TV Licence required

[drdel]

I didn't say I can't afford it. It just remains an anomaly. I can only watch TV in one place at a time, and I could simultaneously watch tv on a multitude of portable devices, but the moment one of them is plugged into the mains I need two licenses.

So if you have solar panels and not using 'mains' power while watching you'll not need a licence

 

[drdel]

I may not be happy that he might be using an iffy source for watching football- but I am not the keeper of my son's values. And yes there are many who have little money but pay their licence - but I do not know what they watch or do for their viewing - that is their decision. My son regularly runs out of money for his (expensive) gas and electricity meters and for food and has to ask us for help - so I can understand why he might seek ways to cut his outgoings.

And in case you missed it, I indicated that I would probably pay his licence fee for him in any case...hopefully things will pick up and he'd be able to afford it in the future.

I have no idea of your son's situation, (which is none of my business) but being hard nosed for a moment, I'd suggest that if the cost of the licence (equivalent to a pint a week) is such a major deal a few fundamental changes need to be made on priorities.

 

[Wolf]

I may not be happy that he might be using an iffy source for watching football- but I am not the keeper of my son's values. And yes there are many who have little money but pay their licence - but I do not know what they watch or do for their viewing - that is their decision. My son regularly runs out of money for his (expensive) gas and electricity meters and for food and has to ask us for help - so I can understand why he might seek ways to cut his outgoings.

And in case you missed it, I indicated that I would probably pay his licence fee for him in any case...hopefully things will pick up and he'd be able to afford it in the future.

Then harsh as it sounds if your son is regularly struggling for money rather than justifying actions perhaps he should be seeking alternative income than continue to work in an industry where he continues to have zero income. No it isn't peoples choice to pay licence fee its their legal obligation as is your sons if he wants to watch live games. Harsh in my opinion maybe but factually correct.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I have no idea of your son's situation, (which is none of my business) but being hard nosed for a moment, I'd suggest that if the cost of the licence (equivalent to a pint a week) is such a major deal a few fundamental changes need to be made on priorities.

His priorities are keeping a roof over his head, heating and power, and food on the table. Bit difficult to make much in the way of fundamental changes to these. Such are the pressures of living on a very low income and not claiming benefits (I don't think I mentioned that he didn't want to be a burden on the state and so struggles on without). I have these last few days encouraged him to claim benefits he is due and using some of that money he can pay his TV Licence.

 

[Swinglowandslow]

Then harsh as it sounds if your son is regularly struggling for money rather than justifying actions perhaps he should be seeking alternative income than continue to work in an industry where he continues to have zero income. No it isn't peoples choice to pay licence fee its their legal obligation as is your sons if he wants to watch live games. Harsh in my opinion maybe but factually correct.

This whole business of it being illegal to watch TV without a licence is wrong. As things stand, the law being what it is, yes , it is not legal or right to watch TVs without a licence.
However, having to have a licence is wrong.
Imagine for a moment that there is no BBC and no licence needed to watch TV Just itv channels and sky subscription etc.
A knock at the door reveals a chap offering you to able to watch some tv channels called BBC, and the cost is £154.50 per annum. You say you'll think about it, he says the channels are excellent etc etc, then goes on to say
It's not as simple as that- you have to pay that amount whether you watch the BBC channels or not.:if you watch other channels on your TV you'll have to still pay the BBC £154.50. And if you don't pay you'll be taken to a criminal court charged with a criminal offence, and fined.
Possibly jailed.

Unbelievable you'd say- But that's what the situation presently obtaining, amounts to.
Hopefully this Government will remove the "tv licence" and let the BBC sell its wares on the open market.
That is the morally correct thing to do.
Whether you are the greatest fan of the quality of the BBC output, there is no moral defence if the present method of funding the BBC Tv. If

 

[Wolf]

This whole business of it being illegal to watch TV without a licence is wrong. As things stand, the law being what it is, yes , it is not legal or right to watch TVs without a licence.
However, having to have a licence is wrong.
Imagine for a moment that there is no BBC and no licence needed to watch TV Just itv channels and sky subscription etc.
A knock at the door reveals a chap offering you to able to watch some tv channels called BBC, and the cost is £154.50 per annum. You say you'll think about it, he says the channels are excellent etc etc, then goes on to say
It's not as simple as that- you have to pay that amount whether you watch the BBC channels or not.:if you watch other channels on your TV you'll have to still pay the BBC £154.50. And if you don't pay you'll be taken to a criminal court charged with a criminal offence, and fined.
Possibly jailed.

