Then he could bring one in and plug the aerial in, having "proven" he doesn't watch live TV. :rolleyes:
The OP was making the point he had decided not to have a television.
I also don't think someone will decide NOT to have a telly and wait until the man comes round and then snigger like a bad villian as he brings a television in.
The OP was making the point he had decided not to have a television.
I also don't think someone will decide NOT to have a telly and wait until the man comes round and then snigger like a bad villian as he brings a television in.
I wish they would add the tvl to council tax. It wouldn't cost me anything more and would stop the ridiculous whining that goes on. Shame it isn't a bigger problem.
I wish they would add the tvl to council tax. It wouldn't cost me anything more and would stop the ridiculous whining that goes on. Shame it isn't a bigger problem.
I'm with you on this. Maybe we should start a forum about it
There are also 1m more over 75 pensioners claiming free TV licences now than when the scheme was introduced. The government has to pay for these "free" licences. That's £588m per year.
1. "The government" doesn't pay for these Licences, the Treasury does, on behalf of the taxpayer, in accordance with a social policy established by a democratically elected Parliament; a policy not (yet) over-turned.
2. Do you think that '£588m per year' is a significant part of the state's spending on the welfare of an ageing population?
3. Would you rather some form of 'Carousel' was established?
...........
For the record
I was employed by the BBC from 1969 until 1993;
I was paid a salary, a part of which was taken at source as contributions to the BBC in-house pension scheme;
I now live on payments made from that pension scheme
it is not a condition of that pension scheme that I post on any internet forum 'in favour' of the BBC or any company acting as a contractor to the BBC
nor have I received any financial reward or benefit in kind from the BBC for posting opinion or experience on the pages of Digital Spy.
As for people being payed to "bang on about how good the bbc are" well I have come to think that there could be 2 answers and I am not sure what I think yet.
1. They are employed by the BBC (from licence payers money instead of making good tv) to haunt these forums 24/7.
2. They are not employed to say anything about the bbc they just do cos they want to. (I do not like this answer much cos they seem a bit too much, BUT it is true that in internet land such people may exist.)
Almost all human actions are down to people doing something they want to, or being paid to do so. I'm not sure you're making the compelling point you think you are.
That does not appear to be what the communication act says. It refers to the installation or use.
That's quite true as far as it goes.
However, the Comms Act needs to be read in conjunction with the Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004.
Wherein it states:
9.—(1) In Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV reception), “television receiver” means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose.
How anyone, other than the 'installer', can know the 'purpose' of the installation isn't clear.
That said, with the advances in technology, there are an increasing number of reasons for "credible explanations to the contrary" and installation for purposes other than receiving 'live' broadcasts.
How anyone, other than the 'installer', can know the 'purpose' of the installation isn't clear.
That said, with the advances in technology, there are an increasing number of reasons for "credible explanations to the contrary" and installation for purposes other than receiving 'live' broadcasts.
Your emphases doesn't change the act. As for how you tell, I think it is best to let the courts decide.
Even your previous House of Lords reference gives guidance. I also think "credible" explanations are very limited.
Thank you for your request of 2nd March 2009 under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 seeking the
following information:
Can you tell the funding the BBC has given to Freeview and Freesat.
Freeview
"Freeview" is actually DTV Services Ltd and the BBC contributes to it by way of shareholder contributions.
The BBC owns 20% of the company and the money passes to it through BBC Free to View Ltd (a wholly owned subsidiary of the BBC).
Total aggregate contributions made by the BBC to Freeview are: £8,297,467.
Freeview funding is the aggregate of BBC budget contributions to the working capital of Freeview in
respect of financial years 02/03; 03/04; 04/05; 05/06; 06/07; 07/08 and 08/09 respectively. Payments are
made pursuant to an obligation in the Joint Venture Agreement between the BBC and ITV, Channel 4, Sky
and Arqiva governing the operation and funding of Freeview.
