1 in 6 people don't watch BBC TV

At 13:07:27 on 13/07/2006, DAB sounds worse than FM delighted
uk.tech.digital-tv by announcing:

wrote:
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

Two examples that come immediately to mind are the Poll Tax
(infinitely fairer than Council tax but uncollectable),
It's a great idea if you're in favour of riots.

This is very much a side issue but that's a flippant answer. There
are two adults in my household. The property next door is occupied
by 5 professional sharers. Similar value of house - why should i
pay the same tax for local services as they do?


Wasn't the Poll Tax charged the same for everybody, independently of
what they earnt? If so, that's about as unfair as you can possibly
get, because Mr One Million Pound Salary Fat Cat is being charged the
same as Mr Minimum Wage.

And is almost certainly using no more services than Mr Minimum Wage; in
fact probably fewer since his kids will probably be in private
education etc.

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
wrote:
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

Two examples that come immediately to mind are the Poll Tax
(infinitely fairer than Council tax but uncollectable),
It's a great idea if you're in favour of riots.

This is very much a side issue but that's a flippant answer. There
are two adults in my household. The property next door is occupied
by 5 professional sharers. Similar value of house - why should i pay
the same tax for local services as they do?


Wasn't the Poll Tax charged the same for everybody, independently of what
they earnt? If so, that's about as unfair as you can possibly get,
because Mr One Million Pound Salary Fat Cat is being charged the same as
Mr Minimum Wage.

perhaps because the services that local authorities provide take no account
of the income of the user. Indeed, Mr Fat Cat might not even use some of
these services, so, by your logic, should claim a discount.

--
From KT24 - in drought-ridden Surrey

Using a RISC OS5 computer

Alex wrote:
It depends on your definition of "time-shift", and it is this
definition that would be tested in court. The licence is required
if you receive programmes at the same time or virtually the same
time as they are broadcast. I would argue that an hour later is
not even virtually the same time and therefore a licence is not
required.

You *did* receive them "at the same time or virtually the same time as they
are broadcast". That you chose not to *view* them until some time later is
utterly irrelevant!

Any court would make mincemeat of such a defence.

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
So don't try and suggest that the concept on which the BBC was built
was DIY sodding SOS et al.

Erm... ONE show? You pick on ONE show out of everything the BBC does?


It's just an example of lowest common denominator toss that's
broadcast. Don't delude yourself it's the only sodding one...

Intrigued by your antipathy towards this show I went to the trouble of
watching it. I thought it was fairly entertaining, with a strong human
interest angle, and mildly educative. I have no objection to my licence
money being used to make it. I wouldn't want the schedules to be packed with
copycat versions, but 30 minutes out of the week seems fine to me.

John Cartmell wrote:
In article ,
Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , John Cartmell wrote:
Quite true, but it is still a kind of "use" of the car rather than
something else. The point I was trying to make was that the car tax
actually goes to fund the use of the thing you are paying for, whereas
if you want to watch any non-BBC television broadcasts you are legally
required to pay for something other than what you use.

You haven't yet managed to find anyone paying the licence fee who doesn't
benefit from the BBC's services.

No I haven't found any such people because I didn't know I was expected to
look for them. I don't personally know everybodty's viewing habits, but it
is not beyond reason that a somebody might want to watch television that
doen't include anything from the BBC, yet in the UK, they would still be
required by law to pay the BBC, effectively for the right to see other
people's work.

You're still missing it. The BBC != BBC TV.

If you cannot find anyone who pays the licence fee and doesn't benefit from
BBC services then this discussion is based on a false premise. We (many of us)
are required to pay a nominal sum and we (more of us) have access to services
that are provided by that money. Some of us notice and/or appreciate the
services more than others and we all benefit by the existence of the services.
We would all be poorer without those services.

That is your opinion, not the opinion of many. Some of us consider the
fee to be far from nominal (how much are you on) and to grossly exceed
any benefit that the BBC gives for it. I could certainly spend that
money in different ways for a greater reward. The vast majority of the
BBC's expenditure gives no benefit whatever except to those people who
watch or listen to its services, and how much of a "benefit" that is a
highly questionable.


Keep paying. Stop supporting foreign chancers who want to destroy *our*
services for their own profit and power. And join in a campaign to improve the
content of those services.


Complain loudly. Stop trusting in those unaccountable people who
purport to do things for your own good, and empower yourselves to
choose what entertainment you pay for. Stop subsidising other people's
entertainment - they consider £131.50 to be "nominal" and can afford
the increase.

Regards,
Arfur

John Cartmell wrote:
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
And if BBC1 is so popular

Why is it that you're rabbiting on about BBC1 whilst everyone else is
discussing the whole of the BBC's output? You're saying that, with all the
money the BBC receives it could produce something better than just the output
of BBC1. Let's agree. It could. It does.

More is not synonymous with better.

Regards,
Arfur

At 13:27:11 on 13/07/2006, Pyriform delighted uk.tech.digital-tv by
announcing:

Alex wrote:
It depends on your definition of "time-shift", and it is this
definition that would be tested in court. The licence is
required if you receive programmes at the same time or
virtually the same time as they are broadcast. I would argue
that an hour later is not even virtually the same time and
therefore a licence is not required.

You did receive them "at the same time or virtually the same time as
they are broadcast".

The person doing the recording did, yes. And the act of recording them
requires a licence.

That you chose not to view them until some time
later is utterly irrelevant!

And the act of viewing them from the recording does not require a
licence.

"Alex" wrote in message
...

snip

Please cite the section of the (TVL) law that agrees with your
assertions.

At 13:49:07 on 13/07/2006, :::Jerry:::: delighted uk.tech.digital-tv by
announcing:


"Alex" wrote in message
...

snip

Please cite the section of the (TVL) law that agrees with your
assertions.

Why not check your licence itself? From the TVL website: "If you use a
TV or any other device to receive or record TV programmes (for example,
a VCR, set-top box, DVD recorder or PC with a broadcast card) - you
need a TV Licence."

Note: "to receive or record TV programmes". NOT "to watch" programmes.
It's no accident that they didn't write "to watch" - because it's not
true.

At 13:52:56 on 13/07/2006, Alex delighted uk.tech.digital-tv by
announcing:

At 13:49:07 on 13/07/2006, :::Jerry:::: delighted uk.tech.digital-tv
by announcing:


"Alex" wrote in message
...

snip

Please cite the section of the (TVL) law that agrees with your
assertions.

Why not check your licence itself? From the TVL website: "If you use
a TV or any other device to receive or record TV programmes (for
example, a VCR, set-top box, DVD recorder or PC with a broadcast
card) - you need a TV Licence."

Note: "to receive or record TV programmes". NOT "to watch"
programmes. It's no accident that they didn't write "to watch" -
because it's not true.

And actually, I'll turn that around. In the UK, everything is
permitted unless there is legislation preventing it. So the question
to you is, can you cite the legislation that prohibits me from watching
recordings of TV broadcasts?