TV Licensing & Iqor Recovery - Threats to pass to DCA for TV Licence not yet due!!

[Staraker]

Purely because if the truth be known, they have no way of knowing who is watching live broadcasts and who isn't, they have no detection equipment be it hand held or in one of their fictional detector vans.

Oh dear, not the old 'TVdetection is a myth' conspiracy theory? There's no secret to the science involved in detecting a local oscillator at work, even if it's not relied on as much as it used to be.

[Staraker]

The TVL is solely for the purpose of funding the BBC, not commercial TV. So called popularity does not constitute quality, if you think watching chefs skate on ice or filming a man doing his job of work is decent out put then we must agree to disagree, it is the lowest common denominator, cheap TV. What commercial channels do is their business, no one pays for them, they live or die by advertising. The BBC is funded by a tax , therefore has a duty to provide , or at least attempt to provide a programming schedule that should seek to set standards, inform , educate as well as entertain. It clearly lost its way a long time ago. I am not getting into an argument with you or bothering to reply again, a thoroughly rotten & morally bankrupt organisation that should have its funding re modelled or be put out to grass.

 

Why judge a broadcaster on the lowest standard of its output? You might as well condemn ITV and Channel 4 solely on the basis of dross like 'I'm a Celebrity' and 'Big brother'. Clearly if all you know about the BBC is the stuff you think is beneath you, then obviously you don't watch BBC2, BBC4, or indeed BBC1 outside of a few peak hours programmes, so aren't in a position to make such a judgement.

 

We also most certainly do pay for the commercial channels, since their funding is ultimately composed of a percentage of the prices that we pay for the goods/services that they advertise.

Edited April 10, 2013 by citizenB
Please keep things civil

[Horsen]

[quote=Bazooka Boo;4199349

 

All they have is a list of addresses in the UK that tells them who has a licence, and who doesn't, if you needed a licence then you would be made to purchase one at the point of sale of a TV.

 

H i bazooka. How would that work? Many people have more than 1 T.V. in their homes which are bought at different times. Plus if people pay with cash how would they know if the address given was correct or even existed. People might be giving wrong addresses now if they pay cash. Can you imagine the queues at PC Curry World if they had to provide multiple forms of ID and proof of address.

[snowy101]

A message to Staraker.

 

Nothing in my post you have quoted was insulting or personal. Might i suggest you edit your reply & stop being insulting or i will report the post to the moderators. No one minds a discussion with differing opinions but i won`t allow you to be rude & drag the topic down for people who want advice. I can see you are on the topic as i type, i would appreciate you amending the post ASAP . Thank you.

[ncm-000]

they have no detection equipment be it hand held or in one of their fictional detector vans.

 

I am a bit out of the loop nowadays but back in the day then 'detector vans' certainly existed and worked, they used DF techniques and locked onto the IF Oscillator which is a transmitter.

Now the new digital systems may be different but I think they still use ID oscillators so they can detect if the progam beilg watched is being received by the Aerial or via the Internet ( no RF/IF for the internet).

 

Then of course I could go into the whole 'Tempest' scene.

[Old Cogger]

Be honest any programmes on BBC and most other channels are all repeates!

[Mark my words]

Oh dear, not the old 'TVdetection is a myth' conspiracy theory? There's no secret to the science involved in detecting a local oscillator at work, even if it's not relied on as much as it used to be.

 

Not relied upon at all - in the sense that the evidence has never been used in Court.

 

The other fact we know (that the BBC went all the way to the ICO to avoid disclosing how many detectors there are in use) makes it very likely that the number is very small, or zero. There can be no other explanation.

 

TVL simply knocks on doors - that is what it does 3 million+ times a year. The wise occupant does not acknowledge them, does not speak to them.

[Guest]

I have to admit that when I read on their website that they wont disclose about the equipment etc it kinda made me think that too.

[Mark my words]

I have to admit that when I read on their website that they wont disclose about the equipment etc it kinda made me think that too.

 

In truth, they probably don't need it. As long as there is a (metaphorical) queue of 400,000 people, all waiting to cleanse their souls and confess to the men & women with clipboards, why would they risk getting their expensive detectors dirty - that unicorn dung can be a pain to get out, too.

