 ---------- Previous post was at 23:09 ----------

Or you could try getting a TV license like the rest of us - Assuming yuu dont by your tone

Even you're assuming that he's guilty.

Maggy
28-03-2009, 00:10
What's to discuss?Everyone has to have a TV licence to watch TV...It's a tax that all viewers are required to pay..

However much you don't watch the BBC you still have to pay.Just like everyone who owns a car that is driven on public roads has to pay car tax..or owns a house has to pay council tax..Or pays VAT on everything they purchase.Or customs and excise on petrol,booze and fags.

And the PTB have a right to check up about it...

Angua
28-03-2009, 00:11
And we were taught to use faithfully for un-named recipients of mail and sincerely to named persons. :dozey:

Maggy
28-03-2009, 00:14
I'm wondering why they haven't got around to a computer tax?

;)

Gary L
28-03-2009, 00:18
What's to discuss?Everyone has to have a TV licence to watch TV...It's a tax that all viewers are required to pay..

But not everyone is viewing. if they don't get any money from you they assume that you have a TV.

However much you don't watch the BBC you still have to pay

If the dog licence was still around we would be getting letters about however much you don't take your dog for a walk you still have to pay :)

And the PTB have a right to check up about it...

It's not checking up. it's more like buy a licence anyway. who cares if you don't have a TV. us taking you to court will wreck your life.

Maggy
28-03-2009, 00:24
But not everyone is viewing. if they don't get any money from you they assume that you have a TV.



If the dog licence was still around we would be getting letters about however much you don't take your dog for a walk you still have to pay :)



It's not checking up. it's more like buy a licence anyway. who cares if you don't have a TV. us taking you to court will wreck your life.

It's immaterial..TPTB have the right to assume whatever they like..and the right to WARN that not having a licence can result in prosecution...

But of course they could save all that taxpayers money and go right ahead and just take people to court without giving them a chance to adjust matters.

Turkey Machine
28-03-2009, 00:27
What's TPTB?

Gary L
28-03-2009, 00:34
It's immaterial..TPTB have the right to assume whatever they like..and the right to WARN that not having a licence can result in prosecution...

TPTB?
They assume that you are guilty. they make you think that you are under obligation to tell them that you just don't happen to have a TV licence because you just don't happen to own a TV.

But of course they could save all that taxpayers money and go right ahead and just take people to court without giving them a chance to adjust matters.

I heard an ad on Radio 2 today from them people. something about a licence using email or something. they are getting desperate.

---------- Post added at 23:34 ---------- Previous post was at 23:32 ----------

What's TPTB?

The Powers That Be.

:shocked:

They're the same people who send you a threatening letter about they don't have any record of you owning a car. and if you have a car that you haven't told them about you're in trouble :)

danielf
28-03-2009, 00:37
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2009/03/1.gif

chickendippers
28-03-2009, 00:42
When I was in halls they sent loads of reminder letters round to everyone and never amounted to anything. Especially as the terms of my accommodation meant anyone had to give 24 hours notice to come into my room.

I didn't have a TV...and iPlayer didn't exist, so I wasn't bothered, but they still sent them anyway.

Gary L
28-03-2009, 00:51
http://www.smileyworld.com/dictionary/images/smileys/Actions/Yawn.gif

http://erstories.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/early_morning_wake-up_call.jpg

Last year, Conservative MP Gary Streeter put forward an early day motion in parliament, signed by 60 MPs, criticising the "intimidating" tactics being used.

He was particularly angry at the requirement for people who do not own televisions - some one million people in Britain - to prove their "non-use".

Another Tory MP David Maclean accused TV Licensing of scaring people with "dire threats of prosecution" even when they did not own a set.

Anonymouse
28-03-2009, 00:59
They're the same people who send you a threatening letter about they don't have any record of you owning a car. and if you have a car that you haven't told them about you're in trouble :)
Not quite. The DVLA is at least a government institution. TV Licensing is not. Note I didn't say 'authority', as they aren't one and have no right to call themselves such. And they do indeed assume everyone's guilty...especially the 2% of the UK population, e.g. me, who actually don't have a TV.

No, we are not an urban myth. Our numbers are terrifyingly small, but we do exist. :p:

(This is not to say I don't watch TV - I cheat by visiting my family at weekends; they have Sky.)

danielf
28-03-2009, 00:59
<snip>

It remains a boring subject that's been done to death though.

Nevertheless:

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2009/03/14.jpg

Lalalalalalalalalalalala etc.

Gary L
28-03-2009, 01:12
It remains a boring subject that's been done to death though.


All subjects in life are done to death. do we not discuss it again because it was already done in 1984? and what's boring to some may be worrying to others.

http://streetsweeper.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/bush_monkey.jpg

---------- Post added at 00:12 ---------- Previous post was at 00:10 ----------


(This is not to say I don't watch TV - I cheat by visiting my family at weekends; they have Sky.)


I cheat by pretending I'm not even looking at it :)

Maggy
28-03-2009, 01:13
Well if you DON'T OWN A TV then you have nothing to fear..

It's those people who do have a TV and don't have a licence who need to worry..

It's amazing how knicker twisting people get about this and amazing just how many threads we get every year about it..

We get how you don't want to pay it and think it should be abolished..well write to your MP about it..ranting about it here won't get anything changed...I doubt GB and his cabinet even realise this site exists.

Gary L
28-03-2009, 01:20
Well if you DON'T OWN A TV then you have nothing to fear..

It's those people who do have a TV and don't have a licence who need to worry..

It's amazing how knicker twisting people get about this and amazing just how many threads we get every year about it..

We get how you don't want to pay it and think it should be abolished..well write to your MP about it..ranting about it here won't get anything changed...I doubt GB and his cabinet even realise this site exists.

Well if Gordon doesn't read this forum then we might as well just shut up and feel as guilty as we deserve to be then Maggy. :)

We own an imaginary TV and we need to give them money.

Turkey Machine
28-03-2009, 01:53
A friend of mine also said that the detector vans that go around trying to work out which signal's coming from where don't work in halls because there are too many signals going around. Is there any basis in fact in that statement?

Gary L
28-03-2009, 02:01
Has anybody ever seen a TV detector van?
The van that proves you're guilty instead of a letter that assumes you're guilty.

I'm so many years old and I have seen the total of 0 TV detector vans in all them years :)

---------- Post added at 01:01 ---------- Previous post was at 00:55 ----------

A friend of mine also said that the detector vans that go around trying to work out which signal's coming from where don't work in halls because there are too many signals going around. Is there any basis in fact in that statement?

The myth is that they can pick up TV signals. that was before cable/freeview/satellite became the norm. then they upgraded to handheld ones that they stick through your letterbox. these are capable of pin pointing the exact room the TV was within. the MOD is still trying to buy their technology for advanced missile guidance :)

Turkey Machine
28-03-2009, 02:07
So I should ignore the letter, like I intend to already, then?

Am I also right in thinking they can't do or ask anything unless it's addressed with my name on the letter? From what I gather, addressing it "The Legal Occupier" and shoving threats through the door in bulk doesn't have much legal standpoint, especially since we, as a halls, have received 4 or 5 of these since the start of term.

They really must be getting desperate for our money. :D

Gary L
28-03-2009, 02:16
So I should ignore the letter, like I intend to already, then?

Yes

Am I also right in thinking they can't do or ask anything unless it's addressed with my name on the letter? From what I gather, addressing it "The Legal Occupier" and shoving threats through the door in bulk doesn't have much legal standpoint, especially since we, as a halls, have received 4 or 5 of these since the start of term.

I'm not a solicitor. but morally you should tell them to go away or you'll get violent. :)

They really must be getting desperate for our money. :D

The bosses of the BBC must see the end of the tunnel approaching quicker than we thought.
or they just want that other house for the summer without having to break into their savings.

Anonymouse
28-03-2009, 02:33
A friend of mine also said that the detector vans that go around trying to work out which signal's coming from where don't work in halls because there are too many signals going around. Is there any basis in fact in that statement?
No, particularly since you can't detect a receiver anyway. About all you could detect from a TV would be very low-frequency EM, so-called power waves, which would be swamped out by emissions from other appliances, lighting, power cables etc. And no-one I know, have known or ever even heard of has ever seen a detector van. The damn things don't even exist (except in those ads which they stopped showing decades ago).

Gary L
28-03-2009, 10:53
And no-one I know, have known or ever even heard of has ever seen a detector van. The damn things don't even exist (except in those ads which they stopped showing decades ago).

Has there ever been a documentary about TV Licence Enforcement Officers going around in their imaginary vans catching evaders?

You'd think the BBC would have done one by now to show us how easy it is us getting caught not owning a TV.

Kymmy
28-03-2009, 11:19
No, particularly since you can't detect a receiver anyway. About all you could detect from a TV would be very low-frequency EM, so-called power waves, which would be swamped out by emissions from other appliances, lighting, power cables etc. And no-one I know, have known or ever even heard of has ever seen a detector van. The damn things don't even exist (except in those ads which they stopped showing decades ago).

You can't detect a reciever??...what rubbish, every reciever has an oscilator and it's the oscilators that the hand held equipement picks up...Though they can;t detect them more than about 20 meters away...

You'd be suprised at what RF signals come from modern electronics, for example your computer has multiple sproggies and birdies radiating out (stray RF signals that are recievable..) covering many different frequencies..

mr,m
28-03-2009, 11:30
What's a tv license, lol.

altis
28-03-2009, 11:43
What's a tv license, lol.
...a curious verb?

OP, if you watch or record television channels in your own room then you need to buy a licence.

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/students.jsp

Gary L
28-03-2009, 12:00
OP, if you watch or record television channels in your own room then you need to buy a licence.

I think he's probably aware of that.
I think the point of the thread is the part where he says What really jars me off is the fact that "letter" (it amounts to toilet paper as far as I'm concerned) is worded to make it sound like the recipient is guilty already.

Hugh
28-03-2009, 12:00
So I should ignore the letter, like I intend to already, then?

Am I also right in thinking they can't do or ask anything unless it's addressed with my name on the letter? From what I gather, addressing it "The Legal Occupier" and shoving threats through the door in bulk doesn't have much legal standpoint, especially since we, as a halls, have received 4 or 5 of these since the start of term.

They really must be getting desperate for our money. :D
btw, do you have a TV in your room?

Gary L
28-03-2009, 12:04
btw, do you have a TV in your room?

I got one. but I only play Xbox games on it.

Strzelecki
28-03-2009, 12:13
My parents don't have a tv license, never had and never will as they have never had a tv or any other device capable of receiving a tv signal in their house. Yet despite contacting the TV licensing 'Authority' they are just ignored and sent threatening letters. Now they are being told their property will be visited but surely TV authority will need a warranty to go inside.
I think the main point is that they assume every household without a license is guilty without having any proof. They then ignore you when you tell them you have no license (in writing and over the phone). My advise if you don't have a TV is to write to them and document all you correspondance. Let them take you to court. If they did this to the million or so people it would effect then the TV license fee would have to go up and the fee payers wouldn't like that. Plus there could be a case for you if you have all the evidence of the threats.

Welshchris
28-03-2009, 12:20
I'm wondering why they haven't got around to a computer tax?

;)

the government did try something like that years ago, it was discussed but the idea was binned.

---------- Post added at 11:19 ---------- Previous post was at 11:17 ----------

My parents don't have a tv license, never had and never will as they have never had a tv or any other device capable of receiving a tv signal in their house. Yet despite contacting the TV licensing 'Authority' they are just ignored and sent threatening letters. Now they are being told their property will be visited but surely TV authority will need a warranty to go inside.
I think the main point is that they assume every household without a license is guilty without having any proof. They then ignore you when you tell them you have no license (in writing and over the phone). My advise if you don't have a TV is to write to them and document all you correspondance. Let them take you to court. If they did this to the million or so people it would effect then the TV license fee would have to go up and the fee payers wouldn't like that. Plus there could be a case for you if you have all the evidence of the threats.

