ECCOnoob

Companies that like to reward loyalty to frequent visitors presumably. As others have said you are completely overreacting. There are loads of organisations that have membership schemes and give priority to those members. you're desperately trying to make it sound like some form of social injustice against the world.

It was made law that anyone receiving broadcast television from any source pays a licence to receive it. What the government chooses to do with the revenue is their decision. They choose to fund the BBC with it as they are a state broadcaster. I say again, if the BBC was closed down tomorrow do you think the government would suddenly scrap the licence fee or would they just divert the money somewhere else?

That's the solicitor firm service you are paying for and that's why they charge. Lots of things may seem stright forward on the face of it - but its only when you look deeper you realise only a suitable professional can do it.

If you look at most big national civil service organisations of a similar size I would suspect quite a lot quite frankly. How many layers and layers of NHS or local authority administration and management are on 30, 40, 50, 60k salaries a year. How many heads of departments, specialist quangos, chief executives are on 100k plus salaries a year. How many external consultants paid on a self-employed basis are earning £100s per day to provide their services. I don't know why you are trying to single out the BBC here. Let's also not forget there are hundreds and hundreds of lower-level employees earning nothing like that. Sounds just like any other big organisation doesn't it. Nice try.

It doesn't work like that and you know it. The situation would be if the law stated that everyone must pay £150 before they are allowed to have a internet connection irrelevant of what supplier they choose. The law and the licence is for ANY broadcast television. What the government chooses to do with the money is their business. On this occasion it forms the state broadcaster i.e. the BBC and also pays few other parts of broadcasting including establishment of several local TV and radio services, disability Access services and went towards part of the UK broadband rollout. All this talk about putting the BBC commercial only and thus a licence disappears is nonsense. What makes people think that if the BBC disappeared the government will suddenly scrap the licence? What makes people think that if the BBC was funded by advertising only the licence will disappear? There are plenty of other countries out there whose state broadcaster is filled with adverts but they still pay a licence fee. there are plenty of other countries out there whose licence fee is a hell of a lot higher than what we pay each year. There are countries out there who have increased taxes to fund their broadcaster instead of a licence fee. Perhaps the critics might want some of those options instead. I certainly wouldn't.

You are not answering WHY they should get this perk over millions of other people who are receiving just as little income and dont have the cop out excuse of "being old" A genuinely poor pensioner getting pension credit gets the free licence. However, the others could be earning a state pension of anywhere between £129 - £160 + a week even more income on top if they have a private pension too. That equates to between at least an annual income of £6700 - £8700 a year with the annual TV licence cost being merely 2-2.5% of that. Pensioners seem to afford it during the first 10-15 years of their retirement. What is so different at 75+

Hows the harrassment case going? Spoken to the police yet?

From what I have read it seems to be nothing more than a false fire alarm evacuation at the primark end of the building. I have not seen any real follow up of relevance from our esteemed local publications. It really does all appear a bit - nothing to see here move along.

Challenge the government then. Its their law that mandates that everyone must have one if they choose receive any broadcast signal from any platform. Say the BBC was closed tomorrow. Do you think the government would cease tv licences or do you think they would just find an alternative receipient of the monies? I personally dont understand why its seemingly fair for the majoiry of pensioners (except deemed pension credit level) to be suddenly exempt from paying something they were happily paying at 74 years old. What is this dramatic change over 12 month which suddenly stops their ability to pay? Their money certainly doesn't go down. The cost of living doesn't suddenly shoot up over and over what anyone else has to deal with. Why are they so special?

Given that the people who actually drew up the legal requirements of the Communications Act 2003 and the only ones who can change such law are all sat around in Westminser, protesting outside BBC buildings seems a complete mistarget to me. I certainly wont be supporting the pensioners. Those on the absolute lowest incomes will still get a free licence and those are the ones who need support. All the rest should quite rightly should pay their way, just like just like they happily did up until they reached above 75 years old and just like all their predecessors were doing up until rule changes in 2000. Pensioners are not alone in having to watch the pennies and they are certainly not the only ones feeling the pinch. Plenty of younger people are having to manage on much less disposible income than some of our so called "poor" pensioners get. They still have to pay if they want to use the service. They still have to follow the law. I am all for respect your elders to a point but I never have and never will buy into this OTT nonsense that just because someone is old gives an excuse for unwarranted entitlement.

Ahhhh.. right.... So you want to scrap a mandatory licence which people pay if they CHOOSE to receive television broadcasts and instead compel ALL broadband subscribers to additional pay tax on their supply charge regardless of whether they choose to watch any live broadcast television or not. Genius!

Let me give you some quick pro bono. Harrassment is a criminal offence under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. A call to the police will do. No need for expensive legal fees. Go knock yourself out. Do keep us posted how you get on.

Why, if it is happening so regular in both correspondence and personal visits, you have put up with it for so long to be honest? Surely by now given your obvious innoncence you should be looking at legal action against this harrassment. Im pretty surprised. I thought you were more assertive to be honest. You certainly give it out enough on here. Which are what exactly? Breached Acts and their accompanying statutes which can be referred to the DPP please.

