TV licence to increase to £126.50

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)