TV Licence Resistance

[dutchmanswife]

DH has been running a campaign for years against the TV licence and has appeared in the Sunday Times this week.

entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article6797727.ece

I'm feeling quite proud of him.

And there are so many viewing hours devoted to these shows ( I haven't seen them so I can't coment on content) How many hours are devoted to such drivel as dancing on (ice?) with stars? (Something silly. ) A ballroom dancing thing?. Holby? Casulty? Eastenders ( a very real adaptation of life in the eastend ) Doctors, doctor who. Dragons lair?.
The apprentice? (with that dreadful stickman who ruined spurs) The weakest link ( with that awful woman who dumped her own children). Bargain hunt. Flog it?. Homes and the hammer? The one show. And thats just a few that my friend could remember that makes her put on the dvd, but her personal cringe favs are apparently snog marry avoid and something called what not to wear with a couple of vomit induing presenters who have no idea about clothes?

Gosh, you know a lot about BBC progs. I watch hardly any none of those. Licence fee is worth it for Wallander alone atm.

"He believes in free choice, the choice of whether to have a tv license or not. If that means all tv is commercial tv then he is happy with that."

has he never paid for any kind of digital service then?

As I said I called a friend. No idea what wallander is, sorry.

I am told that a show on the BBC didn't help with this swine flu panic, i'm told it was called survivor and was pretty funny until the government decided to scare the hell out of everyone.

i love In The Night Garden too, and Waybuloo - though that really is just visual valium.

Hello Beanieb

I presume by digital service you mean Virgin Media or Sky. We don't actually have any kind of TV signal into the house. We have television sets that we use to watch DVD's and play games machines but no we don't watch any kind of TV.

It is true, if unremarkable, that general interest channels don't show as much specifically educational programming as specialist documentary channels. More remarkable, perhaps, is that the BBC has been specifically prevented under the terms of its charter from using TV licence money to set up specialist channels.

The BBC is far, far, far from perfect, of course it is. But possibly you should quit sounding off about BBC output if you haven't watched it. OK, so you had the bad luck to select natural history programming as your first target, but honestly -- if you were to opine to National Geographic or Discovery Channel executives that the BBC didn't produce programmes of the quality of theirs they would probably bust a gut laughing. The BBC Natural History Unit is widely recognised as the gold standard of natural history programming. They developed most of the cutting-edge filming techniques that have subsequently been taken up by other filmmakers. They pour resources into making unmatched nature documentary programmes that win award after award (they tend to air on your beloved Discovery Channel in the US). But still "when the BBC can make shows like national geographic it might be worth the money"?

A fair bit of what airs on the Discovery, National Geographic and History channels are recycled programs from the terrestrial channels you disdain so much. There are nature documentaries, but they often focus on snakes, crocodiles, sharks and meerkats. More geological-themed programmes tend to focus on volcanoes, earthquakes or tsunamis. There are a lot of Nazis and mummies about (should the History Channel ever discover a Nazi mummy it's just going to self-combust in excitement). There's reality TV about lumberjacks who swear a lot, fishermen who swear a lot, and custom motorbike builders who swear even more and fight with each other (those are a little more educational than I'd personally want for my children). Oh, and there are lots of repeats. And lots of adverts.

That's before we move onto DMAX and Discovery Realtime -- also part of the Discovery set of channels. If it's fair to dismiss the BBC's entire output by picking and choosing programmes from across its range of channels then it's surely fair to take the same approach with Discovery. So we have the intellectual heights of Bristol Airport, A Place in the Sun, Selling Houses, Tommy Walsh's Green Homes, Come Dine With Me or Custom My Ride (which I assume is a retitled Pimp My Ride but have no intention of watching to find out). Also more custom bikes, back-to back with more reality TV about tattoo parlours in Miami and in Los Angeles.

Utility companies don't get away with sending intimidating letters such as these, so why should TVL get away with it?

2 years ago, I agreed to pay my TV licence in installments, which I proceeded to do. TVL kept sending the amounts back to me in cheque form, none of which I cashed, despite my numerous calls to them.

One Sunday evening there was a knock on my door as I was in the bath, so DP answered, then came up to tell me that whoever it was wouldn't give his identity or go away until he spoke to me (he doesn't live with me). Having been caught on the hop, I got out of the bath, thinking it was some kind of family emergency.

