TV licence to increase to £126.50
 

The price of a colour TV licence will increase by £5.50 from April 2005, the
government announced on Thursday.
Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell announced the increase in a statement to the
House of Commons.

The rise would help provide "a strong and distinctive schedule of high quality
programmes," said Ms Jowell.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...io/4022873.stm

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 10:01:38 GMT, "Aztech" wrote:

The price of a colour TV licence will increase by £5.50 from April 2005, the
government announced on Thursday.
Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell announced the increase in a statement to the
House of Commons.

The rise would help provide "a strong and distinctive schedule of high quality
programmes," said Ms Jowell.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...io/4022873.stm


High quality programmes? Why should this rise make it any different
than before?
It do not matter how much the license goes up it will make little
difference to the rubbish that come out of the BBC.
What this rise will do is give higher wages to people who are already
over paid.

It is about time the license feee was abolished, but it will never be.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 10:01:38 GMT, "Aztech" wrote:

| The price of a colour TV licence will increase by £5.50 from April 2005, the
| government announced on Thursday.
| Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell announced the increase in a statement to the
| House of Commons.
|
| The rise would help provide "a strong and distinctive schedule of high quality
| programmes," said Ms Jowell.
|
|
| http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...io/4022873.stm

Well worth the money IMO
Long live Aunty and the licence fee.
--
Dave F

"Aztech" wrote in message
...
The price of a colour TV licence will increase by £5.50 from April 2005,
the government announced on Thursday.

B******s

Landru

In article , AD C says...
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 10:01:38 GMT, "Aztech" wrote:

The price of a colour TV licence will increase by £5.50 from April 2005, the
government announced on Thursday.
Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell announced the increase in a statement to the
House of Commons.

The rise would help provide "a strong and distinctive schedule of high quality
programmes," said Ms Jowell.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...io/4022873.stm


High quality programmes? Why should this rise make it any different
than before?
It do not matter how much the license goes up it will make little
difference to the rubbish that come out of the BBC.

I have to sort of agree with Mrs Jowell. More and more I'm finding
myself watching BBC instead of the seventh repeat of whatever on Sky.

Now that Blockbuster have come up with that unlimited DVD rental for
£14 a month, freeview is looking more and more attractive.

--
Conor

Normality will be restored once we work out what normality actually is.

I have to sort of agree with Mrs Jowell. More and more I'm finding
myself watching BBC instead of the seventh repeat of whatever on Sky.

I can't find the programmes for the trailers and (politically incorrect
expletive deleted) dancers

mike

Aztech wrote:

The price of a colour TV licence will increase by £5.50 from April 2005, the
government announced on Thursday.
Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell announced the increase in a statement to the
House of Commons.

The rise would help provide "a strong and distinctive schedule of high quality
programmes," said Ms Jowell.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...io/4022873.stm


Bargain ! Long live the Beeb ! (not sarcastic by the way)
Dave

In message 0, mike
ring wrote

I have to sort of agree with Mrs Jowell. More and more I'm finding
myself watching BBC instead of the seventh repeat of whatever on Sky.


I can't find the programmes for the trailers and (politically incorrect
expletive deleted) dancers

It's slightly better than the other broadcasters who seem to make one
hour of original programming a week and then repeat it to fill their air
time.
--
Alan

"Dave Fawthrop" wrote in message
...
Well worth the money IMO
Long live Aunty and the licence fee.

Yes and No.

I fully support the BBC and beleive it's excellent value for money but I
don't agree with the present criminal aspect of the license. Surely this
is a civil matter and should be decriminalised as has been done with
parking and other road traffic issues.

There is also the fundamental issue that I don't believe I should need a
license - permission from the State - to receive broadcast information.

Roger

"Roger" wrote in message
...

"Dave Fawthrop" wrote in message
...
Well worth the money IMO
Long live Aunty and the licence fee.

Yes and No.

