The TV “license” is something out of the dark ages.
Put a modest tax on internet and mobile data.
Job done.
Why should there need to be a modest tax on data....whats it paying for a lot of it has nothing to do with tv. We pay the creators when we pay our streaming sub....why should I for example be taxed for the data flowing when I log onto a hospital server at 3 am to get them back up and running
The Mirror had a report yesterday and now similar reports have appeared in several papers, eg The Times today reports:
"The BBC confirmed that 2.7 million over-75s had paid for their licence. An extra 750,000 applied for free licences available to anyone on pension credit, leaving a shortfall of 750,000 based on the 4.2 million over-75s who previously held free licences.
Some could be covered if other people in the household have a licence, if they have stopped watching the BBC or have died. The figure, reported by the Sunday Mirror, has been denied by the BBC..............
TV Licensing, on behalf of the BBC, said: “Around 80 per cent of over-75 households have transitioned to the new system, including those in receipt of pension credit eligible for a free licence funded by the BBC."
There's only one problem with all these reports - go to the latest BBC Accounts and guess what - there were actually 4,669,000 (then free) over 75s TVLs in force at 31/03/20, not 4.2m. (No journalist for any national newspaper is capable of looking this up!)
But anyway what it means is that in fact there are even more over 75s households yet to get a TVL.
If the figures above of 2.7m and 750k are correct - that's 3.45m out of 4.669m which would be 74%. The BBC says "around 80%" so maybe these numbers are understated a bit - "around 80%" might mean say 77%. If so that would likely mean approx 2.8m paying licences issued and 800k free licences issued - making 3.6m in total - leaving over 1m unlicenced.
And it's now over 6 months since free licences for over 75s ended.
So looks as if the BBC is facing a pretty significant uphill battle - I'm sure numbers will continue to inch up but they may struggle to get more than approx 3m over 75s to pay.
The mindset of people who are willing to justify stealing never ceases to amaze me
Not paying for the BBC when you don't watch the BBC isn't stealing. 🤔
If the BBC wants to be paid for it needs to be relevant. I pay for a TV Licence because I watch Sky live and if I want to watch live football I need to pay for the Licence Fee whether I watch the BBC or not. That is a mess.
I’m willing to bet that a large number of the people the Mirror cites are watching TV.
Your second point is fairer.
What is this, the 1950s?
Watching TV in the 2020s and watching the BBC are two very different things.
No, this is the 2020s. This is about obeying the law.
If you don’t like it then campaign to have it changed. Don’t not pay your quasi-taxes.
The law says you don't need to pay the licence fee if the TV you watch isn't live.
"Watching TV" doesn't require a licence fee, "watching live TV" requires the licence fee. There's a difference.
If all you watch is Prime and/or Netflix and/or Disney+ and/or YouTube then there's no need to pay the licence fee; that is 2020 law.
If you want people to pay these taxes despite not needing to then you need to change the law.
As it stands you can get any 2 of Prime, Netflix and/or Disney for about the same price as the Licence Fee and they provide far, far, far better value for money.
Yes I appreciate that if you don't watch live tv you don't need to pay the LF.
Just out of interest, is, say, Sky News "live tv"?
Yes.
Interesting; one thinks sport is all there is live. That would be an interesting discussion to be had with the enforcement officers (having just debussed from their TV detector van...).
I wonder if it would be a pain for, eg @Philip_Thompson to avoid watching the news on Sky.
"Deaths strongly falling in Sweden" "OH sure, last week's deaths have been revised up by 100% but this week, this week cases are falling" "Oh sure, the last 2 weeks of cases have now been revised up to the extent that there is a new peak and sure testing levels are down by a third and positivity is still running at 10% but THIS WEEK. THIS WEEK DEATHS ARE FALLING"
The Mirror had a report yesterday and now similar reports have appeared in several papers, eg The Times today reports:
"The BBC confirmed that 2.7 million over-75s had paid for their licence. An extra 750,000 applied for free licences available to anyone on pension credit, leaving a shortfall of 750,000 based on the 4.2 million over-75s who previously held free licences.
Some could be covered if other people in the household have a licence, if they have stopped watching the BBC or have died. The figure, reported by the Sunday Mirror, has been denied by the BBC..............
TV Licensing, on behalf of the BBC, said: “Around 80 per cent of over-75 households have transitioned to the new system, including those in receipt of pension credit eligible for a free licence funded by the BBC."
There's only one problem with all these reports - go to the latest BBC Accounts and guess what - there were actually 4,669,000 (then free) over 75s TVLs in force at 31/03/20, not 4.2m. (No journalist for any national newspaper is capable of looking this up!)
But anyway what it means is that in fact there are even more over 75s households yet to get a TVL.
If the figures above of 2.7m and 750k are correct - that's 3.45m out of 4.669m which would be 74%. The BBC says "around 80%" so maybe these numbers are understated a bit - "around 80%" might mean say 77%. If so that would likely mean approx 2.8m paying licences issued and 800k free licences issued - making 3.6m in total - leaving over 1m unlicenced.
And it's now over 6 months since free licences for over 75s ended.
So looks as if the BBC is facing a pretty significant uphill battle - I'm sure numbers will continue to inch up but they may struggle to get more than approx 3m over 75s to pay.
My father is one of those, he had a free licence and now has none but then as he said why should I? Since he has been locked down he has discovered net flix and prime courtesy of spare log ins from me and my son. He finally joined the computer age and can't now imagine watching broadcast tv
Which is of course his prerogative (not to pay the licence fee) but it is against the law as it stands.
I also agree that it is ludicrous to have to pay the LF to watch live sport on, say, Sky. But that is how the law stands and the law should change.
I mean I haven't used the Manchester Ship Canal but I daresay some fraction of my taxes goes on its or related upkeep.
Wrong. You can watch netflix and prime without a license.
That's the distinction: Netflix and Prime (and Disney+) aren't live.
If you want to stream anything live, even non-BBC, that is when you need to pay the fee.
If I didn't have Sky I wouldn't pay the Licence Fee. We watch Netflix, Disney, Prime and Sky - the BBC is pants in comparison but the fee needs paying for to make the Sky legal which is an absurd nonsense.
I've always assumed that BBC does not have a +1 service because it would mean you didn't need a licence to watch an hour later.... Anyone confirm?
I guess the same would apply to repeats from all channels. How do they prove you are watching the show that is currently live, versus watching an earlier broadcast on catch-up.
The Mirror had a report yesterday and now similar reports have appeared in several papers, eg The Times today reports:
"The BBC confirmed that 2.7 million over-75s had paid for their licence. An extra 750,000 applied for free licences available to anyone on pension credit, leaving a shortfall of 750,000 based on the 4.2 million over-75s who previously held free licences.
Some could be covered if other people in the household have a licence, if they have stopped watching the BBC or have died. The figure, reported by the Sunday Mirror, has been denied by the BBC..............
TV Licensing, on behalf of the BBC, said: “Around 80 per cent of over-75 households have transitioned to the new system, including those in receipt of pension credit eligible for a free licence funded by the BBC."
There's only one problem with all these reports - go to the latest BBC Accounts and guess what - there were actually 4,669,000 (then free) over 75s TVLs in force at 31/03/20, not 4.2m. (No journalist for any national newspaper is capable of looking this up!)
But anyway what it means is that in fact there are even more over 75s households yet to get a TVL.
If the figures above of 2.7m and 750k are correct - that's 3.45m out of 4.669m which would be 74%. The BBC says "around 80%" so maybe these numbers are understated a bit - "around 80%" might mean say 77%. If so that would likely mean approx 2.8m paying licences issued and 800k free licences issued - making 3.6m in total - leaving over 1m unlicenced.
And it's now over 6 months since free licences for over 75s ended.
So looks as if the BBC is facing a pretty significant uphill battle - I'm sure numbers will continue to inch up but they may struggle to get more than approx 3m over 75s to pay.
The mindset of people who are willing to justify stealing never ceases to amaze me
Not paying for the BBC when you don't watch the BBC isn't stealing. 🤔
If the BBC wants to be paid for it needs to be relevant. I pay for a TV Licence because I watch Sky live and if I want to watch live football I need to pay for the Licence Fee whether I watch the BBC or not. That is a mess.
I’m willing to bet that a large number of the people the Mirror cites are watching TV.
Your second point is fairer.
What is this, the 1950s?
Watching TV in the 2020s and watching the BBC are two very different things.
No, this is the 2020s. This is about obeying the law.
If you don’t like it then campaign to have it changed. Don’t not pay your quasi-taxes.
The law says you don't need to pay the licence fee if the TV you watch isn't live.
"Watching TV" doesn't require a licence fee, "watching live TV" requires the licence fee. There's a difference.
If all you watch is Prime and/or Netflix and/or Disney+ and/or YouTube then there's no need to pay the licence fee; that is 2020 law.
If you want people to pay these taxes despite not needing to then you need to change the law.
As it stands you can get any 2 of Prime, Netflix and/or Disney for about the same price as the Licence Fee and they provide far, far, far better value for money.
The Mirror had a report yesterday and now similar reports have appeared in several papers, eg The Times today reports:
"The BBC confirmed that 2.7 million over-75s had paid for their licence. An extra 750,000 applied for free licences available to anyone on pension credit, leaving a shortfall of 750,000 based on the 4.2 million over-75s who previously held free licences.
Some could be covered if other people in the household have a licence, if they have stopped watching the BBC or have died. The figure, reported by the Sunday Mirror, has been denied by the BBC..............
TV Licensing, on behalf of the BBC, said: “Around 80 per cent of over-75 households have transitioned to the new system, including those in receipt of pension credit eligible for a free licence funded by the BBC."
There's only one problem with all these reports - go to the latest BBC Accounts and guess what - there were actually 4,669,000 (then free) over 75s TVLs in force at 31/03/20, not 4.2m. (No journalist for any national newspaper is capable of looking this up!)
But anyway what it means is that in fact there are even more over 75s households yet to get a TVL.
If the figures above of 2.7m and 750k are correct - that's 3.45m out of 4.669m which would be 74%. The BBC says "around 80%" so maybe these numbers are understated a bit - "around 80%" might mean say 77%. If so that would likely mean approx 2.8m paying licences issued and 800k free licences issued - making 3.6m in total - leaving over 1m unlicenced.
And it's now over 6 months since free licences for over 75s ended.
So looks as if the BBC is facing a pretty significant uphill battle - I'm sure numbers will continue to inch up but they may struggle to get more than approx 3m over 75s to pay.
The mindset of people who are willing to justify stealing never ceases to amaze me
Not paying for the BBC when you don't watch the BBC isn't stealing. 🤔
If the BBC wants to be paid for it needs to be relevant. I pay for a TV Licence because I watch Sky live and if I want to watch live football I need to pay for the Licence Fee whether I watch the BBC or not. That is a mess.
I’m willing to bet that a large number of the people the Mirror cites are watching TV.
Your second point is fairer.
What is this, the 1950s?
Watching TV in the 2020s and watching the BBC are two very different things.
No, this is the 2020s. This is about obeying the law.
If you don’t like it then campaign to have it changed. Don’t not pay your quasi-taxes.
The law says you don't need to pay the licence fee if the TV you watch isn't live.
"Watching TV" doesn't require a licence fee, "watching live TV" requires the licence fee. There's a difference.
If all you watch is Prime and/or Netflix and/or Disney+ and/or YouTube then there's no need to pay the licence fee; that is 2020 law.
If you want people to pay these taxes despite not needing to then you need to change the law.
As it stands you can get any 2 of Prime, Netflix and/or Disney for about the same price as the Licence Fee and they provide far, far, far better value for money.
The Mirror had a report yesterday and now similar reports have appeared in several papers, eg The Times today reports:
"The BBC confirmed that 2.7 million over-75s had paid for their licence. An extra 750,000 applied for free licences available to anyone on pension credit, leaving a shortfall of 750,000 based on the 4.2 million over-75s who previously held free licences.
Some could be covered if other people in the household have a licence, if they have stopped watching the BBC or have died. The figure, reported by the Sunday Mirror, has been denied by the BBC..............
TV Licensing, on behalf of the BBC, said: “Around 80 per cent of over-75 households have transitioned to the new system, including those in receipt of pension credit eligible for a free licence funded by the BBC."
There's only one problem with all these reports - go to the latest BBC Accounts and guess what - there were actually 4,669,000 (then free) over 75s TVLs in force at 31/03/20, not 4.2m. (No journalist for any national newspaper is capable of looking this up!)
