legalise question

No, I didn't. The reason you think it is so small is because you never believe people when they tell you that they don't use those services. We have had many discussion on this subject where you flatly refuse to believe what I say despite not knowing me or my interests (except BFC of course). You clearly value the services highly and make good use of them which is great - except for the fact that it makes you think everyone else relies on them to the same extent.

As an aside, whether people use radio or online services (not counting TV) is irrelevant as they are free. I know you will say something about someone has to pay for them but as the BBC themselves state it is free then people should not be guilt tripped into feeling that they should have to pay for something that the company themselves do not charge for.

 

Ah okay. I think you're wrong, obviously, but cheers for the input.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Actually given a global population of 7 billion the number of people who use absolutely no BBC services is a significant majority.

 

I think even the most educationally-challenged members of this forum would have ascertained we were discussing something in a domestic setting. No one likes a smartarse.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Of course we do. If the water companies' income takes a hit due to thieves like you not paying for something you're supposed to, then everyone who does pay sees their bills rise to cover the shortfall. Come on, keep up....

 

Not had one for 7 years now, TV is ALWAYS set to the HDMI port for the Firestick which is obviously all on-demand stuff and not live so I don't need one, people seem very skeptical when I say I don't need one but there's honestly nowt on tele worth watching these days, I watch about ten films a week all on streaming services.

I get about 20 TV license letters a year, and I've had a few knocks at the door but never answered, I've heard the worse thing you can do is respond to them as they'll eventually get a warrant and if they do come in to the house they would obviously find equipment capable of receiving a live broadcast but you can't buy teles without a tuner and I'm not going to mess about taking the aerial down, that's just ridiculous.

The fact iPlayer now needs a license suggests that there are A LOT of people who have stopped buying licenses, the fact the BBC have sold off loads of assets and given away a lot of rights (ie F1) backs this up - there was a FOI request asking how many households don't have a license but, conveniently, this was refused, which to be honest tells more of a story than if they'd released the figures, it must be millions.

Unfortunately the BBC, despite pushing it's own agenda and being the opposite of impartial, receives huge protection from the government so as the number of people not buying licenses continues to rise they'll find other ways of collecting it - my guess is it'll be added to council tax which would be totally criminal.

What they should do is offer the public service broadcast on a contract basis for a set length of time so that it is in their interest to offer quality programming in order to retain the contract. The BBC just do what they want and output 90% cr*p.

 

Without them changing the rules (as they have done recently with iPlayer) they would be screwed as the younger generation just don't watch TV as a rule. None of the kids in my classes ever watch TV, they watch YouTube channels and films. People my age (late twenties) and younger tend to watch catch up or films. It seems to be people of my parents' age and older who like to watch live TV. I'm not sure that I agree with saying iPlayer needs a licence just because they are selling a product people no longer want to buy but it is what it is and I do acknowledge that the BBC on a whole delivers a useful service. However, it's the threatening letters I can't agree with, especially when they send them to vulnerable people. I once got a 'letter' that was just a pamphlet entitled 'your rights in court' which was full of threatening language and no accompanying letter acknowledging that I might not watch live TV. I put it straight in the bin but someone more easily intimidated or confused may well have paid up. I would never set up a business and start sending people invoices and threatening letters without them having even shown an interest in my business or contacted me previously. I suspect that if I did I'd get a restraining order and harrasment charges filed against me.

 

ok.

 

The point is most of the world get by just fine without the BBC. Just because most people in the UK use it (because of an unfair, anti-competitive advantage it has benefited from) doesn't necessarily mean that it is value for money, or that they would use it if they had to pay for it via a subscription.

 

I'd counter with my belief that most people in the UK use it because they enjoy it and given the variety and depth of services on offer, it IS incredible value for money, but that's just an opinion, as is your view.

 

Wrong mate, totally immoral, what happens if he gets say, cancer, do we refuse him treatment because he hasn't paid NI? How do you feel about him getting free treatment when you've paid NI all your life and have to pay £300 for pair of specs?

It's just as bad as scrounging on benefits.

No better than rich folk who pay accountants to avoid paying tax.

 

Cancel it. Ignore the letters. Dont open the door if they knock.

There are very few folk outside of struggling single mums get done for ' evasion'.

Essentially the capita employed door to door salesman is the one who has to prove you are watching live Tv.

They have no right of entry. And about as much authority as a wet fart.

Cracking sales tactic. Pay us or youll get fined and a criminal record.

 

It makes you a thief. Hope you get caught one day.

 

Intimidating threatening letters is beebs sales technique

 

Quality bloke-you're kids will love you when you're nicked. you think you are a winner but you are a Loser (at our expense).

 

He's a wind up merchant. He's been trolling since he joined the board

 

Agreed, either a troll or a criminal. Or possibly both.

 

Thanks SuperTyke, I am new to this and thought that it was a true statement.

 

It could well be but I suspect he's trying to wind people up.