TV LICENCE why should people pay when paying for Sky?

[HbroChris]

Look, I don't wish to be argumentative here, but...

 

I'm well within my rights to not go along with some of those that I think are particularly wrong, especially the ones that harm people.

 

You do, in fact, have to "go along with" the law. It's not optional. You live in a democracy that gives us all the right to determine what those laws are, but not on an individual scale.

 

Let's not talk about car insurance, as 1. it's not a TV licence, and 2. the bit in bold is incorrect

 

Well, it's sort of incorrect, but only in a 99% sort of way. You either have to insure your car to travel on the road, or you have to self-indemnify, which involves giving HMT a bond, I think - or at least proving to them that you have money set aside. This is why Royal Mail vehicles aren't insured. I'd wager that any sort of Crown agency is the same.

 

Is that what you mean, or is there another situation where you think vehicles don't need to be insured to drive on the road?

 

Anyhoo, if you don't want to consider the analogy then don't - it is indeed off topic. I just think it's useful to compare.

 

 

Why would it collapse? Firstly, there's millions of people like your good self who feel it's a moral duty to pay the BBC what they demand- surely you're not suggesting that you, and those others, will suddenly cease to pay just because lots of other people do so?

 

No, I don't "feel it's a moral duty" - it's the law. I watch live TV therefore I must pay for a licence. Most of the money funds the BBC. You're suggestion is that I pay for the TV licence, you don't, and we both enjoy it. That's nothing more than you aiming to profit at my expense.

 

Secondly, there are a host of other TV stations that survive quite happily without the luxury of cash from a tv licence- the BBc can easily adopt some of their methods.

 

Even if it did collapse, the fact is that more and more media and news is being watched on pcs, not TVs- that is only going to increase from now on.

 

And how do you think the BBC news, or other media arrives on those PCs? HD content recording, video storage, transmission from van to net, high-availability server architecture - those things don't come for free. That's where some of the licence fee goes.

 

The BBC is funded in a way that means it can be advert-free, and state-funding-free, both of which means it can (in theory) be entirely independent. It isn't of course, but that's another problem.

 

Now to be clear, I have previously advocated a BBC set-top box, licence relief for those that are genuinely unable to pay and other relief mechanisms. But this should definitely come along with more rigorous enforcement of those who are simply unwilling to pay.

 

Watch live TV - pay for a licence - don't rely on others to fund it for you. Seems like the decent thing to do.

[spilldig]

Why should it be closed down?

 

Because, unlike sky and virgin it's not voluntary.

[onewheeldave]

You do, in fact, have to "go along with" the law. It's not optional. You live in a democracy that gives us all the right to determine what those laws are, but not on an individual scale.

 

Not in the cases of laws like those concerning TV licensing, which are effectively unenforcable. In that case people will only pay for a license if 1. they want to 2. they feel a moral obligation to do so 3. they aren't aware of the fact that they can simply not pay it and will not be taken to court (as long as they don't go along with TV licensings procedures).

 

If there was a realisitic possibility of enforcement/punishment for those who don't buy a license, then it would be different, but, as it is, people can simply not throw their money away on buying one and, other than some threatening letters from TV licensing, there will be no consequences.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, I don't "feel it's a moral duty" - it's the law. I watch live TV therefore I must pay for a licence. Most of the money funds the BBC. You're suggestion is that I pay for the TV licence, you don't, and we both enjoy it. That's nothing more than you aiming to profit at my expense.

 

That's not a suggestion I've made. You choose to buy a license- you need to stand up and take the consequences of your choice, not try to blame someone else for them. If you don't like it, then don't buy a license.

And how do you think the BBC news, or other media arrives on those PCs? HD content recording, video storage, transmission from van to net, high-availability server architecture - those things don't come for free. That's where some of the licence fee goes.

 

The BBC is funded in a way that means it can be advert-free, and state-funding-free, both of which means it can (in theory) be entirely independent. It isn't of course, but that's another problem.

 

Now to be clear, I have previously advocated a BBC set-top box, licence relief for those that are genuinely unable to pay and other relief mechanisms. But this should definitely come along with more rigorous enforcement of those who are simply unwilling to pay.

 

Watch live TV - pay for a licence - don't rely on others to fund it for you. Seems like the decent thing to do.

 

The BBC routinely send out threatening and innacurrate letters (and broadcast threatening and innacurrate campaigns aimed at licence 'evaders')- they have a track record of putting single mothers in jail for license 'evasion'

 

http://www.spiderbomb.com/tv/womenprison.html

 

those women being imprisoned due to accepting the misinformation and lies of the BBC (in reality, if they hadn't swallowed the misinformation and simply not gone along with the BBCs procedures i.e. not let the enforcement officer in, they could not have been taken to court).

