TV Licence

[Lampshade]

I've not been against the license in the past, but looking at the unadulterated drivel on at the moment I'm beginning to go off the idea.

My respect for the BBC went through the floor with the backroom F1/Sky deal. The BBC is bloated and inefficient, like most public sector industries, demanding more and more money every year and throwing their toys out of the pram now the licence fee has been frozen.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

So you have had (I believe still does) connections with the BBC which would explain where you get all this information which you insist is genuine.

I am a democratic person and would like to have access to watch the news etc but do not wish to fund Eastenders for you, would that be ok ?

The so called "live feeds" come from transmitters that are privatily owned by the likes of ITV etc (not the BBC)

I nearly entered a short film in a film competition and that means I'm getting TV Licence facts off them? Have you been on the Christmas Whisky?

In Ralph's defence, that's a bit tenuous!

Quite!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Read his other posts on the subject and then google, you will see the same pitches

Provide some evidence to back that up (and I will be amazed if you can, as, apart from sources I've quoted/used my opinions on this have never been published! Doesn't mean that someone else hasn't had same/similar opinions though) or withdraw it.

This attempted character assassination is quite amusing

 

[90019]

So you have had (I believe still does) connections with the BBC which would explain where you get all this information which you insist is genuine.

Clutching at straws comes to mind.

In Ralph's defence, that's a bit tenuous!

A bit‽

It's excellent value if you happen to like left wing bias and the BBC. Those that don't see any bias tend to be of the same political persuasion so blind to it.

Wow.

Is that seriously the level of your debating skills? :roll:

 

[yorksrob]

My respect for the BBC went through the floor with the backroom F1/Sky deal. The BBC is bloated and inefficient, like most public sector industries, demanding more and more money every year and throwing their toys out of the pram now the licence fee has been frozen.

I was ranting a bit at all the TV output at the moment but I agree that the BBC could possibly do with prioritising some of it's output.

I also don't agree with the world service being paid for by the license fee. The service is specifically for the benefit of non fee paying overseas residents, hence why it was always paid for by the foreign office until recently.

 

[Barn]

I generally support the BBC. People of both sides of the political divide accuse it of bias from time to time. Given the nature of the organisation, its politics tend towards big-statism / pro-EUism etc but I can put up with that for the quality of its programming.

 

[hantsman1205]

I nearly entered a short film in a film competition and that means I'm getting TV Licence facts off them? Have you been on the Christmas Whisky?

Quite!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Provide some evidence to back that up (and I will be amazed if you can, as, apart from sources I've quoted/used my opinions on this have never been published! Doesn't mean that someone else hasn't had same/similar opinions though) or withdraw it.

This attempted character assassination is quite amusing

You appear to be back tracking now, BBC facts are now only your opinions.

 

[LLF]

If that situation arises then it I'm sure they would take appropriate action.

What would the "appropriate action" be, and how would they know your neighbour had a TV hung on the party wall?

I live in a block of 4 flats, and the other 3 have TVs.

How could they be sure they were detecting a TV in my property?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

What would the "appropriate action" be, and how would they know your neighbour had a TV hung on the party wall?

I don't know. I imagine they could measure the signal and see if it is higher than a calculated average. I don't work for them, I'm not one of their engineers. Perhaps they just don't use them in those areas.

 

[LLF]

They do this because they don't want gullible members of the public to get the wrong idea.

Shouldn't that be "get the RIGHT idea"?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

You appear to be back tracking now, BBC facts are now only your opinions.

Hah, what rubbish. I meant opinions about the TV Licence. I think it's a good thing. I think the BBC is a good thing. I think the BBC is pretty much impartial. Those are opinions. What is fact is that Capita run the TVL scheme. They operate a wide range of processes to find those who watch TV illegally. These include door to door visits, hand held detectors and detector vans.

 

[LLF]

hence why it was always paid for by the foreign office until recently.

In other words, it was paid for by UK taxpayers.

 

[hantsman1205]

Hah, what rubbish. I meant opinions about the TV Licence. I think it's a good thing. I think the BBC is a good thing. I think the BBC is pretty much impartial. Those are opinions. What is fact is that Capita run the TVL scheme. They operate a wide range of processes to find those who watch TV illegally. These include door to door visits, hand held detectors and detector vans.

