I’m not renewing my TV licence - any pitfalls?

[french frank]

One way around the dilemma would be to buy a black and white TV licence (£49 I think), so that you would at least be making a contribution.

By a curious coincidence, I do pay a voluntary £49 yearly - to support The Guardian which could, in the current media environment, be considered a public service in providing a balancing voice in an otherwise unbalanced media world.

But, another section of the public who make use of the BBC by watching television but who don't (have to) pay are the over 75s. The 'free' licences were once funded out of taxation so the BBC lost no revenue, but now the government forces the BBC to provide the licences but no longer stumps up the money. An onslaught on the consciences of ALL those who view television, free of charge, or lobbying to get the system changed, might make a difference to BBC finances: helpfully suggesting ways in which the few who choose not to view television can nevertheless support the entertainment industry which takes up by far the largest part of BBC television expenditure (because mass entertainmenment is now deemed a 'public service'), even if successful, would make little difference to the BBC.

[Lat-Literal]

My point is that they DON'T pay for a licence (possibly a shared contribution to the one licence, though in a family household my guess is that they don't even pay that).

People seem to think it less important that half the population watch television free than that a tiny fraction don't pay NOT to watch it.

The law says that one licence covers an entire home, regardless of how many individuals watch (on average approximately one day - 24 hours - per week). This dispensation benefits about 50% of the population.

The law also says that if you don't have a television set and don't watch - live or on demand - you don't need a licence, a dispensation that benefits approximately 2% of the population.

People may choose, individually, do as they like (voluntary or illegal) but get the figures into perspective. Since Roger Wright I stopped listening to radio too - should I nevertheless have been contributing my £145.50 - for all the noble reasons people quote?

An interesting post, french frank, with some decent arguments but it is factually incorrect to say that "people may...........do as they like (......illegal)" unless that "may" is an observation on one aspect of behaviour rather than a word specific to what is permissible. Further, the eight people who live in the one grand house in the adjoining road (each is young, employed and a car owner) may pay the same as I do for TV etc in my one person household. But seven of them are not getting their television for free any more than they are getting their £65 green waste bin from the l.a for free. They simply pay less than I do, given that only I and one of their eight could pay a full £65 for a green waste bin etc.

By a curious coincidence, I do pay a voluntary £49 yearly - to support The Guardian which could, in the current media environment, be considered a public service in providing a balancing voice in an otherwise unbalanced media world.

But, another section of the public who make use of the BBC by watching television but who don't (have to) pay are the over 75s. The 'free' licences were once funded out of taxation so the BBC lost no revenue, but now the government forces the BBC to provide the licences but no longer stumps up the money. An onslaught on the consciences of ALL those who view television, free of charge, or lobbying to get the system changed, might make a difference to BBC finances: helpfully suggesting ways in which the few who choose not to view television can nevertheless support the entertainment industry which takes up by far the largest part of BBC television expenditure (because mass entertainmenment is now deemed a 'public service'), even if successful, would make little difference to the BBC.

There is a lot in your post and I need to choose my words carefully. Which "free" licences were previously funded from taxation? It seems to me that some retired people may feel that to remove only the over 75s from the category of licence payer is somewhat arbitrary but, of course, many of us left employment at comparatively young ages (I was 48 though not from choice) and of this group a higher percentage has had years of more active alternative options to TV. At the other end of the age scale, younger people will often argue that they don't watch television or listen to the radio or if they do it isn't to the BBC. With more computers, I accept there is a trend away from it but few arguments are new.

When I shared a student house in 1983, one member refused to contribute to a TV licence as he "never watched TV". Two others said that they wouldn't pay if he didn't pay and I was the one who lost the argument to pay. That is, until I pretended to leave the house for York leaving the non viewer in the house only to return within five minutes to catch him out. There he was, slippers up on the chair, settling in for a quiet few hours of daytime television. I made absolutely sure that he could never do it credibly again and he never did.

These days, the principal argument is perhaps "we watch little television and listen to little radio" rather than "we don't watch any television or listen to any radio" although the latter also applies. It is as modern an idea as the old 1950s Radio Rentals style "penny in the slot" with payments linked to the amount of consumption, if the box isn't "fixed" by a coat hanger. Clearly not everyone considers that sort of gas light version of living to be as tawdry and depressing as I do. Maybe it is knowing that my parents moved one notch above that point rather than never having been there or moved up twenty notches. There is an acute awareness of how a small change backwards would be a massive change.