But anyway what it means is that in fact there are even more over 75s households yet to get a TVL.
If the figures above of 2.7m and 750k are correct - that's 3.45m out of 4.669m which would be 74%. The BBC says "around 80%" so maybe these numbers are understated a bit - "around 80%" might mean say 77%. If so that would likely mean approx 2.8m paying licences issued and 800k free licences issued - making 3.6m in total - leaving over 1m unlicenced.
And it's now over 6 months since free licences for over 75s ended.
So looks as if the BBC is facing a pretty significant uphill battle - I'm sure numbers will continue to inch up but they may struggle to get more than approx 3m over 75s to pay.
The mindset of people who are willing to justify stealing never ceases to amaze me
Not paying for the BBC when you don't watch the BBC isn't stealing. 🤔
If the BBC wants to be paid for it needs to be relevant. I pay for a TV Licence because I watch Sky live and if I want to watch live football I need to pay for the Licence Fee whether I watch the BBC or not. That is a mess.
I’m willing to bet that a large number of the people the Mirror cites are watching TV.
Your second point is fairer.
What is this, the 1950s?
Watching TV in the 2020s and watching the BBC are two very different things.
No, this is the 2020s. This is about obeying the law.
If you don’t like it then campaign to have it changed. Don’t not pay your quasi-taxes.
The law says you don't need to pay the licence fee if the TV you watch isn't live.
"Watching TV" doesn't require a licence fee, "watching live TV" requires the licence fee. There's a difference.
If all you watch is Prime and/or Netflix and/or Disney+ and/or YouTube then there's no need to pay the licence fee; that is 2020 law.
If you want people to pay these taxes despite not needing to then you need to change the law.
As it stands you can get any 2 of Prime, Netflix and/or Disney for about the same price as the Licence Fee and they provide far, far, far better value for money.
In the case of my father they cost him nothing as both prime and netflix allow logins from more than one device hence he has our spare logins
The TV “license” is something out of the dark ages.
Put a modest tax on internet and mobile data.
Job done.
Or abolish the tax altogether and make it a voluntary subscription model.
People choose to subscribe to Netflix, or Disney, or Prime if they find it provides value for money. Why should the BBC be an exception to that? Maybe the BBC would be better quality if it needed to actually provide value to its subscribers.
The Mirror had a report yesterday and now similar reports have appeared in several papers, eg The Times today reports:
"The BBC confirmed that 2.7 million over-75s had paid for their licence. An extra 750,000 applied for free licences available to anyone on pension credit, leaving a shortfall of 750,000 based on the 4.2 million over-75s who previously held free licences.
Some could be covered if other people in the household have a licence, if they have stopped watching the BBC or have died. The figure, reported by the Sunday Mirror, has been denied by the BBC..............
TV Licensing, on behalf of the BBC, said: “Around 80 per cent of over-75 households have transitioned to the new system, including those in receipt of pension credit eligible for a free licence funded by the BBC."
There's only one problem with all these reports - go to the latest BBC Accounts and guess what - there were actually 4,669,000 (then free) over 75s TVLs in force at 31/03/20, not 4.2m. (No journalist for any national newspaper is capable of looking this up!)
But anyway what it means is that in fact there are even more over 75s households yet to get a TVL.
If the figures above of 2.7m and 750k are correct - that's 3.45m out of 4.669m which would be 74%. The BBC says "around 80%" so maybe these numbers are understated a bit - "around 80%" might mean say 77%. If so that would likely mean approx 2.8m paying licences issued and 800k free licences issued - making 3.6m in total - leaving over 1m unlicenced.
And it's now over 6 months since free licences for over 75s ended.
So looks as if the BBC is facing a pretty significant uphill battle - I'm sure numbers will continue to inch up but they may struggle to get more than approx 3m over 75s to pay.
The mindset of people who are willing to justify stealing never ceases to amaze me
Not paying for the BBC when you don't watch the BBC isn't stealing. 🤔
If the BBC wants to be paid for it needs to be relevant. I pay for a TV Licence because I watch Sky live and if I want to watch live football I need to pay for the Licence Fee whether I watch the BBC or not. That is a mess.
I’m willing to bet that a large number of the people the Mirror cites are watching TV.
Your second point is fairer.
What is this, the 1950s?
Watching TV in the 2020s and watching the BBC are two very different things.
No, this is the 2020s. This is about obeying the law.
If you don’t like it then campaign to have it changed. Don’t not pay your quasi-taxes.
The law says you don't need to pay the licence fee if the TV you watch isn't live.
"Watching TV" doesn't require a licence fee, "watching live TV" requires the licence fee. There's a difference.
If all you watch is Prime and/or Netflix and/or Disney+ and/or YouTube then there's no need to pay the licence fee; that is 2020 law.
If you want people to pay these taxes despite not needing to then you need to change the law.
As it stands you can get any 2 of Prime, Netflix and/or Disney for about the same price as the Licence Fee and they provide far, far, far better value for money.
The Mirror had a report yesterday and now similar reports have appeared in several papers, eg The Times today reports:
"The BBC confirmed that 2.7 million over-75s had paid for their licence. An extra 750,000 applied for free licences available to anyone on pension credit, leaving a shortfall of 750,000 based on the 4.2 million over-75s who previously held free licences.
Some could be covered if other people in the household have a licence, if they have stopped watching the BBC or have died. The figure, reported by the Sunday Mirror, has been denied by the BBC..............
TV Licensing, on behalf of the BBC, said: “Around 80 per cent of over-75 households have transitioned to the new system, including those in receipt of pension credit eligible for a free licence funded by the BBC."
There's only one problem with all these reports - go to the latest BBC Accounts and guess what - there were actually 4,669,000 (then free) over 75s TVLs in force at 31/03/20, not 4.2m. (No journalist for any national newspaper is capable of looking this up!)
But anyway what it means is that in fact there are even more over 75s households yet to get a TVL.
If the figures above of 2.7m and 750k are correct - that's 3.45m out of 4.669m which would be 74%. The BBC says "around 80%" so maybe these numbers are understated a bit - "around 80%" might mean say 77%. If so that would likely mean approx 2.8m paying licences issued and 800k free licences issued - making 3.6m in total - leaving over 1m unlicenced.
And it's now over 6 months since free licences for over 75s ended.
So looks as if the BBC is facing a pretty significant uphill battle - I'm sure numbers will continue to inch up but they may struggle to get more than approx 3m over 75s to pay.
The mindset of people who are willing to justify stealing never ceases to amaze me
Not paying for the BBC when you don't watch the BBC isn't stealing. 🤔
If the BBC wants to be paid for it needs to be relevant. I pay for a TV Licence because I watch Sky live and if I want to watch live football I need to pay for the Licence Fee whether I watch the BBC or not. That is a mess.
I’m willing to bet that a large number of the people the Mirror cites are watching TV.
Your second point is fairer.
What is this, the 1950s?
Watching TV in the 2020s and watching the BBC are two very different things.
No, this is the 2020s. This is about obeying the law.
If you don’t like it then campaign to have it changed. Don’t not pay your quasi-taxes.
The law says you don't need to pay the licence fee if the TV you watch isn't live.
"Watching TV" doesn't require a licence fee, "watching live TV" requires the licence fee. There's a difference.
If all you watch is Prime and/or Netflix and/or Disney+ and/or YouTube then there's no need to pay the licence fee; that is 2020 law.
If you want people to pay these taxes despite not needing to then you need to change the law.
As it stands you can get any 2 of Prime, Netflix and/or Disney for about the same price as the Licence Fee and they provide far, far, far better value for money.
The Mirror had a report yesterday and now similar reports have appeared in several papers, eg The Times today reports:
"The BBC confirmed that 2.7 million over-75s had paid for their licence. An extra 750,000 applied for free licences available to anyone on pension credit, leaving a shortfall of 750,000 based on the 4.2 million over-75s who previously held free licences.
Some could be covered if other people in the household have a licence, if they have stopped watching the BBC or have died. The figure, reported by the Sunday Mirror, has been denied by the BBC..............
TV Licensing, on behalf of the BBC, said: “Around 80 per cent of over-75 households have transitioned to the new system, including those in receipt of pension credit eligible for a free licence funded by the BBC."
There's only one problem with all these reports - go to the latest BBC Accounts and guess what - there were actually 4,669,000 (then free) over 75s TVLs in force at 31/03/20, not 4.2m. (No journalist for any national newspaper is capable of looking this up!)
But anyway what it means is that in fact there are even more over 75s households yet to get a TVL.
If the figures above of 2.7m and 750k are correct - that's 3.45m out of 4.669m which would be 74%. The BBC says "around 80%" so maybe these numbers are understated a bit - "around 80%" might mean say 77%. If so that would likely mean approx 2.8m paying licences issued and 800k free licences issued - making 3.6m in total - leaving over 1m unlicenced.
And it's now over 6 months since free licences for over 75s ended.
So looks as if the BBC is facing a pretty significant uphill battle - I'm sure numbers will continue to inch up but they may struggle to get more than approx 3m over 75s to pay.
The mindset of people who are willing to justify stealing never ceases to amaze me
Not paying for the BBC when you don't watch the BBC isn't stealing. 🤔
If the BBC wants to be paid for it needs to be relevant. I pay for a TV Licence because I watch Sky live and if I want to watch live football I need to pay for the Licence Fee whether I watch the BBC or not. That is a mess.
I’m willing to bet that a large number of the people the Mirror cites are watching TV.
Your second point is fairer.
What is this, the 1950s?
Watching TV in the 2020s and watching the BBC are two very different things.
No, this is the 2020s. This is about obeying the law.
If you don’t like it then campaign to have it changed. Don’t not pay your quasi-taxes.
The law says you don't need to pay the licence fee if the TV you watch isn't live.
"Watching TV" doesn't require a licence fee, "watching live TV" requires the licence fee. There's a difference.
If all you watch is Prime and/or Netflix and/or Disney+ and/or YouTube then there's no need to pay the licence fee; that is 2020 law.
If you want people to pay these taxes despite not needing to then you need to change the law.
As it stands you can get any 2 of Prime, Netflix and/or Disney for about the same price as the Licence Fee and they provide far, far, far better value for money.
In the case of my father they cost him nothing as both prime and netflix allow logins from more than one device hence he has our spare logins
Er, you pay more for more logons for both prime and netflix so it does cost him something.
Why was that delivery that went to the rope a dead ball? Why wasn't it 4 byes?
ODI it would surely have been 5 (Wide + 4)?
It hit the pad and the batsman was playing no shot. You can only score leg-byes when attempting to play the ball with the bat, or when attempting to take evasive action. (That only applies to leg-byes, ie. byes can be scored when playing no shot).
Thanks I didn't realise it had hit the pad, hence suggesting it would have been a wide in ODI.
Taxing the internet to fund a television network is nuts. It's palpably worse than the licence fee. Why should someone who doesn't even own a television be taxed to fund the BBC?
I believe +1 channels still count as live tv....because they broadcast "live" on a fixed schedule. The fact it is all a repeat of another channel is irrelevant....if it was the cases repeats didn't count, you could watch tv most of the time these days without a licence.
But again +1 channels is again really unnecessary, as all the shows are on catchup about an hour after the original showing.
Surely almost no-one thinks that changing leadership right now in the middle of a pandemic is a good idea.
Why? We changed Prime Ministers during both world wars.
In WWII we actually did it three times.
Edit - although surely Starmer would be happier coming in after Johnson has had some time cleaning up his own mess? Then he has the perfect alibi for any mistakes he makes.
The Mirror had a report yesterday and now similar reports have appeared in several papers, eg The Times today reports:
"The BBC confirmed that 2.7 million over-75s had paid for their licence. An extra 750,000 applied for free licences available to anyone on pension credit, leaving a shortfall of 750,000 based on the 4.2 million over-75s who previously held free licences.
Some could be covered if other people in the household have a licence, if they have stopped watching the BBC or have died. The figure, reported by the Sunday Mirror, has been denied by the BBC..............
TV Licensing, on behalf of the BBC, said: “Around 80 per cent of over-75 households have transitioned to the new system, including those in receipt of pension credit eligible for a free licence funded by the BBC."
There's only one problem with all these reports - go to the latest BBC Accounts and guess what - there were actually 4,669,000 (then free) over 75s TVLs in force at 31/03/20, not 4.2m. (No journalist for any national newspaper is capable of looking this up!)
But anyway what it means is that in fact there are even more over 75s households yet to get a TVL.