TVL have no hand held detectors or detector vans that have detecting equipment. :roll: These are the facts.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

TVL have no hand held detectors or detector vans that have detecting equipment. :roll: These are the facts.

So, give me some evidence? Show me they don't exist? Even this site (http://www.bbctvlicence.com/Detector vans.htm), which is campaigning against TVL/Capita come to the conclusion that they exist!

Conclusions

(1) Between 2003 and 2009, there were six working detector vans. Each of these was deployed several times a year. This low number of vans and deployments accounts for the BBC's view that release of this information would end their deterrent effect.

(2) In 2009, the BBC commissioned five more working vans. Thus, as of 2009, there are eleven vans. This does not preclude the possibility that the new fleet is replacing ("enhancing" in the contract award) the previous one, in which case there will fewer than eleven working vans.

(3) In addition, there are dummy or publicity vans that appear in supermarket car parks and other public places. Since the working vans are used so infrequently, it is likely that they spend most of their time in this capacity. At least two vans seen performing this role (see Detect the Detector vans, LT03TYV and Y254CGO) are of the type in the above dB Broadcast photograph.

 

[Sao Paulo]

I don't know. I imagine they could measure the signal and see if it is higher than a calculated average. I don't work for them, I'm not one of their engineers. Perhaps they just don't use them in those areas.

Measure the signal, they could be using a DVD or playing a games console so once again its rubbish. No respectable court of law would take this guessing & thats what it is.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

My respect for the BBC went through the floor with the backroom F1/Sky deal.

F1 is a commercial sport anyway so the BBC shouldn't be competing to get it

The BBC is bloated and inefficient, like most public sector industries, demanding more and more money every year and throwing their toys out of the pram now the licence fee has been frozen.

Agreed its huge, BBC Worldwide grows every year thanks to the profits made from the British public, a public forced to fund it
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I nearly entered a short film in a film
Provide some evidence to back that up (and I will be amazed if you can, as, apart from sources I've quoted/used my opinions on this have never been published! Doesn't mean that someone else hasn't had same/similar opinions though) or withdraw it.

This attempted character assassination is quite amusing

Quite simple really, Joe Bloggs doesn't defend a broadcaster like you do and compare it to other things unless on a payroll.

Do you think I was shocked to see that link

You see at the end of the day its just a broadcaster and Communist one at that. If it was good they wouldn't need to force people to fund it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I generally support the BBC. People of both sides of the political divide accuse it of bias from time to time. Given the nature of the organisation, its politics tend towards big-statism / pro-EUism etc but I can put up with that for the quality of its programming.

They've admitted to Left Wing bias. Like I said the only people who deny it was left-wing so don't see it

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...-chief-mark-thompson-admits-left-wing-bias.do

 

[Sao Paulo]

Hah, what rubbish. I meant opinions about the TV Licence. I think it's a good thing. I think the BBC is a good thing. I think the BBC is pretty much impartial. Those are opinions.

You think its a good thing that people are forced to fund your entertainment :roll:
No doubt you think we should have a newspaper tax too so you get the Guardian subsidised

What is fact is that Capita run the TVL scheme. They operate a wide range of processes to find those who watch TV illegally. These include door to door visits, hand held detectors and detector vans.

I see you are still trying to distance the BBC from the TV Licence even though the job was given to them. You cannot change the fact the BBC is running things even if from a third party like Capita.

You have also shown your agenda again
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So, give me some evidence? Show me they don't exist? Even this site (http://www.bbctvlicence.com/Detector vans.htm), which is campaigning against TVL/Capita come to the conclusion that they exist!

Thats just showing some BBC propaganda and you should be more than familiar with that from what I've seen.

Once again if this really existed the BBC would want everyone to now it works instead of trying to hide it.............................hide it because they know it doesn't work
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Once all the analogue signals get turned off and switches to all digital there is no reason (other than a loss of revenue to the beeb) they can't make the service a subscription service....of course they wont do that though.

