Login Register
 °

Discussion

“PLEASE COMMENT IF YOU DISAGREE OR AGREE IF YOU HATE PAYING FOR YOUR T.V LICENCE!
IF U THINK IT IS DATED AS SOME OF US CHOOSE TO HAVE SKY OR VIRGIN
IF WE CHOOSE TO PAY FOR ANOTHER COMPANYS SERVICE WHY SHOULD WE PAY A T.V LICENCE?
T.V LICENCE IS A WAY OF TAXING EVERY HOME IN THIS COUNTRY!
WHY AS TECHNOLOGY GETS BETTER THE T.V LICENCE FEEL THEY CAN TAX US LAPTOPS PHONES ECT.
REMEMBER WHEN THE T.V LICENCE WAS CREATED A LOT OF THE SERVICES WAS NOT HERE.”

By BURNINGWORDS Posted: November 08, 2012

32 comments

32 replies

Start the discussion

max 4000 characters
  • Raccoon  |  November 08 2012, 6:20PM

    The payment goes to produce BBC TV and radio programmes. I think that it is a small price to pay for an alternative to commercial stations.

  • Jewbacca  |  November 08 2012, 6:20PM

    Are you 13?

  • BURNINGWORDS  |  November 08 2012, 7:05PM

    The BBC should stick to public service broadcasting such as news and current affairs, leaving other programming to commercial stations. The licence fee is an anachronism is this day and age and should be abolished forthwith. What on earth is the BBC doing paying massive fees to so called celebrities at taxpayers' expense?

  • blackguyfawke  |  November 08 2012, 7:14PM

    But I don't blame people for coughing up year after year really. It's worth the money just not to have all the hassle for most people, I can see that. But it's still wrong, and a sneaky, bullying way to squeeze a little bit more money out of people who have already paid out for VAT, Sky subscriptions, TV Setups, etc

  • BURNINGWORDS  |  November 08 2012, 7:48PM

    I disagree i pay £288 a year for sky that gives me every single channel all the sport channels,24 hour news,discovery,movies,radio stations,ect if i pay for sky why should i pay for a tv licence? Should'nt it be our choice who we choose to have,oh and every single disney channel for my kids bbc pay them for what?

  • Bonkim2003  |  November 08 2012, 7:57PM

    It is all a question if people want the BBC and the other regulated channels or are happy paying up for subscription TV - individual choice and I don't watch Sky or others which I consider rubbish. Give me BBC channels, even ITV and Channel 4 with some adverts - the rest is rubbish - much like mobile phones and the social media - I am snob I know but why follow something that contribute very little to human knowledge/understanding.

  • Bonkim2003  |  November 08 2012, 8:03PM

    blackguyfawke - no point boasting about your anti-social behaviour - you have to pay the dues if living in civil society - TV licence is for using your TV regardless of which channels you watch - and one of these days hope you get a big fine. BBC, ITV and Channel 4/5 all quality - unlike the rubbish on the subscription channels, hope they manage to fleece you. It costs money to make programmes and if the majority did not approve that, Parliament will abolish TV licence. That day is still far away.

  • BURNINGWORDS  |  November 08 2012, 8:27PM

    No way should we pay the bbc if we choose to have virgin or sky thats our choice the bbc should follow suit put a reciver witch u can turn on and off like the rest of the companys supplie,should'nt we have the choice,@bonkim 2003 i think u will find that sky has bought all the best programs out there u clearly have never watched the discovery channels thats documentries on everthing,they even got all of the gold classics and 007 season thats british u no,thank god the rest of the other countries dont tax us for having a tv,oh i so enjoy watching the classics on fools and horses do u ?

  • Lord_Gaga_  |  November 08 2012, 8:49PM

    here is what should happen, all the **** on bbc, soaps, cookery programs, diy, dancing, even sport, all that sort of stuff should have ads, all documentaries, factual programs, news, etc, no ads. and all people paid in anyway by the bbc should pay uk tax, at paye rates. that would sort out all the problems

  • Bonkim2003  |  November 08 2012, 9:05PM

    Life was a lot simpler, and better quality programmes when we did not have Satellite TV. Discovery channel/National geographic just produces high quality/selected moving pictures - don't believe all you see - the real world is quite different from that projected on the Satellite channels - more entertainment than any real educational value.

