Tv Licence Inspector On The Iom

[kevster]

 

 

..., everyone watches the TV.

big assumption - I have never owned a TV nor do I watch it since leaving parental home about 50 years ago unless visiting where the idiot box is left on in a corner - I will admit to listening to BBC radio

And radio programmes cost money to make - bring back the radio licence

[manx-person]

 

 

you in this clip woolley??

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiYRg8t1uMg&feature=youtu.be

 

The bloke @ 4:40, his Jack Russell's got more brain than he has.

 

I've just got a letter back from Crapita after last weeks visit when I (again) refused implied rights of access. It goes along the lines of:

 

Thank you for you recent contact with our visiting officer which has been recorded under complaint # 565xx1.

 

I'm sorry that you're unhappy with our visiting policy.

 

We've noted our records with your wish to withdraw the common right for tv licencing's officers to approach your property. We reserve the right to use other methods available for detection of television receiving equipment.

 

TV Licencing don't permanently stop writing to any address as circumstances change over time, and the occupier may change. We'll get in touch after a time to confirm if you still live at the address and that your circumstances haven't changed.

 

Thank you for taking the time to bring this to my attention.

 

So there you have it, now they're going to cruise up and down the street in a van with a bent coat hanger protruding from the roof in a vain attempt to get me to shell out £145.50.

 

And all this 'interrogation' costs money that is recouped from the genuine licence payers like woolley.

 

Just makes it all the more enjoyable...

What is your problem?

If you have equipment capable of receiving 'as broadcast' programmes - pay up.

If not, show them that you don't

If you have a car capable of exceeding the speed limit, should you be fined for speeding unless you can show you have been complying with the law.

 

here is a presumption of innocence.

 

It is a matter of law that its only illegal to watch broadcast TV without a license. Its ludicrous that you would have to prove that you hadn't in order to avoid a penalty.

[The Border Terrier]

 

 

>...99% who don't pay are just using the service and freeloading.

 

I'm one of the users to which you refer who doesn't pay. In my defence, the supplier doesn't ask for payment, nor am I contravening any laws. Nor is there currently any mechanism for the likes of me (who watches purely download) to pay. Similarly those only receiving radio broadcasts have no mechanism to pay.

When circumstances change and payment is required by law, I'll just move on to another media supplier. And if Crapita still harrass, I should like the opportunity to reciprocate the bullying by launching a brick through the Director Generals' bedroom window!

 

>For the freeloaders to then fall back on the paedophile organisation argument is ludicrous and demonstrates the poverty of their case.

 

Though in fairness the BBC did know about Sir Jimmy Saviles' sexual proclivities, did authorise a show involving children, and made sure damn sure Ester Rantzen didn't highlight any 'issues' through Childline.

Similarly, Stuart Hall OBE, did have access to BBC premises to knowingly abuse minors.

So using the corporate paedophile argument is, in my view, valid on the grounds that some may feel any payment to the BBC could make them complicit in such disgusting behaviour. Many consumers boycott payments to companies on ethical grounds.

 

>I don't agree with the politics or bureaucracy of the BBC.

 

Me neither, that's another reason why I don't contribute financially.

 

And to be called a liar or a wanker for holding such views '...is ludicrous and demonstrates the poverty of their case'.

 

TBT

[The Border Terrier]

And radio programmes cost money to make - bring back the radio licence

 

And I presume reimburse those tv licence holders - who don't listen to the radio - the 'radio supplement fee' added when the radio licence was incorporated into the tv licence in 1971?

 

At todays prices with 17% of the licence fee spent on radio; that's a £24.74 discount.

 

The tricky problem of apprehending car drivers on the move listening without a licence has, err...yet to be considered.

 

TBT

[ballaughbiker]

The rules for having to have a tv licence or not are crazy and completely outdated and I think some of Capita's* methods border on harassment. However to use the fact that two paedophiles have been (quite properly) outed from a BBC employee headcount of 25,000 as a reason for not paying really is clutching at straws.

