To say that the TV Licence should be abolished?

You're telling me that the BBC is currently a Labour mouthpiece, spewing nothing but state propaganda like Chinese TV

Ok, first of all, I have not said the BBC is currently a "Labour mouthpiece". There is a difference between party governance, and State. The fact you don't appear to recognise this makes me question if it's worth engaging with you, because unless you can grasp the fact that tools of State, Armed Forces for example, can still be utterly beholden to and carry out the demands of the State, whilst remaining Politically indifferent, then the point about the BBC being a tool of State will remain lost to you.

For "evidence", what more do you want than the Head of Government inadvertently admitting that a BBC employee was, in fact, a UK State intelligence asset? How about the BBC's broadcast role in WWII, not just the propaganda aspect, but the role in assisting SOE agents, foreign resistance operatives, broadcasting signals on the behalf of the RAF and so on. It is quite literally an asset of the UK State, always has been, and always will be unless it is decoupled from the State and becomes genuinely independent.

A national service? Don't make me laugh. The BBC is national propaganda machine for the few with enough money to control everything, like the rest of the media, only this one insists you pay for its lies and disservice.

Just watch what you want and don't pay anything into this outdated, unfair and unjust funding model. When their trained bottom-feeders come aknocking, tell them where to go. They have no right of entry and you're not obliged to even speak to them.

We have a different interpretation of what facts are. For me, they're truths backed up by evidence.

You're telling me that the BBC is currently a Labour mouthpiece, spewing nothing but state propaganda like Chinese TV.

Yet no one apart from you has noticed.

I do not need to "collate evidence" for things which are documented and accepted fact.

@Changingplace

It definitely needs to change its funding model, but one of the arguments against it being paid for by a tax is that would make it more aligned financially with government, not less. The current license model is outdated and needs looking at but having it paid via a tax would make it less impartial

It may as well be completely financed by government, because it is utterly beholden to the State in any case, to the extent that it will merrily participate in breaches of Law if it furthers the stated aims of the UK State.

Again, the notion that it is in any way "impartial" is ridiculous. It literally can not be. It is a State broadcaster.

You're being a pedant. I already pointed out to you that you don't need to pay the fee if you don't use live TV. It was obvious what I meant.

As for the rest, collate your evidence and take it to the press.

It is not breaking the law to refuse to pay the licence fee. It's breaking the law if you use BBC content while refusing to pay the licence fee. This is the issue, the BBC begins with the premise that any address without a licence must be in breach of the law.

If the BBC is not a State propaganda tool, why has it, since it's inception, continually provided cover for UK State intelligence assets in order to enable them to more easily carry out illegal acts in foreign Sovereign States?

It's every bit as much a tool of UK Government as the Armed Forces, Intelligence Services, HMRC and so on. The fact there is some guff in the Charter paying lip service to "impartiality" and it is financed by an extortion by implied threat model in order to provide a degree of plausible deniability a Government stipend would not, is neither here nor there. It is the UK State's national broadcaster, and it's every bit as beholden to, and a tool of State as any of the State broadcasters in any other country, including the Dictatorships and the nations we deride as utterly corrupt.

Yanbu Op. BBC Channels should be a subscription service that sells its best dramas to other streaming channels for revenue. Sick of paying for channels that I don’t use.

You're persued for the licence fee because to not pay it is breaking the law.

I don't agree that the BBC is a State propaganda service and I enjoy their programmes and news service.

TVs are often used for gaming too.

I think the BBC does too much overall and should drastically reduce some of its content, cut say BBC 4, put it all on iplayer, they never should’ve backed down on doing that with BBC Three.

Putting advertising on the BBC is often suggested but would be massively detrimental to the rest of the UK broadcast channels- there’s not enough advertising revenue to sustain it, and if advertising moved to the BBC then other channels that rely on it would suffer and potentially close, and that would have a knock on effect on jobs in the industry.

There’s a massive public consultation happening on the future of the license fee next year, ahead of charter renewal in 2027, have your say whatever your opinion.

And that option may happen when they renew the license fee charter in 2027.

Theres going to be a huge public consultation on the future of the BBC license fee starting next year, everyone who has an opinion on its future should make sure they have their say.

It definitely needs to change its funding model, but one of the arguments against it being paid for by a tax is that would make it more aligned financially with government, not less. The current license model is outdated and needs looking at but having it paid via a tax would make it less impartial.

So why not just give it a budget paid for by tax take instead of this nonsense of hiring a private enterprise to pursue people for a "licence fee", a great many of whom are not interested, don't use the service, and are not obliged to pay it in any case.

Oh wait, that would just make it transparently obvious that the "impartial" BBC is not remotely close to being anything of the sort, and it's essentially nothing more than a State propaganda service.