Unbelievable you'd say- But that's what the situation presently obtaining, amounts to.
Hopefully this Government will remove the "tv licence" and let the BBC sell its wares on the open market.
That is the morally correct thing to do.
Whether you are the greatest fan of the quality of the BBC output, there is no moral defence if the present method of funding the BBC Tv. If

That is something i do agree on, I've always thought licence fee should be scrapped I've even mentioned it earlier in this thread. But as it stands we have all have to pay it whether we like it or not..

But until someone does bin it and bbc goes open market like all other broadcasters everyone should abide by the legislation.

 

[Deleted member 25172]

Brian , In Spain are you required to have a TV licence , is it up to you or the property owner , or is there such a thing as a TV licence in Spain ?

In Sweden, everyone that has a income has to pay a tv-license tax since last year wether you even have a tv or not. It’s absolutely insane.
In a household with say 2 adults and 2 kids living at home but working, all of them would pay tv-licenses individually on their taxes.

 

[backwoodsman]

Hmmm. Spoke with my son and let's just say he doesn't use any of the 'standard' ways of watching live football. So is pretty adamant that he doesn't need a licence...and given his dire financial situation I don't blame him for taking that view.

The site I looked at says "... Live TV means any programme you watch or record as it’s being shown on TV or live on any online TV service ..." It goes on to say "An online TV service is any streaming or smart TV service, website or app that lets you watch live TV over the internet".

Setting aside anything to do with standard/non-standard or legal/non-legal methods, I'd say the above wording is pretty much a catch all? After all, are there any ways you can watch live TV that don't involve a TV aerial or some kind of online service. (I don't think you can get live TV by post or by carrier pigeon?)

 

[Colonel Bogey]

The site I looked at says "... Live TV means any programme you watch or record as it’s being shown on TV or live on any online TV service ..." It goes on to say "An online TV service is any streaming or smart TV service, website or app that lets you watch live TV over the internet".

Setting aside anything to do with standard/non-standard or legal/non-legal methods, I'd say the above wording is pretty much a catch all? After all, are there any ways you can watch live TV that don't involve a TV aerial or some kind of online service. (I don't think you can get live TV by post or by carrier pigeon?)

Yup. I've tried to find a way of justifying not paying this for years to the wife but the above covers piggin everything. If you watch ANY LIVE TV you've gotta stump up. It's wrong, very wrong. The BBC is utter poo! And advertises itself on it's channels so is advertising. WTF ???????

 

[Hacker Khan]

This whole business of it being illegal to watch TV without a licence is wrong. As things stand, the law being what it is, yes , it is not legal or right to watch TVs without a licence.
However, having to have a licence is wrong.
Imagine for a moment that there is no BBC and no licence needed to watch TV Just itv channels and sky subscription etc.
A knock at the door reveals a chap offering you to able to watch some tv channels called BBC, and the cost is £154.50 per annum. You say you'll think about it, he says the channels are excellent etc etc, then goes on to say
It's not as simple as that- you have to pay that amount whether you watch the BBC channels or not.:if you watch other channels on your TV you'll have to still pay the BBC £154.50. And if you don't pay you'll be taken to a criminal court charged with a criminal offence, and fined.
Possibly jailed.

Unbelievable you'd say- But that's what the situation presently obtaining, amounts to.
Hopefully this Government will remove the "tv licence" and let the BBC sell its wares on the open market.
That is the morally correct thing to do.
Whether you are the greatest fan of the quality of the BBC output, there is no moral defence if the present method of funding the BBC Tv. If

I would argue there is a moral defense in that it depends how much you value culture, the arts and the ability of a broadcaster or media outlet to make output that is not behest to the commercial needs of advertisers or for that broadcaster to be owned by billionaires who do not live in this country and have very specific agendas they want to promote.

We fund the NHS and state education service in much the same way in that we all pay into the pot and you are not charged relating to how much you use it. You can go private in health and education but you are still paying for the NHS and state schools. And some people see the BBC as important to the cultural well being of the nation as the NHS is to the health of the nation. As a nation we would not be where we are culturally and informed, educated and entertained if it was not for the BBC, and that is important to some people.

 

[Swinglowandslow]

I would argue there is a moral defense in that it depends how much you value culture, the arts and the ability of a broadcaster or media outlet to make output that is not behest to the commercial needs of advertisers or for that broadcaster to be owned by billionaires who do not live in this country and have very specific agendas they want to promote.

We fund the NHS and state education service in much the same way in that we all pay into the pot and you are not charged relating to how much you use it. You can go private in health and education but you are still paying for the NHS and state schools. And some people see the BBC as important to the cultural well being of the nation as the NHS is to the health of the nation. As a nation we would not be where we are culturally and informed, educated and entertained if it was not for the BBC, and that is important to some people.

