• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The BBC & Television Licensing Propaganda

My Daughter started university in September. She is in halls there. She does not have a television in her room.
In January she got a letter from the tv licence people saying IF she has a tv she has to get a licence. It goes on to say her room may be entered by an official of some sort WHETHER OR NOT SHE IS THERE to see if she really does not have a television.
It does say in her rental contract that the university 'landlords' can enter the rooms whenever they feel they have reason to, so I guess that is the 'trojan horse' in this case.
A previous comment here has made me think though, in her room is a network cable which provides the internet. With this, she can and does access bbc i player and so on. Is this licence worthy?
 
jeff544 said:
A previous comment here has made me think though, in her room is a network cable which provides the internet. With this, she can and does access bbc i player and so on. Is this licence worthy?

I think it is, yeah. Better check with them to make sure, though.
 
I've just seen an amazing bit of self-promotion on the BBC, which is apparently showing the Oxford-Cambridge boat race this year as ITV has decided it is too expensive.

A news report spent several minutes on this "news" before the reporter said, in a self-important fashion, that in these difficult economic times it was good that an event such as this which is (apparently) treasured by the nation, was "back in the hands of a public-service boradcaster".

I'm all in favour of public-service broadcasting and actually do not object to the licence fee, but I don't appreciate said fee being used for this sort of self-congratulatory nonsense, especially on a supposedly unbiased news report.
 
casio~ said:
you got me in the first part off the post i work for BT and i know for a fact they DO NOT realy on the money from customers infact they dont make even 25% of their profit from customers and if you read the stock reports and other factors such as overseas businesses and local area loop leasing then you would know the whole truth

the reason that bt has a customer service dept is purely for fault reporting and repair and they have a telesales dept for the sales but you knew that didnt you and you also knew that the telesales arent customer services and cannot help you if you call them with a prob thats why they say "call 150"

you got me on the multi million bit i ment to type billion but with a slip of the finger it went to million lol lucky i didnt type nillion lol

and the only favour i think bt do me is paying me an obsene amount of money for the job i do and giving me a bonus to say thanks for doing it on time
but then again i must be one of those people eh?
casio



So, what exactly do BT pay you an exorbitant amount of money for, the inability to write cogently, or spell correctly or just merely to support them?, either way sir, you are a knobhead of the first water, I bed you Good Day sir.
 
Tangaroa42 said:
So, what exactly do BT pay you an exorbitant amount of money for, the inability to write cogently, or spell correctly or just merely to support them?, either way sir, you are a knobhead of the first water, I bed you Good Day sir.
Wow, your quoting a very old post there, I agree with you but I doubt it will be read by the original poster, he hasn't been on here sinse 2005.
 
Tangaroa42 said:
.... the inability to write cogently, or spell correctly or just merely to support them?, either way sir, you are a knobhead of the first water, I bed you Good Day sir.
Elsewhere, you wrote:
elsewhere said:
..aren,t most of the Cabinet sinecure holders, seeing as how they don,t actually appear...
Criticising the literacy skills of others is probably not your best course in the light of the above. Further, you are perfectly entitled to your opinion that a fellow poster, long-term absentee or not, is a knobhead, but kindly keep it to yourself. Any more ad-homs will earn you a warning.
 
Tangaroa42 said:
... I bed you Good Day sir.

:shock:

Well, we are all fairly tolerant here. But, erm , if I were to say something you disagree with, would I get any say in the matter?
 
Licence rebel prosecuted as BBC finally tackles TV fee 'refuseniks'
By Jonathan Petre Last updated at 10:22 PM on 04th July 2009

The BBC is prosecuting a viewer who has refused on principle to pay his television licence for seven years, amid claims the Corporation is fearful of a growing backlash against the fee.

Retired engineer John Kelly was one of several thousand people who have refused to pay since 2002 in protest at what they regard as bias in the BBC's news coverage of issues such as the European Union.
He and nearly all the other 'refuseniks', including former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky, have so far escaped court – despite tens of thousands of prosecutions each year.

But now he has received a summons which he believes has been prompted by a flurry of publicity about high-profile figures, including former BBC presenter Noel Edmonds and journalist Charles Moore, who are also threatening to rebel.
Mr Kelly, 70, from Exmouth, Devon, who has been ordered to appear at Exeter magistrates' court later this month, said: 'Why are they picking on me now, after all this time?

'I think the BBC wants to crackdown on some of us to discourage more people from refusing to pay.
'There is a growing groundswell of opinion against the Corporation in the wake of the Jonathan Ross scandal and other things like expenses. My summons is not a random thing.'

