TV Licence Investigation

[Wannabe2017]

Apologies if this has be raised before.

I have received a letter today stated that we're under investigation and to expect a visit from the TV Licence people, I think this is due to us declaring we didn't need a licence. Which we don't.

What are my rights here? Can I refuse entry? Can I record them if I answer the door. I don't have anything to hide but don't feel comfortable letting in a stranger, I've also read/seen videos of how intimidating they can be. I'm usually alone here with DD during the day and feel quite vulnerable.

DadOnIce -'Anyone saying we should not have a the TV licence is perfectly welcome to make that argument, but they will need to have an alternative suggestion as to how the BBC could be funded and with no appreciable dropoff in quality or diversity of provision.'-

Why do people not using the BBC and therefore not wanting to pay for it NEED to suggest an alternative??? People not using it don't care about BBC quality etc because they're not watching it.

I'm resentful that I can't watch live TV on other channels without a licence and don't understand why. I put up with ads on other channels because I don't pay the licence fee to watch ad free bbc content. Why should I pay the BBC to watch a load of ads on other live channels?

I'd sooner spend £72 a year on netflix than £140 for BBC

Agree it should be subscription based. If they make diverse quality programming as claimed, then through subscription they should be able to continue to provide this. The technology is there for them to be solely subscription based, it's about time they caught up and started using it.

Occasionally I think about getting live tv again. I look at listings and change my mind when I see a large proportion of bbc programs repeated. Surely they should be giving refunds to licence payers

I wish just for once there could be a tv licensing thread without the 'why wouldn't you watch the BBC?' argument. It's like insisting everyone must like orange squash because you do.

With nowTV you only need a license if you do watch the live TV on it. You don't need one if you just use it for steaming (and I find it difficult to understand why you'd want to watch live tv when you could just stream the same thing at your convenience). Just because you could watch live TV doesn't mean that you do. Similarly, you don't have to prove that your TV is incapable of receiving a live TV signal. It makes no difference if you don't actually use it.

Theoretically my car can do well over 100mph. That doesn't mean that I drive at (anything approaching) that speed and certainly doesn't mean that I should be fined on the basis that my car is technically capable of speeding when I haven't actually been speeding.

Note: I am aware that other people do choose to watch live tv through NowTV. So presumably they see some advantage in it that I don't, which is all well and good.

The problem is in assuming that having the technical capacity to do something is equivalent to actually doing it. And, of course, in 'enforcement' action that tries to force you to prove your innocence because your guilt is presumed.

I wish just for once there could be a tv licensing thread without the 'why wouldn't you watch the BBC?' argument. It's like insisting everyone must like orange squash because you do. I think it's so ingrained into their psyche they can't see any other way.

People are making this far more complicated than it needs to be. Either have a licence and watch watch live TV, or don't have one and don't.

Even if you don't watch anything on any BBC channel - and it's hard to see that you could literally find nothing that appeals to you, such is the range of programming, but I'm prepared to accept that there are some people who really are that hard to please - then there must be things on other channels you watch.

And even if you don't watch the BBC, if you don't like the way the current system works you need to propose a viable alternative. There are many and varied arguments against a subscription service, but I won't bore you with them here. They boil down to revenue, technical feasibility, and the probable reduction of choice.

I wish just for once there could be a tv licensing thread without the 'why wouldn't you watch the BBC?' argument. It's like insisting everyone must like orange squash because you do.

But orange squash is so delicious and at 9p a value bottle compared to 99p per carton of fresh orange, it's great value.

Those not willing to drink squash should not be allowed to drink any orange flavoured liquids at all.

"The reason they won't go subscriptions is simple. The BBC know they would be fucked."

Which is another way of saying there would be insufficient revenue to run a quality service, which is actually one of the arguments they put. And so the arguments they put are not all bollocks at all, are they?

The BBC would be fucked. And do we want that to happen? I suspect some people do.

Right. So it's okay to intimidate and harass people into paying for a service they don't use. If anyone tries to argue against it, we tell them they're being immature and anti-authority, or they're simply over-complicating the issue.

Going back on something, if you have a lodger does the lodger need a separate licence (spelled with a c)? I had thought not because of the house not individual rule but thought I read somewhere the rules had changed. I can see if it's a HOMO one might, but presumably not under the rent a room scheme.

Childish, any advice?

People are making this far more complicated than it needs to be. Either have a licence and watch watch live TV, or don't have one and don't.

I don't watch TV, I don't have a licence. I won't stop objecting to being harassed by the BBC and threatened with court proceedings for not have something I don't need or want.

Yes, there are things on other channels that I would watch however I cannot afford Netflix, DD's anime subscription service and £147 towards a channel I do not watch, therefore I watch other channels on demand and resent having to do so.

I also don't agree that the BBC does have a wide and varied range of programming. It all seems to be MasterChef, The Great British Bake Off, How to Cook for Less, How to be a Great British Master Baker for Less etc.