I fully support the BBC and beleive it's excellent value for money but I
don't agree with the present criminal aspect of the license. Surely this
is a civil matter and should be decriminalised as has been done with
parking and other road traffic issues.

There is also the fundamental issue that I don't believe I should need a
license - permission from the State - to receive broadcast information.

So how would you ensure the licence money (or equivalent) gets collected?

--
Max Demian

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:31:43 +0000, AD C wrote:

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 10:01:38 GMT, "Aztech" wrote:

The price of a colour TV licence will increase by £5.50 from April 2005, the
government announced on Thursday.
Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell announced the increase in a statement to the
House of Commons.

The rise would help provide "a strong and distinctive schedule of high quality
programmes," said Ms Jowell.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...io/4022873.stm


High quality programmes? Why should this rise make it any different
than before?
It do not matter how much the license goes up it will make little
difference to the rubbish that come out of the BBC.
What this rise will do is give higher wages to people who are already
over paid.

Like who, i.e. names, what they are paid and why is it too much.

It is about time the license feee was abolished, but it will never be.

Why?

"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
http://freespace.virgin.net/enigma.1666/index.htm
So how would you ensure the licence money (or equivalent) gets collected?

What is your justification for maintaining Free to Air terrestrial
services?

I have always accepted the Free to Air aspect of the BBC as 'normal' and a
'good thing', but that attitude came about when radio was king and there
were only one or two TV channels, today I'm less convinced.

IMO television viewing is changing significantly in these early years of
the 21 st century and the present 20 th century authoritarian system will
be unsustainable over the next ten year Charter period as even more
choices, from cable, satellite, DVD, and terrestrial become conveniently
available to viewers.

Just because I value the independence and veracity of BBC news and the
quality of (some) programme output unavailable elsewhere doesn't justify
others who don't agree having to pay for it.

The emphasis in modern society is on choice, veiwers making the choice of
the television/media service provider they want. Being told they must pay
for a service they don't want and are content to do without fits badly with
modern values.

Now is the time to address the issues of the changing media service
provision but the BBC and the Culture Secretary are taking a head in the
sand approach. I believe it inevitable the present system will be extended,
but it would be better if it were with an acceptable 'face' rather than
using the criminal law to beat the viewer into compliance.

Roger

"Roger" wrote in message
...

"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
http://freespace.virgin.net/enigma.1666/index.htm
So how would you ensure the licence money (or equivalent) gets collected?

What is your justification for maintaining Free to Air terrestrial
services?

So you want BBC to be a subscription service? How will you stop people from
tuning in anyway? (I'm talking about current technology - which includes
Freeview boxes as well as analogue TVs.)

--
Max Demian

In article , Max Demian
writes
"Roger" wrote in message
...

"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
http://freespace.virgin.net/enigma.1666/index.htm
So how would you ensure the licence money (or equivalent) gets collected?

What is your justification for maintaining Free to Air terrestrial
services?

So you want BBC to be a subscription service?

It isn't a matter of whether the BBC is "Free to Air" or a subscription
service. It is a matter of whether the BBC is independent of the
government in power. The license fee is just a hypothecated tax. it is
a tax on those who use television receiving equipment which pays for a
politically independent public broadcast service. If it were not for
the license fee we would simply have a choice of absolute commercialism
or have Tory BLiar being fed down our throat night and day, just as they
do in most other so called democracies. And for those who use the
argument that ITV and SKY are just as independent as the BBC: they are
only so independent *because* they compete with the BBC, which is only
independent because they are funded from a hypothecated tax system.

Instead of bleating about the license fee, you guys should be bleating
about why other public services, the police, the child support agency,
the criminal justice system, are not all funded from hypothecated taxes
rather than being subject to the whim of the political party in power at
any time.

Hypothecated tax is good. It is good for the service, it is good for
the tax-payer and it is good for the government to be held to account by
an independent authority. If we had more hypothecated taxes such as a
national security tax, rather than general taxation, ****wits like Total
Loony Blunket (TLB) would much less keen to lock all of you potential
adversaries up!
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

"Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message
...
In article , Max Demian
writes
"Roger" wrote in message
...