 

I wonder if the same protesters would refuse to be treated at Stoke Mandeville if they were ever unfortunate enough to suffer a serious spinal injury just because Saville was reported to have assaulted young patients there? Apparently simiarly perverted doctors have been outed there (source DM unfortunately) so was the NHS also a disgusting organisation rotten to the core? Was Stoke Mandeville and environment where sex offenders prospered?

 

Anyway back to the BBC. I'd secure all BBC tv with Viaccess 3 within the next 6 months and provide decoders "free" as part of the yearly fee for the required card. The website would become liable to payment at the same time. If you were then deluded/daft enough to believe that the BBC were a corrupt organisation promoting sick individuals to live out their horrible fantasies they you just would exercise your freedom to have nothing to do with it. There would be no way of watching BBC TV though and the problem as you perceive it would be solved. The only question would be how many would pay and what would the resultant cost be? They wouldn't have to pay the goons (just my opinion m'lud) at Capita for a start.

 

 

* Capita also run an organisation called VEAS. They are contacted by the DVLA across to find and seize vehicle breaking the law. They appear to use similar tactics during this operation and I know of one case recently where they entered private land to check vehicles parked there which is not allowed by the legislation. Thank * they can't come over here.

[The Border Terrier]

 

 

 

>The rules for having to have a tv licence or not are crazy and completely outdated and I think some of Capita's* methods border on harassment.

 

That’s a very positive start, excellent. I agree entirely.

 

>However to use the fact that two paedophiles have been (quite properly) outed from a BBC employee headcount of 25,000 as a reason for not paying really is clutching at straws.

 

The BBC covered the whole sorry shambles up on account of the overwhelming desire for positive ratings. Those in power chose not to investigate over the decades of abuse, in fact they did the opposite. That’s why some ‘freeloaders’ don’t wish to contribute, they believe it’s sponsoring paedophilia.

My father refused to travel in my Volkswagen on account of the suffering experienced by his brother in a POW camp. Clutching at straws? Maybe, but entirely understandable.

 

>I wonder if the same protesters would refuse to be treated at Stoke Mandeville if they were ever unfortunate enough to suffer a serious spinal injury just because Saville was reported to have assaulted young patients there?

 

If he were still there, then yes, many would give it a wide berth. But in reality Savile was celebrated, rich, famous, a ‘draw’ and thus allowed more freedom than was wise.

I wonder how you would feel about the BBC if one of your children had been affected by the abuse, would you boycott the Institution?

Not all at Ellan Vannin gymnastics behaved like Hal Volante, but if he were allowed to return, would you send your daughter there?

 

>Was Stoke Mandeville and environment where sex offenders prospered?

 

Absolutely! Paedophiles target certain professions where access to the vulnerable is guaranteed.

Ironically in the case of Stuart Hall OBE, his ego did for him. When one of the abused saw him receive his award from Her Majesty, they reported him to a journalist who contacted the police. Hall dismissed the charges as “pernicious, callous, cruel and, above all, spurious”, but the tenacity of the Prosecution was heightened on account of the Savile inquiry. In different times he may have escaped justice.

 

>Anyway back to the BBC. I'd secure all BBC tv with Viaccess 3 within the next 6 months and provide decoders "free" as part of the yearly fee for the required card. The website would become liable to payment at the same time.

 

Would those only wishing to access Sky, C4 or ITV still be required to purchase the BBC decoder? Could Sky etc. sue for unfair competition?

 

>The only question would be how many would pay and what would the resultant cost be? They wouldn't have to pay the goons (just my opinion m'lud) at Capita for a start.

 

The reason why the BBC haven’t accessed the decoder option is that no way would they achieve revenues of £3.7 billion as per the current licence fee.

So preventing non-licence holders accessing via download will ultimately cost the current licence payers more.

 

Sat in front of Lord Sugar advocating that business strategy, you’d be fired.

 

TBT

[ballaughbiker]

So am I right in saying that if you thought it a good idea to boycott the BBC you would have to boycott the NHS as well? They were in charge of Stoke M where this sort of things was 'encouraged' apparently.

