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.

I agree with Eightieschick: I have no objection to the TV Licence and pay for it online in full every year (I agree about not letting them have the benefit advanace payment, which is what the payments by installment entails).

Like her, I think that the threatening letters are wrong and do not help the public's perception of the worth of the licence. It gives people a bad taste in the mouth.

My dh bought a TV for his dad a few years ago (to replace another one). He had to supply his address. He then received a number of threatening letters asking for his licence details - despite the fact that at the same address there was already a licence - albeit in my (different) name. He refused to respond to them as they involved calling an 0870 number or paying for a stamp (why should he?). I think they eventually sent him a prepaid envelope or they finally got their act together and realsied there was already a TV licence for the address. But we were happy to let them to the door and make a fool of themselves.

Despite that, I still beleive that the BBC is fantastic value - having visited/lived in many other countries over the years, there is nothing to beat it.

Yes - it does mass market programmes like Strictly Come Dancing and (yuck) The Weakest Link. But it also does great drama, children's TV, family drama (Doctor Who is a family favourite), documentaries and investigative journalism.

Persoanlly, I get annoyed on occasion that it seems to be more the EBC and than the BBC, for example, buying the rights to the England football team's games but not the Scotland team's . And their need to send up reporters from London to cover Scottish "big" stories, rather than use the local reporters.

But on balance, as I sit here listening to Radio 2, it is well worth the money.

A commercial company could, of course, bought Wallander but they didn't because, well, it's not commercial tv.

Same with this bit: "If the BBC didn't have the licence fee they would have to compete, their programming would have to be better and everyone wins". Define "better"? Everyone seems to like BBC for the quality programming which is not necessarily popular.

Yes I do use some BBC services.

The BBC news website and I have used BBC iplayer. I also listen to Radio 1 on occasion (?spelling).

I am aware I'm using BBC services without paying for them but this isn't illegal. Whether it's right or wrong is another matter. Maybe we should be looking at whether these services should be funded with a TV license or whether subscription would be better.

I've already said that I don't know whether getting rid of the tv license is a good idea or not but that I would like to have a debate. DH's views differ to mine as you can see in the news paper article and on his website.

I don't necessarily agree with the BBC being good and setting the standard. I don't have a TV; only watch DVDs and the occassional programme on 4OD (not BBC iPlayer, because the programmes are rubbish and the player barely ever works).

I think they are very heavy handed. The one time I was visited, they were rather intimidating, and I think it's ridiculous that they can send you to prison for not paying. Maybe if they didn't send so many threatening letters, send around so many people to harass, they could use that money to make better programmes, rather than The Weakest Link (ugh).

Apparently £1.62 0f my licence money a month goes to online and digital stuff and £2.01 to the radio.

Yes I agree the letters are intimidating - Ihave never had one though as I have always sorted out my licence when I have moved etc.

I feel very sorry about what has been happening at ITV lately but have read the stuff about the BBC giving some of the licence fee to other broadcasters and I think that's just a stupid thing to do. If ITV et al can't actually manage their programmes and their budgets properly why should the BBC licence payer fund their cock-ups.

but the government did tell itv to stop junk food advertising which isn't exactly their fault it is?

resulted in tons of lost revenue

i can hardly think of anything i like on bbc, though mad men on bbc four is fab. oh hang on that's hbo isn't it.

said, I agree: "If the BBC didn't have the licence fee they would have to compete, their programming would have to be better and everyone wins".

Well as most people seem to lap up the crap like Strictly I don't see how forcing the BBC to compete will help produce 'better' TV. More of the same old commercial tosh.

To clarify the point about paying installments that some people have raised - they are not ripping you off by charging you for 6 months ahead, they are offsetting the fact that for the other 6 months you are in arrears.

The reason you have to pay 6 months in advance is because normally you pay for a license entirely upfront.

So if you are buying a license from Jan 2009 - Jan 2010 you pay for it all in Jan 2009 and they have the use of your money for all of that period.

If you pay by installments then they lose the interest on the monies they have not yet received - which is a substantial amount spread over the entire total.

To offset this, they ask for half the money in installments before the date your license is due, and half the money after the date the license was due. Therefore the loss of interest in the 6 months arrears is cancelled out by the gain in interest on the 6 months in advance.

It's not a rip off at all. It's simply designed to make it equally fair to those who pay in installments or all at once.

Although I'm happy to pay towards the BBC, and think its excellent value for money, the licensing system is currently run on the basis that you're guilty until proven innocent.

