Why does anyone pay their TV license?

[MASSEY]

These videos are funny!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoZAkZLphJ8&feature=plcp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7O2o7G3HAHQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jrh5lPPipJs&feature=plcp

3 above are the same guy getting knocked 3 times.


There's an ad infront of this one but its funny

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlzIrJNyTec

 

[truereddevil]

So does this mean we don't have to pay our tv license

 

[MASSEY]

So does this mean we don't have to pay our tv license

It appears that all the TVL (TV License) people are able to do is ask you questions of which you have no requirement to answer.

According to these vids you don't even have to let them in! And you can remove their access to your private property meaning they can't ring your bell or knock your door.

 

[Consistency]

That may have worked some years ago but I think things are changing in order to even things out.

Most of us now have digital TV and therefore we pay a bill to a TV service provider. When I last renewed my contract I recall agreeing that my details would be shared with Television Licensing Agency or whatever it's called.

 

[MASSEY]

Most of us now have digital TV and therefore we pay a bill to a TV service provider. When I last renewed my contract I recall agreeing that my details would be shared with Television Licensing Agency or whatever it's called.

You obliged to do that though.

From what it seems even if they know who lives in the property unless someone there admits to being called that name then the tvl can't move forward.

 

[Consistency]

I am not too sure. I have got one. Could it be that whoevers name is on the bill as being responsible for the TV service, then obviously lives at that address and therefore they are liable if there is not a TV licence on record for that address as there is proof that a TV is being used at that address?

 

[MASSEY]

I am not too sure. I have got one. Could it be that whoevers name is on the bill as being responsible for the TV service, then obviously lives at that address and therefore they are liable if there is not a TV licence on record for that address as there is proof that a TV is being used at that address?

Nah, look at this guy, he has a sky dish on his house http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nyGDzFOydA&feature=related

This guy pretends not to be the guy who he is asking for
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K_wsRGRCik&feature=related

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

That may have worked some years ago but I think things are changing in order to even things out.

Most of us now have digital TV and therefore we pay a bill to a TV service provider. When I last renewed my contract I recall agreeing that my details would be shared with Television Licensing Agency or whatever it's called.

I believe that a TV license is only required if you physically watch or record television broadcasts. Having the means to do it (either by having a television in the home or even paying for digital TV) isn't conclusive proof that you're actually using it. Even the BBC have stated that you don't need a license if you simply own a TV receiver.

Some interesting information from Wikipedia:

TV Licensing enforces the BBC's statutory obligation to ensure that every address where a television licence is required is correctly licensed,[50] but its agents have no special rights and, like any other member of the public, rely on an implied right of access to reach the front door.[62][64] The occupants may deny an agent entry to the premises[65] without cause and are under no obligation to answer any questions or enter into any conversation. If an agent has evidence that television is being watched or recorded illegally but is denied entry by the occupants so that (s)he cannot verify the suspicion without trespassing, then TV Licensing may apply to a magistrate for a search warrant, but the use of such warrants is rare.[52] The BBC states that a search warrant would never be applied for solely on the basis of non-cooperation with TV Licensing[62][66] and that in the event of being denied access to unlicensed property will use detection equipment rather than a search warrant.[65]

But then when it comes to detection equipment:

No data from technology claimed to detect television signals has ever been used as court evidence,[57] and the existence of such devices is thought by some to be unlikely.

So I'm not sure if they actually have any means of prosecuting at all.

 

[Root 66 Woodshop]

I've been asking this question ever since "standard TV" went out the window and everyone went Digital.

We have to pay to watch TV twice! - We pay Sky, BT, Virgin Media (and any others that you can think of) to be able to watch X amount of channels... those that don't pay to watch X amount of channels watch the "FREE" channels... Well, no they don't... they still have to pay for a TV license therefore how can they be "FREE" channels? - All those that pay for the above aforementioned quantity of X channels pay twice to watch it... Ludicrous isn't it?

