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

[ahinton]

They have the "option" to buy a colour TV licence too! This is the subtle 'moral duress' that is exerted when people suggest that some people are getting 'something for nothing', and therefore that they should pay. Free radio-only is a universal benefit and people also have the option not to have television.

There's give and take in the financing of public services. You win some, you lose some. People subsidise my radio listening - I've subsidised their children's education.

Fair comment. That said, people ought, I think, to consider refraining from suggesting that anyone is getting "something for nothing" when that something is being offered for nothing by its provider; that's a very different circumstance from what some might otherwise regard as a form of legalised theft.

[aeolium]

They have the "option" to buy a colour TV licence too! This is the subtle 'moral duress' that is exerted when people suggest that some people are getting 'something for nothing', and therefore that they should pay. Free radio-only is a universal benefit and people also have the option not to have television.

There's give and take in the financing of public services. You win some, you lose some. People subsidise my radio listening - I've subsidised their children's education.

You can though only rely on free-radio only as a universal benefit because there are a sufficiently large number of mugs who want to watch television. If many more people followed your example, the money available for all the BBC's services including radio would appreciably decline. You have frequently complained about the poor allocation of funding for R3, yet people who only watched TV or were mainly interested in TV could make the argument that they are the ones who are paying for the service and such distribution of funds was justifiable, if one were taking a mere accountancy-based view of the service.

I don't think one can separate out the different parts of the BBC service even though the licensing system does so artificially. Its value is as a public service which among other things provides impartial news broadcasting as well as the radio you value. You benefit from that as a citizen and I think you recognize that in your support of a taxation-funded PSB, which would involve you in paying a significant sum for the same kind of services. Of course you are not required to pay anything to support the BBC, just as you are not required to pay anything to support the Guardian, yet you do so for the latter, which is a partisan newspaper while you do not for the BBC, which to me provides impartial news coverage as well as a whole lot more. That seems curious.

[Beef Oven!]

It surprises me just how much TV some people watch, especially as so much of it is poor by anyone’s standards - but then they would be gob-smacked to learn how much music I listen to every day. We’re all different, I suppose.

Regarding the Guardian, I don’t think it’s impartial, I agree with ff’s view that it is balancing (vis-à-vis the largely right-wing others, I assume).

[Lat-Literal]

They have the "option" to buy a colour TV licence too! This is the subtle 'moral duress' that is exerted when people suggest that some people are getting 'something for nothing', and therefore that they should pay. Free radio-only is a universal benefit and people also have the option not to have television.

There's give and take in the financing of public services. You win some, you lose some. People subsidise my radio listening - I've subsidised their children's education.

Intriguingly, you introduce the concept of morality. I have approached this subject now from possibly fifty angles but you will not find any overt argument about morality in any of my posts. Nor have I said that people are getting something for nothing although they are so. I have said that BBC radio is provided because of television licence payments. There is no such thing as a free lunch. And that any significant reduction in licence payments would make the survival of BBC radio less likely. But you know that anyway. You are also aware that the option to purchase a colour television licence is available to all. In contrast, I don't think the much cheaper option of a black and white licence had been highlighted.

I don't think "free radio only" to the extent that its existence may be argued is a "universal benefit". BBC radio is a service. A universal benefit is generally a benefit that is not available to everybody but where it is available to individuals it isn't in the main means tested. Child benefit only goes to people with children and irrespective of their income. As for the schools service which as a Liberal Democrat you are presumably happy to support, you will be aware that among the reasons to support it are the benefits to all of us of having an educated population which understands the need to comply with national demands. Or maybe not. I haven't seen what David Laws is arguing as a "Liberal" these days.

I have to say - sorry - that your arguments on this matter can appear to come across as right wing libertarian rather than liberally democratic and in line with those of people like Alastair who demonstrate a belief in their use of phrases like "legalized theft" that there is somehow a reality in their own law. I used to draw an imaginary island on which I decided where the towns and national parks should be and I even held elections but that was tens of decades ago and it always stopped short of my own courts and police force.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

who spelled the noun "license" with an S?

[ardcarp]

Standard practiSe in the U.S.

[vinteuil]

... the OED puts the option 'spelled' before 'spelt'.

Shakspere, Dryden, L'Estrange, Scott, and Macaulay all use 'spelled'.

I thort spelt was a poncey kinda flour...

[french frank]

You can though only rely on free-radio only as a universal benefit because there are a sufficiently large number of mugs who want to watch television.

Which there undoubtedly are. Problem solved.

Of course you are not required to pay anything to support the BBC, just as you are not required to pay anything to support the Guardian, yet you do so for the latter, which is a partisan newspaper while you do not for the BBC, which to me provides impartial news coverage as well as a whole lot more. That seems curious.

I don't support the Guardian because it's a neutral voice. I used the term a 'balancing' voice which in the case of the press is surely undeniable: it balances the billionaire-supported partisan voices - well, it goes a small way towards doing so - on the 'other side', however partisan it is.

The very fact that only a tiny percentage of the total BBC income goes towards Radio 3 means that the 'subsidisers' are each shelling out a few pence monthly for their subsidy. I don't have a conscience about that.

A few years back when the BBC was fighting its financial crisis, the agreed strategy was that they should do 'fewer things better'. I think they should: the BBC tries to provide pretty much everything that the other broadcasters do (hence the recent problems with Radio 3). Its billions are spent providing something for everyone. I'm content that it should provide high quality entertainment but in terms of revenue I can't see that most goes on Public Service content. What Radio 3 loses from radio-only non fee-payers would be a tiny amount of a tiny amount.

