Are you happy to pay for a tv licence?

[Guinness Boy]

Well it is slightly different isn't it, in fact its very different. You put those things up to stop people breaking into your house and committing crime, or birds half inching the farmers corn

For years they led us to believe that if you have a TV you need a license. Just watch a few of those videos, they still try and claim this. Only if people look into it, do you uncover the truth that its only if you use that TV to watch programmes as they are broadcast, that you need a licence. They are still trying to trick people into paying for a license, when because of today's technology, more and more people generally do not need to buy a licence. Just look at their site, we still have to search for the truth on it.

So basically you've spent hours on the internet watching videos on how not to pay your TV licence and even longer on the internet justifying not having one (not to mention telling people in gainful employment to eff off) incurring ISP charges and electric bills to save £145 a year. Or 39p a day as I like to think of it. Remind me never to get in a round with you.

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

Yep taking something for free

What is your interpretation of broadcast?

Anyway in regard to whether the TV detector vans worked or not, technically they did because they drove around in them, parked up and got out of the vehicle, went to the property and detected a TV by using their ears or seeing it on through the window. You don't need any state of the art tech to detect TV's when people can carry out that function.

Interpretation of broadcast, it basically the same as TV Licensing interpretation. Basically as the programme goes out live over the airways for all to watch. So if you say tune into Eastenders at 7.30 you need a licence, as you are watching it as its being broadcast. Watch it at 8 or 9 o'clock, as you say, you get it for free, and you do not need a TV licence.

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

go look it up. dont believe the harm side, thats nonsence of course. after all the light emitted is radiation, but theres a ton of frequencies leaking off the back of a CRT as they aren't shielded. its possible to detect the picture being watch on a suitably tuned equipment, though this is lab set up i dont if thats possible from a Leyland van.



i already conceded long ago on the "owning a TV" point that my phrasing was poor, instead of making the mistake again i simply refered to the legislation. if you want to believe that it means a TV is only "television reciever" when you are viewing while tuned into Eastenders, knock yourslef out. we'll call this Tubby-McFat-Fuc's Cat, which has a ring to it. your link about watching iplayer is interesting but i was never discussing iplayer.

Fair enough on point two, and I do not doubt that TV lets of some sort of radiation. But the point was over detector vans, and I and many other have said in this thread, they detected nothing, certainly not a small amount of radiation coming out the back of an old TV set!

 

[Creaky]

Well it is slightly different isn't it, in fact its very different. You put those things up to stop people breaking into your house and committing crime, or birds half inching the farmers corn

For years they led us to believe that if you have a TV you need a license. Just watch a few of those videos, they still try and claim this. Only if people look into it, do you uncover the truth that its only if you use that TV to watch programmes as they are broadcast, that you need a licence. They are still trying to trick people into paying for a license, when because of today's technology, more and more people generally do not need to buy a licence. Just look at their site, we still have to search for the truth on it.

The only reason that certain methods of watching programs do not require a TV licence is because when the legislation was drafted many of those methods didn't exist.

Don't be surprised if the UK catches up with other European countries and require a licence for those watching via the internet or indeed to cover any use of the internet.

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

So basically you've spent hours on the internet watching videos on how not to pay your TV licence and even longer on the internet justifying not having one (not to mention telling people in gainful employment to eff off) incurring ISP charges and electric bills to save £145 a year. Or 39p a day as I like to think of it. Remind me never to get in a round with you.

Er,, nooooo. I looked up if I need a TV licence and I don't. I watched a few videos I saw posted on youtube, and find them funny.

A quick google search and you'' get your answer in minutes!!!

Gainful employment? What, knocking on peoples doors and demanding entry when they have no right to? Telling people they need a license when in a lot of cases, they do not. Look at the videos, and ask yourself why most of them walk off the second someone puts a camera on them! They are a debit collection agency, working on a commission. The more people they can get to pay, then more they earn. Who wouldn't spin a few white lies to earn a little more money if the people you are taking to don't know the rules!!

 

[LlcoolJ]

Not everyone can afford to entertain themselves in Brighton every single night. Be a bit of a **** trying to watch all the World Cup games in Brazil without one wouldn't it! Note to poster. Remove head from own arse!

I completely agree (there's no moral high ground to be gained by not owning a tv) but this statement sort of shoots yourself in the foot as you said earlier you won't pay for the tv licence as it's "a service you don't use".

Bit of a **** trying to watch all the World Cup games without watching BBC1. [emoji6]

I'm more than happy to pay the licence fee purely for the radio and web output. The crap like EastEnders keeps loads of people happy and stops them moaning about the licence fee so I don't care that I'm also funding that.

And there's no Adrian Chiles or Andy Townsend on their WC coverage.

 

[symyjym]

Interpretation of broadcast, it basically the same as TV Licensing interpretation. Basically as the programme goes out live over the airways for all to watch. So if you say tune into Eastenders at 7.30 you need a licence, as you are watching it as its being broadcast. Watch it at 8 or 9 o'clock, as you say, you get it for free, and you do not need a TV licence.

Broadcast is a transmission, publication or show etc. What the internet or catch up TV does is deal with a broadcast request from the user. You cannot receive anything that is not broadcasted.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Er,, nooooo. I looked up if I need a TV licence and I don't. I watched a few videos I saw posted on youtube, and find them funny.

A quick google search and you'' get your answer in minutes!!!

