Cycling UK Forum

blackbike wrote:The BBC has a record of harassment which has cost it £100,000 over the last 5 years. That's a disgrace, and shows the true nature of an organisation which is notorious for self praise.

Wow. £20k a year. Forgive me whilst I stifle a yawn. I know individuals who waste more than that.
How many genuine evaders would they need to catch to recover that? More importantly how many people pay for a TV licence because they think they'll be nobbled if they didn't? Surely you have to take that into account? (You did I presume?)

blackbike wrote:It is bizarre that we have a tax on TV use at all and absolutely disgusting that the state broadcaster harasses people to pay that tax when have no need to.

Bizarre in the sense of??? You either have a state broadcaster or you don't.
We do and it's paid for by a TV license (just like lots of other countries).
It's a rule you may find arbitrary but lots of rules are arbitrary imo.

blackbike wrote:Surely there is a better way for people to pay for their fix of TV junk like Eastenders.

Obviously if you could pick the programming we'd all be better off.

blackbike wrote:Do we really need a government tax backed by the criminal law to fund a corporation which is mainly and overwhelmingly a producer of down market, audience chasing, trashy TV and pop music radio?

In your opinon.

blackbike wrote:Taxes backed by the criminal law should be for essentials like hospitals and schools, not TV or radio.

That old chestnut. Why not simply pay all our tax to hospitals and schools? It's shocking that taxes are often use to subsidise minority interests - like cycling.

Interestingly in that Telegraph article they insist on calling those people who were harassed for not paying TVLA because they had no TV, VIEWERS

It seems nobody can truly grasp the concept of somebody actually not watching TV.

beardy wrote:It seems nobody can truly grasp the concept of somebody actually not watching TV.

That's because it's actually a lot rarer than threads like these would have you believe.

Having not watched TV since August I have finally given it the boot and will be £145 better off.

meic wrote:After years of the same old boring repeated cycle of threatening letters, there is finally a change!

No, not a visit from inspectors, a detector van or kicking the door down, just a new letter.

They are now giving me ten days to get correctly licensed and if I do nothing they will START A FULL INVESTIGATION.
I am correctly licensed, so I will do nothing but I bet they dont start any investigation.

Thank heavens for that - clearly their not-full investigation wasn't working because they didn't find their backside with both hands.

Here's the cycle of letters:

• WHATEVER YOU'RE WATCHING, HOWEVER YOU'RE WATCHING IT, YOUR HOME NEEDS A TV LICENCE (I know that's a lie, but that's the title of the letter)
• Ignoring this letter could cost you a lot more than the licence fee
• Enforcement Officers have now been authorised to visit <ADDRESS>
• OFFICIAL WARNING: WE HAVE OPENED AN INVESTIGATION (Suddenly back to shouting...)
• WARNING: YOU MAY BE BREAKING THE LAW
• ¶ You have not responded to our previous letters. We want to ensure you have the information you may need before a hearing is set at your local court. (At this point, I was looking forward to going along with a copy of the TV Licence to laugh at them.)
• As you have not responded to our letters yet, you have left us no alternative but to proceed with the final stages of our investigation. (Oh we had tried responding, but it just sends you back to the start of this list.)
• Official warning: we have opened and investigation (oddly not shouted)
• Warning: You may be breaking the law. (Repeat from ¶ forever until they give up or realise their mistake or something)

kwackers wrote:

beardy wrote:It seems nobody can truly grasp the concept of somebody actually not watching TV.

That's because it's actually a lot rarer than threads like these would have you believe.

It's not as if this thread is saying that loads of people don't - there are a few on here who don't, myself (and household) included.

There are people who don't - and we are treated as criminals by the inept organisation that is TVL.

kwackers wrote:

blackbike wrote:The BBC has a record of harassment which has cost it £100,000 over the last 5 years. That's a disgrace, and shows the true nature of an organisation which is notorious for self praise.

Wow. £20k a year. Forgive me whilst I stifle a yawn. I know individuals who waste more than that.
How many genuine evaders would they need to catch to recover that? More importantly how many people pay for a TV licence because they think they'll be nobbled if they didn't? Surely you have to take that into account? (You did I presume?)

blackbike wrote:It is bizarre that we have a tax on TV use at all and absolutely disgusting that the state broadcaster harasses people to pay that tax when have no need to.

Bizarre in the sense of??? You either have a state broadcaster or you don't.
We do and it's paid for by a TV license (just like lots of other countries).
It's a rule you may find arbitrary but lots of rules are arbitrary imo.

blackbike wrote:Surely there is a better way for people to pay for their fix of TV junk like Eastenders.

Obviously if you could pick the programming we'd all be better off.

blackbike wrote:Do we really need a government tax backed by the criminal law to fund a corporation which is mainly and overwhelmingly a producer of down market, audience chasing, trashy TV and pop music radio?

In your opinon.

blackbike wrote:Taxes backed by the criminal law should be for essentials like hospitals and schools, not TV or radio.

That old chestnut. Why not simply pay all our tax to hospitals and schools? It's shocking that taxes are often use to subsidise minority interests - like cycling.

It is utterly disgusting that the state harasses and criminalises people for declining to pay for its junk TV and pop music radio.

If you can't see the difference between that and the tax evasion which deprives schools, hospitals and other essential services of their funding then there's no point having a conversation with you.

People who want or need trash TV and pop music radio should make private arrangements to buy it off people willing to sell it to them.

The state should not provide junk TV or pop music radio just because people want them any more than it should provide pornography, drugs, super strength lager or sex workers just because there is a large public demand for those those equally dismal products.

blackbike wrote:People who want or need trash TV...