I was under the impression although its called a TV licence part of it also was covering u for Radio also i maybe wrong!

---------- Post added at 11:20 ---------- Previous post was at 11:19 ----------

I got one. but I only play Xbox games on it.

U still need a TV licence because the set is capable of reciving stations. How do they know as soon as they leave u dont hook up an ariel or freeview etc.

Gary L
28-03-2009, 12:24
I have conflicting advice really. if you don't have a TV then there's no need to enter into any correspondence with them at all. if they don't want to believe you then that's their problem.
the letters will be I don't, don't believe you, it's true, still don't believe you, well it's the truth, we're coming to have a look. don't forget to bring a warrant with you then.

you don't have to jump through hoops to prove that you are not eligible to pay for a licence for something that you don't own that needs a licence.

---------- Post added at 11:24 ---------- Previous post was at 11:22 ----------

U still need a TV licence because the set is capable of reciving stations. How do they know as soon as they leave u dont hook up an ariel or freeview etc.

No Chris. I knew that was coming.
you do not need a licence just because it is capable of receiving signals. the fact that it's not connected up to receive the signals is sufficient if it were to go to court.

Welshchris
28-03-2009, 12:27
i was once told that the TV licencing people catch people by getting lists from either rental firms that used to be around like Radio Rentals and Granada or from Cable/Satalite firms like Virgin or Sky that people subscribe to and then can check to see if the addresses have a TV licence from that.

---------- Post added at 11:27 ---------- Previous post was at 11:25 ----------



No Chris. I knew that was coming.
you do not need a licence just because it is capable of receiving signals. the fact that it's not connected up to receive the signals is sufficient if it were to go to court.

Think u will find that it wont stand up in court, at the end of the day u have a TV and u cannot prove that its not being used to recieve channels. The courts dont look at it for them to prove it is. They will say u have a TV and thefore should be licenced

Gary L
28-03-2009, 12:30
Think u will find that it wont stand up in court

It should do. it's the law.

---------- Post added at 11:30 ---------- Previous post was at 11:28 ----------

i was once told that the TV licencing people catch people by getting lists from either rental firms that used to be around like Radio Rentals and Granada or from Cable/Satalite firms like Virgin or Sky that people subscribe to and then can check to see if the addresses have a TV licence from that.

and when you buy a TV or signal receiving equipment. they ask for your address to pass on to DVLA. you are not obliged to show proof of the address or infact give your real address.

Welshchris
28-03-2009, 12:34
It should do. it's the law.

Good luck on that LOL

---------- Post added at 11:34 ---------- Previous post was at 11:32 ----------



and when you buy a TV or signal receiving equipment. they ask for your address to pass on to DVLA. you are not obliged to show proof of the address or infact give your real address.

And if u refuse then they can legally refuse to sell u the item.

Gary L
28-03-2009, 12:35
Good luck on that LOL

Chris. all the facts are there. you just have to look for them.
the facts on the letters from DVLA are worded in the way to make it sound like it's not the case, but it actually is :)

Welshchris
28-03-2009, 12:36
as i said Good luck lol.

Gary L
28-03-2009, 12:37
And if u refuse then they can legally refuse to sell u the item.

They can't legally do anything. they can refuse to sell it to you if they choose to.

Hugh
28-03-2009, 12:43
Chris. all the facts are there. you just have to look for them.
the facts on the letters from DVLA are worded in the way to make it sound like it's not the case, but it actually is :)
DVLA??? You have an in-car TV? ;)

Anyhoo, you may find this (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2004/20040692.htm)useful -
"Meaning of "television receiver"
9. - (1) In Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV reception), "television receiver" means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose."


"Meaning of "television set"
11. - (1) In Part 1 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1967, "television set" means any apparatus which (either alone or in association with other apparatus) is capable of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service but is not computer apparatus.

(2) In this regulation, "computer apparatus" means apparatus which -



(a) is designed or adapted to be used (either alone or in association with other apparatus) for storing or processing data, but not for doing so in connection with the reception by means of wireless telegraphy of television programme services; and

(b) is not offered for sale or letting as apparatus for use (either alone or in association with other apparatus) primarily for or in connection with the reception (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) of such services;


and "processing" includes displaying."

From the Government legislation, not the TV Licencing Authority.

Welshchris
28-03-2009, 12:51
They can't legally do anything. they can refuse to sell it to you if they choose to.

u will find they can... i know this from experience trust me.

Gary L
28-03-2009, 13:06
DVLA??? You have an in-car TV? ;)

Sorry. I'm getting mixed up with the DVLA thread I'm doing :)

---------- Post added at 12:06 ---------- Previous post was at 12:04 ----------

u will find they can... i know this from experience trust me.

Retailers are required by law to notify TVLA of all sales and rentals of TV equipment. that's all.

Stuart
28-03-2009, 13:22
Think u will find that it wont stand up in court,

I think you'll find it wiil:

From http://tvlicensing.metafaq.com/templates/tvlicensing/main/answerPage?_mftvst:answerRef=%24http%3a%2f%2fapi.t ransversal.com%2fmfapi%2fobjectref%2fEntryStore%2f Entry%2fhttp%3a%2f%2fwww.metafaq.com%2fmfapi%2fMet afaq%2fClients%2ftvlicensing%2fModules%2flicensing Info%2fTopics%2fgeneral%3a134832%3a5&_mftvst:moduleID=%24licensingInfo&_mftvst:topicID=%24&id=QBFRS2AHFTOH8169UCDA58ODD8

What if I only use a TV to watch videos/DVDs/as a monitor for my games console? Do I still need a licence?

You do not need a TV Licence if you only use your TV to watch videos and DVDs or as a monitor for your games console.

However, please notify us in writing that this is the case. One of our Enforcement Officers may visit you to confirm that you do not need a licence.

Please write to us including your name, address and the reason you believe that you don't need a licence at:

TV Licensing
Bristol
BS98 1TL.

Kymmy
28-03-2009, 13:26
Remember that even a computer (without a TV card) can need a TV licence if you recieve broadcasts which are streamed live at the same time that they are being broadcast (for example the BBC News, or a football event even if it's subscription only)

If the come to inspect they do have the power to inspect your explorer history as well ;)

Also does the rule still stand that if you are a student and have a TV that runs off it's own internal batteries that you're covered by your parents licence???

Gary L
28-03-2009, 13:39
If the come to inspect they do have the power to inspect your explorer history as well ;)

They can even take the whole computer away for inspection :)

Russ
28-03-2009, 13:44
They can even take the whole computer away for inspection :)

It's worth pointing out they can't just turn up and do that, they need to apply to the court (which they occasionally do) to enter your property. I know of someone who used this delay to remove 'incriminating evidence'.

Strzelecki
28-03-2009, 13:45
I was under the impression although its called a TV licence part of it also was covering u for Radio also i maybe wrong!


I think you're wrong. You don't need a license to recieve normal radio broadcasts A similar licence, mandated by the 1904 Wireless Telegraphy Act, used to exist for radio, but was abolished in 1971.

nffc
28-03-2009, 13:50
i was once told that the TV licencing people catch people by getting lists from either rental firms that used to be around like Radio Rentals and Granada or from Cable/Satalite firms like Virgin or Sky that people subscribe to and then can check to see if the addresses have a TV licence from that.

---------- Post added at 11:27 ---------- Previous post was at 11:25 ----------



Think u will find that it wont stand up in court, at the end of the day u have a TV and u cannot prove that its not being used to recieve channels. The courts dont look at it for them to prove it is. They will say u have a TV and thefore should be licenced
Come back when you have learned how criminal law works.

The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person making the allegations to prove (beyond reasonable doubt) than an offence has taken place and that the defendant is guilty of it.

Gary L
28-03-2009, 13:59
It's worth pointing out they can't just turn up and do that, they need to apply to the court (which they occasionally do) to enter your property. I know of someone who used this delay to remove 'incriminating evidence'.

'incriminating evidence' to do with TV or something else? :erm:

Russ
28-03-2009, 14:03
'incriminating evidence' to do with TV or something else? :erm:

On his computer. It happened 2 months ago, he didn't have a tv - just a laptop and watched lots of things online. TV Licensing were doing a sweep of the area and apparently he ended up having an argument with the inspectors, they came back a month later with a warrant to enter and search and they took the laptop.

By this time all traces of browser history were somehow removed (I'm assuming the HD was replaced?) and they took no further action - I'm guessing they found nothing.

Derek
29-03-2009, 13:05
The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person making the allegations to prove (beyond reasonable doubt) than an offence has taken place and that the defendant is guilty of it.

No it isn't. There are several cases where the defendant has to prove his innocence. Certain defences under the Misuse of Drugs act impose the burden of proof on the defendant.

Gary L
31-03-2009, 13:07
Talking to my neighbour today. he told TVLA 3 months ago that he has no need for a TV licence as he is always away on business.
it's the first time I've seen him for a while. he had a card type letter off TVLA with the title We said we'd call. and the time and date written in ink in the relevant spaces.

This is what it says. bearing in mind that he doesn't have a TV and informed them of such.

The message is Get a licence!

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/5107/scanimage001t.jpg

Chris
31-03-2009, 13:47
as i said Good luck lol.

He doesn't need luck. He knows the law. Unlike you.

TV Licencing send out heavy-handed threatening letters precisely because it is so damn difficult to prove someone is using a TV illegally. Proving someone owns a TV set is not enough. They have to be caught actually using it to receive TV broadcasts.

To catch someone, they either need a warrant, or they need to use a TV detector van or handheld detector. And yes, they do exist. I've seen detector vans on a number of occasions.

However warrants and vans and court proceedings are fiddly and expensive, which is why they prefer to scare people into getting licenced, or else send people round without warrants who will try to talk their way into the house.

Gary L
31-03-2009, 14:05
To catch someone, they either need a warrant, or they need to use a TV detector van or handheld detector. And yes, they do exist. I've seen detector vans on a number of occasions.

They are empty vans. there's nothing in them besides a possible stray cardboard box :)

http://www.bbctvlicence.com/Detector%20vans.htm

Chris
31-03-2009, 15:11
They are empty vans. there's nothing in them besides a possible stray cardboard box :)

http://www.bbctvlicence.com/Detector%20vans.htm

That website is far from convincing. In fact I'd say it's perilously close to treating the whole issue as a conspiracy theory. And you know what I think about those. ;)

Gary L
31-03-2009, 15:14
That website is far from convincing. In fact I'd say it's perilously close to treating the whole issue as a conspiracy theory. And you know what I think about those. ;)

They're all true and originated from the USA? :)

Chris
31-03-2009, 15:31
They're all true and originated from the USA? :)

That they are the paranoid ramblings of total barmpots with too much time on their hands. Cf.: http://www.bbctvlicence.com/Please%20do%20not%20write%20below%20the%20line.htm

haydnwalker
31-03-2009, 15:40
Many university halls nowadays buy one license that covers the building. And I also when at uni received these letters, but nobody tried to ever check. The thing was... I HAD a licence... AND STILL got the letters!

And anyway, if any letter is addressed to "The Legal Owner" as opposed to "The Occupier" then it can't be a tenants responsibility surely?

I don't consider the BBC as an authority anyway :) and I HAVE a TV Licence.

Gary L
31-03-2009, 16:07
That they are the paranoid ramblings of total barmpots with too much time on their hands. Cf.: http://www.bbctvlicence.com/Please%20do%20not%20write%20below%20the%20line.htm

That was confusing. still don't know why you can't write below the line. :confused: :)

Hugh
31-03-2009, 16:08
That was confusing. still don't know why you can't write below the line. :confused: :)
It's an intelligence test. :D

Chris
31-03-2009, 16:40
It's an intelligence test. :D

I think the owner of that website has failed it - badly. :erm: :D

That was confusing. still don't know why you can't write below the line. :confused: :)

You're missing the point a bit. The website owner has picked on this issue and is holding it up as an example of dodgy goings-on at TVL. Then he's using the inability of a few badly-paid CSRs to answer his emails to his satisfaction as 'proof' that he's correct.