 

[Miliponce]

It's only £145 for the whole year, it's people who don't pay who are killing the bbc which I believe is a wonderful service!!

 

[Root 66 Woodshop]

Hi Mili, Welcome to the Forums.

It may well only cost £145 per year, but add that to your existing Sky/Virgin/BT Media packages... why should we "have" to pay to watch TV twice?

 

[CherylDavis]

I agree. I think the TV Licence is an outrage. I don't even watch BBC. I think it should be supported by advertising like the rest, they advertise stuff covertly all the time.

£145 is a lot of money to most people.

 

It's only £145 for the whole year, it's people who don't pay who are killing the bbc which I believe is a wonderful service!!

For five year olds.

 

[Newcott]

These videos are funny!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoZAkZLphJ8&feature=plcp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7O2o7G3HAHQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jrh5lPPipJs&feature=plcp

3 above are the same guy getting knocked 3 times.


There's an ad infront of this one but its funny

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlzIrJNyTec

Pah you couldn't of linked to some of my videos

 

[I Love Spreadsheets]

Why does the guy always answer his door with a TV camera running? Who or what is he expecting at the door all the time?

It seems he knows he has a TV and no TV licence so he is trying to get away with it with intimidation and ignorance (ignorance is no legal defence)

From what I understand they will eventually return with a search warrant, he will then go to court and it will end up costing him thousands in fines. I suspect he wont video any of that though. If they have proof he has purchased a TV under that address they may not even need a warrant and it is up to him to prove it is not there and not in use. At which point when he starts denying his identity etc he starts commiting criminal offences and could face jail time.

The licence is £145, is it good value? I guess that is down to the individual and what they watch / listen to. But they are doing lots to reduce or to keep the fees at that level and not shooting upwards.

For example channels like UK Gold are partly owned by the BBC and they get a lot of money from the advertising. They then get money from DVD sales and exporting programs like Dr Who. Without which the licence fee would probably be £200+.

I personally believe the core elements of the BBC (BBC 1, BBC 2, Radio 1, 2, 3 & 4) should remain commercial free to ensure quality TV and radio still exists in the UK. (As long as a couple of channels can still produce quality TV all the other channels will try to keep up - Look at countries where there is no state TV)

However, the smaller more niche channels and local BBC radio stations should be commercialised.

 

[quikshop]

£145 is a lot of money to most people.

Is it :|

Make 'em cut out the takeaway food, fags and booze to pay their bl00dy licence then

 

[The Salfordian]

Even the BBC have stated that you don't need a license if you simply own a TV receiver.

No they like to mislead people so they make as much money as possible, they presume everyone is guilty unless they have a BBC TV Licence.

What if I only use a TV to watch videos/DVDs/as a monitor for my games console? Do I still need a licence?

You do not need a TV Licence if you only use your TV to watch videos and DVDs or as a monitor for your games console.

So I'm not sure if they actually have any means of prosecuting at all.

They rely on naive people setting themselves up but I have heard of innocent people being setup. They've allowed the BBC goon inside to show them they don't own a TV and signed the form. The BBC goon has then gone off and falsified the statement so it looks like the person admits his/her guilt but because the form is signed they stand no chance of winning.


The problem is the BBC goons are sales and have harsh targets to hit and they get commission for every victim they get!

They also have a lot of the magistrate courts on board via brainwashing them with free propaganda magazines and courses all paid for by the BBC TV Licence

This magistrate talks about it

EDIT: This site wont allow me to post the link to the Justice of the peace blog which mentions the magazines and courses

they still have to pay for a TV license therefore how can they be "FREE" channels? - All those that pay for the above aforementioned quantity of X channels pay twice to watch it... Ludicrous isn't it?

ITV, Ch4 etc say they're free because they are however the BBC demands you fund them before you can watch the free ones which are nothing to do with them

 

[MASSEY]

The license isn't just for the BBC, it just so happens that the BBC are part of making sure that anyone who has a tv and watches it pays a license.

The detection equipment seems to be a pile of rubbish.