This is what should be done, no more excuses. We hear from the BBC people that its the best thing since sliced bread so they should have no problem with a voluntary subscription method.

The BBC should do just fine if its everything they claim it is and I and millions of other people are then free to watch genuine FTA television feeds without being harassed, threatened and intimidated by the BBC

 

[yorksrob]

In other words, it was paid for by UK taxpayers.

Yes, but from a budget specifically set aside to promote British influence abroad rather than my entertainment budget

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Yes, but from a budget specifically set aside to promote British influence abroad rather than my entertainment budget

Not to mention BBC Worldwide turns over a profit, which is passed back to the BBC.

 

[yorksrob]

Not to mention BBC Worldwide turns over a profit, which is passed back to the BBC.

Indeed - BBC Worldwide is of course a separate entity selling programmes and merchandise to other countries, therefore its profits are most welcome.

The World Service, is a free to listen radio channel available to anyone in the world to listen to, therefore funding by the foreign office is IMO entirely appropriate.

 

[90019]

Quite simple really, Joe Bloggs doesn't defend a broadcaster like you do and compare it to other things unless on a payroll.

Do you honestly believe that anyone who supports a company must be on their payroll?

If that's the case you really are very deluded. Perhaps you should toddle off and put your tinfoil hat back on before the government mind rays from the detector van get you.

 

[Hydro]

Quite simple really, Joe Bloggs doesn't defend a broadcaster like you do and compare it to other things unless on a payroll.

What a load of deluded sh*te.

 

[Sao Paulo]

Indeed - BBC Worldwide is of course a separate entity selling programmes and merchandise to other countries, therefore its profits are most welcome.

WRONG, thats the excuse used but how do they keep buying up companies year in and year out...............or does BBC Worldwide have a money tree in the Blue Peter garden ?

I
The World Service, is a free to listen radio channel available to anyone in the world to listen to, therefore funding by the foreign office is IMO entirely appropriate.

WRONG AGAIN, thats another BBC pitch because the taxpayer funds that too.

Why should the British taxpayer be funding other countries:roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What a load of deluded sh*te.

No its the truth which is why it upsets the BBC posse. Lets be honest there are loads of other broadcasters but you don't get their viewers doing this like robots.

You call ITV,CH4,Ch5, Sky, VM etc etc and I can assure you I wont get upset
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If that's the case you really are very deluded.

Funny how they always start with the insults when proven wrong.

Perhaps you should toddle off and put your tinfoil hat back on before the government mind rays from the detector van get you.

Well thats another strange one, I've been without a BBC TV Licence for 21yrs and the "detector van" has done nothing :roll:

Do you think it could be your "tinfoil hat" that has kept them away lol

 

[90019]

Doesn't Channel 4 get a subsidy from the government?

Are you happy that your taxes subsidise them?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Funny how they always start with the insults when proven wrong.

I'm curious where you've proven me wrong?

Let me guess, I'm on their payroll too?

 

[Sao Paulo]

Doesn't Channel 4 get a subsidy from the government?

Are you happy that your taxes subsidise them?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Let me guess, I'm on their payroll too?

Last time I checked they turned it down

 

[ralphchadkirk]

You were the one who started with the insults first Sao Paulo. Let's not forget that!


Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

 

[Sao Paulo]

You were the one who started with the insults first Sao Paulo. Let's not forget that!

I've been 100% honest and can back up my remarks, I've been hounded by them for 21yrs and like to know my enemy

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Let me guess, I'm on their payroll too?

Yes. You're actually Alan Yentob in disguise.


Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I've been 100% honest and can back up my remarks, I've been hounded by them for 21yrs and like to know my enemy

So I'm actually an obsessed autistic BBC employee am I?


Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

 

[hantsman1205]

You were the one who started with the insults first Sao Paulo. Let's not forget that

I think it started when you have been proved wrong................yet again

 

[Sao Paulo]

Yes. You're actually Alan Yentob in disguise.

well he'd be ok with all the expenses he claims wouldn't he

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I think it started when you have been proved wrong................yet again

You still haven't provided any evidence to back up your points. Unlike me I should add.


Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk