AIBU cancelling my TV Licence direct debit?

[Heliosdeep]

In the wake of the Gary Lineker saga and the weakness of the BBC I cancelled my direct debit. Currently at £159 for a yearly licence I thought this was a waste of money. The only thing I would have missed would gave been the Great British Bake Off but now that Alison Hammond is fronting it I would have struggled to get past her incredibly irritating voice.

I've not watched it once since cancelling and haven't missed it. Has anyone else done the same and AIBU cancelling?

No, this is quite correct - who the hell do you think pays for 6 Music? The ignorance is so depressing

You’ll miss it when it’s gone.

And what do you think commercial broadcasters are? No luvvies with huge salaries funded by making crap from ad money because you watch them? Jesus Christ, the BBC is made up of people who care and want to make great things that entertain and inform (I've worked there), commercial broadcasters want your money (I've worked there). If there was no BBC, imagine what you would listen to or watch. And don't say commercial broadcasters - the BBC largely train that talent. You'd be watching Friends on repeat. Trust me.

I only listen to BBC 4extra nowadays. It's mostly stuff from years ago when I used to have a TV licence anyway 🤣🤣🤣

BBC is massively loaded with active Tory party members. I'm not paying the salary of the Nick Robinsons of this world, thanks very much!

Rude😁

Says our insider. No, it's full of clever young people, aspiring talent, committed journalists, incredible visionaries. You don't know because you read a few lines in a newspaper and consider it truth. I spent 20 years there - it launched my career, supported me into housing and trained me on valuable skills. Your view make me so angry - pure ignorance.

And what?

Cancel if you like but you'll miss so much quality tv

and local reporting via radio. Its the only local news source we have left really. Its vital. And don't get me started on The World Service - our best soft power

Right, lets break this down for you, because you appear to be mistaking me for one of the people I mentioned who actually does give a flying fuck about BBC radio.

If you want decent news, inspired musical acts and quality speech it needs to be funded.

I suppose, but I don't 'want', so couldn't care less about how it's funded.

Commercial services have one goal - making money. BBC has one goal, servicing audiences. And they also train people, set high standards and contribute to society via World Service, foreign offices and investment in new talent

That's nice. Totally irrelevant to me though.

If you would like your world to look and sound like Heart, then god help you - can you not see that without the BBC we'll end with Fox News and a world of lies?

I have no idea what 'Heart' is, presumably a radio station since that's the topic at hand, but even if all that is left if the BBC disappears is Fox News and a 'world of lies', I still couldn't give a single shiny shite because I pay no attention to Fox news or any other commercial station either.

So again, I do not listen to BBC radio, so I have no interest whatsoever in what might theoretically replace the BBC service should it cease to exist. That's a matter entirely for people who actually care about it.

YANBU cancelling your TV license if you don’t miss it . I would miss it so I’m carrying on.

I’d be more likely to cancel it because of the hassle I get being told I haven’t got a license despite the fact that I pay by direct debit and TV licensing have visited 4 times and I’ve shown proof that I have one.

As for Alison Hammond. She’s already on TV too much and I’m getting fed up of seeing her. I’m thinking I might give up on Bake Off for that reason. Nothing against AH personally. Just can’t understand why she has to be everywhere. Pretty much same as you with Philip Schofield & Holly Willoughby.

as with not as you

Come for the ignorance, stay for the lies - sure

Even if you have no appreciation of the cultural landscape, it defines us as a society - it just does

The 'cultural landscape' is vastly more than the BBC, the two are not one and the same.

If you don't use those services, that's fine - but the less ignorant do - and it matters

There's nothing 'ignorant' about not using BBC services.

The BBC bring in much more money into this country than it takes from the licence fee - but the LF enables it.

I'm not disputing this.

Without it, we wont train new people, we wont make great shows, and we wont sell them

No different to any of the 'commercial' ventures you decry then, in the sense that output requires funding.

Thing that doesn't matter? When I make a show in Wales, I employ taxi drivers, caterers, hotel keepers, artists, carpenters, camera ops, sparks - about 200 people to make a CBBC show. And all that money pays families to feed their kids, have piano lessons, buy school uniform, have a house

The BBC's impact on the economy appears to function in much the same way as any other wealth-generating business then. The difference is most wealth-generating businesses are self-perpetuating and don't rely on handouts from non-customers in order to continue to operate. I'm perfectly happy with the idea of a BBC that continues to do whatever the hell it likes, I'm just not willing to fund it while I am not a customer, in the same way that I do not hand over my money to other services that I do not use.

Now - do you give a flying fuck?

About people's ability to feed their kids and so on? Of course. About the BBC's output? No, because I don't consume it and have no interest in it, hence why I have no wish to fund it.

Or are you a complete knob?

Possibly, but again, I couldn't care less whether you or anyone else contends that I am.

Cancel and don’t watch, that’s what I do. Whoever keeps saying you can’t listen to BBC radio that’s totally nonsense, radio is free

Again - you prove your ignorance. The BBC DOES set the cultural landscape, and most broadcasters turn to it as not only a standard, but a training ground and an inspiration - if you don't understand how broadcasting and production works, you wont get it. But without it, you wouldn't have most of ITV, most of C4 and nearly all of Uk based Netflix/Amazon. You would also not get the standards - you also wont get the international sales. BBC sell lots of shows - not just their own - abroad. And that money flows into all kinds of other ventures - not just studios and broadcasters, but choirs, schools, communities. Do you really think Disney or Discovery or ComCast would do that? Come on, of course not.
You don't really understand what the BBC output is - it is online, its on ITV, its on Sky, its on C4, its on Netflix, its in the Cinema (BBC Studios) - but it doesn't feed shareholders - it funds things for all of us. Nobody is skimming a profit except all of us who make it.
I'm ducking out now as there is no explaining this to the stupid...but this is how democracy dies. Along with Britain, and our hopes and dreams. Enjoy your future with Sky and CBS Reality - they don't care about you, or your kids.