Two house stuck together. How can they tell which property is watching the TV? They can't...

Sadly for TVL the information is all over the internet now. They have no power what so ever. If you have a TV and are paying a license you are doing so because you want to not because you have to.

It's only £145 for the whole year, it's people who don't pay who are killing the bbc which I believe is a wonderful service!!

Wonderful.... I don't think so.

 

[I Love Spreadsheets]

Sadly for TVL the information is all over the internet now. They have no power what so ever. If you have a TV and are paying a license you are doing so because you want to not because you have to.

Paying a licence is a legal requirement, people pay it because its the law not because someone is forcing them to.

Same with TAX, I could go on the run from the tax man and not pay any tax - that way no one can "make" me pay. I pay because it is what is legally required of me.

You may not like the BBC's output but I bet there isnt a day that goes by without you using their services or consuming their content. Even if you dont watch any of their channels or listen to their radio stations, their content is all over the place. They also maintain a lot of the facilities that ensure that you get the TV signals and radio signals that your want to watch.

BTW - It is not the BBC that collects the TV Licence its the government who are currently collecting it via Capita. Its the tactics of Capita that is in question at the moment.

BTW - It is a licence to receive TV and radio signals from any source, not just the BBC. It is not a subscription to the BBC.

 

[MASSEY]

Paying a licence is a legal requirement, people pay it because its the law not because someone is forcing them to.

Same with TAX, I could go on the run from the tax man and not pay any tax - that way no one can "make" me pay. I pay because it is what is legally required of me.

It is an act, not a law. Therefore your tax analogy is wrong.

If you deny the tax inspectors should they have a query the police can come and get you.

If you deny the tv license should they have a query they can't do anything...

The capita people act as if the tv license is a law but as we can see in these videos it is clearly not the case.

BTW - It is not the BBC that collects the TV Licence its the government who are currently collecting it via Capita. Its the tactics of Capita that is in question at the moment.

I know that. The letters you get sent have the BBC stamped all over them though. The letters that claim they can get a warrant for the "legal occupier".

BTW - It is a licence to receive TV and radio signals from any source, not just the BBC. It is not a subscription to the BBC.

I already pointed that out in my last post.

 

Paying a licence is a legal requirement, people pay it because its the law not because someone is forcing them to.

There may be a fine distinction .

But I am buggered if I can see it.

 

[The Salfordian]

The license isn't just for the BBC, it just so happens that the BBC are part of making sure that anyone who has a tv and watches it pays a license.

No the BBC own the trademark and are overall in charge as their website admits.

The detection equipment seems to be a pile of rubbish.

One thing is for sure, it wouldn't be able to tell if someone is watching live feeds or watching a DVD.............even playing a games console.

This may be why the TV detector evidence has never been used in a british court of law.

Sadly for TVL the information is all over the internet now. They have no power what so ever. If you have a TV and are paying a license you are doing so because you want to not because you have to.

No you'll find a lot of naive people out there who have been indoctrinated by the BBC over the years.

One guy I spoke to wouldn't get broadband because he truly believed a BBC TV Licence was needed for that, I gave up trying to explain it wasn't.

 

[The Salfordian]

Paying a licence is a legal requirement, people pay it because its the law not because someone is forcing them to.

Only if they receive live feeds and even then we all know it was only created as a means of funding he Biased Broadcasting Corporation.............What next a newspapers tax to subsidise the Guardian for them?

You may not like the BBC's output but I bet there isnt a day that goes by without you using their services or consuming their content.

Holds hands up and shouts "I would rather be forced to read the Guardian after 21yrs of being harassed, threatened and intimidated by the BBC"

That reminds me I'm due my monthly threatogram from them

They also maintain a lot of the facilities that ensure that you get the TV signals and radio signals that your want to watch.

No thats a well known BBC pitch too but the Muxes are privately owned by companies like SDN and crowncastle dot com who pay taxes to operate them too!