[Bazooka Boo]

Plus I really can't be wasting my time arguing why or why not you need a licence.

 

I know what I know, and I have all the information I need to make an informed decision not to buy a TV licence, if others feel obliged to do so, then that is entirely your their decision.

 

Once again this emotive subject has deteriorated into a 'my dads bigger than your dad' argument. I am happy to impart what knowledge I have on this issue, having researched it for a number of years, what you choose to do with that information is again entirely up to you.

 

Instead of picking holes and splitting hairs in other peoples advice, why not do a bit of research first, before repeating the mantra we have all been fed over the years?

 

For that reason "I'm out".

[Bazooka Boo]

The other fact we know (that the BBC went all the way to the ICO to avoid disclosing how many detectors there are in use) makes it very likely that the number is very small, or zero. There can be no other explanation.

 

There are exactly ZERO!

The BBC has a fleet of 16 vans on lease from a company, but these 'vans' are simply minibuses...

[Staraker]

A message to Staraker.

 

Nothing in my post you have quoted was insulting or personal. Might i suggest you edit your reply & stop being insulting or i will report the post to the moderators. No one minds a discussion with differing opinions but i won`t allow you to be rude & drag the topic down for people who want advice. I can see you are on the topic as i type, i would appreciate you amending the post ASAP . Thank you.

 

So you offering your skewed opinion of the BBC did not 'drag the topic down for people who want advice' in the first place? If you think that pointing out the logical flaws in what you claimed constitutes an 'insult', then that says more about you than me.

Edited April 10, 2013 by Staraker

[Staraker]

Plus I really can't be wasting my time arguing why or why not you need a licence.

 

I know what I know, and I have all the information I need to make an informed decision not to buy a TV licence, if others feel obliged to do so, then that is entirely your their decision.

 

Once again this emotive subject has deteriorated into a 'my dads bigger than your dad' argument. I am happy to impart what knowledge I have on this issue, having researched it for a number of years, what you choose to do with that information is again entirely up to you.

 

Instead of picking holes and splitting hairs in other peoples advice, why not do a bit of research first, before repeating the mantra we have all been fed over the years?

 

For that reason "I'm out".

 

The problem with this debate is that there are basically three groups of people, the first being those who recognise that they require a TV licence and so have one, and the second those who genuinely don't need one. I have every sympathy for the latter if they get improperly hassled by TVL, and which happily advice them on how they should deal with them (including before the fact). Unfortunately there is a third group of people who should have a licence, but don't, and seem to revel in both poisoning the debate, and counter-productively 'advising' those in that second group to behave in a way that is guaranteed to wind TVL up.

[Old Cogger]

T YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE TV LICENCE AND iPLAYER

WHO NEEDS A TV LICENCE?

Anyone watching or recording TV programmes on any channel as they are being broadcast. Whatever device you use to watch programmes – a TV set, computer, laptop or mobile phone – you must pay the £145.50 licence fee. Over-75s are entitled to a free licence. Anyone without a valid licence risks prosecution and a fine of up to £1,000.

WHAT CAN YOU WATCH WITHOUT ONE?

Programmes on the iPlayer, the BBC’s catch-up service, provided you view them after they have been broadcast. Those using the iPlayer’s Watch Live function, which broadcasts eight channels at virtually the same time as on TV, will need a licence.

HOW MANY ARE VIEWING ONLINE TO DOGE LICENCE FEE?

The BBC won’t reveal how much revenue it is losing because people watch online but it is likely to be well into the millions. Three per cent of people don’t pay a licence fee, equal to a million households, but it’s unclear how many of them are using iPlayer.

HOW CAN BBC TELL WHO WATCHES LIVE OR CATCH-TV?

It can't. It relies on honesty. Anyone not paying a licence fee has to submit a declaration that they are not watching or recording live broadcasts. Licence enforcers can make house visits to check and if your explanation is accepted, they put your account on ‘hold’ for two years, before investigating again.

COULD NON-FEE PAYERS BE CHARGED FOR iPLAYER?