Mr Kelly was one of 2,000 people who signed up to a campaign launched by Mr Bukovsky, a vice-president of the Freedom Association, eight years ago.
He initially complained to the BBC governors that the Corporation's coverage of the EU was so biased that it was in breach of its Royal Charter obligations to provide balance, but was told it was a matter of 'editorial judgment'.

Since then, despite threats of legal action, he has withheld his fee but until recently had never been visited by inspectors.

Mr Kelly said: 'I have a file 2in thick. Every time they have written threatening me I have replied giving my reasons.

'Why they have picked on me now, I suspect, is because last October Charles Moore wrote in the Spectator magazine that if the BBC was still employing Jonathan Ross he would not renew his licence.

'I wrote to tell him of my experiences and he mentioned me. I was then quoted in other newspapers. Then it went a bit quiet until February, when two inspectors marched up the drive.

'They wanted to come in. I said no. They said, "Have you got a TV?" I said yes. They said, "Do you watch it." I said yes. They said, "Do you have a licence?" I said, "Have you read the file?'' They said, "No.'' I said go away and read it. That is the last I heard until I got the summons from Exeter magistrates.'

He said he faced a maximum fine of £1,000, about the same amount that he had refused to pay, but he would be applying for a trial by jury so he could argue his case that it was the BBC that was in breach of the law.

Mr Moore, the former editor of the Daily Telegraph and a Spectator columnist, has said that he will not pay his licence if Ross remains on the BBC payroll after leaving obscene messages for Andrew Sachs during a Radio 2 show.

Mr Bukovsky, 66, said he and others planned to turn up to support Mr Kelly at his hearing.

The BBC claimed that TV Licensing, which oversees the collection of the £142.50 annual licence fee, had in the past prosecuted people who refused to pay out of principle.

A spokesman for TV Licensing said yesterday: 'Anyone caught watching or recording TV programmes without a licence risks prosecution and a fine of up to £1,000.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... eniks.html
 
rynner said:
BTW, fans of BBC iPlayer need a licence too...... :shock:

Only if you have a UK-address.
 
The license fee is an outrage.

Would anyone suggest that there should be a newspaper license fee and that all the income from this should go to the State Newspaper?
 
Re: British Bandit Corporation

Anonymous said:
Don't get me started...

Nobody has ever explained to me how the BBC can transmit signals into your house without your consent and then take you to court if you decline to pay for them. Surely the onus is on them (especially in the age of digital) to provide a method whereby payment is only made when the service is actually used. It's like S Club 7 miming to their latest up-tempo fiasco in your back garden and then calling the cozzers when you tell them you won't pay them their £40. I'm sure this kind of crap wouldn't stand up in the European courts. Anybody got a spare £1m to test it out?

And another thing... TV detector vans - rubbish! I do not believe and have never believed that 'TV detector vans' exist. TVs are basically receivers, not transmitters. The technology to detect a normal, operational TV inside a house would be not only be formidable (unless directional microphones were used) it would also be completely pointless, when checking for ariels and matching license payments to addresses and looking through windows and listening at letterboxes is surely much cheaper (and is exactly what the bastards do.) Also, I believe that monitoring a private dwelling using a 'detector van' would be illegal under current law.

Sorry you are wrong there, TVs do transmit a signal back up the antenna the frequency of which depends on which channel you are watching, its just the way tellys work. The same thing happens with digital tellys although they cannot tell which channel you are watching but they can tell you have got a telly.
 
I don't mean to be an apologist for the BBC, but every government I can remember, of whatever persuasion, has accused the BBC of bias. Similarly, every individual with strongly held political views seems to believe the same, whether they dress to the Left or the Right. All of which makes me wonder whether the BBC isn't getting at least something right.

I keep my protest plain and simple - I don't have a license, because I don't watch TV, having destroyed my last set in a cathartic and blissful act of extreme violence a couple of years ago. And it was never the license I really objected to - just the shite that oozed it's way through the screen.

Personally, I'm terrified of the prospect of the worlds media being in private hands and I'm also extremely suspicious of the underlying politics of many of those individuals who are portraying themselves as 'refusniks'. I drew my own conclusions about the Freedom Association many years ago - not least because of their silence during the Thatcher years (silence which was due, not to the fact that they were oppressed, but that they were blissfully happy). Private ownership and the Free Market are their twin gods - I'm not totally against aspects of either, but I am suspicious of any form of evangelism that would turn a belief into a pseudo-religious crusade.

Besides which, any movement which includes that twat with a face like a cat's arse, Noel Edmond's, amongst it's advocate's simply cannot be trusted. (Sorry, but I have fantasies about JeremyfuckinClarkson being battered to death with Noel Edmond's severed head).
 
TBH Im spoiling for a fight with them cos they are so high handed, and I resent their threatening advertising and letters. I'm hoping to reduce one of their phone-jockeys to tears when they start hassling me*.

Don't bother. These are the sort of people that come with a reset switch. What ever you think you've worked out with them, and however much work you put into it or how long it takes, give it a month or two and they press the reset button and you are back to aquare one.

Best thing to do is ignore them. I've not owned a telly since 1994 and not had one in the house since my lodger left in 2002. They do seem to get bored of chasing you after a while.
 
After two garbled and self-contradictory responses to the missive which I published openly on here, the Licensing Authority have left me alone for several months!

How long before that reset button gets pushed? I'm sure BRF is right about that. I think I'm overdue a visit.

Incidentally, I don't support the stance of refuseniks who continue to watch the box illegally. If they have the courage to refuse to pay, they should relinquish the thing properly. It's not the social death it once was. Far from it! :)
 
Just had one of the buggers come round, assuming it wasn;t some kind of bogus/scam guy, didn;t see his ID as I was just out of the bath and talking to him out of the bathroom window in my dressing gown

Fairly rude, refused to say what he wanted at first as he 'didn;t want to say it in the street' and kept trying to order me to come down, i figured at first he was going to try and sell me double glazing/gas/electricity/phone/internet or something.

By the time i'd put some clothes on and gone down, he'd buggered off.

Really hoping they're not going to try anything stupid now. :?
 
BlackRiverFalls said:
Just had one of the buggers come round, assuming it wasn;t some kind of bogus/scam guy, didn;t see his ID as I was just out of the bath and talking to him out of the bathroom window in my dressing gown

Fairly rude, refused to say what he wanted at first as he 'didn;t want to say it in the street' and kept trying to order me to come down, i figured at first he was going to try and sell me double glazing/gas/electricity/phone/internet or something.

By the time i'd put some clothes on and gone down, he'd buggered off.

Really hoping they're not going to try anything stupid now. :?

In Ireland An Post run the inspectors. Complain to whoever runs them where you are. That sort of behaviour is unacceptable. Actually get on talk radio and write letters to the press. Give them hell!
 
I just dropped them an email to try and confirm this was one of their guys.

Rung them as well, the number on the website isn;t their number and I missed the samll print to when I rang it to get a recorded message giving me their number it charged me like £1.50!

The guy I spoke to said he didn;t actually know if a guy had been to my house or not, then gave me the number for the department who he said could tell me, who by then had gone home for the day.

Having had a google round, looks like they can do bugger all. No telly on the premises and I don;t watch iplayer live, so I don;t see how they're going to prove anything that isn;t there... was just having a little paranoid freakout they might have a good go.

Somehow, i must have forgotten they're run by Crapita these days. :evil:
 
Really, don't worry about it.
You don't have to let them in, and as you don't have a TV receiver, you shouldn't need to stump up for a licence.
If the TV licence people really care about it all that much, why don't they send round a detector van? They'd be able to find out straight away if you had a TV receiver.

Relax.
 
Because they don;t work, or i think technically can work but not in any meaningful way that would be admissable in court.

Otherwise they wouldn;t be bothering with the Crapita goons.
 
BlackRiverFalls said:
Because they don;t work, or i think technically can work but not in any meaningful way that would be admissable in court.

I guess they are less likely to work now that most of us are using flat screen (non-CRT) TVs - less electromagnetic radiation that can be picked up at a distance.
 
I believe the detectors (claim to) detect the tuner, not the actual CRT bit.
 
The BBC themselves have basically said 'if we told you how TV detector vans work ....... they wouldn't' -
http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2008/10/3 ... -tv-d.html -
and that technological detection of unlicensed TV use is only used in specifically targetted extra-tricky cases to obtain a search warrent and cannot itself be used in court.
TV detector vans are not and never have been driving around 'detecting' who has and hasn't got a TV, that's simply done with an address database, the assumption that everyone has a TV and by sending threatening letters, knocking on doors and looking through windows -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television ... nforcement
If you want 'BBC license propaganda' then all those sinister adverts warning you that they KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING fit the bill perfectly .. utter twaddle designed to scare you into coughing up.

I had a TV and no license for about 10 years and I think during that time I was visited once and just looked through the spyhole and didn't answer the door and that was the end of that. I'm not sure why I started paying it when I did, perhaps just because I could afford it by then and it was 'the right thing to do'.
These days I am firmly in the 'no TV' camp (but not there so it doesn't matter).
 
There was a TV ad on last night selling the DVD of Dr Who - A Christmas Carol last night. It said it was around a tenner. What struck me is that I have already paid towards the making of that through the licence fee.
Perhaps all BBC series DVDs should be a lot cheaper in the country that pays the licence and funds the show.
 
Inside a TV, or on a TV tuner card, the actual TV tuner is contained within a little metal box. It's a Faraday cage.
Quite how a detector van would detect anything from that, I'm not sure.
Now the very latest designs of TV tuners are based on a single microchip - there is absolutely no way to monitor anything from a single chip at a distance.