  • eyeopener  |  November 08 2012, 9:14PM

    @Burningwords "I disagree i pay £288 a year for sky that gives me every single channel" It also gives you BBC programming. How you access it is a technology choice. The BBC not only provides some excellent programming but stimulates other providers to compete. That makes it a 'win win' situation for you. Don't be a 'stinge' put your feet up and enjoy the show.

  • BURNINGWORDS  |  November 08 2012, 10:25PM

    @eyeopener RUBBISH thats why every house on every street has got a sky dish on there house because the bbc provide such excellent programming its rubbish. Strictly for the laptop user who was useing the internet before the bbc was on it we got to pay a tv licence because they become a part of the internet service you are having a laugh. If the bbc was not in fear of losing they would have a sky card or a virgin card so they could turn there services off if they did not pay,so the people would have the choice to pay for what tv services they would want.

  • blackguyfawke  |  November 08 2012, 10:37PM

    @ Bonkim2003 you are so right at 15 years well at the end of the year it will be 16 even if they caught me i would be at a discount he he ha ha

  • BURNINGWORDS  |  November 08 2012, 10:55PM

    Something you should all be thinking when paying for the BBC "I am more concerned and angry that my money has been used to support the employment of certian people (Jimmy Saville etc) who we now know to have committed the most terrible crimes against frightened, vunerable children. I doubt we will ever know just how high and wide the knowledge of this (or even suspicions) reached but I no longer trust the BBC. And I strongly object to them receiving any more money from TV Licences. Maybe the BBC should give the money made from licences over the last 30 years to the victims and their families? But the BBC should not benefit any further from the fees paid by the public. They should be ashamed

  • Mudbox  |  November 08 2012, 11:04PM

    Using a satellite dish doesn't mean people are watching Sky rubbish, BURNINGWORDS. Our building has a communal dish, and I watch mainly BBC and channel 4.

  • BURNINGWORDS  |  November 08 2012, 11:24PM

    Something you should all be thinking when paying for the BBC "I am more concerned and angry that my money has been used to support the employment of certian people (Jimmy Saville etc) who we now know to have committed the most terrible crimes against frightened, vunerable children. I doubt we will ever know just how high and wide the knowledge of this (or even suspicions) reached but I no longer trust the BBC. And I strongly object to them receiving any more money from TV Licences. Maybe the BBC should give the money made from licences over the last 30 years to the victims and their families? But the BBC should not benefit any further from the fees paid by the public. They should be ashamed

  • GlosYap2  |  November 09 2012, 12:12AM

    Mate , go watch US Tv for a while where theres no non-commercial alternative. I promise you will find an hour of adverts for every hour of programming. "News" channels that are nothing more than propoganda for the party that they are affiliated with and filled with adverts and "news stories" that are thinly veiled product placements. Yes it is a pain but perhaps Sky and Virgin should charge less for their services as they make a hefty wad from Ads as it is?

  • nomossystone  |  November 09 2012, 2:17PM

    I gave up my tv licence -- sick of watching repeats, I am a 70 years young pensioner and now listen to radio 4, thankfully not licenced and find the discussion and debate much more stimulating than watching close ups of facial expressions etc.

  • FreeRadical1  |  November 09 2012, 3:20PM

    I think that the licence fee is a bargain. It's a blessing to have channels that are (almost) free from adverts. As for the people who don't like repeats - if the programme was a good one, it will bear watching again, or I may have missed it the first time around; if it was rubbish or not to my taste, then I know not to watch it again. A repeat of a good BBC programme is worth ten times as much as a rubbishy new programme. Sky and Virgin give lots of choice, but what's the point if most of it is trash?

  • blackguyfawke  |  November 09 2012, 3:54PM

    I think some of you are missing the point if he is not watching the bbc and using any of the bbc services why should he pay?