Again - you prove your ignorance. The BBC DOES set the cultural landscape

Absolute tripe. The 'cultural landscape' encompasses far more than TV and radio output. The BBC is part of that, but it is not the whole or anywhere close to it, and no amount of toddler-like foot stamping and 'it just does' tantruming changes that reality.

and most broadcasters turn to it as not only a standard, but a training ground and an inspiration

Have a gold star.

if you don't understand how broadcasting and production works, you wont get it

I'm sure

But without it, you wouldn't have most of ITV, most of C4 and nearly all of Uk based Netflix/Amazon. You would also not get the standards - you also wont get the international sales. BBC sell lots of shows - not just their own - abroad. And that money flows into all kinds of other ventures - not just studios and broadcasters, but choirs, schools, communities

None of which I'm disputing, so I have really no idea why you felt the need to point out what is already common knowledge.

Do you really think Disney or Discovery or ComCast would do that? Come on, of course not

Disney, Discovery, yup well known for never having produced anything original or selling original content on.

You don't really understand what the BBC output is

I do thanks, even before your completely unnecessary and unrequested refresher.

I'm ducking out now as there is no explaining this to the stupid

Off you pop then.

@MrCadburysParrot you are out of order to insult other posters' intelligence because they don't want to view and listen to BBC output and they don't value it. You appear to think everyone should be forced to buy a licence, is that right?

You have a strong belief that the BBC is a VERY GOOD THING for the UK and I would broadly agree. They still produce a lot of quality programming. However I am a bit uncomfortable with how it has allowed itself to be unduly influenced by the current government in recent years, for example in the Gary Lineker incident. He should have been free to express his opinions, he was speaking in a personal capacity. And the historical cover-ups of the activities of people like Jimmy Saville are still a cause for concern, what was going on back then?

I use the BBC a lot myself and I'm therefore fine with paying the licence. However I have friends and family who choose not to and I object to them being insulted. It should absolutely be a choice whether to buy into it, and Capita badly mishandles the policing of the licence fee. It is also a regressive tax of course, and quite a burden on the poorer sections of the community.

I don't know what the answer is, to include bbc funding in general taxation, or to make it a subscription service. I would probably subscribe. But it must be a choice.

The BBC is a total waste of money. Shut it down. Or make it subscription like Netflix etc, so that those who think it so great can pay for it and those that don't want to, don't have to.

The entire 'but the BBC does this or that' is entirely besides the point in any case.

If I choose to pay Netflix, for arguments sake, and some of Netflix's content is either produced by the BBC or inspired by the BBC, then in the former case the BBC will have already received an income from Netflix as part of that transaction.

The difference is, I can choose freely to give my money to Netflix in order to access that content, and I am happy for them to pass a portion of that on to whoever they see fit, including the BBC, including shareholders, including Discovery, including Disney, or whoever. The point is, that is my choice to freely enter into that transaction.

Why I object to BBC licensing, is that it demands I pay ahead of time and cares not whether I ever watch anything that is in any way associated with the BBC in any way, shape, or form. It's a TV tax, which the BBC happily collects even in instances where the payer is not actually liable to pay, they have no compunction in using absolutely baseless threats to try and ensure compliance, they send out deliberately threatening appearing but ambiguous mail in a blatant attempt to frighten people into paying, and on top of that, they are given leeway to use a private company to visit private properties, whose employees regularly abuse their position and outright lie to people in order to try and take a payment where none is actually due. It's an absolutely absurd state of affairs and involves practices that would see any other company in the courts for their behaviours.

But the crux of it remains the simple fact that no other company is permitted to practice a model that sees them harass, intimidate, and extort money from non-customers, on the working assumption that they are customers by default and must be assumed to be lying until they prove otherwise. It's completely unjustifiable, and no amount of 'but the BBC does this or that' hand-wringing alters that.

I stopped paying for a TV licence years ago. I actually like the BBC as an organisation, but cannot stand all the blatant lies that are told in the name of enforcement.

It used to be the case that they could tell which houses had a signal going to them

This is untrue and has never been true. Evidence from "detector vans" has never been used in court as the enforcement division cannot provide proof of how they work - because they don't. It's a myth used to scare people into paying.

TV licence enforcement is basically a civil matter. The "enforcement agents" are paid lackeys on commission for selling TV licenses who have zero power to compel you to do anything at all.

This is untrue and has never been true. Evidence from "detector vans" has never been used in court as the enforcement division cannot provide proof of how they work - because they don't. It's a myth used to scare people into paying

Correct.

The vans themselves existed, but they never at any point contained any sort of special equipment that could detect 'signals' or precisely who was receiving a BBC broadcast because no such equipment existed.

On the odd occasion where they were used to 'police' non-compliance, it was purely in the capacity that they would carry a member of staff who was watching live broadcast on a standard TV set, and they would attempt to view colour patterns and change of light through a window or curtain, and correlate that with what they were watching on their own screen in order to try and ascertain whether or not you were likely watching live pictures without a licence.

It was a tool to try and provide an 'in' on who might be worthwhile doorstepping, but it was never in any way the 'detector' van the BBC propaganda tried to portray. A relative was involved in the servicing of these vehicles, which obviously meant access to the back of them, and they were invariably kitted out no differently to a multitude of other similar commercial vans of the same make and model. No bells and whistles, no special adaptations, no special BBC 'secret' equipment. A plain, ordinary van.