Turn on thread page Beta

Reue finally got visited by the Tv Licence Inspectors! watch

Announcements
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AidanLunn)
    1) They don't use bullying tactics. TV Licensing do. The BBC cannot be held responsible for TV Licensing's actions because TV Licensing is not the BBC.
    I realise that. But I'm sure they know it goes on (after all, it's in their best interest). By not addressing it they are also guilty.

    3) And don't you think that those grants would stop under this government?
    Possibly, possibly not.

    I will still continue to pay for the licence even if I don't watch the television/watch BBC programmes. I still make use of other services including radio. It still provides good value for money.

    But this doesn't mean I'd expect other people to pay for it if they don't have to.

    IF this is a problem for the BBC then fully privatise it or stop giving presenters extortionate salaries - who eventually head off elsehwere in the end anyway.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by River85)
    I realise that. But I'm sure they know it goes on (after all, it's in their best interest). By not addressing it they are also guilty.



    Possibly, possibly not.

    I will still continue to pay for the licence even if I don't watch the television/watch BBC programmes. I still make use of other services including radio. It still provides good value for money.

    But this doesn't mean I'd expect other people to pay for it if they don't have to.

    IF this is a problem for the BBC then fully privatise it or stop giving presenters extortionate salaries - who eventually head off elsehwere in the end anyway.
    I think it goes that they are only allowed to address any issues with TV Licensing when the RC comes up for renewal. Thus the BBC feels that it should be up to the government to sort out issues with TV Licensing and the Government think it's the BBC's responsibility.

    Personally, I do think it's the BBC's responsibility. In fact it may cost less to collect if they did it themselves rather than farm out collection to a private company. Plus, the BBC know that if *they* themselves used bullying tactics to collect Licences if they collected it themselves, then the government would have a very good reason for privatising the BBC or scrapping it altogether. Which may seem like a possibility under a government wrapped around Murdoch's little finger.

    The problem that you mention in your final point is that somehow the BBC equate "exceptional quality" with "high-paid stars". Graham Norton is a ****, Brucie needs to die and Wossy is a conceited pig*. I also don't consider halving and dumbing down Panorama to be of exceptionally high quality either.

    Scrap the brain drain that is The One Show, fill in the gap left by it with some other show (anything is better than T1S), and on nights when Panorama is broadcast, shift the programme before it to 7pm, that way Panorama has a whole hour to be more in-depth and concise about the topic it covers that week.

    *But at least Vernon Kay and Ant and Dec steer clear of the BBC.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AidanLunn)
    1) They don't use bullying tactics. TV Licensing do. The BBC cannot be held responsible for TV Licensing's actions because TV Licensing is not the BBC.
    TV Licensing is not an organisation. It's a trademark of the BBC used by companies (namely Capita Business Services Ltd) contracted by the BBC to collect the television licence fees. The BBC is a public authority in respect of its television licensing functions and retains overall responsibility.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by speedbird)
    TV Licensing is not an organisation. It's a trademark of the BBC used by companies (namely Capita Business Services Ltd) contracted by the BBC to collect the television licence fees. The BBC is a public authority in respect of its television licensing functions and retains overall responsibility.
    Ah, thanks. Correction taken.

    It is most bizarre though that the BBC are allowed to get away with this. Or the BBC turn a blind eye to it and always believe the actual collectors when a member of the public claims presses charges against them for the bullying tactics they use.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I'm going to university in a couple of months (hopefully) and I've made the decision to not buy a TV licence. I don't watch much TV and I think my DVDs, along with iPlayer, 4OD and youtube, will make up for it. The £450 I'd have to spend over the three years is money that is scarce and needed for other things.

    However, I'm likely to get several of these letters and or visitors because I'll want to take a TV with me to play a games console. Yet I don't need a licence, so I'll have to join in with the explaining that I'm perfectly legal.

    I've loved the BBC for many years because ITV and C4 just annoy me with their programming (ITV more than anything). There's so much rubbish on there and it's like watching a permanent BBC3 (without the endless repeats of family guy) imo. Sure some love X Factor and I'm a Celebrity, get me off this love island stuff but it's not for me. The BBC makes decent programmes a lot of the time, yet it's grown overconfident and it simply increases the licence fee rather than handling the waste and becoming more efficient.

    No need for hundreds of correspondents on the news. Everytime I watch BBC News the correspondent for health or the environment has changed. There are also reporters for irrelevant things, like French Politics reporter or Crime and physics investigator of Asia. It's just stupid. There's no need for so many radio stations imo; 5 would do. BBC3 and 4 could be merged. Plenty of other things too.

    Anyway thought I'd make a pointless rant here :p:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AidanLunn)
    Ah, thanks. Correction taken.

    It is most bizarre though that the BBC are allowed to get away with this. Or the BBC turn a blind eye to it and always believe the actual collectors when a member of the public claims presses charges against them for the bullying tactics they use.
    My theory is, they know mafia tactics work better than civilised ones, so what they've doing for many years now is claim they have nothing to do with TV licences when in actuality TV Licensing is the BBC. They'd rather you didn't notice, so that's why they use a trademark and that's why, if you look at a TV licence, it's says "issued on behalf of the Licensing Authority" instead of "issued on behalf of the British Broadcasting Corporation."

    Oh, and, as I've already said like a dozen times, TV Licensing "inspectors" and "enforcement officers" are nothing but salesmen who work on commission:

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by speedbird)
    Oh, and, as I've already said like a dozen times, TV Licensing "inspectors" and "enforcement officers" are nothing but salesmen who work on commission:
    Only that they're selling a mandatory 'product', which is really more like a racket in their aggressive modus operandi, and because the TV Licence is a tax, they're really more like OTT taxmen
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ElNormo91)
    Only that they're selling a mandatory 'product', which is really more like a racket in their aggressive modus operandi, and because the TV Licence is a tax, they're really more like OTT taxmen
    Whatever. If it were a proper tax rather than plain extortion the BBC would be funded through general taxation. But it's a lot more fun to spend millions on "enforcement" harassing old ladies and making them cry.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by speedbird)
    Whatever. If it were a proper tax rather than plain extortion the BBC would be funded through general taxation. But it's a lot more fun to spend millions on "enforcement" harassing old ladies and making them cry.
    Don't old ladies (at a certain age) get free licences already, unless they're in care homes (where the rate is significantly reduced)?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ElNormo91)
    Don't old ladies (at a certain age) get free licences already, unless they're in care homes (where the rate is significantly reduced)?
    75+ I think.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by speedbird)
    75+ I think.
    Yeah, I can recall my granddad qualifying for one
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like exams?
Useful resources
AtCTs

Ask the Community Team

Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

Welcome Lounge

Welcome Lounge

We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.