"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
http://freespace.virgin.net/enigma.1666/index.htm
So how would you ensure the licence money (or equivalent) gets
collected?

What is your justification for maintaining Free to Air terrestrial
services?

So you want BBC to be a subscription service?

It isn't a matter of whether the BBC is "Free to Air" or a subscription
service. It is a matter of whether the BBC is independent of the
government in power. The license fee is just a hypothecated tax.

I can see a number of objections to a licence fee system, but neither you
nor Roger have explained what you would like to replace it with. An
alternative would be a subscription service which physically prevents people
from watching BBC TV unless they pay a subscription, but analogue TV, and
most DTT boxes, don't allow for this.

--
Max Demian

In article , Max Demian
writes
"Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message
...
In article , Max Demian
writes
"Roger" wrote in message
...

"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
http://freespace.virgin.net/enigma.1666/index.htm
So how would you ensure the licence money (or equivalent) gets
collected?

What is your justification for maintaining Free to Air terrestrial
services?

So you want BBC to be a subscription service?

It isn't a matter of whether the BBC is "Free to Air" or a subscription
service. It is a matter of whether the BBC is independent of the
government in power. The license fee is just a hypothecated tax.

I can see a number of objections to a licence fee system, but neither you
nor Roger have explained what you would like to replace it with. An
alternative would be a subscription service which physically prevents people
from watching BBC TV unless they pay a subscription, but analogue TV, and
most DTT boxes, don't allow for this.

You seem to have misunderstood what I wrote - I was certainly not
arguing for an alternative to the TV licence, on the contrary, I was
arguing that hypothecated taxation, of which the TV licence is merely an
example, should be extended to many other systems which require to be
independent of government interference.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

"Roger" wrote in message

Just because I value the independence and veracity of BBC news

Nice to know there's still one at least ;)


Az.

The rise would help provide "a strong and distinctive schedule of high
quality
programmes," said Ms Jowell.


High quality programmes?

Yes, like "Little Britain" and "Two pints of lager.....". Top kwalitty
(s******!)......

Why should this rise make it any different
than before?
It do not matter how much the license goes up it will make little
difference to the rubbish that come out of the BBC.
What this rise will do is give higher wages to people who are already
over paid.

It is about time the license feee was abolished, but it will never be.

Totally agree..............

"Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message
...

It isn't a matter of whether the BBC is "Free to Air" or a subscription
service. It is a matter of whether the BBC is independent of the
government in power.

And, as you suggest elsewhere, independent of commercial pressures.

The license fee is just a hypothecated tax. [tick] it is
a tax on those who use television receiving equipment which pays for a
politically independent public broadcast service.

What troubles me is the manner in which the levy is collected and whether
the levy can continue to be justified over the next Charter period of ten
years when so many alternatives will be available.

The problem with the manner of collection is the presumption of guilt on
those who choose not have a television and not to buy a license. (Not me)
They are pestered by repeated demands to buy a license and from time to
time receive threatening letters that presume their guilt as bilkers.

Even though they may 'entertain' one of the inspectors and demonstrate that
they do not have a 'Television' nor any desire to have one and the
inspector goes away satisfied, after a relatively short period the
pestering letters start over again.

So it is that anyone who legitimately declines 'television' is the subject
of continual harassment by authorities. It is this aspect of the license
system that rankles.

Further, though I am not making a case for those who are bilkers and are
found out, I think it is quite out of order that they are hauled to a
criminal court rather than a civil one. I really don't see why the
evasion of the license fee is not decriminalised. Parking doesn't seem to
have suffered any loss of revenue since it was decriminalised, quite the
opposite.

Diversification of media sources over the next Charter period will result
in many viewers finding all they need without turning to the BBC and will
become increasing rebellious about paying for something they are content
without.