He's employing precisely the same sort of ropey logic that he used on the page you linked to earlier.

Gary L
31-03-2009, 16:48
You're missing the point a bit. The website owner has picked on this issue and is holding it up as an example of dodgy goings-on at TVL. Then he's using the inability of a few badly-paid CSRs to answer his emails to his satisfaction as 'proof' that he's correct.

He's employing precisely the same sort of ropey logic that he used on the page you linked to earlier.

Maybe. but then I'm not taking him too seriously :)

Stuart
31-03-2009, 16:59
You're missing the point a bit. The website owner has picked on this issue and is holding it up as an example of dodgy goings-on at TVL. Then he's using the inability of a few badly-paid CSRs to answer his emails to his satisfaction as 'proof' that he's correct.



In fact (and I never thought I see myself type this about anyone at TV Licencing), I felt a little sorry for the people he was having a go at. There they are, probably on Minimum wage, under a lot of stress and having to answer pointless questions just so some idiot on a website can make them look bad.

altis
31-03-2009, 18:06
The BBC Trust obviously thinks their tone is too harsh:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7973987.stm

'cept the Beeb can't even report their own news correctly!

Anyone who owns a set or other devices to watch TV needs a licence

What *******s! That should be "uses".

Gary L
31-03-2009, 18:14
'cept the Beeb can't even report their own news correctly!

Anyone who owns a set or other devices to watch TV needs a licence

What *******s! That should be "uses".

No. leave it. we can say we are just borrowing it :)

Gary L
01-04-2009, 12:03
TV Licence needed to watch iPlayer


Viewers who watch television only through their computers could be forced to pay the licence fee, it has been revealed.

Currently, those who solely use catch-up services, such as the BBC's iPlayer, do not need to pay the annual £139.50 charge.

But a law could be introduced to change this, amid growing evidence that more television viewers are migrating online.

Either it's an April Fools, or it's entrapment :)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1166161/Licence-fee-police-target-watching-TV-Net.html#comments

altis
01-04-2009, 12:36
This has always been the case.

If you watch or record television programmes at the time they are broadcast then you need a licence. It doesn't matter how the signal gets to you. You also need one of you have equipment installed to do such. However, you can watch recorded programmes (eg videos on the Beeb's site) without a licence.

Gary L
01-04-2009, 12:42
This has always been the case.

If you watch or record television programmes at the time they are broadcast then you need a licence. It doesn't matter how the signal gets to you. You also need one of you have equipment installed to do such. However, you can watch recorded programmes (eg videos on the Beeb's site) without a licence.

I know that. isn't this about having to now have a licence to watch iPlayer. where before you didn't?

Chris
01-04-2009, 12:59
No, the TV licence has always been a licence to receive TV broadcasts, not a licence to own a TV. For that reason, the law as it stands covers any device that you use to receive TV, now or in the future. The law does not need to be updated to include any TV receiver that might be invented five or 10 years from now, or any device that has recently been invented (such as the iPlayer). Anything that receives TV is automatically covered.

Gary L
01-04-2009, 13:33
No, the TV licence has always been a licence to receive TV broadcasts, not a licence to own a TV. For that reason, the law as it stands covers any device that you use to receive TV, now or in the future. The law does not need to be updated to include any TV receiver that might be invented five or 10 years from now, or any device that has recently been invented (such as the iPlayer). Anything that receives TV is automatically covered.

But a law could be introduced to change this

Possible new laws could see those who use online streaming paying a licence fee for the privilege

You do not need a television licence to watch television programmes on the current version of the BBC iPlayer. You will need to be covered by a TV licence if and when the BBC provides a feature that enables you to watch 'live' TV programmes on any later version of the BBC iPlayer which has this option... A 'live' TV programme is a programme which is watched or recorded at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is being broadcast...

Chris
01-04-2009, 15:19
But a law could be introduced to change this

Possible new laws could see those who use online streaming paying a licence fee for the privilege

You do not need a television licence to watch television programmes on the current version of the BBC iPlayer. You will need to be covered by a TV licence if and when the BBC provides a feature that enables you to watch 'live' TV programmes on any later version of the BBC iPlayer which has this option... A 'live' TV programme is a programme which is watched or recorded at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is being broadcast...

Err - yes, you do. The iPlayer contains live as-broadcast streams, right now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/playlive/bbc_news24/

Anyone clicking on that link and watching the live broadcast it contains needs to be covered by a TV licence.

Wherever rights issues permit, the BBC broadcasts all of its TV channels live via the iPlayer. So it is not true to say that you don't currently need a licence to use the iPlayer. The iPlayer, like a TV set, can be used for both live TV reception or watching recordings. And, also like a TV set, it's the way you use it that determines whether you need a licence or not.

The Daily Wail has actually given a very neat example of the very confusion the BBC Trust says exists around the whole issue of online TV. It says, in its second paragraph, "Currently, those who solely use catch-up services, such as the BBC's iPlayer, do not need to pay the annual £139.50 charge. " ... thus falling foul of the very thing it's reporting on, which is a bit dumb. The iPlayer is not just a catch-up service. You can watch live TV on it.

And let's not get carried away with the Daily Wail's typically shoddy journalism. The whole premise for their somewhat hysterical claim that "a law could be introduced" is a line buried within a report by the BBC Trust into online consumption of TV. The report actually says, "Legislative change is likely to be required in order to reflect technology changes in the licence fee regulations". Well, fair enough, it may be. But that's not the Government saying so, it's not even some faceless backbencher saying so, it's the BBC Trust, which has precisely zero powers when it comes to changing the law. The best it can do is to lobby the Government. And how likely is the Government to place this anywhere near the top of the agenda, when according to the Wail, "The trust's chairman, Sir Michael Lyons, said there was little evidence that people were deserting their TV sets to watch solely online." ? Not very.

Gary L
01-04-2009, 15:25
Err - yes, you do. The iPlayer contains live as-broadcast streams, right now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/playlive/bbc_news24/

Anyone clicking on that link and watching the live broadcast it contains needs to be covered by a TV licence.

If the BBC are worried about people evading the TV licence by watching it online instead then why put it there?

an interesting comment I read. which I happen to agree with.

Be warned this will end up being all computer users. In Denmark DR (the danish equivilent to the BCC) was loosing money so decided to put some of their programmes online. They made no effort to make it a subscription service password protected, but instead made it freely available to anyone with internet. They then complained to the government that people with then internet were able to watch their prgrammes for free, and so successfully petioned the government to force people with the internet to pay a license fee to DR. It is really wrong as they could easily made it a service people cpuld choose to pay for as many ebooks, and online journals do, but no they mmade it "free", then demanded anyone with internet paid them regardless of whether they even looked at their site. I bet anything the BBC will do this too.

Chris
01-04-2009, 15:29
If the BBC are worried about people evading the TV licence by watching it online instead then why put it there?

You need to ask the BBC that.

an interesting comment I read. which I happen to agree with.

It's feasible that the UK might end up with a 'data connection' licence rather than a TV licence. After all, we used to have a radio licence until the TV licence eventually replaced it. I don't think it's very likely though, and if it did happen it would be many years away.

TheDaddy
01-04-2009, 16:43
A friend of mine also said that the detector vans that go around trying to work out which signal's coming from where don't work in halls because there are too many signals going around. Is there any basis in fact in that statement?

I clamped one that parked on our premises a couple of years back :)

Happy days

---------- Post added at 15:37 ---------- Previous post was at 15:35 ----------

Well if you DON'T OWN A TV then you have nothing to fear..

It's those people who do have a TV and don't have a licence who need to worry..

It's amazing how knicker twisting people get about this and amazing just how many threads we get every year about it..

We get how you don't want to pay it and think it should be abolished..well write to your MP about it..ranting about it here won't get anything changed...I doubt GB and his cabinet even realise this site exists.

Nothing to fear is different to being pestered by these people, still receiving letters despite me taking the time to phone them, so is my disabled mother who had to get out of her sick bed to answer the door to him.

---------- Post added at 15:43 ---------- Previous post was at 15:37 ----------

TV Licence needed to watch iPlayer




Either it's an April Fools, or it's entrapment :)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1166161/Licence-fee-police-target-watching-TV-Net.html#comments

We don't have entrapment laws in this country

Tarantella
02-04-2009, 16:41
Its an interesting subject though.

There's no loophole that people are exploiting. The licensing laws are clear enough and the BBC understood the law before they placed the iPlayer website on the internet. They knew full well that people who used no other forms of tv reception and who did not have a licence would be able to access the iPlayer website to watch programmes that had previously been broadcast live.

Even if the laws regarding the TV licence are changed people will still be able to access the iPlayer website to listen to Radio broadcasts, live or on catchup.

To discern for what purpose an individual is using his internet service for in this respect as regards requiring a license would require extremely intrusive legislation and monitoring.

This goes against any statement they might have said admitting their current attitude to license payers/non payers might be.

Chris
02-04-2009, 17:04
To discern for what purpose an individual is using his internet service for in this respect as regards requiring a license would require extremely intrusive legislation and monitoring.

No it wouldn't - they can check that using the same tactics they use at the moment, with the exception that they won't be able to use TV detector vans.

Most of what they do at the moment is doorstep intimidation, without a warrant. The people doing the doorstepping have a bonus programme based on how many licences they sell per month. Some of them make a fortune from signing up the same people over and over again (the chavs sign the direct debit, then cancel it after a month; six months later the TVL man comes round and they sign another one ... repeat forever).

At the moment they work on the assumption that there is a TV on the premises and try to talk the occupier round on that basis. It wouldn't take much of a change in the script to get them talking about internet usage instead.

Only a few cases end up with a warrant being issued, or a court case.

Gary L
02-04-2009, 17:05
To discern for what purpose an individual is using his internet service for in this respect as regards requiring a license would require extremely intrusive legislation and monitoring

If new laws were passed to include iPlayer. I think the government would use it as an excuse to bring in internet monitoring.

Or we'll be getting letters of TVLA saying your ISP informs us that you watched Eastenders, and we don't have a record of you holding a licence :)

Chris
02-04-2009, 17:13
If new laws were passed to include iPlayer. I think the government would use it as an excuse to bring in internet monitoring.

Or we'll be getting letters of TVLA saying your ISP informs us that you watched Eastenders, and we don't have a record of you holding a licence :)

As posted the other day, no change in the law is required to cover usage of the iPlayer for live streams. The TV Licence is a licence to use receiving equipment to receive TV, not a licence to own receiving equipment.

Any change in the law requiring people to be licenced to watch anything at all on the iPlayer - namely the catch-up service - would by default also require people to have a licence if they ever use a de-tuned TV set to watch a video or DVD recording of a TV broadcast - something you do not currently need to be licenced for.

That would be an absolute minefield because it would effectively turn the TV licence into a licence for ownership rather than use and would annoy a lot of people who own a TV set but only use it for videos and don't use it to receive broadcasts.

Gary L
02-04-2009, 17:32
As posted the other day, no change in the law is required to cover usage of the iPlayer for live streams. The TV Licence is a licence to use receiving equipment to receive TV, not a licence to own receiving equipment.

That explains it all really. they want to change the law from using to owning.
it will be seen as impossible if they think that from owning a computer carries the need to purchase a TV licence. all because they have made a website that allows you to watch TV.

Chris
02-04-2009, 17:40
That explains it all really. they want to change the law from using to owning.
it will be seen as impossible if they think that from owning a computer carries the need to purchase a TV licence. all because they have made a website that allows you to watch TV.