I kept the chain on the door and asked what he wanted. It was someone from the TVL, who started shouting and swearing at me from outside, claiming he had the police with him and a warrant for my arrest for not paying my TV licence

By this time I had become I became quite hysterical, screaming and crying. I've never, ever been in trouble with the police in my life. DP - ever the diplomat - did tell him to keep a civil tongue in his head but also told me I should open the door, probably thinking that it would be better than having it barged down!

I did open the door to find no police there, so I told him I'd call TVL the next day to sort it out, but he wasn't having any of it. I went to shut the door but he put his foot in the way. DP had to intervene tell him that I would only co-operate if he took his foot out.

DS, 6 at the time, saw all this.

Having taken my details, the man said I'd be receiving a summons, which I never did. I paid my TV licence with a lump sum I did have but which was already accounted for towards basic living expenses, hence my paying in installments in the first place.

The next day, walking DS to school, I had my first panic attack, constantly thinking there was someone following me and have had them consistently since. I haven't been able to answer my door to cold callers ever since it happened and even when I'm expecting a relative or friend, I have to double check who's at the door.

The stupid thing was that he never even bothered to check whether I had a TV.

Also, the sad thing is that, while I never thought the BBC was perfect, I was actually far greater a fan before all this happened.

Sorry if any of that doesn't make sense - I'm shaking even thinking about it.

PMSL.

To be honest I have never seen any of those shows you've mentioned, I know sandra Bullocks hubby has a show somewhere on there in a garage because my eldest (22) watches it from time to time but he sprouted legs and moved out a while back and to be fair he watches (two) BBC shows, top gear and have I got news for you, other than that he watches sky.

So what I was trying to say before being trolled by another poster with a snide remark was..

I watch sky (my choice) but I do not watch BBC so when people say why should they pay for itv, c4 , five on their shopping bill, why should I, who does not watch ANY terrestrial tv pay a licence fee when I watch zero programming but use my tv to watch sky.

When sky came in the government made a big issue of having cable companies to compete with each other and sky to keep the prices down so there wouldn't be a monopoly, that went out of the window with labour who allowed one of their primary donors (branson) to buy up all the other cable companies, my point is why then should the BBC not be under the same rules and have to compete for money as well as viewers?

They are complacent (spelling? dyslexic)they may make some good programmes? I have no idea, but they also make a right load of twaddle because they can get away with it, they don't have to compete for advertising, so their programmes do not need to be wonderful.

In the old days they showed NO1 in the ratings shows like (god I'm showing my age) Dallas, dynasty, starsky and hutch, the X files, Buffy (all american yes, but all top shows) now all the top shows are on sky ( at least first before going to c4) House, ER, NCIS, Star treks (all) Greys anatomy, desperate housewives, Bones, the shield, CSI (too many to name)law and order, sons of anarchy, (can't think brains gone dead) some of these are c4 ratings winners, why aren't the beeb buying them with our money? They can't say people don't want to see them because they do, but they decide to pay presenters like JR and others millions in contract fees for a couple of million viewers when they could be getting the top slot with these shows...

If the BBC didn't have the licence fee they would have to compete, their programming would have to be better and everyone wins, especially the viewers who wont be paying for they bloated egos and their jolly juants on the licence payers expense (like how many people did they send to the olympics? ).

Sorry Not playing anymore, my PMSL wasn't meant for your post but TDMHAL.

Posts crossed.

"I presume by digital service you mean Virgin Media or Sky. We don't actually have any kind of TV signal into the house. We have television sets that we use to watch DVD's and play games machines but no we don't watch any kind of TV."

so you don't need a licence, why does it bother you so much then?

Do you eve use the BBC online services like their news page? Or listen to the radio? while you don't need a licence for the radio the fee does go towards the radio programmes they produce.

Also - was interestsed in the site bbc resistance

did you know the licence is actually a governement imposed fee rather than a BBC imposed fee. Resist the government perhaps?

I've just been abroad and I have to agree (though I thought this anyway) even more strongly now that the licence fee is very good value for all the services - TV, radio, internet and so on - we get from the BBC. It's light years ahead of other countries' programming. I would pay it for BBC4 alone (although the less said about BBC3, or the Two Pints... channel, the better). Plus the recent repeats of The Wire on BBC2 have been worth it in themselves.