Gainful employment? What, knocking on peoples doors and demanding entry when they have no right to? Telling people they need a license when in a lot of cases, they do not. Look at the videos, and ask yourself why most of them walk off the second someone puts a camera on them! They are a debit collection agency, working on a commission. The more people they can get to pay, then more they earn. Who wouldn't spin a few white lies to earn a little more money if the people you are taking to don't know the rules!!

Oh that's fine then. Spending money on a media amusing yourself at how it's funny not paying 39p a day on a media. Perfectly normal.

*backs away slowly*

 

[beorhthelm]

The only reason that certain methods of watching programs do not require a TV licence is because when the legislation was drafted many of those methods didn't exist.

at the time of most recent legislation the principle tech was there, it just not common usage. the reason you dont need a licence for iplayer is because its not a broadcast, you're downloading a stream. unlike time-shifting using a VCR/DVR where the programme was being broadcast. whats really changed lately is the connectivity and portability has made non-broadcast methods become viable as a mainstream use. i suspect we'll leave it open as it is now and try a different fund raising method, or simply abolish with the bbc given a small grant from general tax for public service quota and expected to fund alot itself.

 

[Creaky]

Er,, nooooo. I looked up if I need a TV licence and I don't. I watched a few videos I saw posted on youtube, and find them funny.

A quick google search and you'' get your answer in minutes!!!

Gainful employment? What, knocking on peoples doors and demanding entry when they have no right to? Telling people they need a license when in a lot of cases, they do not. Look at the videos, and ask yourself why most of them walk off the second someone puts a camera on them! They are a debit collection agency, working on a commission. The more people they can get to pay, then more they earn. Who wouldn't spin a few white lies to earn a little more money if the people you are taking to don't know the rules!!

Hardly a debt collection agency as non-payment of TV licence where needed is currently a criminal offence not a civil one. With nearly 200,000 people a year getting a criminal record for non-payment and in 2012 70 people jailed, it's hardly something to take lightly.

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

Broadcast is a transmission, publication or show etc. What the internet or catch up TV does is deal with a broadcast request from the user. You cannot receive anything that is not broadcasted.

But in terms of the license, you do not need one for the latter.

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

Oh that's fine then. Spending money on a media amusing yourself at how it's funny not paying 39p a day on a media. Perfectly normal.

*backs away slowly*

Ridiculous statement! I spend money on a media I choose to use, ie the internet. Believe it or not there is more to do on the internet other than NSC and amusing myself with funny videos 20 minutes a year, about TV licencing bully boys! I choose not to spend money on a TV licence, as its a service I do not require. And even if I did, I would have thought being forced to pay for a channel I don't want, is not on.

How would you feel if you had to pay SKY £150 a year, even if you had no intention of using their service?

Would it be a case of never mind, its just 40p a day?

 

[dougdeep]

Costs down? You object to paying 45p a day?

No, but I don't want to pay more.

 

[symyjym]

But in terms of the license, you do not need one for the latter.

Unless you are watching it through a TV.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Perfectly happy.

On a football note, I would be even happier if the money was not wasted on the usual moronic football pundits and instead used to entice interesting and insightful guests each week.

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

Unless you are watching it through a TV.

Unless you are watching what through a TV? iplayer or catch up TV?

 

[Creaky]

How would you feel if you had to pay SKY £150 a year, even if you had no intention of using their service?

Would it be a case of never mind, its just 40p a day?

I wouldn't be very happy - on the other hand if the law of the land was that I had to pay it I would.

I pay council tax and each year I get a breakdown of how the money is spent - there are a number of services that I am paying towards that I don't use - should I refuse to pay part of this tax?

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

I wouldn't be very happy - on the other hand if the law of the land was that I had to pay it I would.

I pay council tax and each year I get a breakdown of how the money is spent - there are a number of services that I am paying towards that I don't use - should I refuse to pay part of this tax?

No, because that's tax. The same as income tax, but just a local tax. You cannot choose how the powers that be, spend your taxes.

The point is, most of the license money directly funds the BBC, and you need one whether you want to watch the BBC or not.

You need a license to go fishing. Don't go fishing you won't need a licence. You don't need a license to eat fish other people have caught.

So why should you need a license to view TV other people have provided?

 

[Guinness Boy]

Ridiculous statement! I spend money on a media I choose to use, ie the internet. Believe it or not there is more to do on the internet other than NSC and amusing myself with funny videos 20 minutes a year, about TV licencing bully boys! I choose not to spend money on a TV licence, as its a service I do not require. And even if I did, I would have thought being forced to pay for a channel I don't want, is not on.

How would you feel if you had to pay SKY £150 a year, even if you had no intention of using their service?

Would it be a case of never mind, its just 40p a day?

Read my OP. Even if the licence fee was optional I'd prioritise it ahead of Sky so your question is disingenuous.

Carry on saving half a Mars Bar or a tin of baked beans or a bottle of Morrisons' fizzy flavoured water (not chilled). Well done you.

 

[El Presidente]

Ridiculous statement! I spend money on a media I choose to use, ie the internet. Believe it or not there is more to do on the internet other than NSC and amusing myself with funny videos 20 minutes a year, about TV licencing bully boys! I choose not to spend money on a TV licence, as its a service I do not require. And even if I did, I would have thought being forced to pay for a channel I don't want, is not on.

How would you feel if you had to pay SKY £150 a year, even if you had no intention of using their service?

Would it be a case of never mind, its just 40p a day?

If Sky provided a useful public service in terms of news and education then I'd be quite happy to pay 40p a day.