Young people especially won't get that point until they are required to, perhaps largely on the basis of their own actions. Their lens is pay as you go technology and claiming to go hardly anywhere. Views would change in the event of wanting to know what is really happening when the internet has all sorts of contradictory signals on the imminence of nuclear war. In those circumstances, any service other than the BBC will be about as useful as the leaflet "Protect and Survive". But with the BBC, it will be possible to convey order by interrupting "The One Show" or "Strictly". So, yes, the bigger vision is for a broad based service which does incorporate significant elements of light entertainment just as it has done since the days of the Light Programme while ensuring that it sits in the clear context of nation communicated to all citizens and with all that that entails and requires.

As for the voluntary payment to The Guardian, fine. It may well address the need for a liberal left antidote to the large number of right wing newspapers. However, the BBC aims to provide a neutral antidote to the likes of Sky News and especially the American Fox News. That is arguably somewhat similar and preferable in that it is essential rather than nice.

[oddoneout]

Like you I think it should be funded through taxation, as all other public services are, but unfortunately we currently have an imperfect and unfair licence fee system

Is it any worse than the Road Fund Licence aka Road/Car tax, most of which I seem to recall goes anywhere but on the roads?

I take the view, being in a position to afford the fee, that I would pay even if I did not use the TV(and in fact 2 years ago I did so, having neither means to receive a signal nor equipment to display it), as my bit for the part of the Beeb that I do use and value.

[P. G. Tipps]

As for the voluntary payment to The Guardian, fine. It may well address the need for a liberal left antidote to the large number of right wing newspapers. However, the BBC aims to provide a neutral antidote to the likes of Sky News and especially the American Fox News. That is arguably somewhat similar and preferable in that it is essential rather than nice.

Firstly, I'm not at all bothered whether other people purchase a TV Licence or not. I consider myself to be a genuine 'liberal' and that individuals should have freedom of choice and opinion however much that may baffle or even offend others. I believe a TV Licence is worthwhile for many reasons too many to list here. That is not to claim, of course, that there is not a whole load of rubbish (imho) on both TV and Radio !.

Sadly, however, neither the Guardian and the BBC (or any of the rest of the UK media) can really be considered 'neutral' ... both are horribly 'politically correct' for that (which, imho, is the very antithesis of genuine liberalism) and, maybe surprisingly, I have found Sky News (quite unlike Fox) to be even worse in this regard.

I consider the marvellous invention the internet, for all its undoubted faults, to be the only place one can get a balanced view on just about everything and then the individual can make up his or her own mind ?.

[Beef Oven!]

The Beeb and the NHS. It’s what makes us British.

[teamsaint]

The Beeb and the NHS. It’s what makes us British.

And lager.

[Beef Oven!]

And lager.

Not warm pale ale?

[Lat-Literal]

Firstly, I'm not at all bothered whether other people purchase a TV Licence or not. I consider myself to be a genuine 'liberal' and that individuals should have freedom of choice and opinion however much that may baffle or even offend others. I believe a TV Licence is worthwhile for many reasons too many to list here. That is not to claim, of course, that there is not a whole load of rubbish (imho) on both TV and Radio !.

Sadly, however, neither the Guardian and the BBC (or any of the rest of the UK media) can really be considered 'neutral' ... both are horribly 'politically correct' for that (which, imho, is the very antithesis of genuine liberalism) and, maybe surprisingly, I have found Sky News (quite unlike Fox) to be even worse in this regard.

I consider the marvellous invention the internet, for all its undoubted faults, to be the only place one can get a balanced view on just about everything and then the individual can make up his or her own mind ?.

Thank you for your comments.

Your first sentence is to some extent my position unless you intend it should be read "First, I'm not at all bothered whether other people break the law or not" in which case it would not be my position at all. In all of my posts, I have put forward the argument that it is right for people to continue to have a choice on whether to have television and hence a TV licence. The caveats are (i) to say to those who listen to BBC radio and do not have a licence that BBC radio funding is met from TV licence payments and (ii) to say to those who are not currently keen on television what the long term impacts on the BBC of short term decisions about not paying for a licence could be if taken by large numbers of individuals.