[snip]
Instead of bleating about the license fee, you guys should be bleating
about why other public services, the police, the child support agency,
the criminal justice system, are not all funded from hypothecated taxes
rather than being subject to the whim of the political party in power at
any time.

The Chancellor is NEVER going to give up control over any tax revenue.
By the way, I'm protesting, not bleating, about the manner of collection.

Hypothecated tax is good. It is good for the service, it is good for
the tax-payer and it is good for the government to be held to account by
an independent authority. [tick]
[snip]

The problem is it only gets the support of the tax payer when they are
beneficiaries of it. Would everyone really pay separately for Police or
'war' and what about when there are insufficient funds raised e.g fare
revenue for railway infrastructure.

The issue is about designing an acceptable scheme where those who choose to
use it, pay for it but those who choose not to have it can legitimately do
so without harrasment and taint.

'Max Demain' askes if I am proposing subscription based on encoding as a
solution. I don't 'really' want that but regret to say it may be the only
equitable system for the future.

Roger.

In article , Roger
writes

What troubles me is the manner in which the levy is collected and whether
the levy can continue to be justified over the next Charter period of ten
years when so many alternatives will be available.

I agree that its collection method is somewhat outdated and a newer
process requires development.

The problem with the manner of collection is the presumption of guilt on
those who choose not have a television and not to buy a license. (Not me)
They are pestered by repeated demands to buy a license and from time to
time receive threatening letters that presume their guilt as bilkers.

Tell me about it. I spent many years without a TV and underwent the
same enquiries. It was fun after my gf at the time bought a TV as a
gift for her parents and the "inspectors" used to turn up at the door
asking if I was Mr "gf's surname".
"No, sorry, you must have the wrong address."
"This is number X, isn't it?"
"Yes."
"We're, um, TV license inspectors."
"Really? There are no TVs, homosexuals or paedophiles in this house!
Are you lost or something? "
"Can we ask your name sir?"
"Certainly squire! Is just the once enough, or would you like to ask
again?" ;-)

So it is that anyone who legitimately declines 'television' is the subject
of continual harassment by authorities.

Strangely enough, I get similar harassment from the Inland Revenue every
year demanding that I pay extra Income Tax. Yes it can make you feel
that you are guilty until proven innocent, if that is your
interpretation of the process. Such enquiries are, however, a
consequence of any non-uniform taxation system, not specifically the
license fee collection process.

Further, though I am not making a case for those who are bilkers and are
found out, I think it is quite out of order that they are hauled to a
criminal court rather than a civil one. I really don't see why the
evasion of the license fee is not decriminalised. Parking doesn't seem to
have suffered any loss of revenue since it was decriminalised, quite the
opposite.

As far as I can recall, Tax Evasion is still a criminal offence, so what
is your argument for making an exception for TV License Fee dodgers who
are, to all intents and purposes, evading the payment of tax.

Diversification of media sources over the next Charter period will result
in many viewers finding all they need without turning to the BBC and will
become increasing rebellious about paying for something they are content
without.

If they are paying for something they can do without all they have to do
is disable their TV and stop paying the license fee. As you point out,
there are many media sources and broadcast TV is only one. If you do
without receiving broadcast TV then there is no requirement to pay the
license fee as it is. The authorities will of course still check and
may require evidence that you are not subject to that tax, just as they
require evidence of my entitlement to any Income Tax Allowances I claim.

Hypothecated tax is good. It is good for the service, it is good for
the tax-payer and it is good for the government to be held to account by
an independent authority. [tick]
[snip]

The problem is it only gets the support of the tax payer when they are
beneficiaries of it. Would everyone really pay separately for Police or
'war' and what about when there are insufficient funds raised e.g fare
revenue for railway infrastructure.

If we had a hypothecated tax covering the rail system then it certainly
would not be in the mess it currently is. Look at the road system - if
the road tax were hypothecated then far more money would be available to
maintain and develop it than there currently is. There is also a good
argument that the entire transport system should be funded from one tax
on everyone who uses any form of mechanised transport.