As for the BBC being a neutral voice: that makes it a problem not a solution. If there became a global controversy about whether the world was flat it would feel obliged to represent the Flat-Earther view as 'fairly' as the Round-Earthers. Or they'd be in trouble.

[Lat-Literal]

Which there undoubtedly are. Problem solved.

I don't support the Guardian because it's a neutral voice. I used the term a 'balancing' voice which in the case of the press is surely undeniable: it balances the billionaire-supported partisan voices - well, it goes a small way towards doing so - on the 'other side', however partisan it is.

The very fact that only a tiny percentage of the total BBC income goes towards Radio 3 means that the 'subsidisers' are each shelling out a few pence monthly for their subsidy. I don't have a conscience about that.

A few years back when the BBC was fighting its financial crisis, the agreed strategy was that they should do 'fewer things better'. I think they should: the BBC tries to provide pretty much everything that the other broadcasters do (hence the recent problems with Radio 3). Its billions are spent providing something for everyone. I'm content that it should provide high quality entertainment but in terms of revenue I can't see that most goes on Public Service content. What Radio 3 loses from radio-only non fee-payers would be a tiny amount of a tiny amount.

As for the BBC being a neutral voice: that makes it a problem not a solution. If there became a global controversy about whether the world was flat it would feel obliged to represent the Flat-Earther view as 'fairly' as the Round-Earthers. Or they'd be in trouble.

Ah, but I would fully support them representing the Flat-Earther view as 'fairly' as the Round-Earthers.

This could well be at the nub of all the above but it might require someone else to explain it.

(And people who believe in "legalized theft", while incorrect, should be 'fairly' represented too)

[Zucchini]

I thort spelt was a poncey kinda flour...

It is - we've got bluespelt flours in our garden...

[aeolium]

As for the BBC being a neutral voice: that makes it a problem not a solution. If there became a global controversy about whether the world was flat it would feel obliged to represent the Flat-Earther view as 'fairly' as the Round-Earthers. Or they'd be in trouble.

I completely disagree. The BBC doesn't do that e.g. in the climate change debate where it makes clear the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence and opinion is in favour of global warming to which human activities have contributed. The alternative to an ambition to provide an impartial news broadcasting service is avowedly partisan broadcasting. One doesn't have to go far to see examples of this, e.g. Russia Today or Fox News. Do we really want that? Wouldn't it really be an example of Arnold's "darkling plain/Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,/Where ignorant armies clash by night"? You need argument and diversity of opinion, but you also need some reliable fact-based and evidence-based reporting.

[MrBear]

Are there any pitfalls? Any technicalities that might trip me up?

I really wish more people would go Television Licence free.

People will assume you are a criminal, say you dont have a Television Licence people assume you are breaking the law. The idea of not watching the Television is beyond most.

I have been Television Licence free for a year now. I was from 2002 for a few years. Good times.

The admin side has been outsourced to capita so expect complete incompentence I had real trouble getting a refund and they have no real complaints system. The people who visit and hand out fines get a bonus per fine. A couple of years ago there were news stories about the courts being overrun with prosecutions not sure if they have eased off. I get a threatening letter every three weeks officiously addressed to The legal occupier or some such nonsense.

All reception is dodgy at my house FM varies with the weather, DAB is on and off. When they turn off FM I shall just stop listening to the radio could go down the Freeview route but that needs one of those Televisions.

I now read "TV" as a clothing fetish not as Television.

The BBC is responsible for collecting the license fee if you dont pay the licence fee you are assumed to be a criminal and get harassed and mistreated therefore the BBC is responsible for harassing people. I dont want the BBC to go especially radio but if it does I will be kind of glad.

[Beef Oven!]

I really wish more people would go Television Licence free.

People will assume you are a criminal, say you dont have a Television Licence people assume you are breaking the law. The idea of not watching the Television is beyond most.

I have been Television Licence free for a year now. I was from 2002 for a few years. Good times.

The admin side has been outsourced to capita so expect complete incompentence I had real trouble getting a refund and they have no real complaints system. The people who visit and hand out fines get a bonus per fine. A couple of years ago there were news stories about the courts being overrun with prosecutions not sure if they have eased off. I get a threatening letter every three weeks officiously addressed to The legal occupier or some such nonsense.

All reception is dodgy at my house FM varies with the weather, DAB is on and off. When they turn off FM I shall just stop listening to the radio could go down the Freeview route but that needs one of those Televisions.

I now read "TV" as a clothing fetish not as Television.

The BBC is responsible for collecting the license fee if you dont pay the licence fee you are assumed to be a criminal and get harassed and mistreated therefore the BBC is responsible for harassing people. I dont want the BBC to go especially radio but if it does I will be kind of glad.

You’ve highlighted the one thing that concerns me. I don’t want a situation where some berk turns up at my house and notes that I own a TV and on the basis of that, I end up in court. Shame those 'TV Detector vans' aren’t real - they’d see I don’t use the TV.

It feels like 2,000 years of Anglo-Saxon Jurisprudence has been turned on its head and one is guilty until one can prove themselves innocent. I can’t see how I can prove that I don’t watch TV, unless I remove it from my house. That’s beyond the pale. Do we really live in a country where the state can decide which consumer items you can have in your house? And prosecute you.

[vinteuil]

It feels like 2,000 years of Anglo-Saxon Jurisprudence has been turned on its head.

... o come now, the angles and saxons (don't forget the jutes!) only invaded some 1500 years ago.

Fortunately we normans came and sorted you load of barbarians out a few hundred years later...

[Serial_Apologist]

... o come now, the angles and saxons (don't forget the jutes!) only invaded some 1500 years ago.

Fortunately we normans came and sorted you load of barbarians out a few hundred years later...

Then I shall address you as Norman, from now on...