If the figures above of 2.7m and 750k are correct - that's 3.45m out of 4.669m which would be 74%. The BBC says "around 80%" so maybe these numbers are understated a bit - "around 80%" might mean say 77%. If so that would likely mean approx 2.8m paying licences issued and 800k free licences issued - making 3.6m in total - leaving over 1m unlicenced.
And it's now over 6 months since free licences for over 75s ended.
So looks as if the BBC is facing a pretty significant uphill battle - I'm sure numbers will continue to inch up but they may struggle to get more than approx 3m over 75s to pay.
The mindset of people who are willing to justify stealing never ceases to amaze me
Not paying for the BBC when you don't watch the BBC isn't stealing. 🤔
If the BBC wants to be paid for it needs to be relevant. I pay for a TV Licence because I watch Sky live and if I want to watch live football I need to pay for the Licence Fee whether I watch the BBC or not. That is a mess.
I’m willing to bet that a large number of the people the Mirror cites are watching TV.
Your second point is fairer.
What is this, the 1950s?
Watching TV in the 2020s and watching the BBC are two very different things.
No, this is the 2020s. This is about obeying the law.
If you don’t like it then campaign to have it changed. Don’t not pay your quasi-taxes.
The law says you don't need to pay the licence fee if the TV you watch isn't live.
"Watching TV" doesn't require a licence fee, "watching live TV" requires the licence fee. There's a difference.
If all you watch is Prime and/or Netflix and/or Disney+ and/or YouTube then there's no need to pay the licence fee; that is 2020 law.
If you want people to pay these taxes despite not needing to then you need to change the law.
As it stands you can get any 2 of Prime, Netflix and/or Disney for about the same price as the Licence Fee and they provide far, far, far better value for money.
The Mirror had a report yesterday and now similar reports have appeared in several papers, eg The Times today reports:
"The BBC confirmed that 2.7 million over-75s had paid for their licence. An extra 750,000 applied for free licences available to anyone on pension credit, leaving a shortfall of 750,000 based on the 4.2 million over-75s who previously held free licences.
Some could be covered if other people in the household have a licence, if they have stopped watching the BBC or have died. The figure, reported by the Sunday Mirror, has been denied by the BBC..............
TV Licensing, on behalf of the BBC, said: “Around 80 per cent of over-75 households have transitioned to the new system, including those in receipt of pension credit eligible for a free licence funded by the BBC."
There's only one problem with all these reports - go to the latest BBC Accounts and guess what - there were actually 4,669,000 (then free) over 75s TVLs in force at 31/03/20, not 4.2m. (No journalist for any national newspaper is capable of looking this up!)
But anyway what it means is that in fact there are even more over 75s households yet to get a TVL.
If the figures above of 2.7m and 750k are correct - that's 3.45m out of 4.669m which would be 74%. The BBC says "around 80%" so maybe these numbers are understated a bit - "around 80%" might mean say 77%. If so that would likely mean approx 2.8m paying licences issued and 800k free licences issued - making 3.6m in total - leaving over 1m unlicenced.
And it's now over 6 months since free licences for over 75s ended.
So looks as if the BBC is facing a pretty significant uphill battle - I'm sure numbers will continue to inch up but they may struggle to get more than approx 3m over 75s to pay.
The mindset of people who are willing to justify stealing never ceases to amaze me
Not paying for the BBC when you don't watch the BBC isn't stealing. 🤔
If the BBC wants to be paid for it needs to be relevant. I pay for a TV Licence because I watch Sky live and if I want to watch live football I need to pay for the Licence Fee whether I watch the BBC or not. That is a mess.
I’m willing to bet that a large number of the people the Mirror cites are watching TV.
Your second point is fairer.
What is this, the 1950s?
Watching TV in the 2020s and watching the BBC are two very different things.
No, this is the 2020s. This is about obeying the law.
If you don’t like it then campaign to have it changed. Don’t not pay your quasi-taxes.
The law says you don't need to pay the licence fee if the TV you watch isn't live.
"Watching TV" doesn't require a licence fee, "watching live TV" requires the licence fee. There's a difference.
If all you watch is Prime and/or Netflix and/or Disney+ and/or YouTube then there's no need to pay the licence fee; that is 2020 law.
If you want people to pay these taxes despite not needing to then you need to change the law.
As it stands you can get any 2 of Prime, Netflix and/or Disney for about the same price as the Licence Fee and they provide far, far, far better value for money.
The Mirror had a report yesterday and now similar reports have appeared in several papers, eg The Times today reports:
"The BBC confirmed that 2.7 million over-75s had paid for their licence. An extra 750,000 applied for free licences available to anyone on pension credit, leaving a shortfall of 750,000 based on the 4.2 million over-75s who previously held free licences.
Some could be covered if other people in the household have a licence, if they have stopped watching the BBC or have died. The figure, reported by the Sunday Mirror, has been denied by the BBC..............
TV Licensing, on behalf of the BBC, said: “Around 80 per cent of over-75 households have transitioned to the new system, including those in receipt of pension credit eligible for a free licence funded by the BBC."
There's only one problem with all these reports - go to the latest BBC Accounts and guess what - there were actually 4,669,000 (then free) over 75s TVLs in force at 31/03/20, not 4.2m. (No journalist for any national newspaper is capable of looking this up!)
But anyway what it means is that in fact there are even more over 75s households yet to get a TVL.
If the figures above of 2.7m and 750k are correct - that's 3.45m out of 4.669m which would be 74%. The BBC says "around 80%" so maybe these numbers are understated a bit - "around 80%" might mean say 77%. If so that would likely mean approx 2.8m paying licences issued and 800k free licences issued - making 3.6m in total - leaving over 1m unlicenced.
And it's now over 6 months since free licences for over 75s ended.
So looks as if the BBC is facing a pretty significant uphill battle - I'm sure numbers will continue to inch up but they may struggle to get more than approx 3m over 75s to pay.
The mindset of people who are willing to justify stealing never ceases to amaze me
Not paying for the BBC when you don't watch the BBC isn't stealing. 🤔
If the BBC wants to be paid for it needs to be relevant. I pay for a TV Licence because I watch Sky live and if I want to watch live football I need to pay for the Licence Fee whether I watch the BBC or not. That is a mess.
I’m willing to bet that a large number of the people the Mirror cites are watching TV.
Your second point is fairer.
What is this, the 1950s?
Watching TV in the 2020s and watching the BBC are two very different things.
No, this is the 2020s. This is about obeying the law.
If you don’t like it then campaign to have it changed. Don’t not pay your quasi-taxes.
The law says you don't need to pay the licence fee if the TV you watch isn't live.
"Watching TV" doesn't require a licence fee, "watching live TV" requires the licence fee. There's a difference.
If all you watch is Prime and/or Netflix and/or Disney+ and/or YouTube then there's no need to pay the licence fee; that is 2020 law.
If you want people to pay these taxes despite not needing to then you need to change the law.
As it stands you can get any 2 of Prime, Netflix and/or Disney for about the same price as the Licence Fee and they provide far, far, far better value for money.
In the case of my father they cost him nothing as both prime and netflix allow logins from more than one device hence he has our spare logins
Er, you pay more for more logons for both prime and netflix so it does cost him something.
The basic certainly for prim comes with 2 device logins. Cant say about netflix but I think its the same
My issue with the licence fee these days is that it is totally unenforceable. Only idiots get caught breaking the law, as capita who enforce it have essentially no powers.
If you don't let them in, politely decline to engage with them, there is nothing they can do. And there is zero way of them establishing if you are watching live tv vs catchup if you only use internet streaming from outside your property.
I've never had one. All letters go in the bin and Capita goons get told to fuck off. They completely rely on the gullible and vulnerable incriminating themselves.
I enjoyed watching Sharon poison Ian Beale for free.
SA top medic tells R4 he thinks AZ will work well in older people by extrapolating from work they have on the Johnson vaccine.
Could be major news.
I think we'll here good news from the vaccination program in the UK soon. From briefly watching Marr yesterday I wouldn't be surprised to have evidence presented around the time of the review of the lockdown.
Taxing the internet to fund a television network is nuts. It's palpably worse than the licence fee. Why should someone who doesn't even own a television be taxed to fund the BBC?
Do you have any kids?
Because of plenty of people don't yet their taxes for education.
I've never claimed any social security benefits yet I contribute my taxes towards them.
Why was that delivery that went to the rope a dead ball? Why wasn't it 4 byes?
ODI it would surely have been 5 (Wide + 4)?
It hit the pad and the batsman was playing no shot. You can only score leg-byes when attempting to play the ball with the bat, or when attempting to take evasive action. (That only applies to leg-byes, ie. byes can be scored when playing no shot).
Thanks I didn't realise it had hit the pad, hence suggesting it would have been a wide in ODI.
That makes sense, thanks for the explanation.
Another slightly nerdy fact is that you can only score 4s from byes and leg-byes. So if a ball somehow managed to go for 6 after hitting a batsman on the pads or helmet it would only count as 4. Not sure why.
Yes I appreciate that if you don't watch live tv you don't need to pay the LF.
Just out of interest, is, say, Sky News "live tv"?
Yes.
Interesting; one thinks sport is all there is live. That would be an interesting discussion to be had with the enforcement officers (having just debussed from their TV detector van...).
I wonder if it would be a pain for, eg @Philip_Thompson to avoid watching the news on Sky.
Hence why I want the law to be changed and its an argument I've made to you and others in the past; I believe you understand and no longer argue against that point do you?
However many others nowadays don't watch live news. If you get your news online from prerecorded videos or articles then that isn't live so no fee required.
Yes I appreciate that if you don't watch live tv you don't need to pay the LF.
Just out of interest, is, say, Sky News "live tv"?
It depends, if you're watching it from YouTube it's live bit doesn't count as TV licence eligible. Same as stuff like NowTV for sports, you don't need a TV licence. Now that it's going to be available in 4k I've been thinking of making the jump given just how little BBC TV I watch. Cancel sky and the TV licence, I've already got Netflix, Prime and D+, add NowTV for sports and I think we'd be covered.
Surely almost no-one thinks that changing leadership right now in the middle of a pandemic is a good idea.
Why? We changed Prime Ministers during both world wars.
In WWII we actually did it three times.
Edit - although surely Starmer would be happier coming in after Johnson has had some time cleaning up his own mess? Then he has the perfect alibi for any mistakes he makes.
Taxing the internet to fund a television network is nuts. It's palpably worse than the licence fee. Why should someone who doesn't even own a television be taxed to fund the BBC?
Do you have any kids?
Because of plenty of people don't yet their taxes for education.
I've never claimed any social security benefits yet I contribute my taxes towards them.
Education is a public good though.....not sure you can say the same about east enders. The bbc is dross you can find similar too on many other channels
The TV “license” is something out of the dark ages.
Put a modest tax on internet and mobile data.
Job done.
Or abolish the tax altogether and make it a voluntary subscription model.
People choose to subscribe to Netflix, or Disney, or Prime if they find it provides value for money. Why should the BBC be an exception to that? Maybe the BBC would be better quality if it needed to actually provide value to its subscribers.
As you know, I am in favour of a "module" subscription approach to the BBC.
Split it up into component parts. Say:
Sports News & current affairs Entertainment - drama Radio Weather Local Radio/TV Childrens Documentaries Films Comedies Box sets/back catalogue (done by BritBox now) Art & Culture Other?
And charge varying degrees for each with some logical bundles.
You'd need to get to £14.60 to be equivalent to the licence fee.
Interesting article and yes I agree boundary changes have rarely changed a general election result overall, though they may change the result in a few individual seats eg if a Tory seat loses a rural hinterland thus shifting it to Labour or a Labour urban seat takes in more of suburbia shifting it more to the Tories
Taxing the internet to fund a television network is nuts. It's palpably worse than the licence fee. Why should someone who doesn't even own a television be taxed to fund the BBC?
Do you have any kids?
Because of plenty of people don't yet their taxes for education.
I've never claimed any social security benefits yet I contribute my taxes towards them.
Yes I appreciate that if you don't watch live tv you don't need to pay the LF.
Just out of interest, is, say, Sky News "live tv"?
It depends, if you're watching it from YouTube it's live bit doesn't count as TV licence eligible. Same as stuff like NowTV for sports, you don't need a TV licence. Now that it's going to be available in 4k I've been thinking of making the jump given just how little BBC TV I watch. Cancel sky and the TV licence, I've already got Netflix, Prime and D+, add NowTV for sports and I think we'd be covered.
I don't believe you are correct about Sky News, because despite it being on YouTube, it is a stream of a live scheduled channel, in the same way as you technically need a licence if you used Itv player to watch the live internet streams of the itv channels (rather than the catchup content).
You definitely do need a licence for Sky Sport on Now Tv.
Now if any of that is enforceable is a different matter. And that is why the tv licence needs to go. Nobody can enforce it.
Surely almost no-one thinks that changing leadership right now in the middle of a pandemic is a good idea.
Why? We changed Prime Ministers during both world wars.
In WWII we actually did it three times.
Edit - although surely Starmer would be happier coming in after Johnson has had some time cleaning up his own mess? Then he has the perfect alibi for any mistakes he makes.
Extreme pedantry.
We only changed PMs twice during WWII.
1) Chamberlain > Churchill
2) Churchill > Attlee
Ultra, ultra pendantry.
You have forgotten Churchill to Churchill in May 1945.
The TV “license” is something out of the dark ages.
Put a modest tax on internet and mobile data.
Job done.
Or abolish the tax altogether and make it a voluntary subscription model.
People choose to subscribe to Netflix, or Disney, or Prime if they find it provides value for money. Why should the BBC be an exception to that? Maybe the BBC would be better quality if it needed to actually provide value to its subscribers.
As you know, I am in favour of a "module" subscription approach to the BBC.
Split it up into component parts. Say:
Sports News & current affairs Entertainment - drama Radio Weather Local Radio/TV Childrens Documentaries Films Comedies Box sets/back catalogue (done by BritBox now) Art & Culture Other?
And charge varying degrees for each with some logical bundles.
You'd need to get to £14.60 to be equivalent to the licence fee.
The bbc is suffering the same problem as most american tv cable companies....they are offering something substandard to the streaming model. Americans are cutting the cord in droves and selecting instead to watch streaming services
Taxing the internet to fund a television network is nuts. It's palpably worse than the licence fee. Why should someone who doesn't even own a television be taxed to fund the BBC?
Do you have any kids?
Because of plenty of people don't yet their taxes for education.
I've never claimed any social security benefits yet I contribute my taxes towards them.
The BBC isn't a public service. It may claim to be but it isn't.
It's an opinion piece and slightly hysterical in tone (photographs of savings jars? Really?), and "lose more than £100/month and you need to show you can afford it" doesn't sound that crazy to me, but maybe it's a bit intrusive and/or it will drive gambling into the unregulated sector. Perhaps the limit is too low?
Identity and affordability checks already exist and bookmakers can ask for passports, payslips and savings accounts statements. (iirc the NCSC has questioned the safety of uploading passports.) Last year I managed to persuade a bookmaker that their demands for more and more information were becoming intrusive. (Bookmakers can be fined millions of pounds if it turns out we are betting with money pinched from our employers, and then there are money laundering regulations.)
KYC (know your customer) procedures have, you will be surprised to learn, been used to delay payments to winning customers.
£100 a month is a very low figure, especially for those who back outsiders. Follow the Pricewise tips in the Racing Post and you might make a profit in the long term but will certainly lose £100 most months.
It will also be used by the industry to root out professional gamblers. Staking tens of thousands or more without a commensurate income through a job wont be allowed even for winners. Another step in the bookmakers turning the betting industry from a market in their favour to a market in which no-one else is allowed to win.
The BBC is a TV network. TV still exists if the BBC vanishes.
The current licence fee is demonstrably fairer than a deranged internet tax because at least the licence fee is paid by TV (and radio) owners for a network that exists on both those media.
Somebody who doesn't watch TV, or own one, being compelled by force of law to pay a tax for an organisation they'll never use is nuts. Better to stick with the licence fee, which at least has a vague link between payment and usage.
Personally, I'd have a more limited licence fee for news and a few other core programmes/channels, then have a subscription for those who want more from the BBC.
Taxing the internet to fund a television network is nuts. It's palpably worse than the licence fee. Why should someone who doesn't even own a television be taxed to fund the BBC?
Do you have any kids?
Because of plenty of people don't yet their taxes for education.
I've never claimed any social security benefits yet I contribute my taxes towards them.
Education is a public good though.....not sure you can say the same about east enders. The bbc is dross you can find similar too on many other channels
Bog standard comprehensives aren't a public good.
Abolish the DFE and give the money as vouchers to parents to send their kids to the newly privatised schools.
@TSE The biggest living cheat in sport is Lance Armstrong.
Lance is only the biggest cheat in cycling who's been caught.
Fair point.
Off topic
I watched the biopic on Lance, last week. The biggest takeaway was if one crossed Lance, their career was over. During Lance's time they were all at it and many got caught.
Cycling remains "dirty". I live across the village green from Nicole Cooke's parents and although I can't claim to know her, when she is home exchange very brief pleasantries with her, so I read with interest Nicole's withering analysis on Team GB, Team Sky and so on. Nicole is a clever woman, so is careful that what she writes crosses no boundaries. She has however raised an eyebrow when former teammates forget three doping tests and get away with it.
Some US sprinters are up there with Lance, take a ban and return later.
I do wish Sam Allardyce had access to performance enhancers for his players. An exception I could turn a blind eye to.
The TV “license” is something out of the dark ages.
Put a modest tax on internet and mobile data.
Job done.
Or abolish the tax altogether and make it a voluntary subscription model.
People choose to subscribe to Netflix, or Disney, or Prime if they find it provides value for money. Why should the BBC be an exception to that? Maybe the BBC would be better quality if it needed to actually provide value to its subscribers.
As you know, I am in favour of a "module" subscription approach to the BBC.
Split it up into component parts. Say:
Sports News & current affairs Entertainment - drama Radio Weather Local Radio/TV Childrens Documentaries Films Comedies Box sets/back catalogue (done by BritBox now) Art & Culture Other?
And charge varying degrees for each with some logical bundles.
You'd need to get to £14.60 to be equivalent to the licence fee.
Must be folk out there that would pay for Mrs Brown's Boys.
Surely almost no-one thinks that changing leadership right now in the middle of a pandemic is a good idea.
Why? We changed Prime Ministers during both world wars.
In WWII we actually did it three times.
Edit - although surely Starmer would be happier coming in after Johnson has had some time cleaning up his own mess? Then he has the perfect alibi for any mistakes he makes.
Extreme pedantry.
We only changed PMs twice during WWII.
1) Chamberlain > Churchill
2) Churchill > Attlee
Ultra, ultra pendantry.
You have forgotten Churchill to Churchill in May 1945.
But also some of the comparisons for Labour are really poor
I have no idea where Labour go from here
The irony is it doesnt really have anything to do with him. Im pretty sure the vaccination programme would have happened in the same way regardless of who was running the country. Its been a success because the vast majority of the British public are willing to take a slight risk on new vaccines which a lot of people in other countries seemingly arent happy to do, for instance France.
Taxing the internet to fund a television network is nuts. It's palpably worse than the licence fee. Why should someone who doesn't even own a television be taxed to fund the BBC?
Do you have any kids?
Because of plenty of people don't yet their taxes for education.
I've never claimed any social security benefits yet I contribute my taxes towards them.
The BBC isn't a public service.
Schools are a public service.
Public service broadcasting is a public good. The BBC is a public service broadcaster.
We have this argument occasionally on PB. But unless you get the basic concept of public service broadcasting, it’s just two sets of people talking past each other.
The TV “license” is something out of the dark ages.
Put a modest tax on internet and mobile data.
Job done.
Or abolish the tax altogether and make it a voluntary subscription model.
People choose to subscribe to Netflix, or Disney, or Prime if they find it provides value for money. Why should the BBC be an exception to that? Maybe the BBC would be better quality if it needed to actually provide value to its subscribers.
As you know, I am in favour of a "module" subscription approach to the BBC.
Split it up into component parts. Say:
Sports News & current affairs Entertainment - drama Radio Weather Local Radio/TV Childrens Documentaries Films Comedies Box sets/back catalogue (done by BritBox now) Art & Culture Other?
And charge varying degrees for each with some logical bundles.
You'd need to get to £14.60 to be equivalent to the licence fee.
Curious how you would value that?
BBC Sport - what do they have nowadays? Snooker? Struggle to get anyone subscribing to that. News - Free. Sky, ITN, Facebook, YouTube - none of them charge I don't think there's a single subscription news channel out there. Entertainment, drama, documentaries, films, comedies, box sets, childrens - this is equivalent to Netflix. BBC is inferior to Netflix on these so maybe give it 70-75% of Netflix costs. £5 maybe per month? Weather - Free. Who in this country pays for weather? I can ask Google or Alexa the weather at any time free of charge.
No idea how to price up art and culture, or how popular it is.
Don't see how you can possibly justify £14.60 from that.
Taxing the internet to fund a television network is nuts. It's palpably worse than the licence fee. Why should someone who doesn't even own a television be taxed to fund the BBC?
Do you have any kids?
Because of plenty of people don't yet their taxes for education.
I've never claimed any social security benefits yet I contribute my taxes towards them.
The BBC isn't a public service. It may claim to be but it isn't.
When tv went digital and most needed a settop box the bbc totally resisted the idea of a card being needed to view like sky boxes because they knew it would show how few actually felt they needed the bbc if you only needed a licence to get the viewing card. Brit box is flopping big time in addition
One thing that's always struck me as odd about the TV tax is that it's a poll tax. It's funny how a poll tax that raises revenue for the BBC is acceptable to the Left...
"Deaths strongly falling in Sweden" "OH sure, last week's deaths have been revised up by 100% but this week, this week cases are falling" "Oh sure, the last 2 weeks of cases have now been revised up to the extent that there is a new peak and sure testing levels are down by a third and positivity is still running at 10% but THIS WEEK. THIS WEEK DEATHS ARE FALLING"
I hadn’t realised Paton is now plugging directly into the Spiked truther network. Has that been going on for a while?
The Mirror had a report yesterday and now similar reports have appeared in several papers, eg The Times today reports:
"The BBC confirmed that 2.7 million over-75s had paid for their licence. An extra 750,000 applied for free licences available to anyone on pension credit, leaving a shortfall of 750,000 based on the 4.2 million over-75s who previously held free licences.
Some could be covered if other people in the household have a licence, if they have stopped watching the BBC or have died. The figure, reported by the Sunday Mirror, has been denied by the BBC..............
TV Licensing, on behalf of the BBC, said: “Around 80 per cent of over-75 households have transitioned to the new system, including those in receipt of pension credit eligible for a free licence funded by the BBC."
There's only one problem with all these reports - go to the latest BBC Accounts and guess what - there were actually 4,669,000 (then free) over 75s TVLs in force at 31/03/20, not 4.2m. (No journalist for any national newspaper is capable of looking this up!)
But anyway what it means is that in fact there are even more over 75s households yet to get a TVL.
If the figures above of 2.7m and 750k are correct - that's 3.45m out of 4.669m which would be 74%. The BBC says "around 80%" so maybe these numbers are understated a bit - "around 80%" might mean say 77%. If so that would likely mean approx 2.8m paying licences issued and 800k free licences issued - making 3.6m in total - leaving over 1m unlicenced.
And it's now over 6 months since free licences for over 75s ended.
So looks as if the BBC is facing a pretty significant uphill battle - I'm sure numbers will continue to inch up but they may struggle to get more than approx 3m over 75s to pay.
The mindset of people who are willing to justify stealing never ceases to amaze me
Not paying for the BBC when you don't watch the BBC isn't stealing. 🤔
If the BBC wants to be paid for it needs to be relevant. I pay for a TV Licence because I watch Sky live and if I want to watch live football I need to pay for the Licence Fee whether I watch the BBC or not. That is a mess.
I’m willing to bet that a large number of the people the Mirror cites are watching TV.
Your second point is fairer.
What is this, the 1950s?
Watching TV in the 2020s and watching the BBC are two very different things.
No, this is the 2020s. This is about obeying the law.
If you don’t like it then campaign to have it changed. Don’t not pay your quasi-taxes.
The law says you don't need to pay the licence fee if the TV you watch isn't live.
"Watching TV" doesn't require a licence fee, "watching live TV" requires the licence fee. There's a difference.
If all you watch is Prime and/or Netflix and/or Disney+ and/or YouTube then there's no need to pay the licence fee; that is 2020 law.
If you want people to pay these taxes despite not needing to then you need to change the law.
As it stands you can get any 2 of Prime, Netflix and/or Disney for about the same price as the Licence Fee and they provide far, far, far better value for money.