There are three main points on BBC news. One, I recognize that people of a range of political opinion consider BBC news is biased and consequently I always try to say the BBC aims to be neutral which conveys an acceptance that it cannot always succeed. Two, in many - not all - areas of the BBC that are not news, bias is not a consideration and often that content is at least as important as news content. Three, only the BBC can offer in its news an official coordinated national public service in the event of a national emergency.

On your point about the internet, I more often than not watch the reasonably good Channel 4 News which many consider to be a liberal left news programme on a station that itself has had considerable funding from the licence as well as taking advertising. The very good Jimmy Wales was on tonight discussing his proposals for a new Wiki Tribune alongside Wikipedia which he co-founded to provide a trustworthy news service on the net. I very much welcome that proposal. As he implied, the fake news phenomenon is of real concern.

[P. G. Tipps]

The Beeb and the NHS. It’s what makes us British.

Speak for yourself ...

[teamsaint]

Not warm pale ale?

India pale ale? Nasty foreign stuff......

[Beef Oven!]

Speak for yourself ...

Ok, in your case the Union with Scotland Act 1706 & the Union with England Act passed in 1707 have something to do with it.

[P. G. Tipps]

Thank you for your comments.

Your first sentence to some extent i my position unless you intend it should be read "First, I'm not at all bothered whether other people break the law or not" in which case it would not be my position at all. In all of my posts, I have put forward the argument that it is right for people to continue to have a choice on whether to have television and hence a TV licence. The caveats are to say to those who listen to BBC radio and do not have a licence that BBC radio funding is met from TV licence payments and also to say to those who are not currently keen on television what the long term impacts on the BBC of short term decisions about not paying for a licence could be if taken by large numbers of individuals.

There are three points on BBC news. One, I recognize that people of a range of political opinion consider the BBC is biased and consequently I always seek to say that the BBC aimsto be neutral which enables further recognition that it cannot always succeed. Two, in many - not all - areas of the BBC that are not news - bias is not a consideration and often that content is at least as important as news content if not more so. Three, only the BBC can offer in its news an official coordinated national service in the event of minor or major emergency. On your point about the internet, I more often than not watch the reasonably good Channel 4 News which many consider to be an overtly left or liberal left news programme on a station that itself has had considerable funding from the licence as well as taking advertising. The very good Jimmy Wales was on tonight discussing his proposals for a Wiki Tribune alongside Wikipedia to provide a trustworthy news service on the internet and I very much welcome that proposal.

Yes, on reflection I considered my first sentence was rather ambiguous, but hoped nobody here would notice ...

I didn't mean anyone should break the law. merely that whether one purchased a TV licence or not is entirely up to them ... as long as they didn't possess a TV at the same time, of course!

The trouble with news channels on both TV & Radio is that management inevitably dictates the agenda and I've never trusted any management, not least in the media, to be more concerned with truth rather than what it considers to be in its own interests.

The internet may be semi-lawless in many ways, but, in respect of freedom of opinion and access to general knowledge, it is surely unmatched ?.

[Lat-Literal]

Yes, on reflection I considered my first sentence was rather ambiguous, but hoped nobody here would notice ...

I didn't mean anyone should break the law. merely that whether one purchased a TV licence or not is entirely up to them ... as long as they didn't possess a TV at the same time, of course!

The trouble with news channels on both TV & Radio is that management inevitably dictates the agenda and I've never trusted any management, not least in the media, to be more concerned with truth rather than what it considers to be in its own interests.

The internet may be semi-lawless in many ways, but, in respect of freedom of opinion and access to general knowledge, it is surely unmatched ?.

Yes, I think - certainly on questions about managers and a healthy tolerance of the wild west to be regulated only to the extent that it is necessary. In the national interest, I would have edited out the pictures of Tony Blair posing like a cowboy alongside George W Bush but that would have been over zealous on my part. I don't have the answers to everything.



What makes us British?