The state should not provide junk TV or pop music radio...

...for its junk TV and pop music radio

Seems to me your entire argument is based on you not liking the programming.

I'd suggest you start to educate people to appreciate the 'good stuff' then when we've all got your good tastes we can all think the same way.

[XAP]Bob wrote:It's not as if this thread is saying that loads of people don't - there are a few on here who don't, myself (and household) included.

There are people who don't - and we are treated as criminals by the inept organisation that is TVL.

I suspect that in their experience most folk who don't pay should.

I don't know anyone personally who doesn't have a TV, I do know of two people who were prosecuted (successfully) for not having a license and these were the only two who owned up, there may be others that kept quiet.

Personally I think it's a lot of noise over nothing I've certainly had worse come through the post. Definitely a first world problem...

kwackers wrote:..... I've certainly had worse come through the post. Definitely a first world problem...

Slight thread drift warning .......... but bare with me ...............

We received a "Final Reminder" from Southwest Water on Friday 7th Nov.
We pay our water bills in two installments beginning of April and beginning of October, and I forgot to pay the October payment.

Nasty letter arrived on Friday 7th dated Sat 1st. (Saturday? )
We don't get the post until late afternoon and don't always empty the box on the gate down the drive until tea time.

The letter gives us seven days to pay it or they will take action.
I immediately transferred the dosh, but it won't go until Monday 10th.
What are they going to do?
Cut us off?


Can BBC cut you off if you don't buy a TVL?

kwackers wrote:I've certainly had worse come through the post.

So have I, but only by the other competitor for most inept organisation in history, the SLC (and I never took a student loan)...

I have a TV, two in fact.

I am not required to pay a TV licence - I have told the TVL this and yet they restarted a CANCELLED direct debit to continue charging me because I hadn't supplied a document which doesn't (and can't) exist. I had supplied a statement that that document couldn't exist...

Stating the same over the phone the *second* time they tried to resurrect the DD looks like it might have been sufficient, but I await their next move...


Over the last ten years I've had a TVL here, and have used a terrestrial analogue aerial (no longer on the house due to the pigeon droppings), Sky (two dishes still present, not connected) and Vermin media (cables disconnected and terminated). None of my TV's has the capacity to watch live broadcast TV, and there are no recording devices connected anywhere.
There are various computers in the house, including two NowTV boxes, but those play a variety of media, and we simply don't use the live streaming services. We do have a variety of on demand streaming media:
- DVD/VHS backups (Served over Plex)
- Sky Movies
- iPlayer/itvPlayer/4OD/Demand5
- Spotify

None of which attract the TVL - I'm not evading tax any more than I evade tobacco tax by not smoking, or petrol tax by cycling...

kwackers wrote:

blackbike wrote:People who want or need trash TV...

The state should not provide junk TV or pop music radio...

...for its junk TV and pop music radio

Seems to me your entire argument is based on you not liking the programming.

I'd suggest you start to educate people to appreciate the 'good stuff' then when we've all got your good tastes we can all think the same way.

I have no objection to people enjoying trash TV and pop music radio, the products which form the vast majority of the BBC's output.

But I see no reason why I should have to pay towards the sordid pleasures of others.

I'm happy to pay criminal law backed taxes to help people with genuine needs such as unemployment benefit, health care, housing, education and other essentials of life, but to extend this compulsory principle to the funding of completely non-essential trash TV and pop music radio is bizarre and immoral. By its huge and dominant role in the TV industry the state is effectively encouraging many people to watch junk TV and then bemoans the fact that many of them are getting obese from inactivity. It runs two children's TV channels and then claims it wants kids to read more and to get out in the fresh air and do more exercise.

If anything the state should be taxing junk TV to make it more expensive to those who choose to consume it. That's what it does with other junk like tobacco or alcohol. It is ridiculous that the state currently ensures that a vast amount of junk TV is available at a modest cost to the dismal, sad, impressionable, possibly TV addicted people who want it by forcing everyone to pay for it.

The BBC's harassment of innocent people is just a small part of the terrible damage the corporation causes, both from a cultural and public health perspective.

The licence fee should be scrapped.

If they scrapped the licence fee, then those of us who dont watch it would have to start paying for it, through general taxation.

Dont forget that the TV licence fee also now pays for our projected propaganda overseas which used to be funded by the Foreign Office.

blackbike wrote:It is ridiculous that the state currently ensures that a vast amount of junk TV is available at a modest cost to the dismal, sad, impressionable, possibly TV addicted people who want it by forcing everyone to pay for it.

Except it isn't forcing everyone to pay for it - just those that watch TV.

(Unless you're complaining that as a ITV/SKY viewer of quality programming you also object to contributing to the inferior BBC product?)

kwackers wrote:

blackbike wrote:It is ridiculous that the state currently ensures that a vast amount of junk TV is available at a modest cost to the dismal, sad, impressionable, possibly TV addicted people who want it by forcing everyone to pay for it.

Except it isn't forcing everyone to pay for it - just those that watch TV.

(Unless you're complaining that as a ITV/SKY viewer of quality programming you also object to contributing to the inferior BBC product?)

The relative quality of BBC product is irrelevant. There's no logic in forcing people to fund trash like Eastenders in return for permission to watch Coronation Street.

There is simply no reason for the state to force everyone to pay for its dismal TV products in return for permission to use their own TVs in their own homes to watch other TV services.

It's as silly and sinister as a newspaper licence or a book licence would be, which lavishly funded a state newspaper or state approved books and granted state permission for the holder to access all newspapers or books.