The Mirror had a report yesterday and now similar reports have appeared in several papers, eg The Times today reports:
"The BBC confirmed that 2.7 million over-75s had paid for their licence. An extra 750,000 applied for free licences available to anyone on pension credit, leaving a shortfall of 750,000 based on the 4.2 million over-75s who previously held free licences.
Some could be covered if other people in the household have a licence, if they have stopped watching the BBC or have died. The figure, reported by the Sunday Mirror, has been denied by the BBC..............
TV Licensing, on behalf of the BBC, said: “Around 80 per cent of over-75 households have transitioned to the new system, including those in receipt of pension credit eligible for a free licence funded by the BBC."
There's only one problem with all these reports - go to the latest BBC Accounts and guess what - there were actually 4,669,000 (then free) over 75s TVLs in force at 31/03/20, not 4.2m. (No journalist for any national newspaper is capable of looking this up!)
But anyway what it means is that in fact there are even more over 75s households yet to get a TVL.
If the figures above of 2.7m and 750k are correct - that's 3.45m out of 4.669m which would be 74%. The BBC says "around 80%" so maybe these numbers are understated a bit - "around 80%" might mean say 77%. If so that would likely mean approx 2.8m paying licences issued and 800k free licences issued - making 3.6m in total - leaving over 1m unlicenced.
And it's now over 6 months since free licences for over 75s ended.
So looks as if the BBC is facing a pretty significant uphill battle - I'm sure numbers will continue to inch up but they may struggle to get more than approx 3m over 75s to pay.
The mindset of people who are willing to justify stealing never ceases to amaze me
Not paying for the BBC when you don't watch the BBC isn't stealing. 🤔
If the BBC wants to be paid for it needs to be relevant. I pay for a TV Licence because I watch Sky live and if I want to watch live football I need to pay for the Licence Fee whether I watch the BBC or not. That is a mess.
I’m willing to bet that a large number of the people the Mirror cites are watching TV.
Your second point is fairer.
What is this, the 1950s?
Watching TV in the 2020s and watching the BBC are two very different things.
No, this is the 2020s. This is about obeying the law.
If you don’t like it then campaign to have it changed. Don’t not pay your quasi-taxes.
The law says you don't need to pay the licence fee if the TV you watch isn't live.
"Watching TV" doesn't require a licence fee, "watching live TV" requires the licence fee. There's a difference.
If all you watch is Prime and/or Netflix and/or Disney+ and/or YouTube then there's no need to pay the licence fee; that is 2020 law.
If you want people to pay these taxes despite not needing to then you need to change the law.
As it stands you can get any 2 of Prime, Netflix and/or Disney for about the same price as the Licence Fee and they provide far, far, far better value for money.
The Mirror had a report yesterday and now similar reports have appeared in several papers, eg The Times today reports:
"The BBC confirmed that 2.7 million over-75s had paid for their licence. An extra 750,000 applied for free licences available to anyone on pension credit, leaving a shortfall of 750,000 based on the 4.2 million over-75s who previously held free licences.
Some could be covered if other people in the household have a licence, if they have stopped watching the BBC or have died. The figure, reported by the Sunday Mirror, has been denied by the BBC..............
TV Licensing, on behalf of the BBC, said: “Around 80 per cent of over-75 households have transitioned to the new system, including those in receipt of pension credit eligible for a free licence funded by the BBC."
There's only one problem with all these reports - go to the latest BBC Accounts and guess what - there were actually 4,669,000 (then free) over 75s TVLs in force at 31/03/20, not 4.2m. (No journalist for any national newspaper is capable of looking this up!)
But anyway what it means is that in fact there are even more over 75s households yet to get a TVL.
If the figures above of 2.7m and 750k are correct - that's 3.45m out of 4.669m which would be 74%. The BBC says "around 80%" so maybe these numbers are understated a bit - "around 80%" might mean say 77%. If so that would likely mean approx 2.8m paying licences issued and 800k free licences issued - making 3.6m in total - leaving over 1m unlicenced.
And it's now over 6 months since free licences for over 75s ended.
So looks as if the BBC is facing a pretty significant uphill battle - I'm sure numbers will continue to inch up but they may struggle to get more than approx 3m over 75s to pay.
The mindset of people who are willing to justify stealing never ceases to amaze me
Not paying for the BBC when you don't watch the BBC isn't stealing. 🤔
If the BBC wants to be paid for it needs to be relevant. I pay for a TV Licence because I watch Sky live and if I want to watch live football I need to pay for the Licence Fee whether I watch the BBC or not. That is a mess.
I’m willing to bet that a large number of the people the Mirror cites are watching TV.
Your second point is fairer.
What is this, the 1950s?
Watching TV in the 2020s and watching the BBC are two very different things.
No, this is the 2020s. This is about obeying the law.
If you don’t like it then campaign to have it changed. Don’t not pay your quasi-taxes.
The law says you don't need to pay the licence fee if the TV you watch isn't live.
"Watching TV" doesn't require a licence fee, "watching live TV" requires the licence fee. There's a difference.
If all you watch is Prime and/or Netflix and/or Disney+ and/or YouTube then there's no need to pay the licence fee; that is 2020 law.
If you want people to pay these taxes despite not needing to then you need to change the law.
As it stands you can get any 2 of Prime, Netflix and/or Disney for about the same price as the Licence Fee and they provide far, far, far better value for money.
In the case of my father they cost him nothing as both prime and netflix allow logins from more than one device hence he has our spare logins
Er, you pay more for more logons for both prime and netflix so it does cost him something.
The basic certainly for prim comes with 2 device logins. Cant say about netflix but I think its the same
It's not for Netflix. It's £5.99 for one screen, £9.99 for two, or £13.99 for four.
Taxing the internet to fund a television network is nuts. It's palpably worse than the licence fee. Why should someone who doesn't even own a television be taxed to fund the BBC?
Do you have any kids?
Because of plenty of people don't yet their taxes for education.
I've never claimed any social security benefits yet I contribute my taxes towards them.
The BBC isn't a public service.
Schools are a public service.
Public service broadcasting is a public good. The BBC is a public service broadcaster.
We have this argument occasionally on PB. But unless you get the basic concept of public service broadcasting, it’s just two sets of people talking past each other.
If it was a public good it would need to be accessible to all.
Since its illegal to access it without paying for it, it is not a public good.
It is a weird subscription service already, it is not a public service.
But also some of the comparisons for Labour are really poor
I have no idea where Labour go from here
The irony is it doesnt really have anything to do with him. Im pretty sure the vaccination programme would have happened in the same way regardless of who was running the country.
If Starmer had been in office he would have been in the EU scheme as he and Labour confirmed at the time
And we know the shambles that is, so no I do not agree
Still some positives for Sir Keir, he has improved Labour's image and polls significantly better than his predecessors
'Some 48 per cent say Labour has changed for the better under Sir Keir, who took over last April. Just four per cent said Labour had got worse and 35 per cent said he had made no difference. Over-35s, graduates and white collar workers were more positive, while younger voters were more likely to say he had made no difference.
- Some 36 per cent think he “has what it takes” to become PM, which is down two points from August, while 33 per cent think he is ready to be PM now. His scores as a potential PM are higher than either Mr Corbyn or Mr Miliband, the previous two Labour leaders, achieved during their near-decade of opposition. Sir Keir is seen as decisive by 46 per cent and indecisive by just 28 per cent.'
The overall voteshares of Conservatives 42%, Labour 38% and LDs 7% and Greens 8% from Mori in their new poll would give a Conservative majority of just 8, so still a significant swing to Labour even if the Tories would just scrape home
Yes I appreciate that if you don't watch live tv you don't need to pay the LF.
Just out of interest, is, say, Sky News "live tv"?
It depends, if you're watching it from YouTube it's live bit doesn't count as TV licence eligible. Same as stuff like NowTV for sports, you don't need a TV licence. Now that it's going to be available in 4k I've been thinking of making the jump given just how little BBC TV I watch. Cancel sky and the TV licence, I've already got Netflix, Prime and D+, add NowTV for sports and I think we'd be covered.
I pondered it but there are some cracking drama series on BBC plus it is my default news & current affairs provider plus what do you do with radio?
Surely England could declare now and take the chance
I mostly agree, except that West Indies scored 395 yesterday to beat Bangladesh. I know theyre not a good side but Root probably doesnt want to risk it.
Taxing the internet to fund a television network is nuts. It's palpably worse than the licence fee. Why should someone who doesn't even own a television be taxed to fund the BBC?
Do you have any kids?
Because of plenty of people don't yet their taxes for education.
I've never claimed any social security benefits yet I contribute my taxes towards them.
The BBC isn't a public service.
Schools are a public service.
Public service broadcasting is a public good. The BBC is a public service broadcaster.
We have this argument occasionally on PB. But unless you get the basic concept of public service broadcasting, it’s just two sets of people talking past each other.
You say that because you like the bbc, I on the other hand havent been able to watch it since the digital switchover and haven't missed it in the least.
I would categorise the argument more that people who like the bbc output want to keep it cheaper for themselves by making lots of people that have no desire for it to pay for it
Taxing the internet to fund a television network is nuts. It's palpably worse than the licence fee. Why should someone who doesn't even own a television be taxed to fund the BBC?
Do you have any kids?
Because of plenty of people don't yet their taxes for education.
I've never claimed any social security benefits yet I contribute my taxes towards them.
The BBC isn't a public service.
Schools are a public service.
Public service broadcasting is a public good. The BBC is a public service broadcaster.
We have this argument occasionally on PB. But unless you get the basic concept of public service broadcasting, it’s just two sets of people talking past each other.
If it was a public good it would need to be accessible to all.
Since its illegal to access it without paying for it, it is not a public good.
It is a weird subscription service already, it is not a public service.
That’s an argument to make it freely accessible. Hence my digital tax idea.
Of course, selfish people don’t like the idea, but I don’t think you’re one of those.
Taxing the internet to fund a television network is nuts. It's palpably worse than the licence fee. Why should someone who doesn't even own a television be taxed to fund the BBC?
Do you have any kids?
Because of plenty of people don't yet their taxes for education.
I've never claimed any social security benefits yet I contribute my taxes towards them.
Education is a public good though.....not sure you can say the same about east enders. The bbc is dross you can find similar too on many other channels
Bog standard comprehensives aren't a public good.
Abolish the DFE and give the money as vouchers to parents to send their kids to the newly privatised schools.
Make everyone go to their nearest school to reduce carbon footprints as well as Covid-19 spread.
The basic certainly for prim comes with 2 device logins. Cant say about netflix but I think its the same
Netflix you can watch on multiple devices but you need an enhanced subscription to watch on two devices simultaneously.
Well I did say I couldnt answer for netflix, prime certainly allows simultaneous login from 2 devices the only caveat is you cant be both watching the same show....fortunately my tastes and my fathers dont collide
But also some of the comparisons for Labour are really poor
I have no idea where Labour go from here
The irony is it doesnt really have anything to do with him. Im pretty sure the vaccination programme would have happened in the same way regardless of who was running the country.
Not true. The UK government took several important decisions with regards vaccinations
1) opt out of EU scheme
2) early significant funding of drug companies developing vaccines and manufacturing capabilities
3) signing agreements quickly for large quantities of vaccines from a range of suppliers.
4) early establishing a vaccine task forcd fod delivery.
Boris will have definitely had to decide the first. That was a huge decision. I would presume the other decisions were also agreed by Boris.
I would say it is a bit like a football manager. He didn't win the game, but his neck is on the line if you lose and you ultimately had to sign off on the signings and the tactics (despite in modern football signings and tactics are identified by a team of analysts).
The Mirror had a report yesterday and now similar reports have appeared in several papers, eg The Times today reports:
"The BBC confirmed that 2.7 million over-75s had paid for their licence. An extra 750,000 applied for free licences available to anyone on pension credit, leaving a shortfall of 750,000 based on the 4.2 million over-75s who previously held free licences.
Some could be covered if other people in the household have a licence, if they have stopped watching the BBC or have died. The figure, reported by the Sunday Mirror, has been denied by the BBC..............
TV Licensing, on behalf of the BBC, said: “Around 80 per cent of over-75 households have transitioned to the new system, including those in receipt of pension credit eligible for a free licence funded by the BBC."
There's only one problem with all these reports - go to the latest BBC Accounts and guess what - there were actually 4,669,000 (then free) over 75s TVLs in force at 31/03/20, not 4.2m. (No journalist for any national newspaper is capable of looking this up!)
But anyway what it means is that in fact there are even more over 75s households yet to get a TVL.