1. The Union. 2. The fact it was Britain that defeated 20th Century fascism. 3. The British countryside protected by left wing Kinder Scout trespassers, the Green Belt legislation of the Conservative Duncan Sandys and the ongoing absence of fracking. 4. BBC radio including the World Service. 5. British comedy. 6. The NHS. 7. Britain's key historical role in establishing Parliamentary democracy. 8. A royal family with minuses as well as pluses but which has been well ahead of politicians on race relations, gay rights and now mental health and has also provided a sense of permanence in a changing world. 9. The cultural diversity in tradition across the four nations. 10. BBC TV. 11. Jennie Lee's Open University. Food and drink, weather, sport and pop culture can be absorbed in point nine but the best 12th would surely be a truly British classical composer emanating in the 21st Century.

http://stories.barkpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/jp.jd_.jpg

(and animal welfare)

[P. G. Tipps]

Yes, I think - certainly on questions about managers and a healthy tolerance of the wild west to be regulated only to the extent that it is necessary. In the national interest, I would have edited out the pictures of Tony Blair posing like a cowboy alongside George W Bush but that would have been over zealous on my part. I don't have the answers to everything.



What makes us British?

1. The Union. 2. The fact it was Britain that defeated 20th Century fascism. 3. The British countryside protected by left wing Kinder Scout trespassers, the Green Belt legislation of the Conservative Duncan Sandys and the ongoing absence of fracking. 4. BBC radio including the World Service. 5. British comedy. 6. The NHS. 7. Britain's key historical role in establishing Parliamentary democracy. 8. A royal family with minuses as well as pluses but which has been well ahead of politicians on race relations, gay rights and now mental health and has also provided a sense of permanence in a changing world. 9. The cultural diversity in tradition across the four nations. 10. BBC TV. 11. Jennie Lee's Open University. Food and drink, weather, sport and pop culture can be absorbed in point nine but the best 12th would surely be a truly British classical composer emanating in the 21st Century.

http://stories.barkpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/jp.jd_.jpg

(and animal welfare)

A picture to melt even the hardest of hearts, Lat ...

Unfortunately, I'm not sure the opinion(s) we British have of ourselves is necessarily shared by others and I think we should always be somewhat conscious of that.

I certainly think Britain can claim to have had a quite remarkable influence on world affairs in recent centuries, mostly for the good imho, though inevitably this is being steadily reduced as other, much larger nations slowly emerge from their previous wildernesses. There is (at least has been until now) an impressive political stability within the country, whatever the government, though I have to admit, my own hunch is that the British simply aren't all that interested in politics, religion, gay rights, etc.. A bit like classical music really. People like us who bang on about such things are in a very small minority which, in all honesty, is probably a good thing for the overall health of the nation !

However things have changed radically since last June. Suddenly we are not the country or the people we (or at least I) once thought we were. The future looks very uncertain. Well all futures are, of course, but this one feels very different. I admit to being unhappy at the direction in which the country now appears to be travelling and I'm therefore not quite as proud of being British as I once was. I do hope folk like me are just being needlessly pessimistic as some of our leading politicians constantly maintain.

Whilst I strongly support a public health service and public broadcasting both the NHS and the BBC need reform, imv. Both are wonderful institutions, of which we are rightly proud, but that does not mean they cannot and shouldn't be touched just because we are so proud of them. There is always room for improvement and there is an unnecessary waste of resources in both ... oh dear, it's really all about a thing called management again, I'm afraid.

For example, I'm still not at all clear why we must have a man and a woman reading the news on BBCNews24 especially as they seemingly spend half the time indulging in whispered, giggly small-talk with each other. I assume it's done because the commercial channels waste their resources doing it as well. However, this is taxpayers' money we are talking about here and such needless waste should not be tolerated. When such extravagance goes on in front of our eyes one has to wonder what else goes on behind the scenes?

That is what I think about when I pay for my TV Licence. When one considers the excellent documentaries, nature programmes, intelligent discussion often provided by the BBC it may remain, on balance, good value for money but, by cutting out all the silly, costly stuff, it could and should be so much better still ?.

[BBMmk2]

maybe there's some short sightedness here Beefy? Like PG Tipps says, the documentaries etc aere all very good. What about Radio?