It's possible - it would make enforcement a bit simpler.

There is of course an anomaly over the iPlayer issue. While they can demand you get a licence if you're watching live streams on iPlayer on your computer - being as you need a licence to use receiving equipment, whatever that equipment is - they cannot demand you get a licence to use any receiving equipment that is powered entirely by its own internal batteries, as such devices are exempt. So arguably you could use a laptop to receive live streams on the iPlayer, so long as the laptop is disconnected from the mains at the time, and not need a licence. :D

Gary L
02-04-2009, 17:43
It's possible - it would make enforcement a bit simpler.

There is of course an anomaly over the iPlayer issue. While they can demand you get a licence if you're watching live streams on iPlayer on your computer - being as you need a licence to use receiving equipment, whatever that equipment is - they cannot demand you get a licence to use any receiving equipment that is powered entirely by its own internal batteries, as such devices are exempt. So arguably you could use a laptop to receive live streams on the iPlayer, so long as the laptop is disconnected from the mains at the time, and not need a licence. :D

I think it's probably best if we just start from scratch. we all cancel our licences and let them work it out all over again :)

Turkey Machine
23-04-2009, 17:49
btw, do you have a TV in your room?

I own a DVD recorder which is not hooked up to an aerial because there isn't one - it's used as a player. So no, I don't, at least for TV Licensing's sake. ;) I won't mention the analogue cable feed or the VBox STB that's in the next room either.

When I bought a Freeview PVR from Maplin last year, to use in my previous halls, I knew we were covered by the communal room's TV Licence. There wasn't one for the individual rooms, but then again there was no aerial point either. Yet I was still asked for my name, address and postcode when I bought the damn thing. I half-wonder whether you could get away with giving a fake name with an address and postcode that isn't yours.

Apparantly there was a thing mentioned I think here that Asda were asking for names and addresses of everybody that bought TV equipment, Freeview boxes, DVD recorders, but even more retardly DVD players!!!!! How bloody stupid do you have to be to ask for a name and address when you buy a DVD player? As I understand it they were retrained quite soon after that, but still......

altis
23-04-2009, 18:20
When I bought a Freeview PVR from Maplin last year, to use in my previous halls, I knew we were covered by the communal room's TV Licence. There wasn't one for the individual rooms, but then again there was no aerial point either.
Actually, you wern't:
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/students/
Apparantly there was a thing mentioned I think here that Asda were asking for names and addresses of everybody that bought TV equipment, Freeview boxes, DVD recorders, but even more retardly DVD players!!!!! How bloody stupid do you have to be to ask for a name and address when you buy a DVD player? As I understand it they were retrained quite soon after that, but still......
I believe they have to, whatever the equipment:
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/tvdealers.jsp

Gary L
23-04-2009, 18:24
I believe they have to, whatever the equipment

A standard DVD Player isn't capable of receiving TV signals. they was just over cautious.

Turkey Machine
23-04-2009, 19:58
Actually, you wern't:
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/students/

What you didn't know, and what I perhaps failed to mention, was that the TV licence was included in the rent. ;) And I had that confirmed with the management. So it was all completely kosher. :)

Also: DVD players, by design, do not have TV tuners built into them. If they do, point me to a model! Thus Asda were in the wrong asking for a name and address when somebody bought one!

slowcoach
23-04-2009, 23:21
Radio licensing was dropped after the introduction of the transistor radio, prior to that people had a radio the size of a refrigerator which cost a fortune to buy, but once they bought a transistor radio, many of which cost not much more than the licence fee itself, people stopped buying a licence, and I mean like everyone. In order to save face the Government declared that the radio licence would be included in the TV licence but funnily enough if you did not have a TV then you did not need a radio licence, in truth the radio licence was abolished.

Same thing happened with the Dog licence, people stopped paying it and the Government abolished it.

The only reason we still have a TV licence is that people haven't stopped buying it.....yet.

Gary L
23-04-2009, 23:53
The only reason we still have a TV licence is that people haven't stopped buying it.....yet.

That's a good point.
If we all stopped buying one, they can't fine us all. if we all stopped buying one all that will be said is that 'we can't afford to give you quality programming' who cares? there's hundreds of other channels we can watch.

I think the licence should be abolished, and it should be us that abolishes it :)

Chris
24-04-2009, 10:14
Radio licensing was dropped after the introduction of the transistor radio, prior to that people had a radio the size of a refrigerator which cost a fortune to buy, but once they bought a transistor radio, many of which cost not much more than the licence fee itself, people stopped buying a licence, and I mean like everyone. In order to save face the Government declared that the radio licence would be included in the TV licence but funnily enough if you did not have a TV then you did not need a radio licence, in truth the radio licence was abolished.

Same thing happened with the Dog licence, people stopped paying it and the Government abolished it.

The only reason we still have a TV licence is that people haven't stopped buying it.....yet.

You make a very good point. However, a couple of logical observations based on it:

1. The same could be said of any tax or charge levied by the Government. However if we all decided to just stop paying income tax, road tax or any other sort of tax, society would descend into chaos pretty quickly.

2. Following on from (1), people generally understand and accept the necessity of compulsory taxes and levies, even if they don't like them. They like the idea of anarchy even less. So they pay them, and grumble a bit sometimes. Only in the most extreme of circumstances does anything like a significant chunk of the population refuse to pay (e.g. the Poll Tax).

3. Following on from (2), the logical conclusion is that most people accept the TV licence, even in this age of subscription-based multi-channel digital TV. If they didn't, it would already be under threat due to high numbers of non-payers. But it isn't under threat because most people do pay it.

4. Following on from (3), it's therefore reasonable to claim that there would have to be a significant change in the TV licence set-up (perhaps a very large increase in cost, or advertising being introduced on BBC services, or a large reduction in BBC output) before you stand a chance of getting the non-payment campaign you're after.

Bad luck!

Stuart
24-04-2009, 10:21
I think the licence should be abolished, and it should be us that abolishes it :)


Abolish it, and the BBC will have to take advertising. Subscription won't be enough (if it was, Sky 1 would probably be advert free). You can then sit back and watch as ITV, Channels 4 and 5 (all of which are already posting huge losses) and a lot of the smaller commercial channels go bankrupt.

I was told by a relative of mine in the Advertising industry years ago that the industry did not want the BBC to take Advertising because even when the economy was booming, the extra advertising space available would have sent advertising rates through the floor and would have bankrupted ITV even then.

Not to mention the fact that the BBC provides a huge part of the national communications infrastruture.

Chris
24-04-2009, 10:26
Abolish it, and the BBC will have to take advertising. Subscription won't be enough (if it was, Sky 1 would probably be advert free). You can then sit back and watch as ITV, Channels 4 and 5 (all of which are already posting huge losses) and a lot of the smaller commercial channels go bankrupt.

I was told by a relative of mine in the Advertising industry years ago that the industry did not want the BBC to take Advertising because even when the economy was booming, the extra advertising space available would have sent advertising rates through the floor and would have bankrupted ITV even then.

Not to mention the fact that the BBC provides a huge part of the national communications infrastruture.

A good point, well made ... but a point that has been made over and over on this forum, every time a thread like this comes along, and which strangely seems to get completely ignored by those who want the licence abolished.

Sadly some folks can't see any further than their own purse strings when they think they can save a few pence.

papa smurf
24-04-2009, 10:34
A good point, well made ... but a point that has been made over and over on this forum, every time a thread like this comes along, and which strangely seems to get completely ignored by those who want the licence abolished.

Sadly some folks can't see any further than their own purse strings when they think they can save a few pence.

14250 pence = a few :(

Chris
24-04-2009, 10:40
14250 pence = a few :(

Well, as they say, there's lies, damn lies and statistics. In this case, 14,250 pence sounds like a lot so long as you choose to ignore the context (which is that that amount is an annual fee).

You could choose to look at it another way - its 274 pennies per week, which is extremely cheap for the amount of TV, radio and online content available to you as a result. The average British male spends more like 2,100 pennies per week on alcohol.

Stuart
24-04-2009, 10:45
Chris, I think you and I both have made the same point repeatedly.. :D

Chris
24-04-2009, 10:47
To get that in perspective, the basic package for Sky costs 19800p per year. ignoring the fact that you currently also have to pay the licence fee.

Also ignoring the fact that about 25% of what you get for your 19,800 pennies per year is adverts.

AndyCambs
24-04-2009, 10:49
Also ignoring the fact that about 25% of what you get for your 19,800 pennies per year is adverts.

And programmes repeated from Sky1, to Sky2, to Sky3 over the week

zing_deleted
24-04-2009, 10:50
Abolish it, and the BBC will have to take advertising. Subscription won't be enough (if it was, Sky 1 would probably be advert free). You can then sit back and watch as ITV, Channels 4 and 5 (all of which are already posting huge losses) and a lot of the smaller commercial channels go bankrupt.

I was told by a relative of mine in the Advertising industry years ago that the industry did not want the BBC to take Advertising because even when the economy was booming, the extra advertising space available would have sent advertising rates through the floor and would have bankrupted ITV even then.

Not to mention the fact that the BBC provides a huge part of the national communications infrastruture.

Are these reported losses negative profit or what I expect as an amount less than projected profit and in fact these companies are not facing bankruptcy at all??

Chris
24-04-2009, 10:56
Are these reported losses negative profit or what I expect as an amount less than projected profit and in fact these companies are not facing bankruptcy at all??

ITV lost £2.7 billion last year. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/4936407/ITV-takes-radical-action-as-advertising-sinks.html)

Stuart
24-04-2009, 11:22
ITV lost £2.7 billion last year. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/4936407/ITV-takes-radical-action-as-advertising-sinks.html)

Not to mention the fact that Channel 4 have asked for Licence money to over their costs, and RTE have said that to survive long term, Channel 5 will need to merge some of it's backroom operations with another channel.

---------- Post added at 10:22 ---------- Previous post was at 10:20 ----------

Are these reported losses negative profit or what I expect as an amount less than projected profit and in fact these companies are not facing bankruptcy at all??

I said losses, and I meant losses.. If I had meant less than projected profit, I would have said that.

zing_deleted
24-04-2009, 11:38
Not to mention the fact that Channel 4 have asked for Licence money to over their costs, and RTE have said that to survive long term, Channel 5 will need to merge some of it's backroom operations with another channel.

---------- Post added at 10:22 ---------- Previous post was at 10:20 ----------



I said losses, and I meant losses.. If I had meant less than projected profit, I would have said that.


But in finance often when someone talks of losses it does not actually mean a loss. Chris's link I have difficulty in understanding as I am not a mathematician . How can a comany lose millions and still be in business ?

Somehow they lost 2.7 billion but paid 250 million of debt?
As a slew of companies look to strengthen their financial positions, ITV told shareholders today that it has secured £360m of new financing and has repaid £250m of debt.

hows that work then?

the world of finance does confuse me lol

---------- Post added at 10:38 ---------- Previous post was at 10:30 ----------

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2009/03/itv-loss-could.html

the figures are from last year and it appears the losses stem from Capital write downs (whatever that is) and they actually made a trading profit of 167 million. The link I provide say they are most liking trading at a loss but there are no figures as its only the start of the financial year

So Stuart it appears its not quite as black and white as you so eloquently in a sarcastic way put it ;)

Chris
24-04-2009, 12:25
But in finance often when someone talks of losses it does not actually mean a loss. Chris's link I have difficulty in understanding as I am not a mathematician . How can a comany lose millions and still be in business ?