 

Would those only wishing to access Sky, C4 or ITV still be required to purchase the BBC decoder?

No why BBC is what would be charged for. What's it got to do with Sky? If they were going to sue, I think they would have already done it when Freesat was launched.

 

The reason why the BBC haven’t accessed the decoder option is that no way would they achieve revenues of £3.7 billion as per the current licence fee

Evidence? I'd pay double the licence fee for a start as would all those expats in view of the satellite who currently pay nothing and are blocked from downloading (freeloading) by their ip address. Many people say they don't need the BBC but I'd wager it would soon be missed. Given that people pay Sky for their stuff which is 80% utter drivel, I think they would pay for a BBC card at least the current licence fee a year.

 

So preventing non-licence holders accessing via download will ultimately cost the current licence payers more.

You're going to have top explain that in more detail please before Sugar* fires me. It would be a pleasure to get fired by him as I wouldn't work for him at any salary.

 

 

*Correct me if I am wrong but didn't Sugar make a lot of money from manufacture the first Sky receiver that didn't need a separate Videocrypt decoder?

[The Border Terrier]

>So am I right in saying that if you thought it a good idea to boycott the BBC you would have to boycott the NHS as well? They were in charge of Stoke M where this sort of things was 'encouraged' apparently.

 

For the truly dedicated set against anything sponsoring child abuse there's always BUPA. And Nobles doesn't seem to have the best of Press lately. And the waiting list is diabolical.

 

Quote

Would those only wishing to access Sky, C4 or ITV still be required to purchase the BBC decoder?

>No why BBC is what would be charged for.

 

So it will be possible to watch ITV and C4 'as broadcast' for free. And if you wish to save the £12/month or so licence fee, you can supplement your Sky subscription. Seriously, you think this won't cost BBC viewers?

 

 

The reason why the BBC haven’t accessed the decoder option is that no way would they achieve revenues of £3.7 billion as per the current licence fee

>Evidence? I'd pay double the licence fee for a start as would all those expats in view of the satellite who currently pay nothing and are blocked from downloading (freeloading) by their ip address.

 

 

Caution, there's not much mileage in advocating £291/annum for the BBC.

 

>Many people say they don't need the BBC but I'd wager it would soon be missed. Given that people pay Sky for their stuff which is 80% utter drivel, I think they would pay for a BBC card at least the current licence fee a year.

 

 

Well, if you're sure.

 

I'm off to ITV/C4, though ironically via download as 1) It's inconvenient to watch live and 2) I haven't owned a television set since the 80's.

 

So preventing non-licence holders accessing via download will ultimately cost the current licence payers more.

>You're going to have top explain that in more detail please.

 

 

If BBC goes decoder rather than licence per property, I believe it'll lose customers/revenue. So if the current service is maintained, the reduced numbers of customers will have to share a greater burden. And the subscription will have to increase.

 

Some may genuinely not be able to afford the subscription, which is why they evade paying the licence fee. There are plenty experiencing real hardship out there while Sir Terry Wogan charges exhorbitant fees for hosting Children in Need.

Then there are the scallywags who don't pay as they know Crapita are toothless tigers; how many of these will subscribe if they haven't for the last few decades?

 

So does the BBC gain extra from downloaders/evaders having to cough up; or lose through those, like myself, legally going to other suppliers?

 

Though I'm not sure how the radio broadcasts will be affected (current cost of approx. £2/month) or how these evaders would be prosecuted.

 

TBT.

 

 

[BeachBoy]

"Many people say they don't need the BBC but I'd wager it would soon be missed. Given that people pay Sky for their stuff which is 80% utter drivel, I think they would pay for a BBC card at least the current licence fee a year."

 

I would love to take your wager, but I as the BBC may not feel as sure as you I do not think we will be seeing a BBC card anytime soon.

You may feel 80% of SKY is utter drivel, that is the way I feel about the BBC and we are each allowed our own opinions, unfortunately I am legally forced to pay for you to watch your option, you are not legally forced to pay for mine.