BTW - It is not the BBC that collects the TV Licence its the government who are currently collecting it via Capita. Its the tactics of Capita that is in question at the moment.

Wrong yet again,

The BBC have been given the job of collecting their own money but want Joe Public to think they're nothing to do with it. They give Capita hundreds of millions to collect it but remain overall in charge

Who we are

'TV Licensing' is a trade mark of the BBC and is used under licence by companies contracted by the BBC to administer the collection of the television licence fees and enforcement of the television licensing system.

The BBC is a public authority in respect of its television licensing functions and retains overall responsibility.

BTW - It is a licence to receive TV and radio signals from any source, not just the BBC. It is not a subscription to the BBC.

We both know it is because you cannot watch any live feeds until you've been forced to pay for the BBC first

 

[CherylDavis]

Is it :|

Make 'em cut out the takeaway food, fags and booze to pay their bl00dy licence then

I don't smoke, I don't drink, I don't buy takeaway food and I think it is a lot of money. If you don't earn much it is a lot of money. The beniefits people are not the poor it is the ones who go to work who are and earn less than £15,000

 

[The Salfordian]

Is it :|

Make 'em cut out the takeaway food, fags and booze to pay their bl00dy licence then

"their licence" :| are you suggesting because a certain section of the public like having people forced to subsidise their entertainment that we should all love it ?

 

[FreelanceSoftwareDeveloper]

I've heard people rant about them before, mainly because they act above their station, fake police similar to the RSPCA.

I'm sure I read that 98% of homes have TV, I think that is quite a low percentage to go around with the attitude that "you must have a TV".

I had a visit from them recently, apparently my direct debit had been cancelled and I hadn't paid them since March, I had nothing to hide though, I have a TV and went through the paperwork to set it up again. What really annoyed me though was at one point he read me my rights like a police officer, "you have the right to remain silent, anything you do say...".

Can't stand the BBC though, as a sports fan they ruin everything with cringeworthy features and dull uninformed commentary. They will dull down the Golf this week, maybe use their expert professional cricketer Michael Vaughan again! The Rugby coverage this weekend was pretty terrible, had to turn over at one point before the Wigan match as some stupid "Waynes World" feature was embarrassing to watch. I'm sure they will do their best to ensure the Olympics are as dull as possible too.

 

[MASSEY]

I had a visit from them recently, apparently my direct debit had been cancelled and I hadn't paid them since March, I had nothing to hide though, I have a TV and went through the paperwork to set it up again. What really annoyed me though was at one point he read me my rights like a police officer, "you have the right to remain silent, anything you do say..."..

That's disgusting.

They have no right to read you your rights.

I guess he was egging you into signing the bit of paper that gets him money.

 

[MASSEY]

I don't smoke, I don't drink, I don't buy takeaway food and I think it is a lot of money. If you don't earn much it is a lot of money. The beniefits people are not the poor it is the ones who go to work who are and earn less than £15,000

To be honest, the average salary in the UK is around 25k.

The average person in this country is by no means rich. Something like 150 pounds a year on a tv license is a drain on their money.

 

[ukbdf]

Well I'm currently sat in our holiday home with no TV licence, we only watch DVD's and the TV isn't connected to any aerial or dish so we can't get a signal. However despite telling them this time and again every time we turn up here there is another letter with threats of all sorts. I eagerly await their promised visit and investigation and their waste of money in doing so because they won't believe we don't watch live TV.

They could save thousands on investigations if they just checked the Council tax which is registered as a holiday home, and the electoral roll which shows no one lives here.

 

To be honest, the average salary in the UK is around 25k.

That figure is hardly relevant ,its what people take home that counts.

 

[ukbdf]

That figure is hardly relevant ,its what people take home that counts.

What? Do you mean the unemployed that are being limited now to a tax free sum of £26k? Your right it's disgraceful that unemployment can pay more than the average wage.

 

What? Do you mean the unemployed that are being limited now to a tax free sum of £26k? Your right it's disgraceful that unemployment can pay more than the average wage.

