Forums

Posted: 03-09-2013 19:53 Post subject:

Imma twonk? Razz

Posted: 03-09-2013 20:21 Post subject:

Posted: 03-09-2013 20:52 Post subject:

Awwwwww its a good word Laughing

The guys who come to my place are suprised when i let them in, but they are always polite, one did say that he went to the house of a lady doctor and she would not let him in and shouted abuse at him Shocked

Posted: 04-09-2013 03:43 Post subject:

It's a corporation not a necessity or a service. It should have to fend for itself just like every other business has to do. If it makes a product that is worthwhile people will pay for it and support it.

Posted: 04-09-2013 09:42 Post subject:

Posted: 04-09-2013 13:30 Post subject:

The BBC makes a huge amount of money selling series and programmes abroad as well as producing merchandise. It also runs advertisements on the international version of its website.

Posted: 04-09-2013 14:10 Post subject:

Posted: 05-09-2013 11:13 Post subject:

I do pay my licence fee, but I do find the whole concept dishonest and , given technical advances, faintly ridiculous. You don't even need a TV to watch TV any more.

It either needs re-branding as an honest 'public service media tax' which could then be the subject of proper political debate, or it wants doing away with and the BBC finding another way to finance itself. Which, actually, I suspect it could do just fine, if it would only get its head around the issue.

It would need protection from buyout by commercial companies, of course. It's governance needs more protection from the 'political classes' as well - not less.

Privatisation would destroy it, that isn't what I'm proposing.

Probably any discussion is just pee'ing in the wind - both the political classes and the mega-corporations they are so closely linked with have become so rapacious that they can't really contemplate anything functioning without their direct interference.

Posted: 05-09-2013 12:44 Post subject:

Quake: "Taxes don't work on the basis of everyone opting out of the bits they don't want to pay."

No they don't but they are regarded as unjust when regressive. The licence fee is not a tax but a one-size-fits-all charge with some few concessions, none of which take into account the ability to pay. Combined with the "We know where you live" campaign and the alarming ability of this system to criminalize and imprison offenders, the licence-fee seems to me hideously oppressive.

This week we have seen more detail emerge about the culture of entitlement in the BBC, which treated surplus bigwigs to lavish redundancy payments. The total disconnect between the hard-faced collection of this revenue stream and its open-handed disposal is striking to say the least! Confused

Posted: 06-09-2013 08:12 Post subject:

The licence is there as a permit to own the equipment capable of receiving a TV signal. I think what annoys a lot of people is that the BBC themselves seem to have forgotten this fact. With a history of overpaid BBC presenters and 'retiring' executives raking millions of this permit money in pay-offs, the viewing public find the real purpose of the licence fee obscure.

Posted: 28-09-2013 11:13 Post subject:

Myth of the TV detector van?
They are an image to be feared, parked in the street with the mysterious power to automatically detect who is watching television illegally and issue hefty fines.
By Claire Carter
7:30AM BST 27 Sep 2013

But now it appears the fabled TV detector vans, striking fear into students and homeowners who may consider evading the licence fee, could be nothing but a myth.

A leaked internal document from the BBC gives a detailed breakdown of the state of licence fee payments and the number of people who evade the charge – but fails to make any mention of the detector vans.

While documenting [that] the number of officers to collect the £145.50 fee increased to 334 this summer, an 18 page memo from the TV Licensing's Executive Management Forum obtained by the Radio Times makes no mention of the vans finding those who don’t pay.

The snapshot financial assessment also indicates the number of non-payers has increased, with evasion at 5.8 per cent for August compared to 5.2 per cent the year before.

But a spokeswoman for TV licensing said the vans are not a fabrication to scare people into paying, and that the number of those evading the fee was not accurate.

She said: “Detector vans are an important part of our enforcement of the licence fee.
We don’t go into detail about how many there are or how they work as this information might be useful to people trying to evade the fee.”

She added that the figures only represented a snapshot of the month, and evasion had remained fairly steady at five per cent.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10340804/Myth-of-the-TV-detector-van.html

Posted: 28-09-2013 11:19 Post subject:

Posted: 28-09-2013 13:47 Post subject:

But this argument has been tooedandfrooed all though this thread, hasn't it?

Posted: 28-09-2013 16:02 Post subject:

It will not go away because it's a legitimate one.

Sending round Crapita thugs who threaten to come back with the police will not change that!