If the figures above of 2.7m and 750k are correct - that's 3.45m out of 4.669m which would be 74%. The BBC says "around 80%" so maybe these numbers are understated a bit - "around 80%" might mean say 77%. If so that would likely mean approx 2.8m paying licences issued and 800k free licences issued - making 3.6m in total - leaving over 1m unlicenced.
And it's now over 6 months since free licences for over 75s ended.
So looks as if the BBC is facing a pretty significant uphill battle - I'm sure numbers will continue to inch up but they may struggle to get more than approx 3m over 75s to pay.
The mindset of people who are willing to justify stealing never ceases to amaze me
Not paying for the BBC when you don't watch the BBC isn't stealing. 🤔
If the BBC wants to be paid for it needs to be relevant. I pay for a TV Licence because I watch Sky live and if I want to watch live football I need to pay for the Licence Fee whether I watch the BBC or not. That is a mess.
I’m willing to bet that a large number of the people the Mirror cites are watching TV.
Your second point is fairer.
What is this, the 1950s?
Watching TV in the 2020s and watching the BBC are two very different things.
No, this is the 2020s. This is about obeying the law.
If you don’t like it then campaign to have it changed. Don’t not pay your quasi-taxes.
The law says you don't need to pay the licence fee if the TV you watch isn't live.
"Watching TV" doesn't require a licence fee, "watching live TV" requires the licence fee. There's a difference.
If all you watch is Prime and/or Netflix and/or Disney+ and/or YouTube then there's no need to pay the licence fee; that is 2020 law.
If you want people to pay these taxes despite not needing to then you need to change the law.
As it stands you can get any 2 of Prime, Netflix and/or Disney for about the same price as the Licence Fee and they provide far, far, far better value for money.
The Mirror had a report yesterday and now similar reports have appeared in several papers, eg The Times today reports:
"The BBC confirmed that 2.7 million over-75s had paid for their licence. An extra 750,000 applied for free licences available to anyone on pension credit, leaving a shortfall of 750,000 based on the 4.2 million over-75s who previously held free licences.
Some could be covered if other people in the household have a licence, if they have stopped watching the BBC or have died. The figure, reported by the Sunday Mirror, has been denied by the BBC..............
TV Licensing, on behalf of the BBC, said: “Around 80 per cent of over-75 households have transitioned to the new system, including those in receipt of pension credit eligible for a free licence funded by the BBC."
There's only one problem with all these reports - go to the latest BBC Accounts and guess what - there were actually 4,669,000 (then free) over 75s TVLs in force at 31/03/20, not 4.2m. (No journalist for any national newspaper is capable of looking this up!)
But anyway what it means is that in fact there are even more over 75s households yet to get a TVL.
If the figures above of 2.7m and 750k are correct - that's 3.45m out of 4.669m which would be 74%. The BBC says "around 80%" so maybe these numbers are understated a bit - "around 80%" might mean say 77%. If so that would likely mean approx 2.8m paying licences issued and 800k free licences issued - making 3.6m in total - leaving over 1m unlicenced.
And it's now over 6 months since free licences for over 75s ended.
So looks as if the BBC is facing a pretty significant uphill battle - I'm sure numbers will continue to inch up but they may struggle to get more than approx 3m over 75s to pay.
The mindset of people who are willing to justify stealing never ceases to amaze me
Not paying for the BBC when you don't watch the BBC isn't stealing. 🤔
If the BBC wants to be paid for it needs to be relevant. I pay for a TV Licence because I watch Sky live and if I want to watch live football I need to pay for the Licence Fee whether I watch the BBC or not. That is a mess.
I’m willing to bet that a large number of the people the Mirror cites are watching TV.
Your second point is fairer.
What is this, the 1950s?
Watching TV in the 2020s and watching the BBC are two very different things.
No, this is the 2020s. This is about obeying the law.
If you don’t like it then campaign to have it changed. Don’t not pay your quasi-taxes.
The law says you don't need to pay the licence fee if the TV you watch isn't live.
"Watching TV" doesn't require a licence fee, "watching live TV" requires the licence fee. There's a difference.
If all you watch is Prime and/or Netflix and/or Disney+ and/or YouTube then there's no need to pay the licence fee; that is 2020 law.
If you want people to pay these taxes despite not needing to then you need to change the law.
As it stands you can get any 2 of Prime, Netflix and/or Disney for about the same price as the Licence Fee and they provide far, far, far better value for money.
The Mirror had a report yesterday and now similar reports have appeared in several papers, eg The Times today reports:
"The BBC confirmed that 2.7 million over-75s had paid for their licence. An extra 750,000 applied for free licences available to anyone on pension credit, leaving a shortfall of 750,000 based on the 4.2 million over-75s who previously held free licences.
Some could be covered if other people in the household have a licence, if they have stopped watching the BBC or have died. The figure, reported by the Sunday Mirror, has been denied by the BBC..............
TV Licensing, on behalf of the BBC, said: “Around 80 per cent of over-75 households have transitioned to the new system, including those in receipt of pension credit eligible for a free licence funded by the BBC."
There's only one problem with all these reports - go to the latest BBC Accounts and guess what - there were actually 4,669,000 (then free) over 75s TVLs in force at 31/03/20, not 4.2m. (No journalist for any national newspaper is capable of looking this up!)
But anyway what it means is that in fact there are even more over 75s households yet to get a TVL.
If the figures above of 2.7m and 750k are correct - that's 3.45m out of 4.669m which would be 74%. The BBC says "around 80%" so maybe these numbers are understated a bit - "around 80%" might mean say 77%. If so that would likely mean approx 2.8m paying licences issued and 800k free licences issued - making 3.6m in total - leaving over 1m unlicenced.
And it's now over 6 months since free licences for over 75s ended.
So looks as if the BBC is facing a pretty significant uphill battle - I'm sure numbers will continue to inch up but they may struggle to get more than approx 3m over 75s to pay.
The mindset of people who are willing to justify stealing never ceases to amaze me
Not paying for the BBC when you don't watch the BBC isn't stealing. 🤔
If the BBC wants to be paid for it needs to be relevant. I pay for a TV Licence because I watch Sky live and if I want to watch live football I need to pay for the Licence Fee whether I watch the BBC or not. That is a mess.
I’m willing to bet that a large number of the people the Mirror cites are watching TV.
Your second point is fairer.
What is this, the 1950s?
Watching TV in the 2020s and watching the BBC are two very different things.
No, this is the 2020s. This is about obeying the law.
If you don’t like it then campaign to have it changed. Don’t not pay your quasi-taxes.
The law says you don't need to pay the licence fee if the TV you watch isn't live.
"Watching TV" doesn't require a licence fee, "watching live TV" requires the licence fee. There's a difference.
If all you watch is Prime and/or Netflix and/or Disney+ and/or YouTube then there's no need to pay the licence fee; that is 2020 law.
If you want people to pay these taxes despite not needing to then you need to change the law.
As it stands you can get any 2 of Prime, Netflix and/or Disney for about the same price as the Licence Fee and they provide far, far, far better value for money.
In the case of my father they cost him nothing as both prime and netflix allow logins from more than one device hence he has our spare logins
Er, you pay more for more logons for both prime and netflix so it does cost him something.
The basic certainly for prim comes with 2 device logins. Cant say about netflix but I think its the same
It's not for Netflix. It's £5.99 for one screen, £9.99 for two, or £13.99 for four.
And at £9.99 per month it's far, far better value than anything I get out of the BBC. For older viewers I'm sure there's more value, for under 40s it's mostly dross and the good stuff they licence to Netflix a year later anyway.
One thing that's always struck me as odd about the TV tax is that it's a poll tax. It's funny how a poll tax that raises revenue for the BBC is acceptable to the Left...
It's a massively regressive tax at that, and those prosecuted (10% of all criminal cases in magistrates' courts) are frequently some of those least well off in society, who get a criminal record for their troubles.
Taxing the internet to fund a television network is nuts. It's palpably worse than the licence fee. Why should someone who doesn't even own a television be taxed to fund the BBC?
Do you have any kids?
Because of plenty of people don't yet their taxes for education.
I've never claimed any social security benefits yet I contribute my taxes towards them.
The BBC isn't a public service.
Schools are a public service.
Public service broadcasting is a public good. The BBC is a public service broadcaster.
We have this argument occasionally on PB. But unless you get the basic concept of public service broadcasting, it’s just two sets of people talking past each other.
If it was a public good it would need to be accessible to all.
Since its illegal to access it without paying for it, it is not a public good.
It is a weird subscription service already, it is not a public service.
That’s an argument to make it freely accessible. Hence my digital tax idea.
Of course, selfish people don’t like the idea, but I don’t think you’re one of those.
Wow person who wants others to pay for their entertainment choices calls them selfish for refusing
Taxing the internet to fund a television network is nuts. It's palpably worse than the licence fee. Why should someone who doesn't even own a television be taxed to fund the BBC?
Do you have any kids?
Because of plenty of people don't yet their taxes for education.
I've never claimed any social security benefits yet I contribute my taxes towards them.
The BBC isn't a public service.
Schools are a public service.
Public service broadcasting is a public good. The BBC is a public service broadcaster.
We have this argument occasionally on PB. But unless you get the basic concept of public service broadcasting, it’s just two sets of people talking past each other.
If it was a public good it would need to be accessible to all.
Since its illegal to access it without paying for it, it is not a public good.
It is a weird subscription service already, it is not a public service.
That’s an argument to make it freely accessible. Hence my digital tax idea.
Of course, selfish people don’t like the idea, but I don’t think you’re one of those.
I don't like the idea since its absurd, there is no public service involved which is why its already not freely accessible.
You may want to switch it to being a public service, but the BBC already isn't. Today it isn't one and I see no reason whatsoever to make it one now.
The TV “license” is something out of the dark ages.
Put a modest tax on internet and mobile data.
Job done.
Or abolish the tax altogether and make it a voluntary subscription model.
People choose to subscribe to Netflix, or Disney, or Prime if they find it provides value for money. Why should the BBC be an exception to that? Maybe the BBC would be better quality if it needed to actually provide value to its subscribers.
As you know, I am in favour of a "module" subscription approach to the BBC.
Split it up into component parts. Say:
Sports News & current affairs Entertainment - drama Radio Weather Local Radio/TV Childrens Documentaries Films Comedies Box sets/back catalogue (done by BritBox now) Art & Culture Other?
And charge varying degrees for each with some logical bundles.
You'd need to get to £14.60 to be equivalent to the licence fee.
Curious how you would value that?
BBC Sport - what do they have nowadays? Snooker? Struggle to get anyone subscribing to that. News - Free. Sky, ITN, Facebook, YouTube - none of them charge I don't think there's a single subscription news channel out there. Entertainment, drama, documentaries, films, comedies, box sets, childrens - this is equivalent to Netflix. BBC is inferior to Netflix on these so maybe give it 70-75% of Netflix costs. £5 maybe per month? Weather - Free. Who in this country pays for weather? I can ask Google or Alexa the weather at any time free of charge.
No idea how to price up art and culture, or how popular it is.
Don't see how you can possibly justify £14.60 from that.
I wouldn't, the market would.
I would say £3.99 for news & current affairs £2.99 for childrens £3.99 for sport (MOTD, Wimbledon, and all the reports/red button/reviews I haven't looked at everything they cover) Art & Culture £1.99 Radio £2.99
But there would be some bundles which would make it more sensible. Perhaps more perhaps less.
Take a couple of quid off it all still you can get there or thereabouts.
You don't like the BBC so wouldn't pay a penny which is fine. It wouldn't be for you.
Look at directory enquiries. Was "free" (I think?) then went to 43p when it was deregulated and now is what through the 118 services? A fiver?
One thing that's always struck me as odd about the TV tax is that it's a poll tax. It's funny how a poll tax that raises revenue for the BBC is acceptable to the Left...
It's a massively regressive tax at that, and those prosecuted (10% of all criminal cases in magistrates' courts) are frequently some of those least well off in society, who get a criminal record for their troubles.
Again, something the Left would normally get angry about.
The Mirror had a report yesterday and now similar reports have appeared in several papers, eg The Times today reports:
"The BBC confirmed that 2.7 million over-75s had paid for their licence. An extra 750,000 applied for free licences available to anyone on pension credit, leaving a shortfall of 750,000 based on the 4.2 million over-75s who previously held free licences.
Some could be covered if other people in the household have a licence, if they have stopped watching the BBC or have died. The figure, reported by the Sunday Mirror, has been denied by the BBC..............
