TV licence moan

Except you're not. A TV licence is needed to watch or record BBC or any other network's TV broadcasts as they are transmitted.. A licence is not required simply to own a TV, or to use it with a VCR or DVD player or any other multimedia device to watch prerecorded material. You do not have to prove that you are not watching broadcasts.

How am I so sure? I worked for TV Licensing in Bristol for 10 years, first under the Post Office and then under Capita Business Services. The less said about the latter the better.

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

Good to know the facts.

I guess what bugs me is that I have to pay the govt merely to watch tv. I realise tv licencing seems to have a wider acceptance but I just don't see how this is "democratic" for any govt to charge to watch tv. We pay PAYE tax and VAT so that govt can provide services right? So why should this be any different that a special fees is required?

Don't get me wrong, I understand what you guys are saying about uniterrupted programming n' such, but to DEMAND a MANDATORY payment out of people just doesn't cut it for me. The "options" seem to be - either pay for the govt kool-aid for tv licencing or don't watch tv at all (or, as Vicky puts it - catch up on the news on the net or radio  ) How's that a consumer-driven-market 

Clearly, two schools of thought 

Good to know the facts.

I guess what bugs me is that I have to pay the govt merely to watch tv. I realise tv licencing seems to have a wider acceptance but I just don't see how this is "democratic" for any govt to charge to watch tv. We pay PAYE tax and VAT so that govt can provide services right? So why should this be any different that a special fees is required?

Don't get me wrong, I understand what you guys are saying about uniterrupted programming n' such, but to DEMAND a MANDATORY payment out of people just doesn't cut it for me. The "options" seem to be - either pay for the govt kool-aid for tv licencing or don't watch tv at all (or, as Vicky puts it - catch up on the news on the net or radio  ) How's that a consumer-driven-market 

Clearly, two schools of thought 

I am glad we agree that a democratic system is good.  It is sad that Americans end up paying slightly less than Brits, but if you don't want to pay anything then use your democratic right to vote & get the system changed. Alternatively don't buy a TV until age 75 & then the licence is free!

You don't "pay the Government". You pay TV Licensing, an non-government agency which collects the money and accounts for it before it goes to the BBC, which is not a government agency either. The government, through Parliament, lays down the legislative framework and sets the fee.

I am not sure why you seem to think it is "undemocratic". The government is elected by universal suffrage. If enough people thought the fee should be abolished, then a party would espouse that as a policy, and if elected would have a mandate to do that. They'd have to have an acceptable alternative though.

Alternatively don't buy a TV until age 75 & then the licence is free!

A good point. Many people seem to think that if you are 75 or over, or if such a person is a member of a household, a licence is not needed. It is. After confirmation of birth date the full licence fee is paid by the Dept of Work & Pensions, and a special bright yellow licence is issued and needs to be shown if required. People over 75 without a licence who watch TV are just as much breaking the law as anybody younger.

It is sad that Americans end up paying slightly less than Brits, but if you don't want to pay anything then use your democratic right to vote & get the system changed.

Am pretty sure you're being sarcastic. I didn't bump this thread thinking that I'd be rebuked for venting an opinion! As I have already acknowledged tv licensing seems widely accepted so I'm obviously in the minority, but what's w/the sassy tone here...? Or am I misunderstanding you?

I'd gladly participate in any democratic movement to get the tv licence fees scrapped - i.e. if they're willing to hear from a Commonwealth citizen!

You have a vote, remember, jag...use it!


Vicky

You don't "pay the Government". You pay TV Licensing, an non-government agency which collects the money and accounts for it before it goes to the BBC, which is not a government agency either. The government, through Parliament, lays down the legislative framework and sets the fee.

I am not sure why you seem to think it is "undemocratic". The government is elected by universal suffrage. If enough people thought the fee should be abolished, then a party would espouse that as a policy, and if elected would have a mandate to do that. They'd have to have an acceptable alternative though.

I stand corrected. I meant why do I have to pay anyone anything to watch what's going on in the world. I maybe in the minority, but that's just my view 

BBC may not be a govt agency but I'm sure they receive funding from them? Isn't that tax-payer's money...

Following from the Wiki:

The principal means of funding the BBC is through the television licence, costing £139.50 a year (as of May 2008) for a colour television. Such a licence is required to operate a broadcast television receiver within the UK. The cost of a television licence is set by the government and enforced by the criminal law. The revenue is collected privately and is paid into the central government Consolidated Fund, a process defined in the Communications Act 2003. This collection is carried out by an outside Agency called Capita. Funds are then allocated by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and the Treasury and approved by Parliament via the Appropriation Act(s). Additional revenues are paid by the Department for Work and Pensions to compensate for subsidised licences for over-75s.

Surely it is not fair to take BBC funding from general taxation, as that would mean that even those who choose to not have a TV end up paying.

Vicky

The only funding the BBC gets from general taxation is the over 75 fees from the DWP. In FY 2005-2006 there were 3.9 million over 75 licences in force, out of a total of roughly 24 million.

Surely it is not fair to take BBC funding from general taxation, as that would mean that even those who choose to not have a TV end up paying.

Vicky

Or, just 'caus I want to watch TV, how is it fair of me to fund BBC.. 

hehe... we could go in to a never ending discussion... as tax-payers we help fund for so many different causes we don't necessarily support... that's just the way it works, and that's just fine. But why the need for a special tv licence....

No one forces you to watch tv!!!!  That is the point!!!  I don't have to pay car tax because you choose to drive a car, this is the same thing.

Vicky

Hehe... I've told my British friends several times, a TV licence would cause riots in the US, because most Americans seem to think that the right to watch TV is one of those inalienable ones Mr. Jefferson wrote about!

No one forces you to watch tv!!!!  That is the point!!!  I don't have to pay car tax because you choose to drive a car, this is the same thing.

Vicky

Driving is a privilege. Being able to watch the news is a right (to me anyway)

PR was saying up-thread that this allows us to "opt-out"... but why does it have to be all or nothing.... I'd like to opt-out of mandatorily funding BBC but still be able to watch basic tv!!!

TV is not a right, it's a luxury. If you want to be informed, buy newspapers, listen to the radio, or go on the internet. The quality of news you can get from other sources is usually better than TV news anyway!

TV is not a right, it's a luxury.

As I said up-thread, two schools of thought here.

The quality of news you can get from other sources is usually better than TV news anyway!

I agree, but that's not the point!