The issue is about designing an acceptable scheme where those who choose to
use it, pay for it but those who choose not to have it can legitimately do
so without harrasment and taint.

What is this "taint" you refer to? I assume that you don't feel guilty
just seeing a police car parked outside your house? Why would you then
feel "tainted" by standing talking to a couple of guys with clipboards
on your doorstep for 5 minutes?

Your problem doesn't sound like it is the license fee! :-(
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

"Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message
...
[snip]
Hypothecated tax is good. It is good for the service, it is good for
the tax-payer and it is good for the government to be held to account
by
an independent authority. [tick]
[snip]

The problem is it only gets the support of the tax payer when they are
beneficiaries of it. Would everyone really pay separately for Police or
'war' and what about when there are insufficient funds raised e.g fare
revenue for railway infrastructure.

If we had a hypothecated tax covering the rail system then it certainly
would not be in the mess it currently is. Look at the road system - if
the road tax were hypothecated then far more money would be available to
maintain and develop it than there currently is. There is also a good
argument that the entire transport system should be funded from one tax
on everyone who uses any form of mechanised transport.

The issue is about designing an acceptable scheme where those who choose
to
use it, pay for it but those who choose not to have it can legitimately
do
so without harrasment and taint.

What is this "taint" you refer to? I assume that you don't feel guilty
just seeing a police car parked outside your house? Why would you then
feel "tainted" by standing talking to a couple of guys with clipboards
on your doorstep for 5 minutes?

Your problem doesn't sound like it is the license fee! :-(

Those who choose not to have television are tainted by the convictions of
viewers who have been caught avoiding the license fee, reinforcing the
notion that not to have a license for any reason is a crime. Because
television is part of every day life much of the public have difficulty
believing that anyone can voluntarily choose to live without it and that
probably this is an excuse and they are guilty of evasion and 'getting away
with it'.

An example of public attitudes was highlighted to me recently when I
attempted to buy a DVD player in Sainsburys. At the checkout the
supervisor produced a pad of forms from TV licensing and demanded my
details. Declining to give the details I pointed out that a license was
not required for a DVD player as it had no tuner for receiving broadcast
programmes. (I have TV license but saw no reason to send my details in
for DVD player)

This was not accepted by the supervisor who said I would need to plug the
DVD into a television to watch the DVD's and so needed a license. Further
the form was a joint Sainsburys product guarantee and TV licensing form and
without it my details would not be added to the product gaurantee data
base. In the end the manager had to be called before the DVD player could
be released with completing the form.

Intriged by this I also enquired at Homebase if they would require details
for TV licensing if I bought a DVD player. This appeared to place in the
mind of those on the helpdesk that I was a license dodger trying out the
ground. The supervisor (who was someway off and not dealing with my
enquiry) started shouting at me that they had to take the details of
everyone who bought a TV, video, or DVD player and if they didn't they
would be fined 1000 pounds by the TV licensing for every device sold
without a form being completed. I don't know the truth of this but thought
thier reaction revealed something of public attitudes.


I was intially attracted by the notion that hypothecated taxation produces
better sevices with more accountability but it has some serious drawbacks.

Hypothecation provides the opportunity for martyrs, it diminishes the
ability of the Chancellor to freely allocate revenue across the range of
public spending, and I suspect it may lead to higher taxation providing
social but commercially unjustifiable services paid for by the hypothecated
tax. I suspect that 'transport' would be contentious in this respect.

Just to clarify my main objection to the present licensing arrangements is
that the BBC is essentially a news and entertainment medium consumed in the
home and I think that as far as possible the criminal law should keep out
of what people do in their homes. Consumers should be free to choose
whether to buy the service on offer or not. That does question the
whole notion of free to air with possibly expensive consequences.

Roger

"Roger" wrote in message ...