TV Licensing, on behalf of the BBC, said: “Around 80 per cent of over-75 households have transitioned to the new system, including those in receipt of pension credit eligible for a free licence funded by the BBC."
There's only one problem with all these reports - go to the latest BBC Accounts and guess what - there were actually 4,669,000 (then free) over 75s TVLs in force at 31/03/20, not 4.2m. (No journalist for any national newspaper is capable of looking this up!)
But anyway what it means is that in fact there are even more over 75s households yet to get a TVL.
If the figures above of 2.7m and 750k are correct - that's 3.45m out of 4.669m which would be 74%. The BBC says "around 80%" so maybe these numbers are understated a bit - "around 80%" might mean say 77%. If so that would likely mean approx 2.8m paying licences issued and 800k free licences issued - making 3.6m in total - leaving over 1m unlicenced.
And it's now over 6 months since free licences for over 75s ended.
So looks as if the BBC is facing a pretty significant uphill battle - I'm sure numbers will continue to inch up but they may struggle to get more than approx 3m over 75s to pay.
The mindset of people who are willing to justify stealing never ceases to amaze me
Not paying for the BBC when you don't watch the BBC isn't stealing. 🤔
If the BBC wants to be paid for it needs to be relevant. I pay for a TV Licence because I watch Sky live and if I want to watch live football I need to pay for the Licence Fee whether I watch the BBC or not. That is a mess.
I’m willing to bet that a large number of the people the Mirror cites are watching TV.
Your second point is fairer.
What is this, the 1950s?
Watching TV in the 2020s and watching the BBC are two very different things.
No, this is the 2020s. This is about obeying the law.
If you don’t like it then campaign to have it changed. Don’t not pay your quasi-taxes.
The law says you don't need to pay the licence fee if the TV you watch isn't live.
"Watching TV" doesn't require a licence fee, "watching live TV" requires the licence fee. There's a difference.
If all you watch is Prime and/or Netflix and/or Disney+ and/or YouTube then there's no need to pay the licence fee; that is 2020 law.
If you want people to pay these taxes despite not needing to then you need to change the law.
As it stands you can get any 2 of Prime, Netflix and/or Disney for about the same price as the Licence Fee and they provide far, far, far better value for money.
The Mirror had a report yesterday and now similar reports have appeared in several papers, eg The Times today reports:
"The BBC confirmed that 2.7 million over-75s had paid for their licence. An extra 750,000 applied for free licences available to anyone on pension credit, leaving a shortfall of 750,000 based on the 4.2 million over-75s who previously held free licences.
Some could be covered if other people in the household have a licence, if they have stopped watching the BBC or have died. The figure, reported by the Sunday Mirror, has been denied by the BBC..............
TV Licensing, on behalf of the BBC, said: “Around 80 per cent of over-75 households have transitioned to the new system, including those in receipt of pension credit eligible for a free licence funded by the BBC."
There's only one problem with all these reports - go to the latest BBC Accounts and guess what - there were actually 4,669,000 (then free) over 75s TVLs in force at 31/03/20, not 4.2m. (No journalist for any national newspaper is capable of looking this up!)
But anyway what it means is that in fact there are even more over 75s households yet to get a TVL.
If the figures above of 2.7m and 750k are correct - that's 3.45m out of 4.669m which would be 74%. The BBC says "around 80%" so maybe these numbers are understated a bit - "around 80%" might mean say 77%. If so that would likely mean approx 2.8m paying licences issued and 800k free licences issued - making 3.6m in total - leaving over 1m unlicenced.
And it's now over 6 months since free licences for over 75s ended.
So looks as if the BBC is facing a pretty significant uphill battle - I'm sure numbers will continue to inch up but they may struggle to get more than approx 3m over 75s to pay.
The mindset of people who are willing to justify stealing never ceases to amaze me
Not paying for the BBC when you don't watch the BBC isn't stealing. 🤔
If the BBC wants to be paid for it needs to be relevant. I pay for a TV Licence because I watch Sky live and if I want to watch live football I need to pay for the Licence Fee whether I watch the BBC or not. That is a mess.
I’m willing to bet that a large number of the people the Mirror cites are watching TV.
Your second point is fairer.
What is this, the 1950s?
Watching TV in the 2020s and watching the BBC are two very different things.
No, this is the 2020s. This is about obeying the law.
If you don’t like it then campaign to have it changed. Don’t not pay your quasi-taxes.
The law says you don't need to pay the licence fee if the TV you watch isn't live.
"Watching TV" doesn't require a licence fee, "watching live TV" requires the licence fee. There's a difference.
If all you watch is Prime and/or Netflix and/or Disney+ and/or YouTube then there's no need to pay the licence fee; that is 2020 law.
If you want people to pay these taxes despite not needing to then you need to change the law.
As it stands you can get any 2 of Prime, Netflix and/or Disney for about the same price as the Licence Fee and they provide far, far, far better value for money.
The Mirror had a report yesterday and now similar reports have appeared in several papers, eg The Times today reports:
"The BBC confirmed that 2.7 million over-75s had paid for their licence. An extra 750,000 applied for free licences available to anyone on pension credit, leaving a shortfall of 750,000 based on the 4.2 million over-75s who previously held free licences.
Some could be covered if other people in the household have a licence, if they have stopped watching the BBC or have died. The figure, reported by the Sunday Mirror, has been denied by the BBC..............
TV Licensing, on behalf of the BBC, said: “Around 80 per cent of over-75 households have transitioned to the new system, including those in receipt of pension credit eligible for a free licence funded by the BBC."
There's only one problem with all these reports - go to the latest BBC Accounts and guess what - there were actually 4,669,000 (then free) over 75s TVLs in force at 31/03/20, not 4.2m. (No journalist for any national newspaper is capable of looking this up!)
But anyway what it means is that in fact there are even more over 75s households yet to get a TVL.
If the figures above of 2.7m and 750k are correct - that's 3.45m out of 4.669m which would be 74%. The BBC says "around 80%" so maybe these numbers are understated a bit - "around 80%" might mean say 77%. If so that would likely mean approx 2.8m paying licences issued and 800k free licences issued - making 3.6m in total - leaving over 1m unlicenced.
And it's now over 6 months since free licences for over 75s ended.
So looks as if the BBC is facing a pretty significant uphill battle - I'm sure numbers will continue to inch up but they may struggle to get more than approx 3m over 75s to pay.
The mindset of people who are willing to justify stealing never ceases to amaze me
Not paying for the BBC when you don't watch the BBC isn't stealing. 🤔
If the BBC wants to be paid for it needs to be relevant. I pay for a TV Licence because I watch Sky live and if I want to watch live football I need to pay for the Licence Fee whether I watch the BBC or not. That is a mess.
I’m willing to bet that a large number of the people the Mirror cites are watching TV.
Your second point is fairer.
What is this, the 1950s?
Watching TV in the 2020s and watching the BBC are two very different things.
No, this is the 2020s. This is about obeying the law.
If you don’t like it then campaign to have it changed. Don’t not pay your quasi-taxes.
The law says you don't need to pay the licence fee if the TV you watch isn't live.
"Watching TV" doesn't require a licence fee, "watching live TV" requires the licence fee. There's a difference.
If all you watch is Prime and/or Netflix and/or Disney+ and/or YouTube then there's no need to pay the licence fee; that is 2020 law.
If you want people to pay these taxes despite not needing to then you need to change the law.
As it stands you can get any 2 of Prime, Netflix and/or Disney for about the same price as the Licence Fee and they provide far, far, far better value for money.
In the case of my father they cost him nothing as both prime and netflix allow logins from more than one device hence he has our spare logins
Er, you pay more for more logons for both prime and netflix so it does cost him something.
The basic certainly for prim comes with 2 device logins. Cant say about netflix but I think its the same
Erm, are you not perhaps breaking the Netflix t&c's by sharing logins with someone outside your household?
Not much mention of London - the census may give us a steer but anecdotally comments ref the big smoke indicate quite an exodus. I think Alistair is right though, on the whole boundary changes (if they ever happen) are overstated... a well organised party (like the big 2) soon work out an appropriate strategy.
It’s surely unlikely to have a major impact on boundary changes. London is always underrepresented anyway for a lot of reasons.
What it might do is make some seats in the south and Midlands much tighter. If there’s a lot of flight to say, Leamington, which has direct fast trains to London, the Tories can kiss that seat goodbye for a generation (and I don’t mean a Scottish generation of two years, either).
Leamington already has a Labour MP even with a Tory majority of 80, mainly because of the students from my old alma mater, so I think the Tories are not going to win it back for a generation regardless
The TV “license” is something out of the dark ages.
Put a modest tax on internet and mobile data.
Job done.
Or abolish the tax altogether and make it a voluntary subscription model.
People choose to subscribe to Netflix, or Disney, or Prime if they find it provides value for money. Why should the BBC be an exception to that? Maybe the BBC would be better quality if it needed to actually provide value to its subscribers.
As you know, I am in favour of a "module" subscription approach to the BBC.
Split it up into component parts. Say:
Sports News & current affairs Entertainment - drama Radio Weather Local Radio/TV Childrens Documentaries Films Comedies Box sets/back catalogue (done by BritBox now) Art & Culture Other?
And charge varying degrees for each with some logical bundles.
You'd need to get to £14.60 to be equivalent to the licence fee.
Curious how you would value that?
BBC Sport - what do they have nowadays? Snooker? Struggle to get anyone subscribing to that. News - Free. Sky, ITN, Facebook, YouTube - none of them charge I don't think there's a single subscription news channel out there. Entertainment, drama, documentaries, films, comedies, box sets, childrens - this is equivalent to Netflix. BBC is inferior to Netflix on these so maybe give it 70-75% of Netflix costs. £5 maybe per month? Weather - Free. Who in this country pays for weather? I can ask Google or Alexa the weather at any time free of charge.
No idea how to price up art and culture, or how popular it is.
Don't see how you can possibly justify £14.60 from that.
I wouldn't, the market would.
I would say £3.99 for news & current affairs £2.99 for childrens £3.99 for sport (MOTD, Wimbledon, and all the reports/red button/reviews I haven't looked at everything they cover) Art & Culture £1.99 Radio £2.99
But there would be some bundles which would make it more sensible. Perhaps more perhaps less.
Take a couple of quid off it all still you can get there or thereabouts.
You don't like the BBC so wouldn't pay a penny which is fine. It wouldn't be for you.
Look at directory enquiries. Was "free" (I think?) then went to 43p when it was deregulated and now is what through the 118 services? A fiver?
People pay for 118 services these days? I thought they must have all gone bust by now. You can get any business phone number by the internet on my smart phone and for residential, anybody i know, i can just message them (or a friend who will know the number).
The Mirror had a report yesterday and now similar reports have appeared in several papers, eg The Times today reports:
"The BBC confirmed that 2.7 million over-75s had paid for their licence. An extra 750,000 applied for free licences available to anyone on pension credit, leaving a shortfall of 750,000 based on the 4.2 million over-75s who previously held free licences.
Some could be covered if other people in the household have a licence, if they have stopped watching the BBC or have died. The figure, reported by the Sunday Mirror, has been denied by the BBC..............
TV Licensing, on behalf of the BBC, said: “Around 80 per cent of over-75 households have transitioned to the new system, including those in receipt of pension credit eligible for a free licence funded by the BBC."
There's only one problem with all these reports - go to the latest BBC Accounts and guess what - there were actually 4,669,000 (then free) over 75s TVLs in force at 31/03/20, not 4.2m. (No journalist for any national newspaper is capable of looking this up!)
But anyway what it means is that in fact there are even more over 75s households yet to get a TVL.
If the figures above of 2.7m and 750k are correct - that's 3.45m out of 4.669m which would be 74%. The BBC says "around 80%" so maybe these numbers are understated a bit - "around 80%" might mean say 77%. If so that would likely mean approx 2.8m paying licences issued and 800k free licences issued - making 3.6m in total - leaving over 1m unlicenced.
And it's now over 6 months since free licences for over 75s ended.
So looks as if the BBC is facing a pretty significant uphill battle - I'm sure numbers will continue to inch up but they may struggle to get more than approx 3m over 75s to pay.
The mindset of people who are willing to justify stealing never ceases to amaze me
Not paying for the BBC when you don't watch the BBC isn't stealing. 🤔
If the BBC wants to be paid for it needs to be relevant. I pay for a TV Licence because I watch Sky live and if I want to watch live football I need to pay for the Licence Fee whether I watch the BBC or not. That is a mess.
I’m willing to bet that a large number of the people the Mirror cites are watching TV.