Freesat
"Freesat" is Freesat (UK) Ltd and as with Freeview the BBC contributes to it by way of shareholder
contributions. The BBC own 50% of Freesat (UK) Ltd and the money passes to it through a BBC Free to
View (Satellite) Ltd (also a wholly owned subsidiary of the BBC).
Total aggregate contributions made by the BBC to Freesat are: £6,710,000 Freesat funding is the aggregate of BBC budget contributions to the working capital.
Notice:
I am in no way affiliated with the BBC (or associated companies). I receive no payment of any kind in return for posting in this thread, I do so entirely out of my own will.
My posts are entirely my opinion.
I shouldn't have to post this, but since a certain group are making unsubstantiated claims I feel I need to.
Comments
If you don't have a television in your house then you could let them in and see for themselves.
If, after they have seen you do not have television, they still bother then you would and should have a legitimate gripe about being bothered.
I think if people who have let the people in and have shown them they have no television and still get bothered then you should receive compensation.
Then he could bring one in and plug the aerial in, having "proven" he doesn't watch live TV. :rolleyes:
But obviously that is too easy for you anti-TVL guys, you just like to make things hard and then complain about it.
You bring it on yourselves.
Which goes to show how letting them conduct an "inspection" is pointless.
It's our fault BBC/TVL won't pi55 off and leave us alone
The OP was making the point he had decided not to have a television.
I also don't think someone will decide NOT to have a telly and wait until the man comes round and then snigger like a bad villian as he brings a television in.
And the point I was making, is that the "inspection" is pointless because, like an MOT, it is only valid at the moment it takes place.
No the OP is just the latest troll from TVLR.
If you really think I am a troll why the hell are all you lot trying to feed me faster then I can eat.........No that does not ring true.
What have I done to offend any of you? NOTHING so why jump on my thread so much, I see trolls around here but they are not me.
Explain how this is "PROOF" please.
2. Do you think that '£588m per year' is a significant part of the state's spending on the welfare of an ageing population?
3. Would you rather some form of 'Carousel' was established?
...........
For the record
I was employed by the BBC from 1969 until 1993;
I was paid a salary, a part of which was taken at source as contributions to the BBC in-house pension scheme;
I now live on payments made from that pension scheme
it is not a condition of that pension scheme that I post on any internet forum 'in favour' of the BBC or any company acting as a contractor to the BBC
nor have I received any financial reward or benefit in kind from the BBC for posting opinion or experience on the pages of Digital Spy.
Yes, you never feed a Troll, but you try to make allowences for a new forum member.
Ironic, given who started the first post in this thread.....
It was not "Steve Middling", but "feckthebbc".
That second username is all you need to know, he didn't come here for a balanced discussion.
He admits it himself, elsewhere.
Yep, Capita want information, nothing more.
Almost all human actions are down to people doing something they want to, or being paid to do so. I'm not sure you're making the compelling point you think you are.
That's quite true as far as it goes.
However, the Comms Act needs to be read in conjunction with the Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004.
Wherein it states:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/692/regulation/9/made
My emphasis.
How anyone, other than the 'installer', can know the 'purpose' of the installation isn't clear.
That said, with the advances in technology, there are an increasing number of reasons for "credible explanations to the contrary" and installation for purposes other than receiving 'live' broadcasts.
"You won't get it"
Your emphases doesn't change the act. As for how you tell, I think it is best to let the courts decide.
Even your previous House of Lords reference gives guidance. I also think "credible" explanations are very limited.
Quote from the Prisoner?:)
The bottom line says what you did and the date is the same as the thread that started up on DS.
If it isn't you, which thread was started by him?
I gave them some, and the process stopped. By being non-complient on purpose them the process just keeps going.
It's a bit like always driving at 40 mph in a 30 mph zone and wondering why you keep getting a speeding fine.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/8699/response/22390/attach/3/RFI20090380%20final%20response.pdf
Notice:
I am in no way affiliated with the BBC (or associated companies). I receive no payment of any kind in return for posting in this thread, I do so entirely out of my own will.
My posts are entirely my opinion.
I shouldn't have to post this, but since a certain group are making unsubstantiated claims I feel I need to.