None of that shit interests me. On the rare occasions I watch TV I like things such as Prison Break, Dexter, Lucifer. The BBC has nothing comparable imo.

Imagine if a private company tried to do what the BBC does. Imagine Blockbuster had forced everybody to pay a "DVD Player Fee". Sure, some people have a DVD player and don't rent films from Blockbuster (stupid idiots must not realise the great range of films they offer), but lots of people LOVE Blockbuster and love renting films, so why shouldn't the entire public subsidise them? What's the alternative? Make ONLY their customers pay? But then they'd go bust! We couldn't have that!

The reason they won't go subscriptions is simple. The BBC know they would be fucked.

I do not want this for the BBC. I think the licence fee is v good value for all that content! But people who don't watch any BBC should not be threatened in their own homes.

Norland thanks
Licence = noun
License = verb
Same rule applies for practice/practise, advice/advise, unless you're American

If not illegally watching tv then let come in and see...your making a much bigger issue then you need to imo.

The reason they won't go subscriptions is simple. The BBC know they would be fucked.

Exactly.

I also don't agree that the BBC does have a wide and varied range of programming. It all seems to be MasterChef, The Great British Bake Off, How to Cook for Less, How to be a Great British Master Baker for Less etc

Also agree - on the one hand they say we must pay the licence as the only guarantor of high quality intellectual programming, on the other they fill the schedules with trash. They need to make their mind up what they are for and stop trying to be everything to everyone.

then they just don't watch the programmes? Or are they expecting to watch for free?
Yes, DadOnIce, because guess what: live tv other than BBC is free. C4, ITV, C5 and others do not ask for any money for their live programmes. So yes, I'd expect to be able to watch them for free, because that's what they are.

Also: can you tell me why I have to pay the BBC if I want to watch live Spanish tv over the internet? Does the BBC give my licence fee to Spain?

Re: the tv licensing Capita employees, do not let them in to "have a look round" even if you don't have a telly. Lots of incidents on the internet when the Capita person lied, said they saw a switched-on telly showing live broadcast, the occupant was threatened with court, fines, etc. I don't have a telly but won't let them in because there is a chance they will lie.

If not illegally watching tv then let come in and see...your making a much bigger issue then you need to imo
no they can fucking fuck off, I dont let random people into my place so they can check on what I'm doing
what is this a police state
why should I take them at all seriously with all that patronising bullshit about detector vans, fuck off you stupid finger wagging bbc nannies with your stupid fake threatening letters

Why would they be fucked? Aparantly there's a huge demand for the channel. There's a large amount of viewers to watch their quality diverse programming. They would continue to buy into the channel, and others who don't won't.

If not illegally watching tv then let come in and see.

Why? Would you be in favour of taking a copper with you everywhere to ensure you don't break any traffic laws? We have a basic principle in this country that you're innocent unless proven otherwise - not that you have to keep on proving you aren't doing anything wrong all the time.

If the licence was just a licence to watch BBC programmes, and watch BBC programmes alone, it would seem unreasonable to charge people who don't watch BBC programmes. However, the official definition of the TV licence is that it is "is a legal permission to install or use television receiving equipment to watch or record television programmes as they are being shown on TV or live on an online TV service, and to download or watch BBC programmes on demand, including catch up TV, on BBC iPlayer."

You may argue that this isn't fair. You have every right to do so. Write to your MP. However, while it's still the law, you don't have the right not to comply with it. That's how it works.

I agree that there's a lot of what you might consider to be shit on the BBC. I hate "MasterBakeChefOff" too. However, it is stuff other people enjoy, without which they would not make the stuff I enjoy. See my "Mrs Brown" comment above. Look beyond the Top Ten and there is a whole range of quality programmes - all the niche stuff on BBC4, for example, which would never get made under subscription as the Corporation would have a remit to be more broadly populist.

As a sidenote, I see Ofcom has judged the BBC not to be diverse enough recently. Fine, so it's not diverse enough. Accepted. That's a reason to reform it, not scrap it.

Also, I always want to ask people who think the BBC is some kind of Government propaganda mouthpiece why, in that case, the current Government is so keen to scrap it? Or at least to scale it down and break it up? Or, if they can't get away with that, at the most watered-down of all, to change the terms of its Charter?

Surely if it's the Government's mouthpiece they're happy for it to carry on doing what it does, as it's doing just fine?

all the niche stuff on BBC4, for example, which would never get made under subscription as the Corporation would have a remit to be more broadly populist.
I'm not sure how you work this out. Having the niche stuff would be the only reason I'd subscribe. We have plenty of choice of populist tat already - the BBC would have to retain a differentiating factor to attract subscriptions.

I can't put it better than the BBC's Director of Policy does... so go and argue with him, not me!

Blog about subscription