Whats disgraceful is the cost of living ,400k for a dump in London.

Why is it that people tend to take it out on the unemployed.

They did not design the system.

Did they?:|

 

[ukbdf]

Whats disgraceful is the cost of living ,400k for a dump in London.

Why is it that people tend to take it out on the unemployed.

They did not design the system.

Did they?:|

Simply because they shouldn't be able to claim 30% more than the average worker brinks home, that's just not right.

Social Security should be providing what it needs a family to live on, about £600 a month would cover that with rent/rates paid. You don't get the luxuries unless you work for them - the clue is in the description!

 

Social Security should be providing what it needs a family to live on, about £600 a month would cover that with rent/rates paid. You don't get the luxuries unless you work for them -

You are not serious,most of the people I know who enjoy lifes little luxuries certainly dont work for them.

Very few in the UK have to work to earn a living.IMHO

 

[FreelanceSoftwareDeveloper]

That's disgusting.

They have no right to read you your rights.

I guess he was egging you into signing the bit of paper that gets him money.

I had nothing to hide, didn't realise there was an issue and was happily going through the paperwork with him to get everything setup again. It just annoyed me as using the exact wording you hear on Brit Cops and Road Wars can only be an intimidation tactic to make them sound above their station. The reason why some people are adamant to challenge them as the OP showed.

When I thought about it I suppose he was right, I had no obligation to tell him anything and anything I did say he could report back and they may use that to take me to court etc but it just sounded wrong using the police wording.

 

[ukbdf]

You are not serious,most of the people I know who enjoy lifes little luxuries certainly dont work for them.

Very few in the UK have to work to earn a living.IMHO

Be realistic Earl Son. The £26k is well above the average take home pay of the average worker. Never should the un-unemployed take home more than the employed.

Actually reading your post again perhaps we agree!

 

[Root 66 Woodshop]

I had a visit from them recently, apparently my direct debit had been cancelled and I hadn't paid them since March, I had nothing to hide though, I have a TV and went through the paperwork to set it up again. What really annoyed me though was at one point he read me my rights like a police officer, "you have the right to remain silent, anything you do say...".

Wait a minute... and you didn't pick up the phone and call the police informing them that someone was currently in your home impersonating a Police officer?



If any Schmo actually tried that with me, that's the first thing I'd be doing.

 

[Team Leith Training]

I do think it a little unfair that people pay over the odds for Sky or Virgin Media and are expected to pay for a TV license as well.

The money goes to the BBC, who tbh, in my view i think do an ace job.
It would be fairer if the media companies like virgin were to pay the license fee on behalf of their customers, rather than expecting people to pay twice for their already over inflatedly priced TV programs.

It does not personally bother me as we have freeview anyway. So am happy to pay for the license as we dont pay for anything else.
Before we had kids we never bothered as our viewing was Iplayer, ITV player, or a vid off Itunes. TV was not watched.
Even now its seems to be Ceebeebies on most of the day

 

[The Salfordian]

The money goes to the BBC, who tbh, in my view i think do an ace job.

That's lucky for you really because if you wish to watch live tv you don't have a choice about funding them

It would be fairer if the media companies like virgin were to pay the license fee on behalf of their customers, rather than expecting people to pay twice for their already over inflatedly priced TV programs.

Why should they be paying for the BBC. Don't you think a much fairer system would be for those like you to pay the BBC via a voluntary subscription, after all the BBC are so great everyone would subscribe.................................................I'd personally give the BBC 6 months to live.

It does not personally bother me as we have freeview anyway. So am happy to pay for the license as we dont pay for anything else.

I can't have freeview because I don't pay the BBC, it would be nice to watch the genuine FTA channels but the BBC don't agree.

 

[Team Leith Training]

Would you really, only give them 6 months to live?

Mate you need to wake up, they host childrens ceebebies, BBc Stargazing live. Dont they also host master chef.
Its the other junk that i am surpised survives. Channel five, 4 etc.