  • blackguyfawke  |  November 09 2012, 3:56PM

    've lived at my current address for 15 years, and I've always had a TV, but I've never had a license. It's a total rip off. It's not a subscription, it's a sweeping, across the board backdoor tax. And you've already paid the Tax on your TV. All the license fee does, is subsidises the BBC. And they can totally afford to operate in the same way that other broadcasters do. I get letters telling me there's no license registered at my address, and threatening to send their people around every three months or so, I don't even bother opening them. When their chap comes around, as they do eventually, I'll open the door, and tell him I don't need a license, and when he asks why, I say that I don't own a TV. Yes, it's a bare faced lie, but I don't suffer any twangs of guilt over it. They write down that I haven't got one, all really polite, then say that they just need to come inside to check. And I'm like, What? He'll repeat himself. "I just have to come in and check what you've told me is true, for my records" Again, I refuse. I've just seen him fill in his records I'll say. And they get really persistent. "Why can't I come in"? I say that I've already given him all the information he needs for his records. And that he can't come in, because it's not convenient. Now, I know that I've just lied to him, but he doesn't know that, and he's standing on my doorstep, having already been given all the information he's entitled to, and he's there, calling me a liar to my face. I repeat, firmly, that no, he is not coming in. He threatens to come back with an "Enforcement Team" and I say, "OK , go and do that then. You still won't be coming in". I know they have no right of entry whatsoever, even if they can hear a TV in the background. Now he's just trying to Bully his way in, and I don't respond well to Bullies. If I was a little old Lady, or a single mum, I would be feeling really intimidated by now, and would probably have capitulated and let the little twot in. That is how they get away with charging this ridiculous Tax on people. It's demanding money with menaces. They can only take you to court, if they have been inside and seen you with a TV on. If you just ignore the letters, and don't let them in, there's nothing they can do. Better still, don't answer the door to them. Just because they knock, doesn't obligate you to answer. There's no arrestable offense being committed, so there's no Police action applicable. They can't apply to a Court for a warrant, and they can't make you pay, if you really don't want to pay. That's how I deal with them anyway.

  • BURNINGWORDS  |  November 09 2012, 4:40PM

    Sorry but 30 years of our kids clapping to jim will fix it (jimmy savile) there is your disgrace like i said before i dont watch the bbc so why should i pay for it?I pay to watch sky,so what part of that do u not understand?If im only watching what i want to watch witch is not the bbc why should i pay?For the comment about jimmy savile he was reported on numerous times but they still chose to employ him not once not twice but one two three four five six seven time,i dont pay for my kids to clap to pedos,for those who disagree here is a blue peter badge

  • blackguyfawke  |  November 09 2012, 5:47PM

    I agree with you. We don't need their BBC any more. A relic of their lost Empire, corrupt and rotten to the core much like their political system. So why pay for it? I read elsewhere that the TV licensing have no right of access to your property, no right to question you so why not refuse to deal with them? What can they do? More and more are refusing to pay. Read all about it: http://tinyurl.com/bfaylsn Watch how to deal here: http://tinyurl.com/b5xh822 Kernow bys vyken!

  • BURNINGWORDS  |  November 09 2012, 7:56PM

    virgin or sky dosent need the tv licencing to broadcast there programmes i suppose next you are going to tell me we should pay a tv licence to have broadband,like i said again why should i pay if i dont watch the bbc?broadcasting is a false tactic to steel money out of peoples pockets

  • BURNINGWORDS  |  November 10 2012, 1:27PM

    Wasn`t the license originally introduced to control who or what is broadcast over the airwaves? I always thought it was just to pay for regulatory controls to prevent all and sundry from experimenting and clogging the available bandwidth with twaddle . Since regulations should be passed through parliament , with a non-fiscal cost , then surely the broadcasting license is paid by the broadcaster involved and should not necessarily be passed to EVERY person in the land whether they use that particular broadcaster or not. How come the license fee is only ever advertised on BBC ? Why is it not shown on other channels ? What if someone never watches the BBC - Could they argue that they had no idea that a license is a requirement to OWN a TV never mind watch one ? What if someone just uses a TV to watch DVDs or use it as a monitor for their computer? Is it actually a legal requirement to pay for a company rather than a service? How come that this country , which is an advocate of free speech , could fine or send to jail those who persistently insist on that freedom to choose what they watch and pay for? I do not use SKY myself but those who wish to watch this service pay this broadcaster to provide the service THEY want . Similarly those who use Virgin Media pay for that service through subscription. This means that those viewers are forced to pay TWICE . Isn`t it time that the BBC is brought up to date . Many people argue that the BBC broadcasts quality TV and is worth every penny but if that includes such programs as Eastenders or Strictly Come Dancing then I raise my hands in disbelief. Whenever these , or other programs of the same ilk - that includes Coronation St et al , are on I usually change channels in order to find some real entertainment. It was not intended to pay for overpaid so called celebrities to live the life of luxury in the name of so-called entertainment. Also I do not use BBC radio either - I have no truck with using commercial Radio complete with some of its banal advertising.