Somehow they lost 2.7 billion but paid 250 million of debt?


hows that work then?

the world of finance does confuse me lol

---------- Post added at 10:38 ---------- Previous post was at 10:30 ----------

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2009/03/itv-loss-could.html

the figures are from last year and it appears the losses stem from Capital write downs (whatever that is) and they actually made a trading profit of 167 million. The link I provide say they are most liking trading at a loss but there are no figures as its only the start of the financial year

So Stuart it appears its not quite as black and white as you so eloquently in a sarcastic way put it ;)

It's never black and white in the world of business Zing, you're right about that. However I think I can try to explain some of the points:

1. As you subsequently spotted, the results are from last year. If ITV issued those results in March then the company's financial year probably runs from January-December. It takes a few months to get the annual results compiled. So the £2.7 billion loss was for the year ending 31 Dec 2008. That doesn't make these results 'old' - they are the most current annual figures available for ITV.

2. When they announced that they have paid off £250 million in debt, it is possible they're talking about action taken since the end of the year.

3. A capital write-down is where a company admits that things it owns are not worth as much as they have previously said. Accounting rules compel the company to put these on the balance sheet. So, for example, the Friends Reunited website is now reckoned to be worth considerably less than the £150 million they paid for it in 2005. Whatever they decide it's now worth, subtracted from what they paid for it, becomes a loss on their balance sheet.

4. ITV's operating profit reflects the revenue of day-to-day business set against the cost of doing day-to-day business. On that narrow measure it made a profit of £167 million, which is a 41% drop in profit from the year previously. That's a disaster by any measure.

Overall you shouldn't allow the fact they made an operating profit cloud the overall massive loss of £2.7 billion. The rules insist that capital write-downs etc should be included in the final figure for very good reasons. Without them we don't have a full picture of how healthy a business ITV is. On the strength of these figures, it's not especially healthy at all.

Stuart
24-04-2009, 12:35
But in finance often when someone talks of losses it does not actually mean a loss. Chris's link I have difficulty in understanding as I am not a mathematician . How can a comany lose millions and still be in business ?

Somehow they lost 2.7 billion but paid 250 million of debt?


hows that work then?

the world of finance does confuse me lol

---------- Post added at 10:38 ---------- Previous post was at 10:30 ----------

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2009/03/itv-loss-could.html

the figures are from last year and it appears the losses stem from Capital write downs (whatever that is) and they actually made a trading profit of 167 million. The link I provide say they are most liking trading at a loss but there are no figures as its only the start of the financial year

So Stuart it appears its not quite as black and white as you so eloquently in a sarcastic way put it ;)

Wasn't being sarcastic at all. Chris has explained it far more eloquently than I, but the fact is that ITV did post an overall 2.7 billion loss.

As for finance confusing you. I think it confuses most people. It's not an easy subject to fully understand, thats why there are degrees in the mathematics involved.

zing_deleted
24-04-2009, 13:19
Overall you shouldn't allow the fact they made an operating profit cloud the overall massive loss of £2.7 billion. The rules insist that capital write-downs etc should be included in the final figure for very good reasons. Without them we don't have a full picture of how healthy a business ITV is. On the strength of these figures, it's not especially healthy at all.


I get all the rest ta mate. This bit doesnt this all mean the figure isnt really meaningful? Friends reunited worth less than it was when it was bought so I can understand that being loss however FR would have made money since they bought it from advertising or however they run it so if its worth x number pounds less now but has earned y profit over the year should the loss not be x-y= actual loss?

The broadcasting part made a lot of cash ok a 40% loss but still millions isnt that the real figure to worry about?

Damien
24-04-2009, 13:23
The broadcasting part made a lot of cash ok a 40% loss but still millions isnt that the real figure to worry about?

It's a serious loss though, ITV could be gone so fast if that trend continues...

Chris
24-04-2009, 13:50
I get all the rest ta mate. This bit doesnt this all mean the figure isnt really meaningful? Friends reunited worth less than it was when it was bought so I can understand that being loss however FR would have made money since they bought it from advertising or however they run it so if its worth x number pounds less now but has earned y profit over the year should the loss not be x-y= actual loss?

If FR has made an operating profit, then that figure will be included in the £167 million ITV has posted as its overall operating profit for the year.

Capital writedown is purely about establishing the sale value of the things the company owns, i.e. what it cost to buy against what price could be achieved if it were sold. In fact, FR's earnings potential would be part of any calculation of its capital value, but any actual earnings it has made would not enter into the calculation or else that would be double accounting (because they've already been quoted elsewhere, as part of the operating profit figures)

The broadcasting part made a lot of cash ok a 40% loss but still millions isnt that the real figure to worry about?

For a company the size of ITV, with past earnings the size ITV has previously made, an operating profit of £167 million is tiny. It sounds like a lot to you and me, but when you consider that they brought in more than £2 billion in revenue during the year, only being able to hang on to such a small fraction of it as profit is worrying.

AndyCambs
24-04-2009, 13:51
ITV lost £2.7 billion last year. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/4936407/ITV-takes-radical-action-as-advertising-sinks.html)

Interesting to note also that with the recession, leading to cutbacks in advertising, and also increased competition from satellite and cable channels this means that ITV have had to cancel a host of programmes - such as Heartbeat, The Royal and Frost - whilst relying more on repeats and dumbed down daytime programmes.

Additionally (on a slightly different note), several DAB radio stations have closed due to lack of advertising I believe.

barby81
03-05-2009, 19:27
I think instead of using "BullyBoy" tactics, the TV licences department should boast about the great services it offers (Beeb, iPlayer etc)

Chris
04-05-2009, 10:48
They're only "great services" if you use them. I watch less than 3 hours of BBC output on all media a week and for me the BBC poll tax is very poor value for money.

Not true - the BBC's impact on the broadcast entertainment industry goes way beyond what you can choose to watch or listen to. It is a world leader in technical development and has trained many of the producers, directors and other crew who have gone on to work for other companies. Some of those companies run their own channels, others simply make programmes and sell them. The BBC buys in a lot of independent productions as well, benefiting the economy generally.

The BBC should be funded by subscription. If it's a wonderful as it claims it will have no problem raising the finance.Why should it? ITV isn't. Channel 4 isn't. Five isn't. If you abolish the licence fee, the BBC will resort to the same funding model as these, and take advertising. Given that there's a finite amount of advertising to be had, this would simply damage the finances of all the other channels.

Interesting to do a back of the fag packet calculation: The BBC bully boy branch spends £180m a year chasing people for the tax. Assuming that this operation breaks even that means that they get 1.3 million new licences for this each year. No enforcement is 100% effective so assume they only manage 50% (Most police forces would kill for such a clear up rate) that means 2.6 million households deliberatly don't pay the tax despite the aggressive tactics. At approaching 10% of all households, it's a substantial minority.

The number of non-paying households is out there somewhere, no need for fag packet calculations. When I get time I'll look it up.

altis
04-05-2009, 11:53
The widely used figure is 2% of UK households.

Sirius
04-05-2009, 12:27
Antony Jay hits the nail on the head. The BBC is too big and doing too much on the back of a funding system that puts no responsability on them to be efficient.

My feelings as well. The same was said of nationalised companies. If they mess up they can just go to the government cap in hand to increase the Tv tax or better still just tax another company that's doing better than them "Google and others"

Personally i have no time for the TV tax because the BBC should be made to fund themselves like any other company in this country.

Maggy
04-05-2009, 12:50
If we stop funding the BBC queue the banal American type TV and all we will ever get is reality TV programmes because no one will have the funding to produce really good quality programmes.

Ok if you like The Idol and talentless Britain/US and endless BB style programs.:(

Programmes like Life on Mars and Being Human won't get a look in..

And yes the US does have some good shows but they are very few and don't always survive to full maturity because of a lack of viewing figures.

Sometimes I think it might be nice to have fewer channels IF the few could maintain quality which might work as there would be more money from advertising to go around.Then maybe a BBC that can advertise might work.

Stuart
04-05-2009, 14:33
And yes the US does have some good shows but they are very few and don't always survive to full maturity because of a lack of viewing figures.


Anyone who holds up the US as an example of quality programming has, IMO, never watched any US channel. Yes, they have excellent shows, such as Heroes, The West Wing and The Sopranos, but 98% of what they show is absolute crap.

Sometimes I think it might be nice to have fewer channels IF the few could maintain quality which might work as there would be more money from advertising to go around.Then maybe a BBC that can advertise might work.

I think that's why ITV (in particular) was able to produce a lot of top dramas (e.g London's Burning and The Knock) in the 90s, but seems unable to produce them now.

DRZ400
04-05-2009, 14:45
Seems strange VM doesn't offer a non BBC service for those who don't want to fund Chris Moyles & co's summer jolly to Ibiza.

BUT they force the channels on you even if you don't want them.

It's as ridiculous as VM demanding 30 quid a month off every man, woman, and child as they beam the VM mobile phone signal through every home and you COULD use it if you bought a phone.

Hugh
04-05-2009, 14:54
You could always not watch them (set up Favourites, missing the Beeb channels out).

DRZ400
04-05-2009, 15:03
I remember reading an article explaining that they cannot make it optional as it'll make it impossible to police.

Not really that fair.

I hate seeing half of Radio 1 in the news getting drunk in Ibiza every year being paid for by OUR money.

Lord Nikon
04-05-2009, 15:41
Anyone who holds up the US as an example of quality programming has, IMO, never watched any US channel. Yes, they have excellent shows, such as Heroes, The West Wing and The Sopranos, but 98% of what they show is absolute crap.


CSI (Including NY and Miami) Law & Order, House, Knight Rider, Dollhouse, Dark Angel while it was out, Charmed, Angel, Sanctuary, Stargate, Stargate Atlantis, Star Trek and it's subsidiaries, Birds Of Prey, shame a lot of those are cancelled, but the point is there are a LOT of good US programs.

Turkey Machine
04-05-2009, 15:45
CSI (Including NY and Miami) Law & Order, House, Knight Rider, Dollhouse, Dark Angel while it was out, Charmed, Angel, Sanctuary, Stargate, Stargate Atlantis, Star Trek and it's subsidiaries, Birds Of Prey, shame a lot of those are cancelled, but the point is there are a LOT of good US programs.

All shown on cable/satellite before either making their way late to terrestrial or never at all. Those who pay a subscription for TV should not have to pay the licence. Those who use Freeview / Freesat should.

Stuart
04-05-2009, 15:58
CSI (Including NY and Miami) Law & Order, House, Knight Rider, Dollhouse, Dark Angel while it was out, Charmed, Angel, Sanctuary, Stargate, Stargate Atlantis, Star Trek and it's subsidiaries, Birds Of Prey, shame a lot of those are cancelled, but the point is there are a LOT of good US programs.

Have you watched any US channel? My point was not that the US does not produce some good TV. It does. It's just that 98% of what they show (bearing in mind that they produce 100s of shows each week) is absolute crap.

Lord Nikon
04-05-2009, 16:14
Having spent quite a lot of time in the US yes I have watched US TV, and quite frankly I find we have more crap on TV here in the UK than in the US.

Sirius
04-05-2009, 16:24
I see it as a compulsory tax. Anyone that has tried to tell them they have no TV is bullied by constant visits and searches into paying even after they have proved they have no TV. There are constant complaints on the Internet of just how bad they can get in there constant demand for the tax.

http://www.marmalade.net/lime/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/alex_singleton/blog/2008/12/11/bbcs_mark_thompson_fails_to_reply_to_tv_licensing_ complaints
http://www.jifvik.org/tv/jewell.htm
BBC complaints over harassment (http://www.inthenews.co.uk/entertainment/tv/features/bbc-probes-tv-licence-after-heavy-handed-complaints-$1239605.htm)
http://www.crazysquirrel.com/stuff/rants/tvlicence/tony-holden.jspx

To quote one of these links

Peter G. Hill: "[A]s soon as an address is seen to be unregistered in respect of a TV licence, the occupant is subjected to an unending stream of letters, the constant message being that you are guilty of harbouring an unregistered TV. In the early stages, the letters are just accusatory but rapidly become bullying, insulting and finally intimidating and highly offensive. What other government organisation, business or even court of law would send out a letter in an envelope adorned in large print with the message 'Notice of impending prosecution' or 'Your next appearance could be in court'? This, when no evidence whatsoever of TV possession exists." . . . "Persecution is not too strong a word to describe the actions of TV Licensing and it beggars belief that such practices should be acceptable in society today." (added 22/06/08).