[kevster]

"Many people say they don't need the BBC but I'd wager it would soon be missed. Given that people pay Sky for their stuff which is 80% utter drivel, I think they would pay for a BBC card at least the current licence fee a year."

 

I would love to take your wager, but I as the BBC may not feel as sure as you I do not think we will be seeing a BBC card anytime soon.

You may feel 80% of SKY is utter drivel, that is the way I feel about the BBC and we are each allowed our own opinions, unfortunately I am legally forced to pay for you to watch your option, you are not legally forced to pay for mine.

80% of the BBC is also drivel - but the other 20% is world class. So far this week, my TV has only been on for 2hrs - but that two hours, and the radio programmes I've listened to have been well worth the £2.80 that the licence has cost me this week.

[ballaughbiker]

unfortunately I am legally forced to pay for you to watch your option, you are not legally forced to pay for mine.

However if BBC was encrypted then you wouldn't have to pay a penny if you didn't want to watch it and that is why it is a suggestion to replace the present antiquated system.

[ballaughbiker]

80% of the BBC is also drivel - but the other 20% is world class

Might agree with you there. When I said Sky was 80% drivel I think I was being generous. the only things I miss by not paying all that money are Nat Geo and History.

[ballaughbiker]

For the truly dedicated set against anything sponsoring child abuse there's always BUPA. And Nobles doesn't seem to have the best of Press lately. And the waiting list is diabolical.

I think we both agree that the premise of not wanting to pay for BBC TV based on the crimes of two famous paedos who just happened to work for them is a quite ludicrous. That said, I think the cover up was indefensible.

 

So it will be possible to watch ITV and C4 'as broadcast' for free

Should the BBC become encrypted with no licence, they couldn't stop you watching these channels for 'free'. Mind you they're not really free are they as previously pointed out.

 

Caution, there's not much mileage in advocating £291/annum for the BBC

I don't recall advocating anything of the sort. I just said I'd pay double and I would. I'd pay the current licence fee for R4, R4ex and R5 alone. Having lived in a few countries and seen what available elsewhere, no other organisation comes close to the overall quality of the BBC imo. For the current fee I think its a bargain but readily accept that I shouldn't be funded by others who say they never watch any of it. A lot of people legally evade the licence by watching i player so the question is would they just stop watching the BBC if they had to pay ?

 

 

So if the current service is maintained, the reduced numbers of customers will have to share a greater burden. And the subscription will have to increase.

Indeed as pointed out in #306 " The only question would be how many would pay and what would the resultant cost be?"

 

 

I think the current format of BBC is going to have to alter anyway. As the net gets quicker there will be no need to pay Crowne Castle for all those expensive UHF transmitters. In fact they could get rid of them now. Sky manages ok without. Some are obviously going to have to be kept for radio though.

[The Border Terrier]

 

The only question would be how many would pay and what would the resultant cost be?"

 

The second question would be why haven't they done it already?

[MANANNAN]

Except it isn't ludicrous, it is, quite simply., state sponsored paedophilia. No investigation despite numerous accusations, reports of abuse not taken seriously. Even after saville had died the bbc were still covering up his crimes, so that they could broadcast memorial shows for him.

 

And no, people wouldn't pay to watch iplayer. They'd simply get everything they need on YouTube.

 

For the truly dedicated set against anything sponsoring child abuse there's always BUPA. And Nobles doesn't seem to have the best of Press lately. And the waiting list is diabolical.

I think we both agree that the premise of not wanting to pay for BBC TV based on the crimes of two famous paedos who just happened to work for them is a quite ludicrous. That said, I think the cover up was indefensible.

 

>Caution, there's not much mileage in advocating £291/annum for the BBC

I don't recall advocating anything of the sort. I just said I'd pay double and I would. I'd pay the current licence fee for R4, R4ex and R5 alone. Having lived in a few countries and seen what available elsewhere, no other organisation comes close to the overall quality of the BBC imo. For the current fee I think its a bargain but readily accept that I shouldn't be funded by others who say they never watch any of it. A lot of people legally evade the licence by watching i player so the question is would they just stop watching the BBC if they had to pay ?