Are you seriously trying to tell us that the BBC is a standard (higher)apart from the other channels?
I venture to suggest that the system ,when it started as the only broadcaster , lent itself to that manner of funding, but not now, not when they are thought by many to be no better, and by some to be politically biased ( towards your leaning, perhaps?)
In any event, I dont think your defence of the quality, ahem, of the BBC can justify the immorality of jailing people for failing to pay for an entertainment they do not watch and do not wish to watch.
Entertainment is a whole different world away from comparison with the NHS

 

[Ye Olde Boomer]

My daughter explained this to me when she was in school in London.

In addition to paying any cable or satellite subscriptions that you have, you must pay for a license to watch over-the-air TV.
I assume it's because you have something the equivalent of which we don't have, commercial free BBC broadcasts.

We have Public Broadcasting, but it gets very little government funding and exists on private grants and viewer contributions.

If you have multiple television monitors in your home, are you required to pay for a separate license for each one?

 

[Hacker Khan]

Are you seriously trying to tell us that the BBC is a standard (higher)apart from the other channels?
I venture to suggest that the system ,when it started as the only broadcaster , lent itself to that manner of funding, but not now, not when they are thought by many to be no better, and by some to be politically biased ( towards your leaning, perhaps?)
In any event, I dont think your defence of the quality, ahem, of the BBC can justify the immorality of jailing people for failing to pay for an entertainment they do not watch and do not wish to watch.
Entertainment is a whole different world away from comparison with the NHS

Yes in that it is not dependent on external commercial influence. Watch the news in the US if you want to go down that path.

And what would the political bias of the BBC be? You will find a wide range of opinions depending on who you get your news from. Personally I think it sometimes screws up on both sides trying to please everyone. But that is better than sponsored propaganda.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Yes in that it is not dependent on external commercial influence. Watch the news in the US if you want to go down that path.

And what would the political bias of the BBC be? You will find a wide range of opinions depending on who you get your news from. Personally I think it sometimes screws up on both sides trying to please everyone. But that is better than sponsored propaganda.

After being irritated too often by Laura Kuenssberg we now watch the ITV news at 10. Very much equivalent in standard to the BBC and yet not funded by the licence fee. I occasionally watch sky news and that is highly respectable as well. It is possible to get a decent standard outside of auntie.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Watch Fox News for nice balanced reporting about Trump and the Dems ...ahem...at least MSNBC and CNN try and lay out the facts...

 

[Swinglowandslow]

Watch Fox News for nice balanced reporting about Trump and the Dems ...ahem...at least MSNBC and CNN try and lay out the facts...

So, your point is what? That people should be forced to have BBC on their televisions because it has a different bias than other channels?
I am advocating choice. If someone, for example, chooses not to have BBC but has ITV channels, and Sky channels, then they have itv1 news, Channel 4 news, channel5 news, Sky news, CNN news, Euro news to watch. Any or all of those.
So, again, what is your point?
Can't you see you are arguing for force against an individual's right to choose.
Let me be clear. If someone didn't pay the charge made by BBC tv ( by circumventing subscription charges, or however BBC collected their revenue, ) and then still watched the BBC then they should be criminally dealt with.
But it should be the choice of each adult in this free nation not to have to pay for a commercial service or product they do not use.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

So, your point is what? That people should be forced to have BBC on their televisions because it has a different bias than other channels?
I am advocating choice. If someone, for example, chooses not to have BBC but has ITV channels, and Sky channels, then they have itv1 news, Channel 4 news, channel5 news, Sky news, CNN news, Euro news to watch. Any or all of those.
So, again, what is your point?
Can't you see you are arguing for force against an individual's right to choose.
Let me be clear. If someone didn't pay the charge made by BBC tv ( by circumventing subscription charges, or however BBC collected their revenue, ) and then still watched the BBC then they should be criminally dealt with.
But it should be the choice of each adult in this free nation not to have to pay for a commercial service or product they do not use.

If you watch Fox News you might understand the risk to our politics of having seriously biased news coverage. Relative to FN, the BBC is not seriously biased. Indeed as all sides of the political spectrum seem to think the BBC and/or some of it's commentators are biased, then it's coverage is perhaps somewhere down the middle. If I want to hear bias in reporting on any of the news channels I can hear it...

 

[Ye Olde Boomer]

My daughter explained this to me when she was in school in London.

In addition to paying any cable or satellite subscriptions that you have, you must pay for a license to watch over-the-air TV.
I assume it's because you have something the equivalent of which we don't have, commercial free BBC broadcasts.

We have Public Broadcasting, but it gets very little government funding and exists on private grants and viewer contributions.

If you have multiple television monitors in your home, are you required to pay for a separate license for each one?

I'm quoting myself merely to request an answer on that last question. Thanks.

 

[bobmac]

I'm quoting myself merely to request an answer on that last question. Thanks.

No

 

[Ye Olde Boomer]

No

Thanks, bobmac.