I once had a tv licensing officer knock on my door accompanied by three burly police officers and a search warrant, who proceeded to search my house, including going into the bathroom where dd was naked in the bath (luckily she was only three at the time, so was bemused rather than traumatised). The search warrant had been granted because I had no license, and had refused to allow the licensing officer into my home on his previous visit. (Why the bloody hell should I? I didn't have a TV!)

I always think about this every time I hear of something terrible happening to a child, and it emerges that social services hadn't been able to get access to the child's home to check on them.

Surprise, surprise, your DH gets glowing coverage in a Murdoch publication, which has a vested interest in seeing the removal of the licence fee.

Did your DH do a bit of research when he came over from the Netherlands about the history of the BBC, what it stands for and all the services the 'tv' licence funds before starting his 'crusade'? Because it's not just about TV you know, but a hell of a lot more than that.

There are some things about the BBC and its activities which I disagree with, but for crying out loud, what in life are we ever in 100% agreement with? I'd happily kick my DH's subscription to Sky into the dust, but the BBC is for the most part something that's served this country incredibly well and something to be proud of. This kind of refusenik nonsense really pisses me off.

We didn't have a TV for a few years and got letters every six weeks from the TLA - we kept replying to them inviting them to come and visit (and they never did) apparently if you say 'yes, come on over, we'll show you our radiogram' they give up!

well we haven't got a TV and I hate the intimation we get from the TV licing people - it is guilty till proven other wise..they write every 3 months or so threatening to send heavies round...

cazzybabs - invite them - send them a photo of a cake and say 'come join us we have cake' they will think you are a nutter and put 'do not visit' on your file

It is offensive though and when you call them they are really nice but their official letters leave a lot to be desired.

Ironically I do now have a TV and I wrote to them to tell them and bought a licence online they still nagged me for a few months because 'it's all automatic see, nothing we can do, sorry love'.

big up dutchmanswifes husband

Oh, well said bobthebuddha.

Agree wholeheartedly with said

bobthebuddha DH had quite a bit of knowledge about the BBC as BBC1 and BBC2 can be received in the Netherlands. He also did quite a bit of research when he arrived and it is that research that prompted him to set up his website.

Dittany It's not really viable for DH to live somewhere where there isn't a tv license as he as a job, wife and chidren in this country. We'd miss him if he left.

oops children

Sorry if I sound cynical but it almost sounds as if because your DH received BBC channels in the Netherlands (I assume) for free or in a package he felt he shouldn't have to pay directly to fund the BBC when he got to the UK?

I've had a look at his site and the bulk of content seems focussed on the 'tv' licence and the methods used to collect it. It says that 'On this site you will learn what the BBC and the government do not want you to know about the BBC, its governance and the narrowing of debate that occurs under its massive, centrally-controlled news bureaucracy.'

Where is this content? I can't find it. The Times itself says that 'Oostveen?s campaign centres on what he sees as the ?intimidating? tactics used by TVL' - I don't see any broader discussion about the history or role of the BBC.

If your DH and others are opposed to the methods used to collect the licence fee then fair enough - campaign for change in that area rather than for it to be abolished in its entirety.

He says that 'Polls are showing consistent opposition to the fee' - whose polls? Where are they linked to?

Would he care to poll MNers for example to see if the majority of us would like the BBC changed to an 'advertising' or 'sponsorship' model for example? I certainly wouldn't.

I may not agree with the BBC's reporting all the time & I've suffered disquiet over some of its commercial activities but my licence fee funds things that I'm proud of. Some great TV programmes - BBC4, Radios 3 and 4. Free tickets to see live music that I couldn't afford otherwise and programme recordings. If licensing was abolished I know
that Radio 3 would be gone and we'd be left with Classic FM. But hey, that's competition and consumer choice isn't it?

I'd be happy to see some changes in the BBC's organisation and methods. But I'll bloody well resist your DH's desire to see it broken up, as well as Murdoch's. I'm sure the likes of The Times and the Daily Mail will be rubbing their hands with glee at the sight of him. They have an absolute vested commercial interest in supporting this kind of 'crusade'.

Well said Bobthebuddha

Linking in return to this site. Various commentaries in support of the BBC posted after the Hutton Report in 2004. Also outlines who wants to see the BBC destroyed. No prizes for guessing whom.

I have a crush on bobthebuddha now.

agree with bobthebuddha (x1,000,000)

maybe the OP and her H could move the the United States, where they might find that they get the television that they deserve

plus don't forget the world service