tinfoilhat Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 The whole licence deal is a sham and could be replaced by a levy on radio receivers and TVs,after all anyone buying a TV must intend to use it.A TV set in a room is hardly an exciting ornament.In addition a small increase in council tax would be hard to avoid for the freeloaders who never buy the licence. What of you don't own a tv ? You might be blind and/or deaf. It seems unfair to to levy people who dont have the benefits just because they pay council tax. And the unemployed or those on council tax benefit wont pay anything at all towards it, despite having more time to watch it. if you only by it second hand you wont pay anything towards it either. Why not just have adverts ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 It is a levy on tv ownership. When you buy a TV you have to give your details so they can check you have a current licence. Even with an online purchase?I think you have been conned mate-they simply want to find out how pliable a given customer proves.Having said that I last bought a TV in 1996,relying on cast offs from silly relatives who insist in upgrading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 Even with an online purchase?I think you have been conned mate-they simply want to find out how pliable a given customer proves.Having said that I last bought a TV in 1996,relying on cast offs from silly relatives who insist in upgrading. If ANY retailer fails to pass on your name and address to tv licensing after selling you any tv receiving equipment they are fined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 What of you don't own a tv ? You might be blind and/or deaf. It seems unfair to to levy people who dont have the benefits just because they pay council tax. And the unemployed or those on council tax benefit wont pay anything at all towards it, despite having more time to watch it. if you only by it second hand you wont pay anything towards it either. Why not just have adverts ??? Have you seen the state of TV channels that rely on advertising for revenue? Not for me thanks. The BBC represents remakable value for money. Just compare them to ITV, or Fox, or Sky. In comparison to many European countries, our TV licence is pretty cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 Have you seen the state of TV channels that rely on advertising for revenue? Not for me thanks. The BBC represents remakable value for money. Just compare them to ITV, or Fox, or Sky. In comparison to many European countries, our TV licence is pretty cheap. I'm not advocating adverts, just simplifying an awkward council tax levy idea earlier. I think the fee could potentially be optional, maybe a sporting equivalent to sky sports and charge for that. Radio 4 and 5live is nearly worth the fee alone. Despite not watching much bbc telly (I watch the awful advert ridden stations ) I don't worry hugely about paying the license fee. It's built in I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 I'm not advocating adverts, just simplifying an awkward council tax levy idea earlier. I think the fee could potentially be optional, maybe a sporting equivalent to sky sports and charge for that. Radio 4 and 5live is nearly worth the fee alone. Despite not watching much bbc telly (I watch the awful advert ridden stations ) I don't worry hugely about paying the license fee. It's built in I guess. I'd be happy to pay the licence fee for Radio 4 alone. I do think that an impartial, not for profit, public service broadcaster is an important part of the fabric of a civillised nation. We are all forced to pay for roads, but we don't all drive. We all pay for schools, but we don't all have kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 Have you seen the state of TV channels that rely on advertising for revenue? Not for me thanks. The BBC represents remakable value for money. Just compare them to ITV, or Fox, or Sky. In comparison to many European countries, our TV licence is pretty cheap. You pay for it then - don't force other people to fund your tv programs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 If ANY retailer fails to pass on your name and address to tv licensing after selling you any tv receiving equipment they are fined. What if you plan to watch TV over the border in Wales? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 I'd be happy to pay the licence fee for Radio 4 alone. I do think that an impartial, not for profit, public service broadcaster is an important part of the fabric of a civillised nation. We are all forced to pay for roads, but we don't all drive. We all pay for schools, but we don't all have kids. I agree entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 I'd be happy to pay the licence fee for Radio 4 alone. I do think that an impartial, not for profit, public service broadcaster is an important part of the fabric of a civillised nation. We are all forced to pay for roads, but we don't all drive. We all pay for schools, but we don't all have kids. Thats not a very good analogy. We all listen to music, but are not forced to pay into a common pot of money to pay music bands. I think roads are a bit more important that television programs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.