It doesn't work like every other product. It's a national service that you are expected to pay for, like tax.

You can opt out by not watching live TV. To me it's very simple. Choose to watch the service and pay, or don't.

I don't mind paying as I like the BBC and use it. However, I can appreciate that others don't.

Probably also worth pointing out that the BBC's own "tell us if you no longer/have no need of a licence" blurb is also immediately followed up with the caveat that they might still decide to send around an "enforcement" officer for a home visit in any case, just to ensure you aren't trying to hoodwink them and that you definitely do not, in fact, require a licence

So even there, an admission that a simple declaration is likely not enough to satisfy them, and by implication, a suggestion they regard you as probably in breach of the law in any case.

I'm not attempting to be hilarious; just pointing out how ludicrous the situation is compared to almost every other authority and/or optional service provider that you choose not to use or have no need to have any dealings with.

Can you imagine the situation if every single company that wanted to sell you their product or sign you up for something was allowed and legally privileged to send you an invoice and demand for payment, followed up with threats of (or actual) legal action if you didn't pay up smartly or otherwise take the trouble to notify them that you're not interested - with them then likely disbelieving you and treating you like an assumed liar, even if you did go to the effort?

I get it that there was a time in the past when virtually nobody wouldn't have had a TV and virtually the entire population would regularly consume the BBC's output as a regular and routine part of their lives.

Throughout that period, the way the BBC conduct themselves with regard to making folk pay up probably was the least bad method (although they didn't outsource it to the woeful Crapita back then).

In 2024, this is very obviously no longer the case and, just like many other companies and organisations whose heydays have come and gone, the BBC now need to accept that their dominance and automatic perception as essential, and reliance on, by the vast majority is now long over.

It's disgusting that you have to pay the BBC just for owning a device capable of receiving its broadcasts, whether you watch them or not.

It's even more disgusting that you have to pay the likes of Laura Kuenssberg's grossly overblown salary for all her years tory-loving lies and propaganda.

It's even more disgusting again that you're being forced to fund an organisation that has provided refuge and cover for so many paedophiles and other sexual predators for so long.

Ditch this unfair stealth tax now and let these national gaslighters pay their own stinking way.

You can have a TV anywhere you want in the house its not illegal to own one the onus is on them to prove you are illegally watching live TV , many people use TV,s purely for streaming services

No problem.

I didn't need you to "explain" anything, but thanks, I suppose.

I'd also point out that "ask" signifies a polite request. The BBC's idea of "asking" you to pay involves implying you are breaking the law, threatening you with ever escalating "investigations", doorstep visits from "enforcement" officers, court warrants, fines, and prison sentences.

It's about as far from a "polite request" as it's possible to be without just kicking the shit out of you and taking the money from your pocket.

You're a comedian. I'm a fan.

I've explained to you how you can stop them harassing you; inform them you no longer watch live TV.

I don't care why you're choosing not to do that. They'll continue to ask you to pay - so suck it up

I don't have a pilot's licence and have never attempted to fly any kind of aircraft myself.

Do you know how often the Civil Aviation Authority has hassled me with threatening letters and aggressive doorstep visits and demanded that I regularly inform them of my continued non-pilot status throughout my adult lifetime? Not once.

No, I didn't "choose to be harassed", the BBC does this by default.

I have no need to write to any of the companies I mentioned, even though I don't use their products, because they'd fall foul of the law if they acted in the same way the BBC does therefore they do not harass me. Why is there a discrepancy?

The biggest giveaway, though, that shows I did not "choose" harassment, is that the letters the BBC sends to my address every single month are not addressed to my name, they are addressed to the "legal occupier".

So two things -

This proves the BBC in fact have no idea at all who I am, and that they also have no idea at all who lives at my address, they simply mail every single postal address that does not have a registered licence, in order to tacitly accuse the "legal occupier" of breaking the law and attempt to bully and frighten them into buying a licence. The BBC knows nothing whatsoever about me, or my legal state with regard to the licence, and has no idea at all whether I have any need of one. They simply assume that because there is no licence at my address, somebody must be living there, and somebody must be in breach of the law, and somebody must surely be obliged to purchase a licence.

They threaten "legal occupiers" with fines and prison sentences, on the back of nothing more than a few assumptions. This is how palpably ludicrous the status quo is.

Today's pensioners haven't grown up with Netflix as part of their lives for decades.

I never said that all older folk must have it free - just that, after all this time, there should be a transition period during which the BBC slowly yields their longstanding privilege of 'charging by default and assumption', rather than just instantly dropping some of the most vulnerable members of our society like hot potatoes.