However, there are two things that really annoy me about the licence payment system.

a) The menacing tone of the letters sent if you don't have a licence, as many posters have already mentioned. We moved house and had a period where we were waiting to complete the sale of our old house, and the flood of threatening letters after we transferred the licence was unbelievable, especially when we had told them we were moving and where to, and that the house would be empty initially. The letters basically say, in more BBC-style English, 'We know you're cheating us you SCUM and we'll be coming raaaaaand!' They must cost a fortune to send out too. Surely any hardened non-payers will ignore them, whereas little old ladies and nervous law-abiding types will be the ones to start worrying. The tone is really unjustified - what would be wrong with a letter starting 'We notice you don't have a TV licence. If you don't have a TV or don't watch any programmes on your TV then that's acceptable and you have nothing to worry about. However...' ?

b) The direct debit payment system where your first 6 payments in any year make up the whole of the licence fee, and the second 6 are towards the next year's licence. So you end up paying in advance and crediting the payment company, which just lead to loads of overpayment when people die/leave the country/move house. I don't mind paying for the licence itself; I do object to payments being taken in a way that is designed to make extra money for the collection company, especially given that paying by DD makes their life easier anyway. I keep meaning to cancel and have 6 months off before paying it in one go, yearly, in future just because this annoys me so much, but haven't got round to it yet.

Oh, and it's difficult and expensive (0870 number) to contact them if you don't have email access, which is bad for older people.

So in short, I'm happy to pay the licence itself and think it's very good value. However, I think the way it's collected and policed is abysmal and due a reform. I believe the BBC don't do this themselves but outsource it to 'The TV Licensing Company' or similar, so they are the targets for me. Plus we should call on the BBC to make the collectors do a better job.

I'm happy to pay for the BBC, I think it's worth the money (although my licence fee goes to radio 4, radio scotland, and Cbeebies exclusively).

BUT I do object strongly to the tone of the letters from the TVL folk. We moved into a flat that had been empty for a while and the letters we were receiving were definitely harassment (and we didn't even own a TV). For a government tax, the letters should have to be polite and acknowledge that not everyone owns a TV (we didn't at the time). It was very upsetting to be accused of something we were not guilty of (and the possibility we didn't own a TV was not acknowledged in the letters) and my DH and I agreed that we would not let them in to our house to check if he wasn't home because the tone of the letters made me uncomfortable. Bullying and aggression is not acceptable these days. No private company would be allowed to send letters like that, why does the TVL get a free pass?

Hello Beanieb

The campaign to ban the tv license is DH's and the website you mention is his as well.

From my point of view I'm happy not to have tv in the house because I feel there's nothing worth watching. However, you can see from the website we do get harrassed a far bit as their assumption is that we must be breaking the law, we're not.

As to whether the tv license should be got rid of, I'm not so sure but what I would like to see is a healthy debate on the future of the BBC and whether or not it is still relevant.

Thankyou everybody for your views, it's been good to read them.

do you use any of the BBC interactive or internet services?

Just been reading your DH's site. I had to laugh. I'm also a TVL refusenik, but less for political reasons than I prefer not to pay for something I didn't ask for and rarely use. I watch the odd thing on BBC3, occasionally listen to the radio in the car. Honestly, I wouldn;t miss them, and I don't think my use is worth 135 a year. That's about a tenner a watch/listen.

I have got away with it in every flat I have been in that I haven't shared (135 four ways is more reasonable) apart from one which was a basement and the guy clearly saw the tv. Apart from that I am very adept at ignoring their threats - after all, how can a letter threatening court action but addressed to 'the occupier' be worth the paper it's written on?

beanieb "do you use any of the BBC interactive or internet services?"

I don't, why would someone who has no interest in the BBC do so?

I don't know why they would, I was just asking the OP really.

My delightful neighbours were moaning to me the other day about the £175 fine they recieved for not having a licence. Personally I think thats what takes the piss. I wonder how many years they haven't had a licence and the fine is only £25 above the cost of an annual licence. I bet they have saved loads over the years.

And I bet they still haven't got a licence

"Licence fee is worth it for Wallander alone atm"

....Wallander is made by Swedish TV. And was bought by the BBC for re-broadcast. Couldn't a commercial company have done this?

Unless you mean the crap version with Kenneth "hammy" Branagh....