I've seen 'detector' vans, I know they exist. There are very few of them.
However, I think Lizard is correct - they are relying on people's irrational fears to achieve their aims. Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. FUD.
 
Mythopoeika said:
...

I've seen 'detector' vans, I know they exist. There are very few of them.
However, I think Lizard is correct - they are relying on people's irrational fears to achieve their aims. Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. FUD.
You pays your money and you takes your pick. Who do you believe?

The new TV detector which can reach into any home
From the 'Daily Mail' (2007)


Or,

BBC admits that TV detector vans only work because Britons believe they do
From: Gadgets.BoingBoing.Net (2008)


:lol:
 
A recent issue of the Radio Times featured a short q&a with the 'Head of Revenue Management, BBC' in which a reader asked "Do you really have a fleet of detector vans?"

The answer given was

Yes, we do and they can detect whether a TV is in use at a particular property. Last year we caught over 421,000 people across the UK. Our database shows when a property is unlicensed. We focus our enquiries on these addresses.

So, in other words some bloke rocks up to an address that's flagged as unlicensed and looks for a satellite dish.
 
BBC 'won't pursue iPad TV licence cheats'
People who watch live TV on their iPad and Android mobile devices with a new BBC appliction but do not have a TV licence are unlikey to be caught after the corporation admitted it has failed to develop the necessary tracking technology.
By Emma Barnett, Digital Media Editor 3:26PM GMT 09 Feb 2011

The corporation has not updated its detection technology to include tablet devices, mobile phones and computers.
Instead it continues to use the same tracking system which only detects television signals to discover which homes have TV sets that might be unlicensed.

The BBC yesterday vowed to prosecute anyone who watches live TV via the new iPlayer application, which it is launching today (thurs), without a TV licence - but it was unclear how they would be caught.
The corporation said it does not have a “separate enforcement” strategy to ensure people using the BBC iPlayer have paid for a TV licence.
The free "app" allows people to watch BBC TV and listen to BBC Radio live on the move – an action which needs to be covered by a TV licence.

However, a TV licensing spokesman said: “There is no separate enforcement strategy [to cover iPlayer consumption], we continue to focus our attention on the small minority of unlicensed addresses.”
Nor is the BBC developing a strategy, such as compulsory online registration with a TV licence code for a password, to catch people evading the fee.
This is despite the fact that anyone watching or recording programmes at the same time as they are shown on TV, regardless of the device used, needs to have paid the £145.50 annual licence fee.

The admission also comes at the same time as the BBC’s digital department is prioritising the development of iPlayer apps to serve the increasing demand of people wanting to watch live TV on the move via portable devices.
“Apps are a big part of our plans to make BBC Online more easily accessible on mobile devices,” said Daniel Danker, general manager of BBC Future Media and Technology.
“These apps are coming at a time when we're really beginning to see massive growth of people using BBC iPlayer on mobile devices. Over Christmas, growth in mobile use of BBC iPlayer outpaced PC growth by more than 2-to-1, and BBC iPlayer growth on tablets outpaced PCs by more than 20-to-1.”

The TV licensing spokesman added: “Since more than 97% of UK households already have TV sets, TV sales have increased over recent years, and estimated licence fee evasion is very low, the vast majority of people watching TV on computers or mobiles will be covered by the TV Licence they already have."
The estimated evasion rate of the 97 per cent of homes with a TV set is approximately five per cent.

However, TV analysts say that the number of people, especially the younger generation, are increasingly watching TV via a computer, rather than a TV set, therefore often avoiding paying the annual fee, and that the issue is becoming a growing problem for the TV licensing authority which should be tackled.

etc...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/n ... heats.html
 
Curious feeling that I replied to this years ago, but I'm just too lazy to go find out.

Anyway, what I've always pondered is whether I, or any other licence fee owner, have any legal case against the BBC selling DVDs and merchandise for their shows.

I'll explain a little more as that just sounds like rubbish.

A few years ago the BBC ran this campaign that made a big noise about their programmes being such magnificent quality because of the way they are funded "by you". Which essentially means that I paid for the programmes the BBC produce. If that's the case, then how come they are allowed to sell DVDs of said shows and merchandise, like dolls and t-shirts, without giving me any of the profit they make? They must also make some money when they sell their shows to other channels like Dave.

So, where's my cut?

If someone tried challenging them in court, would they have a leg to stand on?

And on a slightly different note, I fail to see how the licence fee is even relevant in the 21st century. With more and more TV owners signing up for cable and Satellite and paying extra for more TV, why do we still need to pay a licence fee for the BBC? That's all we're paying for after all.
 
Back
Top