  • BURNINGWORDS  |  November 10 2012, 2:45PM

    For those who say is rubbish lets enlighten you,sky provides me bbc england,bbc scotland and bbc wales,am i paying twice? as i would have it on normal tv and then if i have sky i have it on there as well,for those who dont like adverts there is a thing called pre record,pause fast forward and rewind,also bbc claim they are the only ones who dont have adverts they are lying because they advertise £1000 fines for not having a tv licence,if you watch sky premier movies they dont have adverts,sky brings cinema movies to our homes,so you must think going to the cinema is rubbish as well.Some of you must be right because they provide the bbc to

  • blackguyfawke  |  November 10 2012, 2:51PM

    The BBC don't need licence fees to remain impartial. That just needs integrity. Integrity is free. Aside from The Thick of It, which is brilliant, I don't think I have watched a single BBC programme all year. Quality TV is debatable and all comes down to personal taste. The BBC also caters for the lowest common denominator as much as many other channels. As their output deteriorates, other channels are raising their own standards with home produced programming, and also showing the cream of US television, which for about ten years or so, has been producing fine quality, thought provoking shows that have equalled and in some cases surpassed anything we have produced. The licence fee should be phased out. There is a lot of choice out there and paying for the BBC should be just that; a choice. For all those who dont mind paying, a subscription fee could be implemented. £6-8 per month for access to all BBC services. Those who object would no longer have to pay and in turn would not have access. Commercialism would no doubt soon follow, but there is no rule stating that the BBC have to adhere to other channels trends of having so many commercial breaks. In fact, the BBC could quite easily run a premium service with no commercial interuptions at all for an extra fee. None of this is unrealstic with the way digital services are in place. It is outdated and clearly divides opinion."

  • BURNINGWORDS  |  November 10 2012, 6:06PM

    That would all be well and good DB if we were treated as shareholders and not forced subscribers. The license is a BBC protection racket tax. You can't watch any other channel without paying it legally. It's like picking up a copy of the Times only to be told you can't read that unless you purchase the Guardian as well!

  • BURNINGWORDS  |  November 11 2012, 5:39PM

    Do your maths the population 62,641,000 times that by a £145.50 and see how great the bbc empire is!funds what they must have a hole in there pocket because the amount of money they have forced on people to pay they should be running more then the bbc

  • BURNINGWORDS  |  November 12 2012, 7:00PM

    Its good to watch the news today to know that the bbc are getting it hard,and even the big guns want rid of the bbc so do the people really want the bbc?I think not

  • BURNINGWORDS  |  November 12 2012, 7:01PM

    theamber1 It was just an estimate of what the bbc are expecting us to pay as children grow up they will be expected to pay,when ones child becomes a student in his one room with a laptop he will be expected to pay because his laptop can pick up a bbc channel,every household in this country are expected to pay. Must i buy the evening post befor im allowed to read the daily mail? anyway thats how big the empire is.How many billions have already been paid? Even prisioners pay a fee to have a tv in there cell,thats how far the empire stretches. The next time you watch the lottery and you see the rollover thats what the Tv licence makes now dont be fooled

  • BURNINGWORDS  |  November 12 2012, 7:02PM

    Except that the TV licence is not required for each person, just each separate address where a TV, or other equipment capable of receiving live TV broadcasts, is kept. The approximate number of homes in the UK is about 25,000,000, add another 5,000,000 for business use, giving 30,000,000, less than half the number you offer. Giving a figure of £4,365,000,000,

View all Comments
 
 

START A DISCUSSION

Something about your area!