Greed my backside. The UK is not alone in having a television licence and we are certainly not the most expensive. Letters of increasingly threatning nature is exactly what businesses and organisations do when you dont pay them. Threatening letters is what you deserve when you break the law and dont pay a fee which is a mandatory legal requirement. If a pensioner walks into Tesco and takes things without paying - should the store detectives just ignore them just because they are "vulnerable elderly" people??? If a pensioner racks up £1000 on a credit card and refuses to pay because they cannot afford it should the bailiffs leave them be just because they are "vulnerable elderly" people??? What about it that pensioner fails to pay a speeding or parking fine. Should the authorities just let it lie because they are "vulnerable elderly" people??? What the hell is the difference with the TV licence. THE LAW passed in our parliament by our elected representatives is clear. Sec 363 (1) of the Communications Act 2003 is clear. "...A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence..." Sec 363 (4) also emphasises "...A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine..." Now if you can just put your stupid and tiresome anti-bbc anti-tory knuckle headed bias to one side for a moment and see the facts. Its not the BBC demanding the licence. Pensoners are not being oppressed by Huw Edwards or Graham Norton or Hacker the CBBC dog. Its the law. Law set by our politicians and our parliament. Young or old - you break the law there are consequences. What part of this are you failing to understand.

What a load of crock. These so called destitute pensioners were paying the TV licence perfectly well until 2000 when money tree labour decided they would dangle another freebie to boost their vote share with the blue rinse crowd. The current licence is less than £13 a month. 42p a day. If these pensioners are so brassic and so incapable in their affairs that they are choosing television over food then they need to be put into care not given a handout. People bang on about TV being this vital lifeline that prevents loneliness and is some vital communication to the world but what's next? Free telephone service? Free internet service? Free Sky Television to expand the channel choice? Its rediculous. IF YOU DONT WANT TO PAY DONT WATCH LIVE BROADCAST TELEVISION. Not exactly rocket science is it. There are plenty of working people who are on low incomes and have to manage to get by too. They dont get their lifestyle choices supported for free.

Do you watch any live broadcast television on any other channel?

I guess that is why the police investigate. Its the whole point. I'm sure the ALLEGED victim can ask many questions about why they want this and why they need to ask that but doesn't mean its the wrong process. What about the ALLEGED accused, they have rights to defend their case too. The one sided agenda continually pushed by the media and several campaign groups is wholly unjust.

I would also agree. I am getting rather sick of this facebook meme, twitter headline, tabloid fodder. "...They served a war for us...." Errm. some of them did yes. But certainly not all. A vast number of these over 75s were nothing more than children or even toddlers at the time the war ended. They have had a full life with often better job prospects, cheaper housing, more social mobility and social services than most younger people these days would dream of. Many of them have made a very nice nest egg for their retirement and so quite rightly should pay what is (lets face it) a trival amount per month for thier TV licence. Lets not forget boys and girls, that trival amount per month was something they were quite happily paying up to the rule changes in 2000 anyway. Enough already with this sentimental nonsense. If you want to watch broadcast television on ANY channel - you pay the licence fee. If you dont - then dont. Choice is yours. You can always read a book.

Crap. Militant unions started a war against the government. Scargilll & Co put brawn instead of brains. They chose the battlefield. They attacked. The Police responded. BOTH sides were overkill and behaved badly. BOTH sides had bloodshed. As others have perfectly put it, neither side has anything in which to get on the moral high ground and raking up the past achieves nothing. Orgreave wont be forgotten and nor should it. However, that does not mean its right for a load of union bods to start strirring the pot and twisting the media to try and deflect blame.. We all know their game - just another load of hot air to pass all responsibility onto the police and portray the warring miners as nothing more than angels just trying to peacefully state their cause.

Well they should be. They are making very serious allegations against someone which could result in them being imprisoned for years, decades or even life. If there is any doubt raised by the defendant then it is absolutely right that the alleged victim is also investigated - including the contents of their prime communication devices Fair and just trials involve evidence from both sides. Fair and just trials involves both parties having the opportunity to present their case. Fair and just trials involved a level playing field. Why does the alleged victim have some right to privacy when the alleged accused can be named and exposed without consequence. Any evidence the police choose to see from either party should be a given. No ifs. No buts.

I suspect the other poster was referring to important issues like your safety and security not just things like whether your personality clashes. You do need to be careful. I would second their comment and encourage you to properly check them out before committing to anything.

That's pretty much exactly what it is. They give you a free credit score with real time tracking service every time someone adds or gets removed from your file. In return they have perfect accesss to your credit history and can send you a nice little message once a month of tailored offers. No such thing as a free lunch and all that. To be honest. I am quite happy with clearscore. Its free, easy to set up and with exception of the monthly updates (which admitted always has a couple of "offers") they dont bombard you too much.

Name me 10 widely popular, viewer attracting, television suitable, right wing, pro tory, pro leave comedians they could reguarly hire and you might have a point. If you cannot then there is no deliberate bias is there. Just a clear reflection of the type of comics and types of entertainment the population wishes to consume.

IMO so it should be. That's a true balance of justice. All disclosure and details for BOTH parties should be visible and available as the police see fit. Innocent until proven guilty. Beyond reasonable doubt is the test. The accused is stripped bare, torn apart and named and shamed through the court process but somehow the accusor can pick and choose what they give out to investigating authorities and remain private and anonymous throughout. The imbalance and unfair nature of these trials is unacceptable. I find it bizarre that some people seem to think that the casualty of a "small number" of wrongly accused and wrongly imprisoned people is acceptable when balanced against the greater good. IMO it isn't. There shouldn't even be the opportunity for even one miscarriage of justice if it could be prevented by simply ensuring that party disclosure and witness testimony is dealt with on a level playing field.

It's not supposed to be great. It's a temporary emergency measure to fill in while someone is between jobs. It fills a gap not funds a lifestyle and it's still nowhere near what should rightly be deemed "poverty".