 

The BBC have, till quite recently, lead people to believe that anyone with a TV legally requires a license- that is a lie- a license is only legally required if watching live broadcasts (eg DVD can be watched legally on a TV without a license).

 

That's before we touch on the many, many, other issues with the BBC.

 

I wouldn't give £150 for an overpriced licence to a crooked company that routinely lies, misinforms and collects funds by sheer intimidation, when there is no real enforcement and hence no reason to do so: so I won't expect anyone else to either.

 

If you wish to do so, then feel free- it's your choice.

[HbroChris]

That's not a suggestion I've made. You choose to buy a license- you need to stand up and take the consequences of your choice, not try to blame someone else for them. If you don't like it, then don't buy a license.

 

Again Dave, I apologise for selectively quoting but I don't think it dilutes your point of view any.

 

I am required to buy a licence because it's the law. You are also required to buy a licence if you watch live TV.

 

Your reasoning seems to be akin to those who steal TVs from Dixon's during a riot - effectively they'll never get caught so it's obviously fine.

 

Suggesting that I need to "stand up and take the consequences" of complying with the law and not blame those who seek to indulge in criminality, simply because they effectively can get away with it, is so wrong-headed that I don't think we have any common ground for debate.

 

You openly admit to breaking the law and enjoying content that I pay for. You think this is OK. It's not.

 

It's as simple as that. I'm not going to discuss this any more with you.

[TJC1]

Again Dave, I apologise for selectively quoting but I don't think it dilutes your point of view any.

 

I am required to buy a licence because it's the law. You are also required to buy a licence if you watch live TV.

 

Your reasoning seems to be akin to those who steal TVs from Dixon's during a riot - effectively they'll never get caught so it's obviously fine.

 

Suggesting that I need to "stand up and take the consequences" of complying with the law and not blame those who seek to indulge in criminality, simply because they effectively can get away with it, is so wrong-headed that I don't think we have any common ground for debate.

 

You openly admit to breaking the law and enjoying content that I pay for. You think this is OK. It's not.

 

It's as simple as that. I'm not going to discuss this any more with you.

 

By that reckoning, we all have a moral obligation to pay for things even if we don't believe in them. Which is wrong.

For a start, you choose to pay for the license. That's your choice - not onewheeldaves. His choice is not to. Or more to the point - he gives no consent to be governed. Hence, why the license fee is unenforceable.

Regardless, People pay for lots of things they don't have a say in. The royal family springs to mind. I don't believe in that. Still pay it.

 

Health care is another. I've never been to hospital or been seriously ill but I still pay for people who deliberately harm themselves with bad health choices.

 

Am I bothered? not really that's life, get over it.

 

Maybe OnewheelDave will pay for a life saving operation one day, what goes around comes around.

[Longcol]

Health care is another. I've never been to hospital or been seriously ill but I still pay for people who deliberately harm themselves with bad health choices.

 

.

 

And of course you're going to stay fit and healthy for the rest of your natural and never need a visit to a GP or go to hospital. Ever.

[TJC1]

And of course you're going to stay fit and healthy for the rest of your natural and never need a visit to a GP or go to hospital. Ever.

 

Certainly won't have healthcare for a smoking related illness as don't smoke. Someone makes that choice and someone else pays for it.

 

---------- Post added 06-04-2013 at 18:02 ----------

 

So if we all stopped paying license fee, what would happen???

 

Nothing major. The BBC would not exist.

 

There's another 99 channels to choose from.

[Longcol]

Certainly won't have healthcare for a smoking related illness as don't smoke.

 

It may come as a surprise to you but people use the health service for things other than diseases caused by smoking. You will almost certainly use the NHS at some point - I'd probably only been to the doctors once until I reached my '50's.

[TJC1]

It may come as a surprise to you but people use the health service for things other than diseases caused by smoking. You will almost certainly use the NHS at some point - I'd probably only been to the doctors once until I reached my '50's.

 

And so I should be able to.

But I won't use it more than someone with serious illnesses racking up thousands upon thousands of pounds of treatment.

 

What if I want that accumulated millions of pounds spent elsewhere rather than seriously ill people? I don't, but in theory I can't do that can I.

[Longcol]

And so I should be able to.

But I won't use it more than someone with serious illnesses racking up thousands upon thousands of pounds of treatment.

 

How do you know? Are you immune to cancer, degenerative diseases, accidents?