An example of public attitudes was highlighted to me recently when I
attempted to buy a DVD player in Sainsburys. At the checkout the
supervisor produced a pad of forms from TV licensing and demanded my
details. Declining to give the details I pointed out that a license was
not required for a DVD player as it had no tuner for receiving broadcast
programmes. (I have TV license but saw no reason to send my details in
for DVD player)

This was not accepted by the supervisor who said I would need to plug the
DVD into a television to watch the DVD's and so needed a license. Further
the form was a joint Sainsburys product guarantee and TV licensing form and
without it my details would not be added to the product gaurantee data
base. In the end the manager had to be called before the DVD player could
be released with completing the form.

Intriged by this I also enquired at Homebase if they would require details
for TV licensing if I bought a DVD player. This appeared to place in the
mind of those on the helpdesk that I was a license dodger trying out the
ground. The supervisor (who was someway off and not dealing with my
enquiry) started shouting at me that they had to take the details of
everyone who bought a TV, video, or DVD player and if they didn't they
would be fined 1000 pounds by the TV licensing for every device sold
without a form being completed. I don't know the truth of this but thought
thier reaction revealed something of public attitudes.

Do you know Roger, I was about to say that this was complete rubbish -
I've bought loads of DVD players for our company and never come across
this.

Then I realised that, for one reason or another, our company address
was usually requested on some pretence or another.

So next time I'll not give it, and see what happens.

Cheers,
David.

P.S. Our company doesn't receive broadcast TV (though occasionally one
of us will bring in a portable TV aerial for some special event) but
apparently we have a TV license just to make life easier.

An example of public attitudes was highlighted to me recently when I
attempted to buy a DVD player in Sainsburys. At the checkout the
supervisor produced a pad of forms from TV licensing and demanded my
details.

on the pad was there a tick box for DVD players? on my pad there is not

"David Robinson" wrote in message
om...

Do you know Roger, I was about to say that this was complete rubbish -
I've bought loads of DVD players for our company and never come across
this.

Then I realised that, for one reason or another, our company address
was usually requested on some pretence or another.

Well for TV & video recorders in the larger electrical retailers I think it
happens invisibly. At the point of sale the name and address is fed into
the computer as part of the guarantee /receipt information and the customer
is not specifically told that its also being sent off to the licencing
authorities.

Incidently when I asked about it in Comet (its next to Homebase here) the
helpful assistant clicked through the computer screens and said 'no, it's
not asking for info for a DVD sale'. So they appear to be on the ball.

Roger

"bill" wrote in message
...


An example of public attitudes was highlighted to me recently when I
attempted to buy a DVD player in Sainsburys. At the checkout the
supervisor produced a pad of forms from TV licensing and demanded my
details.

on the pad was there a tick box for DVD players? on my pad there is not

That's right, just TV / Video Recorders were listed. That was part of
the frustration. It wasn't called for on the form but the supervisor
insisted on it. It was quite understandable that the assistant in
Sainsburys, being completely non technical, would think a DVD player was
the same sort of thing as a video recorder, but there should have been some
staff training on the point.

The whole affair was perfectly civil at all times and though I tried to
explain the essential difference to a video, i.e. no tuner, no ability to
receive broadcasts, so no licence requirement, I could not get this across.
ISTM that most people do not appreciate that a video recorder has a tuner
in it. Realistically, why should they.

Even after the manager (who did recognise the difference) had resolved the
situation the supervisors final comment to me was 'it's because the form
was printed before DVD players came out'. I gave up at that point!

Roger

"Mike Henry" wrote in message
...
The supervisor was wrong on many counts. Firstly you could have watched
on a tunerless monitor -

Tried that argument but got back an incredulous look, monitor - what's
that? - a computer thingy?

the assumption that you will use a TV is
probably right, but still an assumption. Secondly you don't need a
licence (note English spelling!)

Corrected. I thought it looked a bit odd.

Roger