I could go on but i think you get the idea that i have no time for the BBC or there official blackmailers called TVLA

Tarantella
04-05-2009, 17:51
If the TVLA work on the assumption that everyone one should have a licence then the government can too. They should fund the BBC out of normal taxes and save the country a large some of money that goes towards a private company instead.

Damien
04-05-2009, 18:21
People do realise that TV tax is not UK exclusive, many countries have it. We're lucky ours goes to public broadcasting as opposed to the government.

Sirius
04-05-2009, 18:28
People do realise that TV tax is not UK exclusive, many countries have it. We're lucky ours goes to public broadcasting as opposed to the government.

Other countries have the death sentence should we as well ?.

Why should i be made to pay for the BBC if i don't watch there programs ?.

If the Tax is for owning a TV then why does the money not go to all broadcasters in the UK.

Russ
04-05-2009, 18:32
Why should i be made to pay for the BBC if i don't watch there programs ?.



Never even looked on their website?

DRZ400
04-05-2009, 18:33
Why should i be made to pay for the BBC if i don't watch there programs ?.

Because it would be impossible for the BBC to keep track of who should pay and who shouldn't if it was optional.

The easiest way is to 'presume' everyone has one, and make everyone pay, even if you don't use their service.

It's criminal.

Damien
04-05-2009, 18:38
Other countries have the death sentence should we as well ?.

Why should i be made to pay for the BBC if i dont watch there programs ?.

My comparison was to suggest that we are lucky this tax revenue goes to public broadcasting. I hardly think a comparison to the death penalty should be made.

You should pay for it for the same reason your tax money will subsidise museums you don't visit. The BBC is more than just the TV programs you watch, they are a massive cultural force for Britain which keeps us competitive on a global scale. How many British actors, directors and writers would be successful without the BBC? Not many.

ITV = Hardly any decent British programmes. If they have any they attempt to shove the same actors (or ant and dec) into it.
Channel 4 = Decent. They make good comedy programs and documentaries.
Channel 5 = None
Sky = None

If it were not for the BBC we would be nothing but American tv shows. The BBC don't just make British shows, they make great ones. Many which in some way translate globally and make British television very well respected.

Sirius
04-05-2009, 19:09
My comparison was to suggest that we are lucky this tax revenue goes to public broadcasting. I hardly think a comparison to the death penalty should be made.

You should pay for it for the same reason your tax money will subsidise museums you don't visit. The BBC is more than just the TV programs you watch, they are a massive cultural force for Britain which keeps us competitive on a global scale. How many British actors, directors and writers would be successful without the BBC? Not many.

ITV = Hardly any decent British programmes. If they have any they attempt to shove the same actors (or ant and dec) into it.
Channel 4 = Decent. They make good comedy programs and documentaries.
Channel 5 = None
Sky = None

If it were not for the BBC we would be nothing but American tv shows. The BBC don't just make British shows, they make great ones. Many which in some way translate globally and make British television very well respected.

Yep

The BBC home of the intellectual programs. Glad i am not famous, I might have a message left on my answer phone by some numpty's paid to do it with my money :rolleyes:

Yep the BBC

---------- Post added at 18:09 ---------- Previous post was at 18:08 ----------

Never even looked on their website?

In that case why should the tax not go to every one based in the uk who has a website i visit.

And again i ask

If the tax is for owning a TV why does the tax not go to all broadcasters in the UK ??

Maggy
04-05-2009, 19:16
Yep

The BBC home of the intellectual programs. Glad i am not famous, I might have a message left on my answer phone by some numpty's paid to do it with my money :rolleyes:

Yep the BBC



So what programmes DO you watch?

Sirius
04-05-2009, 19:21
So what programmes DO you watch?Scifi channel from America mainly over the net. Sky one ,virgin one and then films on the movie channel.

My point here by the way is that i feel the BBC should be made to join the commercial world just like its competitors. My point is that the TAX is for owning a TV and if that's the case then ALL broadcaster who broadcast in the uk should get a portion of the TAX.

Also you can watch reruns on a PC without having to pay the tax but then you are hounded morning till dusk by the TVLA if you dont have the a TV.

You must be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV. It makes no difference what equipment you use - whether it’s a laptop, PC, mobile phone, digital box, DVD recorder or a TV set - you still need a licence.

You do not need a TV Licence to view video clips on the internet, as long as what you are viewing is not being shown on TV at the same time as you are viewing it.

If you use a digital box with a hi-fi system, or another device that can only be used to produce sounds and can't display TV programmes, and you don't install or use any other TV receiving equipment, you don't need a TV Licence.

So no tax need's to be paid for iplayer or the BBC website

Chris
04-05-2009, 19:30
My point is that the TAX is for owning a TV and if that's the case then ALL broadcaster who broadcast in the uk should get a portion of the TAX.

Why should it be? The money raised from the tax disc on your car windscreen isn't ring-fenced to pay for the roads. Even National Insurance isn't ring-fenced to pay for pensions and the NHS. Parliament decides how funds that are raised should be spent, and Parliament has decided that the TV Licence should be spent on the BBC.

If you believe otherwise - why?

Sirius
04-05-2009, 19:41
If you believe otherwise - why?

The tax gives the BBC an unfair advantage especially during the recession. They know that no matter how much they screw up they get there tax.

Secondly if they mess up they can just go to the Government cap in hand and get more money.

Thirdly At the moment they are looking at ways of taxing other successful company's and paying that Tax to the BBC, Why should they be able to tax a company that is not even from this country and then give that tax to the BBC. how rundy much tax do they need from us.

As i have said the BBC should be made to join the commercial world instead of being funded by a tax that is unjust because if you don't have a TV you are treated by the TVLA as a criminal.

Now you can all gang up as much as you want because you will not change my mind. Its a unfair tax and they should be made to fund themselves like any other company

Stuart
04-05-2009, 20:04
The tax gives the BBC an unfair advantage especially during the recession. They know that no matter how much they screw up they get there tax.

Secondly if they mess up they can just go to the Government cap in hand and get more money.


No, they can't. Why do you think they are having to cut their budgets massively?

Thirdly At the moment they are looking at ways of taxing other successful company's and paying that Tax to the BBC, Why should they be able to tax a company that is not even from this country and then give that tax to the BBC. how rundy much tax do they need from us.

Actually, as I understand it, the money raised by that tax (if it happens) is primarily for Channel 4.

Sirius
04-05-2009, 20:08
Actually, as I understand it, the money raised by that tax (if it happens) is primarily for Channel 4.

But why should a company who is not even based in this country have to pay for a broadcaster in the UK. Does no one here think thats a little bit strange ???

---------- Post added at 19:08 ---------- Previous post was at 19:07 ----------

No, they can't. Why do you think they are having to cut their budgets massively?




And about time to. But that will not cut the amount of Tax we pay.

Stuart
04-05-2009, 20:13
But why should a company who is not even based in this country have to pay for a broadcaster in the UK. Does no one here think thats a little bit strange ???


Any company who trades here has to pay taxes at some point. If you are referring to Google, they do trade in the UK..

Maggy
04-05-2009, 20:16
If paying tax to other UK channels would cut out the adverts I'd gladly pay it..but I'm damned if I'm paying it to other channels that have commercial advertising.If they give up adverts then I'm happy for them to get the tax...

Sirius
04-05-2009, 20:19
Any company who trades here has to pay taxes at some point. If you are referring to Google, they do trade in the UK..

I just find it a bit strange that they might be forced to fund a channel they have nothing what so ever to do with.

Jimmy-J
04-05-2009, 20:27
If paying tax to other UK channels would cut out the adverts I'd gladly pay it..but I'm damned if I'm paying it to other channels that have commercial advertising.If they give up adverts then I'm happy for them to get the tax...
No no no... The adverts are better than the actual programs! The BNP have the right idea, they would abolish the license fee.

Stuart
04-05-2009, 20:27
I just find it a bit strange that they might be forced to fund a channel they have nothing what so ever to do with.

I believe their news aggregation system has BBC news as one of it's sources. Should they not pay for this access?

Maggy
04-05-2009, 20:31
No no no... The adverts are better than the actual programs! The BNP have the right idea, they would abolish the license fee.

:banghead: Good grief! Are you seriously saying you would pay tax to watch adverts?

You weirdo...:p::D

Sirius
04-05-2009, 20:39
I believe their news aggregation system has BBC news as one of it's sources. Should they not pay for this access?Do the BBC charge all the other web companies ?, Thats a lot of companys to track down and Tax

Jimmy-J
04-05-2009, 21:18
I'm not going to pay the license fee, they can whistle for it.

Sirius
04-05-2009, 21:43
I'm not going to pay the license fee, they can whistle for it.

Unfortunately i have to pay the tax as i don't want the hassle of the TVLA every other day.

DRZ400
04-05-2009, 21:47
I know someone who 'forgot' for 8 years!

Jimmy-J
05-05-2009, 14:10
It's just like needing a license to read any of the news papers, but the fee goes to the Guardian.

Chris
05-05-2009, 14:14
Except that it isn't, really.

Nugget
05-05-2009, 14:14
Unfortunately i have to pay the tax as i don't want the hassle of the TVLA every other day.

But it's not a tax...

Stuart
05-05-2009, 14:39
It's just like needing a license to read any of the news papers, but the fee goes to the Guardian.

One major difference: Apart from the licence fee, you do not pay anything directly to the terrestrial channels to watch TV.

---------- Post added at 13:39 ---------- Previous post was at 13:37 ----------

Do the BBC charge all the other web companies ?, Thats a lot of companys to track down and Tax

I don't know what (if anything) the BBC charge. I was making the point that Google (and a lot of companies) get a lot of content from them, apparently for nothing at the moment.

Sirius
05-05-2009, 14:45
But it's not a tax...

It is in my eyes. I am forced to pay it even if i decided not to use the BBC and only watch Sky.

Chris
05-05-2009, 15:06
The tax gives the BBC an unfair advantage especially during the recession. They know that no matter how much they screw up they get there tax.

Or, looking at it another way, the way the BBC is funded guarantees that we get a consistent standard of TV even during a recession when the commercial companies can't raise as much money from advertising.

Secondly if they mess up they can just go to the Government cap in hand and get more money.

Simply not true. While Parliament sets the level of the licence fee and the BBC can, and does, ask for the amount to be raised, they frequently get less than they asked for - as happened during the most recent settlement, in fact. And Parliament can, and does, occasionally burden the BBC with responsibilities it would rather not have in exchange for more cash. For example, its current role in managing digital switchover.

As i have said the BBC should be made to join the commercial world instead of being funded by a tax that is unjust

And as I have said, forcing the BBC to go commercial would only result in the death of many existing commercial channels. Or do you think there is an unlimited amount of money to be made out of advertising?

because if you don't have a TV you are treated by the TVLA as a criminal.

I agree, and I have taken this up with them on a number of occasions (even though I have always paid my TVL and have never had a nasty letter off them).

It is in my eyes. I am forced to pay it even if i decided not to use the BBC and only watch Sky.

The TV Licence does not fit any generally accepted definition of tax, except with the ONS who treat it as one purely for statistical purposes.

Taxes are applied against increased value (e.g. Income, capital gains, VAT) quantities of certain goods (aka 'duty' or 'excise', levied per pint, litre, gram or whatever, depending on the thing being taxed) or against individual people (Poll Taxes). They are then almost never ring-fenced for any specific purpose.

The TV Licence is what it is. A licence, permitting you to do the thing that is the subject of the licence. The proceeds of licence sales are then ring-fenced and used in the way determined by Parliament.

Nugget
05-05-2009, 15:13
Of course it's a tax. They finally started calling car tax by it's correct name rather than the road fund licence since most of the cash is not spent on the roads.

Well, not really - they refer to it as Car Tax, but it's still called Vehicle Excise Duty :)

Jimmy-J
05-05-2009, 17:15
Maybe in the not so distant future the TV license will be abolished? But it'll probably be replaced with an Internet license.

Stuart
05-05-2009, 17:24
Well, not really - they refer to it as Car Tax, but it's still called Vehicle Excise Duty :)

Especially as it doesn't exclusively apply to cars..

Chris
05-05-2009, 17:29
Maybe in the not so distant future the TV license will be abolished? But it'll probably be replaced with an Internet license.

The BBC's charter, which allows it to collect the licence fee, is granted for 10 years. The current charter is valid until 2016. Given that there is at the moment no serious objection to the licence fee (despite what has been posted in this thread), it's very unlikely the BBC would be denied the licence fee in 2016. It is likely that they would get a period of time to plan, so for example they could get told in 2016 that this is the final renewal and they would need to go commercial from 2026.

This is all speculation, but one thing I am confident of, is that the licence fee isn't going to disappear any time soon.

Incidentally, did you know that the only country in Europe that has no licence fee and no Government subsidy of TV at all, is Luxembourg?

Gary L
05-05-2009, 17:37
Given that there is at the moment no serious objection to the licence fee (despite what has been posted in this thread), it's very unlikely the BBC would be denied the licence fee in 2016.

That's probably because there's people like you telling us how bad it's going to be for us if we abolish the licence fee, so it's best we shut up and don't object :)

Chris
05-05-2009, 17:39
... or it could be because most people value the work the BBC does. :shrug:

Jimmy-J
05-05-2009, 17:51
The BBC's charter, which allows it to collect the licence fee, is granted for 10 years. The current charter is valid until 2016. Given that there is at the moment no serious objection to the licence fee (despite what has been posted in this thread), it's very unlikely the BBC would be denied the licence fee in 2016. It is likely that they would get a period of time to plan, so for example they could get told in 2016 that this is the final renewal and they would need to go commercial from 2026.

This is all speculation, but one thing I am confident of, is that the licence fee isn't going to disappear any time soon.

Incidentally, did you know that the only country in Europe that has no licence fee and no Government subsidy of TV at all, is Luxembourg?
No I didn't.

Gary L
05-05-2009, 17:51
... or it could be because most people value the work the BBC does. :shrug:

LOL

But were in the future now. and in my opinion the licence fee is old fashioned as it was something at the beginning of broadcasting, which has now developed way past the original concept. I can't see why one broadcasting company should benefit from a manufactured product. the sale of a product, and the use of a product.

Russ
05-05-2009, 17:53
But it'll probably be replaced with an Internet license.

Yes, perhaps about £20 a month. Payable to your ISP. Depending on which speed service you want.

Chris
05-05-2009, 17:54
LOL

But were in the future now. and in my opinion the licence fee is old fashioned as it was something at the beginning of broadcasting, which has now developed way past the original concept. I can't see why one broadcasting company should benefit from a manufactured product. the sale of a product, and the use of a product.

Yes, it's so old fashioned that most of Europe still has a TVL. And almost all of those that don't, give Government subsidy to broadcasters, which means in those countries TV really is paid for by tax.

Gary L
05-05-2009, 17:55
Yes, perhaps about £20 a month. Payable to your ISP. Depending on which speed service you want.

Or perhaps around 72p a month.

Jimmy-J
05-05-2009, 18:00
Yes, perhaps about £20 a month. Payable to your ISP. Depending on which speed service you want.
No, I mean the type of license you have to buy because even though you already pay a connection fee or don't use the internet, you still have means of connecting to it therefore you must pay up or you're a criminal, full stop.

Gary L
05-05-2009, 18:00
Yes, it's so old fashioned that most of Europe still has a TVL. And almost all of those that don't, give Government subsidy to broadcasters, which means in those countries TV really is paid for by tax.

Oh. in that case, we'll have to carry on doing it then. we can't let them carry on doing it, and we don't. it's just not right. we got to be seen as being normal :)

Chris
05-05-2009, 18:06
Oh. in that case, we'll have to carry on doing it then. we can't let them carry on doing it, and we don't. it's just not right. we got to be seen as being normal :)

Now, stop squirming. You complained that the TVL is old fashioned, I proved that it isn't. There's really nothing more to it than that.

Gary L
05-05-2009, 18:13
Now, stop squirming. You complained that the TVL is old fashioned, I proved that it isn't. There's really nothing more to it than that.

No you haven't proved that it's not old fashioned. you just said that there's others still paying it. that doesn't mean that a view of it being old fashioned isn't right.

:favored or prevalent in former times

Chris
05-05-2009, 18:17
Former times as opposed to present times. Yet it's demonstrably still popular. I don't believe you can call something old fashioned if it is still in fashion.

Gary L
05-05-2009, 18:21
Former times as opposed to present times. Yet it's demonstrably still popular. I don't believe you can call something old fashioned if it is still in fashion.

How can you say it's popular when it's compulsory? if it wasn't compulsory and you only pay if you think it's popular in the way that you value the work the BBC does, and then people still pay it. then you can call it popular.

It's not in fashion. it's just there :)

Chris
05-05-2009, 18:25
It's popular because it is. 'Popular' as in prevalence.

Jimmy-J
05-05-2009, 18:29
It's popular because most people have been bullied into paying it whether they like it or not. Pay it or else! Well I wont be paying it. :p:

Chris
05-05-2009, 18:31
It is popular in the sense that its use in Europe is widespread. I am not making any comment on whether or not it is popular in the sense that it is well-loved. Will some of you please keep up!

Stuart
05-05-2009, 19:40
It is popular in the sense that its use in Europe is widespread. I am not making any comment on whether or not it is popular in the sense that it is well-loved. Will some of you please keep up!

I don't know of anyone that actually likes paying taxes. Even if the licence isn't technically a tax, people do perceive it as such.

Turkey Machine
05-05-2009, 20:05
Since I started this thread, I should elaborate that the only live TV I watch at the moment is the F1 on the BBC, and Big Bang Theory on E4/C4, and also the footy when there's a good game on, although most days I go down to the pub to watch it anyway and I download the F1 since I'm not always up all hours to watch it. I used to watch Comedy Central aka Paramount Comedy 1 a lot, but I have other things to waste my time with. Everything else I watch is downloaded because I missed out when it was shown (Heroes and Pushing Daisies for instance) or something that peaks my interest (Stargate [Atlantis] or Babylon 5). So while in their eyes I might be guilty, I ain't gonna pay them until they treat me like the good citizen I am and stop assuming I'm outright guilty of having a TV and watching live broadcasts when they have no proof apart from what I write here that I don't.


The TV Licensing Authority's letters they send assume you're guilty. They don't account for the fact that you might not have a TV, or that if you do, you only use it to watch DVDs or play video games. I refuse to tell them I don't have one because I know they'll send one of their henchmen around to try and prove it, and I'll be put on a "watching brief" from there-on-in. The best situation at the moment is to just ride it out until I move out of here!

bod62uk
06-05-2009, 23:18
The BBC have been pocketing this money and not making an effort to make new programs.
Frankly it's a rip off.
The BBC have to charge this fee because without it they wouldn't be able to compete with all the other TV companies because they are so boring.

The BBC are always advertising one way or another by plugging stuff or advertisments on sporting programs etc.

The BBC have programs now shown on "Dave" which also have adverts, They also have adverts on their programs in the USA, why on Earth should we pay this Tax?

Pathetic Company.

Jimmy-J
07-05-2009, 05:56
The BBC will never go subscription only, because nobody in their right mind would pay for it.

Admin edit (Chris): Language, please.

Chris
07-05-2009, 09:58
You're quite right. It's well known in the British TV industry that the only things you can charge subscription for are what they call the 'Three Fs'. Football, Films and you can work out the other one yourself.

None of the general entertainment channels that Sky hides behind its subscription packages ever gets more than about a million viewers. The Simpsons on Sky One is one of the few million-rated shows they have.

Damien
07-05-2009, 10:16
The BBC will never go subscription only, because nobody in their right mind would pay for it.

People pay for HBO in the States, the problem is the BBC would never get the critical mass required to make good, ad-free, programs in a country with a relatively small population.

Sky make very few programmes, and still need to run adverts, despite charging around £20 a month. (a lot more than the licence fee). The real quality output of sky requires paying almost double that. I.E Movies and Sports. As they are much more expensive for Sky.

Britain has a excellent creative industry and it's supported largely by the fact we have a publicly funded channel that is compelled to act in the public interest and make British programmes. This industry would be badly damaged and our reputation shot if we lost the BBC.

HBO and other international broadcasters enjoy working with the Beeb because of said quality. It's why HBO team up with the BBC often, it's why Generation Kill used almost exclusively British production talent. It's also why the BBC World Service is probably the most respected news source in the world.

I don't understand why people want to destory that.

Sirius
07-05-2009, 10:24
that is compelled to act in the public interest



I am sure Andrew Sachs feels that way as well

Damien
07-05-2009, 10:28
I am sure Andrew Sachs feels that way as well

That is kind of a cheap comeback is it not? It was isolated incident for which people were suspended and a couple of incidents in a large organisation does not detract from my previous post at all.

Sirius
07-05-2009, 10:50
That is kind of a cheap comeback is it not? It was isolated incident for which people were suspended and a couple of incidents in a large organisation does not detract from my previous post at all.

Few more for you then

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/response/2009/04/090430_res_jonathanrossofcomrulingcomments.shtml ~~Note the date
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/response/2009/04/090429_res_questiontimestarkey.shtml

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/response/2009/05/090501_res_haveigotnewsforyou_alanduncan_jf.shtml

I just went to the first 3 i found.

I have made it known i have no time for the TV tax and nothing short of its removal will change my mind.

Damien
07-05-2009, 11:01
Few more for you then

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/response/2009/04/090430_res_jonathanrossofcomrulingcomments.shtml ~~Note the date
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/response/2009/04/090429_res_questiontimestarkey.shtml

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/response/2009/05/090501_res_haveigotnewsforyou_alanduncan_jf.shtml

I just went to the first 3 i found.

I have made it known i have no time for the TV tax and nothing short of its removal will change my mind.

On come on people complain about everything!

From your first one:
We have received complaints from some listeners who felt that Jonathan Ross made light of the Ofcom ruling which was broadcast prior to his programme in accordance with their findings that Russell Brand's Radio 2 show had breached the Broadcasting Code on 18 & 25 October 2008.

Why were they listening? It's normal for Jonathan Ross

We received complaints from viewers who were unhappy with comments made by David Starkey during the programme in relation to the Scottish, Welsh and Irish.

Seriously? How are the BBC response for this? Maybe they should just not let anyone on Question Time who may upset someone?

We've received some complaints from viewers who were unhappy with Alan Duncan's comments about Miss California on Have I Got News For You, BBC One, Friday 24 April 2009.

It's...a...comedy...program :rolleyes: People just love to complain

Chris
07-05-2009, 11:30
Few more for you then

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/response/2009/04/090430_res_jonathanrossofcomrulingcomments.shtml ~~Note the date
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/response/2009/04/090429_res_questiontimestarkey.shtml

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/response/2009/05/090501_res_haveigotnewsforyou_alanduncan_jf.shtml

I just went to the first 3 i found.

I have made it known i have no time for the TV tax and nothing short of its removal will change my mind.

You will have to go much, much further to show a systemic failure at the BBC to satisfy the terms of its charter, in relation to public interest or anything else. It is a huge organisation and its broadcast output is vast. No matter how high profile some of its cock-ups have been, they are still a drop in the ocean. Also do not underestimate the BBC's success in being an approachable, responsive organisation that is not only happy to act on complaints such as these but also to publish them. The fact that Auntie is prepared to wash her bloomers in public is itself a response to those such as yourself who want to crucify her for them.

We are all well aware of what you think of the TV Licence. You think it's unfair. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But if you offer reasons why you think it's unfair, in a discussion forum, you have to expect other people to challenge your reasons. It's really nothing to get cross about.

Stu, Damien and myself, among others, have given a lot of IMO compelling reasons why the current arrangements are fair and in the best interests of British TV viewers and producers alike, repeatedly in this thread, but I don't believe anyone has come in with a point-by-point response to any of it yet. All we keep getting is the "but it's unfair! why should I pay! Don't want to! Can't make me!" stuff, over and over again.

It's a bit disappointing really.

Stuart
07-05-2009, 11:57
I am sure Andrew Sachs feels that way as well

Andrew Sachs has actually thanked Russell Brand and Johnathon Ross for helping raise his profile. Which, TBH, says a lot about both him and his family. But that's for another thread.

---------- Post added at 10:57 ---------- Previous post was at 10:54 ----------

really nothing to get cross about.

Stu, Damien and myself, among others, have given a lot of IMO compelling reasons why the current arrangements are fair and in the best interests of British TV viewers and producers alike, repeatedly in this thread, but I don't believe anyone has come in with a point-by-point response to any of it yet. All we keep getting is the "but it's unfair! why should I pay! Don't want to! Can't make me!" stuff, over and over again.



After all, the "it's unfair" arguement could be applied to a lot of other taxes. Why, for instance, am I paying for Schools? I don't have any kids, so I am not using any. Why am I paying for street lighting to be provided to streets I have never been to and have no intention of going to?

Chris
07-05-2009, 12:11
Exactly. Why am I paying for street lighting when there are no street lights within 3 miles of my house ... why am I paying for social services ...

Sometimes, in order for a service to be effectively provided for the good of the whole of society, it's necessary for everyone to pay towards it, regardless of level of usage.

Gary L
07-05-2009, 12:35
Exactly. Why am I paying for street lighting when there are no street lights within 3 miles of my house ... why am I paying for social services ...

Sometimes, in order for a service to be effectively provided for the good of the whole of society, it's necessary for everyone to pay towards it, regardless of level of usage.

Street lighting is a silly argument compared to paying for a company to keep it running for the good of the whole society.

If you were to take away the need to pay a (let's call it a tax) when you purchase TV receiving equipment, and made it the same as when you buy a car in that you have to insure it, then I personally don't think it would be too bad.

but that won't happen. they want it the easy way where we pay and get the snotty, threatening, assumed guilty letters if we are not on the list as paying.

Chris
07-05-2009, 12:58
Why is it silly? Your local council is effectively a 'company' with a monopoly on the provision of local services that you don't have the right to opt out of. You can't choose a commercial alternative if you want different street lights. You can't have someone else collect your bins. And if you choose to put your own kids in a private school, you still have to pay the same council tax, which in part funds your county's state schools.

You continue to tie the existence of the licence fee to the stupid tactics used on people who don't have one. They are not one and the same thing. The fact that the current collections regime is below par does not in any way answer any of the fundamental reasons why the licence itself is a perfectly good and fair way of ensuring overall standards in British broadcasting.

Gary L
07-05-2009, 13:32
Why is it silly?

Well for a start you are not paying for street lights in another area. you're paying for the ones where you live. the people in the other areas are paying for the others.

and if you haven't got any street lighting then you'll see some when you venture out into the city.

overall standards in British broadcasting

Which is argued that we can live without. or they can fund themselves. which is always met with another argument of they are a quality company that we can't do without.

that's your opinion, not fact.

Chris
07-05-2009, 13:44
Well for a start you are not paying for street lights in another area. you're paying for the ones where you live. the people in the other areas are paying for the others.

That's a totally spurious argument. My council tax pays for street lights at the other end of the county in towns and villages I have never visited and will never visit. Whether they are 50 miles or 500 miles away from me is irrelevant.

The only difference here is in scale. You're failing to answer the principle, which is that everyone unavoidably pays for a service even though their personal use of it varies.

Stuart
07-05-2009, 13:47
Well for a start you are not paying for street lights in another area. you're paying for the ones where you live. the people in the other areas are paying for the others.


True, but I am still paying to light the 70% of streets in my local area that I have no interest in visiting. It's actually the same argument a lot of anti-licence fee people are using against the BBC.


and if you haven't got any street lighting then you'll see some when you venture out into the city.


and if you don't watch the BBC, you can do..


overall standards in British broadcasting

Which is argued that we can live without. or they can fund themselves. which is always met with another argument of they are a quality company that we can't do without.

that's your opinion, not fact.

What is fact is that introducing a massive supply of advertising space to an already over supplied market will cause advertising prices to drop. A lot of TV companies (ITV, Channel 4 and 5 included) are going to have to implement major budget cuts if this happens, and may even go bankrupt. Channels 4 and 5 have already issued warnings about their own future, and ITV is facing severe losses. I am not even mentioning the smaller channels who are likely to fold first.

Gary L
07-05-2009, 13:53
That's a totally spurious argument. My council tax pays for street lights at the other end of the county in towns and villages I have never visited and will never visit. Whether they are 50 miles or 500 miles away from me is irrelevant.

But you're not. council tax is a local taxation collected by local authorities.

Chris
07-05-2009, 13:57
But you're not. council tax is a local taxation collected by local authorities.

Irrelevant.

Gary L
07-05-2009, 14:13
Irrelevant.

Yes, of course it's irrelevant Chris. it doesn't fit into your argument if it was :)

Russ
07-05-2009, 14:14
Pot...kettle.....etc

Chris
07-05-2009, 14:20
Yes, of course it's irrelevant Chris. it doesn't fit into your argument if it was :)

It's irrelevant because your objection about the local nature of Council Tax doesn't answer this central point:

Council Tax demonstrates a widely accepted principle in the UK that a monopoly corporation may be given the power to raise revenue from certain members of the public, without their specific consent, in order to provide them with services regardless of whether they want or use them.

Just like the TV licence.

The fact that the council tax is collected and spent by a number of authorities across the UK rather than a single central authority doesn't alter the comparison at all, because the comparison is in the compulsory nature of the two levies, and the fact that they are spent on services that may or may not be of use to those who are forced to pay for them.

If you continue to fail to grasp this (I thought) fairly simple point, I really don't know if there is any other way of spelling it out for you.

Gary L
07-05-2009, 14:31
It's irrelevant because your objection about the local nature of Council Tax doesn't answer this central point:

Council Tax demonstrates a widely accepted principle in the UK that a monopoly corporation may be given the power to raise revenue from certain members of the public, without their specific consent, in order to provide them with services regardless of whether they want or use them.

You can't have it both ways. one minute you're saying this, and when it's made clear that that isn't the case. you say you weren't saying that.

Just like the TV licence.

The fact that the council tax is collected and spent by a number of authorities across the UK rather than a single central authority doesn't alter the comparison at all, because the comparison is in the compulsory nature of the two levies, and the fact that they are spent on services that may or may not be of use to those who are forced to pay for them.

If you continue to fail to grasp this (I thought) fairly simple point, I really don't know if there is any other way of spelling it out for you.

You pay the TV licence to 'fund' a company in the making and running of TV broadcasts. they can expand their channels up to BBC 17 and RADIO 25, to make themselves more prominent.
it doesn't mean that they are needed. they can afford to do this because of us being forced to pay and contribute towards it.

The council tax is needed. The BBC isn't needed.
End Of :D

Chris
07-05-2009, 14:42
You can't have it both ways. one minute you're saying this, and when it's made clear that that isn't the case. you say you weren't saying that.

You're tying yourself in verbal knots now Gary. If you claim I'm contradicting myself, please post quotes that show me doing so. Otherwise I'll just assume you're confused (again).

<drivel snippage>

The council tax is needed. The BBC isn't needed.
End Of :DAnd there's the nub of the issue. Your opinion. Except that you claim the BBC isn't needed in the face of all the things several of us have already posted that shows the BBC is needed. So we have my opinion, based on a number of reasons that I have stated, over and over again, and we have your opinion, which is based on .... well, you tell me, what exactly is it based on, beyond your desire to save yourself a few quid?

What you and the other BBC ha3rz have consistently failed to do in this thread is counter even a single one of the arguments we have made in favour of the licence-fee-funded BBC. All you do is endlessly repeat the same basic lines, "It's not needed, I don't like it, I don't watch it, I don't want to pay it".

It doesn't really make for a challenging debate, does it.

Come on. Challenge my opinion. Attack the reasons I believe what I do. Give me your own reasons. If you can, that is.

Gary L
07-05-2009, 14:51
It doesn't really make for a challenging debate, does it.

Come on. Challenge my opinion. Attack the reasons I believe what I do. Give me your own reasons. If you can, that is.

I have challenged your opinion. I've tried to debate. but you snip them out all the time and tell me I'm confused and stupid :)

Chris
07-05-2009, 14:55
I have challenged your opinion. I've tried to debate. but you snip them out all the time and tell me I'm confused and stupid :)

IIRC I've snipped you once, about half an hour ago, and on that occasion you were laying out and attacking an argument that I never even made. I want you to reply to my reasoning, not strawmen.

On the issue of confusion, yes I think you are confused because you're accusing me of contradicting myself. I don't believe I have done that, and so far you haven't provided proof to back up what you have claimed.

As for stupid ... if I thought you were stupid I'd have given up trying to tease some reasoning out of you ages ago. ;)

nffc
07-05-2009, 15:28
Why do TVL threads on forums always cause trolling? :s

Tarantella
07-05-2009, 17:06
Its cheaper than watching TV?

Sirius
07-05-2009, 17:24
Its cheaper than watching TV?

Its more interesting ;)

Turkey Machine
07-05-2009, 19:47
Why do TVL threads on forums always cause trolling? :s

This is MY thread, to instigate the issue that they're bullying people into paying for a licence by assuming they're guilty. Not my fault people can't argue effectively. ;)

Turkey Machine
17-07-2009, 23:07
Is this still going up in April or have they put it back a year or two?

Taf
18-07-2009, 02:15
They've got to put it up as they are now looking at giving some of the cash to independant TV...

Lord Nikon
20-07-2009, 00:07
They can go forth and multiply. I have ZERO intention of subsidising their rubbish any further.

rogerdraig
20-07-2009, 00:14
Has anybody ever seen a TV detector van?
The van that proves you're guilty instead of a letter that assumes you're guilty.

I'm so many years old and I have seen the total of 0 TV detector vans in all them years :)

---------- Post added at 01:01 ---------- Previous post was at 00:55 ----------



The myth is that they can pick up TV signals. that was before cable/freeview/satellite became the norm. then they upgraded to handheld ones that they stick through your letterbox. these are capable of pin pointing the exact room the TV was within. the MOD is still trying to buy their technology for advanced missile guidance :)

you dont think they can tell if you have a tv on in the house ?

Welshchris
20-07-2009, 06:06
roger why would the MOD want to pin point someones TV? lol

rogerdraig
20-07-2009, 10:23
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Eck_Phreaking

why do the military do anything ;)

but i was talking about the viability of telling if they could tell what you were watching

multiskilled
20-07-2009, 12:10
I remember delivering a replacement tv to a customer setting it up,and showing them how to use it. As I left the carrying the duff telly, the tv licensing man was walking down their path. The detector van was parked just up the street.This was in the 80's.
I was laughing so much I nearly dropped the telly I was carrying.