Possibly, but it would be complicated. The BBC could introduce a system similar to Sky, under which customers cannot watch any programmes on TV sets, laptops, or mobile devices without an ID code. However, this would involve an enormous amount of bureaucracy. Equally, the BBC could not charge all viewers to watch iPlayer, because existing licence holders would end up paying twice for the same service.

HOW MUCH IS LIVE ON iPLAYER

The only ‘live’ programmes on iPlayer are the eight BBC channels screened on the Watch Live section, for which you still need a licence. Most other programmes are available on catch-up.

MOST READ NEWS

[ncm-000]

I know what I know,.

 

And I don't need anybody telling me the truth.

 

Nevertheless you appear to be advocating Civil Disobedience and I do not think that is in line with the CAG philosophy.

 

You (and others) complain when DCAs bend / break the rules but you seem happy to flout the law.

[Guest]

There is something in the air today on cag methinks

[snowy101]

So you offering your skewed opinion of the BBC did not 'drag the topic down for people who want advice' in the first place? If you think that pointing out the logical flaws in what you claimed constitutes an 'insult', then that says more about you than me.

 

Telling members that they are " gobbing off" is an insult, it is the insult that i was referring too as i suspect you know full well, anyway that has been dealt with , again, as i`m sure your aware. My view of the BBC / TVL is far from skewed, i know the law regarding the need for a licence, i will offer factual lawful advice regarding its necessity, i will however conduct my self with civility & manners to other members whilst doing so.

 

To paraphrase the Bond Villian, Goldfinger

Choose your next witticism carefully Mr. Staraker, it may be your last. [ A Joke BTW ]

[Staraker]

Telling members that they are " gobbing off" is an insult, it is the insult that i was referring too as i suspect you know full well, anyway that has been dealt with , again, as i`m sure your aware.

 

Oh, where I come from, it wouldn't even register as a mild dig amongst friends....

[snowy101]

Oh, where I come from, it wouldn't even register as a mild dig amongst friends....

 

But where you come from & how you choose to interact with your friends is not of any interest to the site or its members. There are certain codes of conduct & a required standard of how one interacts with fellow members, people come here for advice, some in vunerable & fragile states of mind , some extremley anxious or scared of not knowing their legal rights. To be civil is one way of reassuring them & not upsetting them further.

Civility & manners cost nothing & are definitely the barometer of the man. Now, are we done , or do you just want the last word?, if so, be my guest.......

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

The licence if paid for monthly pays part of the year in advance I think so if payments are stopped after the 1st 6 months then the licence is recinded.

[citizenB]

Oh, where I come from, it wouldn't even register as a mild dig amongst friends....

 

TBH, I wouldn't care for that kind of language even if I was your friend. It might well be "mild" in the grand scheme of things, but the way in which it was delivered ensures that it could be insulting.

 

I for one would be much more comfortable if you could keep that type of comment for your "friends" and off the forum.

 

As snowy has pointed out - we do expect CAG members to consider others when posting.

 

There is something in the air today on CAG methinks

 

Yes, and I wish it would go away

Edited April 10, 2013 by citizenB

[Guest]

[Staraker]

But where you come from & how you choose to interact with your friends is not of any interest to the site or its members. There are certain codes of conduct & a required standard of how one interacts with fellow members, people come here for advice, some in vunerable & fragile states of mind , some extremley anxious or scared of not knowing their legal rights. To be civil is one way of reassuring them & not upsetting them further.

Civility & manners cost nothing & are definitely the barometer of the man. Now, are we done , or do you just want the last word?, if so, be my guest.......

 

No, I get the point that there is a double-standard at play, in which you get to aggresively refer to the BBC as, 'a thoroughly rotten & morally bankrupt organisation,' and 'no one would pay for their rubbish out put masquerading as programming,' with apparent impunity. Neither the BBC nor the commercial broadcasters can be everything to all people, but to suggest that any of them is nothing to everyone just because you think so is pretty insulting to those who don't share that highly polarised view.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Take note of Citzen Bs post please.

[citizenB]

I think this thread has run its course now and postings are now of no assistance to the original thread starter who has not returned to the thread since starting it. I wonder why ?

 

I am now closing the thread.