Your second point is fairer.
What is this, the 1950s?
Watching TV in the 2020s and watching the BBC are two very different things.
No, this is the 2020s. This is about obeying the law.
If you don’t like it then campaign to have it changed. Don’t not pay your quasi-taxes.
The law says you don't need to pay the licence fee if the TV you watch isn't live.
"Watching TV" doesn't require a licence fee, "watching live TV" requires the licence fee. There's a difference.
If all you watch is Prime and/or Netflix and/or Disney+ and/or YouTube then there's no need to pay the licence fee; that is 2020 law.
If you want people to pay these taxes despite not needing to then you need to change the law.
As it stands you can get any 2 of Prime, Netflix and/or Disney for about the same price as the Licence Fee and they provide far, far, far better value for money.
The Mirror had a report yesterday and now similar reports have appeared in several papers, eg The Times today reports:
"The BBC confirmed that 2.7 million over-75s had paid for their licence. An extra 750,000 applied for free licences available to anyone on pension credit, leaving a shortfall of 750,000 based on the 4.2 million over-75s who previously held free licences.
Some could be covered if other people in the household have a licence, if they have stopped watching the BBC or have died. The figure, reported by the Sunday Mirror, has been denied by the BBC..............
TV Licensing, on behalf of the BBC, said: “Around 80 per cent of over-75 households have transitioned to the new system, including those in receipt of pension credit eligible for a free licence funded by the BBC."
There's only one problem with all these reports - go to the latest BBC Accounts and guess what - there were actually 4,669,000 (then free) over 75s TVLs in force at 31/03/20, not 4.2m. (No journalist for any national newspaper is capable of looking this up!)
But anyway what it means is that in fact there are even more over 75s households yet to get a TVL.
If the figures above of 2.7m and 750k are correct - that's 3.45m out of 4.669m which would be 74%. The BBC says "around 80%" so maybe these numbers are understated a bit - "around 80%" might mean say 77%. If so that would likely mean approx 2.8m paying licences issued and 800k free licences issued - making 3.6m in total - leaving over 1m unlicenced.
And it's now over 6 months since free licences for over 75s ended.
So looks as if the BBC is facing a pretty significant uphill battle - I'm sure numbers will continue to inch up but they may struggle to get more than approx 3m over 75s to pay.
The mindset of people who are willing to justify stealing never ceases to amaze me
Not paying for the BBC when you don't watch the BBC isn't stealing. 🤔
If the BBC wants to be paid for it needs to be relevant. I pay for a TV Licence because I watch Sky live and if I want to watch live football I need to pay for the Licence Fee whether I watch the BBC or not. That is a mess.
I’m willing to bet that a large number of the people the Mirror cites are watching TV.
Your second point is fairer.
What is this, the 1950s?
Watching TV in the 2020s and watching the BBC are two very different things.
No, this is the 2020s. This is about obeying the law.
If you don’t like it then campaign to have it changed. Don’t not pay your quasi-taxes.
The law says you don't need to pay the licence fee if the TV you watch isn't live.
"Watching TV" doesn't require a licence fee, "watching live TV" requires the licence fee. There's a difference.
If all you watch is Prime and/or Netflix and/or Disney+ and/or YouTube then there's no need to pay the licence fee; that is 2020 law.
If you want people to pay these taxes despite not needing to then you need to change the law.
As it stands you can get any 2 of Prime, Netflix and/or Disney for about the same price as the Licence Fee and they provide far, far, far better value for money.
The Mirror had a report yesterday and now similar reports have appeared in several papers, eg The Times today reports:
"The BBC confirmed that 2.7 million over-75s had paid for their licence. An extra 750,000 applied for free licences available to anyone on pension credit, leaving a shortfall of 750,000 based on the 4.2 million over-75s who previously held free licences.
Some could be covered if other people in the household have a licence, if they have stopped watching the BBC or have died. The figure, reported by the Sunday Mirror, has been denied by the BBC..............
TV Licensing, on behalf of the BBC, said: “Around 80 per cent of over-75 households have transitioned to the new system, including those in receipt of pension credit eligible for a free licence funded by the BBC."
There's only one problem with all these reports - go to the latest BBC Accounts and guess what - there were actually 4,669,000 (then free) over 75s TVLs in force at 31/03/20, not 4.2m. (No journalist for any national newspaper is capable of looking this up!)
But anyway what it means is that in fact there are even more over 75s households yet to get a TVL.
If the figures above of 2.7m and 750k are correct - that's 3.45m out of 4.669m which would be 74%. The BBC says "around 80%" so maybe these numbers are understated a bit - "around 80%" might mean say 77%. If so that would likely mean approx 2.8m paying licences issued and 800k free licences issued - making 3.6m in total - leaving over 1m unlicenced.
And it's now over 6 months since free licences for over 75s ended.
So looks as if the BBC is facing a pretty significant uphill battle - I'm sure numbers will continue to inch up but they may struggle to get more than approx 3m over 75s to pay.
The mindset of people who are willing to justify stealing never ceases to amaze me
Not paying for the BBC when you don't watch the BBC isn't stealing. 🤔
If the BBC wants to be paid for it needs to be relevant. I pay for a TV Licence because I watch Sky live and if I want to watch live football I need to pay for the Licence Fee whether I watch the BBC or not. That is a mess.
I’m willing to bet that a large number of the people the Mirror cites are watching TV.
Your second point is fairer.
What is this, the 1950s?
Watching TV in the 2020s and watching the BBC are two very different things.
No, this is the 2020s. This is about obeying the law.
If you don’t like it then campaign to have it changed. Don’t not pay your quasi-taxes.
The law says you don't need to pay the licence fee if the TV you watch isn't live.
"Watching TV" doesn't require a licence fee, "watching live TV" requires the licence fee. There's a difference.
If all you watch is Prime and/or Netflix and/or Disney+ and/or YouTube then there's no need to pay the licence fee; that is 2020 law.
If you want people to pay these taxes despite not needing to then you need to change the law.
As it stands you can get any 2 of Prime, Netflix and/or Disney for about the same price as the Licence Fee and they provide far, far, far better value for money.
In the case of my father they cost him nothing as both prime and netflix allow logins from more than one device hence he has our spare logins
Er, you pay more for more logons for both prime and netflix so it does cost him something.
The basic certainly for prim comes with 2 device logins. Cant say about netflix but I think its the same
Erm, are you not perhaps breaking the Netflix t&c's by sharing logins with someone outside your household?
As I pointed out I can't answer for netflix thats my son, as to amazon no which they confirmed to me
And at £9.99 per month it's far, far better value than anything I get out of the BBC. For older viewers I'm sure there's more value, for under 40s it's mostly dross and the good stuff they licence to Netflix a year later anyway.
That's fair enough but it doesn't do half of what the BBC does. Which of course is the issue with the BBC. But I wouldn't be surprised that if a module subscription service was introduced there would be a large take-up.
And of course under such a system they would stop licensing stuff to other platforms (I've just paid £12 to watch Blackpool, a BBC series, on prime).
The TV “license” is something out of the dark ages.
Put a modest tax on internet and mobile data.
Job done.
Or abolish the tax altogether and make it a voluntary subscription model.
People choose to subscribe to Netflix, or Disney, or Prime if they find it provides value for money. Why should the BBC be an exception to that? Maybe the BBC would be better quality if it needed to actually provide value to its subscribers.
As you know, I am in favour of a "module" subscription approach to the BBC.
Split it up into component parts. Say:
Sports News & current affairs Entertainment - drama Radio Weather Local Radio/TV Childrens Documentaries Films Comedies Box sets/back catalogue (done by BritBox now) Art & Culture Other?
And charge varying degrees for each with some logical bundles.
You'd need to get to £14.60 to be equivalent to the licence fee.
Curious how you would value that?
BBC Sport - what do they have nowadays? Snooker? Struggle to get anyone subscribing to that. News - Free. Sky, ITN, Facebook, YouTube - none of them charge I don't think there's a single subscription news channel out there. Entertainment, drama, documentaries, films, comedies, box sets, childrens - this is equivalent to Netflix. BBC is inferior to Netflix on these so maybe give it 70-75% of Netflix costs. £5 maybe per month? Weather - Free. Who in this country pays for weather? I can ask Google or Alexa the weather at any time free of charge.
No idea how to price up art and culture, or how popular it is.
Don't see how you can possibly justify £14.60 from that.
I wouldn't, the market would.
I would say £3.99 for news & current affairs £2.99 for childrens £3.99 for sport (MOTD, Wimbledon, and all the reports/red button/reviews I haven't looked at everything they cover) Art & Culture £1.99 Radio £2.99
But there would be some bundles which would make it more sensible. Perhaps more perhaps less.
Take a couple of quid off it all still you can get there or thereabouts.
You don't like the BBC so wouldn't pay a penny which is fine. It wouldn't be for you.
Look at directory enquiries. Was "free" (I think?) then went to 43p when it was deregulated and now is what through the 118 services? A fiver?
Does anyone actually pay a fiver though nowadays with phone numbers freely available for almost everything online? Niche services that next to nobody uses tend to charge more when they're actually used for some odd reason.
I think you're ridiculously overvaluing the value of the BBC there. The BBC has a tiny selection of childrens output. I doubt many people would choose to pay £3.99 for news and current affairs when most people will get theirs free of charge online anyway.
MOTD alternatives on YouTube are increasingly popular free of charge. £3.99 for Wimbledon and the Snooker is a pisstake.
If your model was followed I expect the overwhelming majority of households would pay less than £14.60 per month. What proportion of households do you think would pay that or more? The truth is its just not that good value for money.
Still some positives for Sir Keir, he has improved Labour's image and polls significantly better than his predecessors
'Some 48 per cent say Labour has changed for the better under Sir Keir, who took over last April. Just four per cent said Labour had got worse and 35 per cent said he had made no difference. Over-35s, graduates and white collar workers were more positive, while younger voters were more likely to say he had made no difference.
- Some 36 per cent think he “has what it takes” to become PM, which is down two points from August, while 33 per cent think he is ready to be PM now. His scores as a potential PM are higher than either Mr Corbyn or Mr Miliband, the previous two Labour leaders, achieved during their near-decade of opposition. Sir Keir is seen as decisive by 46 per cent and indecisive by just 28 per cent.'
The overall voteshares of Conservatives 42%, Labour 38% and LDs 7% and Greens 8% from Mori in their new poll would give a Conservative majority of just 8, so still a significant swing to Labour even if the Tories would just scrape home
One thing that's always struck me as odd about the TV tax is that it's a poll tax. It's funny how a poll tax that raises revenue for the BBC is acceptable to the Left...
It's a massively regressive tax at that, and those prosecuted (10% of all criminal cases in magistrates' courts) are frequently some of those least well off in society, who get a criminal record for their troubles.
That 10% figure came from Andrew Bridgen who has never been able to provide substantial evidence for it. (I think he took one days worth of cases at one court and then extrapolated from that which HMCTS said was a poor way to do it.)
Others did produce analysis showing that it only accounts for something like 0.5% of court time.
Commentators are speculating on TV they'll declare at a predetermined time. They'll want two goes at using the ball while its still hard: tonight and tomorrow morning.
Declare early and the ball will be soft already by the morning.
Not sure how good a plan that is, if it is the plan. Surely an earlier declaration gives you more time with a second new ball tomorrow?
One thing that's always struck me as odd about the TV tax is that it's a poll tax. It's funny how a poll tax that raises revenue for the BBC is acceptable to the Left...
It's a massively regressive tax at that, and those prosecuted (10% of all criminal cases in magistrates' courts) are frequently some of those least well off in society, who get a criminal record for their troubles.
That 10% figure came from Andrew Bridgen who has never been able to provide substantial evidence for it.
Others did produce analysis showing that it only accounts for something like 0.5% of court time.
The TV “license” is something out of the dark ages.
Put a modest tax on internet and mobile data.
Job done.
Or abolish the tax altogether and make it a voluntary subscription model.
People choose to subscribe to Netflix, or Disney, or Prime if they find it provides value for money. Why should the BBC be an exception to that? Maybe the BBC would be better quality if it needed to actually provide value to its subscribers.
As you know, I am in favour of a "module" subscription approach to the BBC.
Split it up into component parts. Say:
Sports News & current affairs Entertainment - drama Radio Weather Local Radio/TV Childrens Documentaries Films Comedies Box sets/back catalogue (done by BritBox now) Art & Culture Other?
And charge varying degrees for each with some logical bundles.
You'd need to get to £14.60 to be equivalent to the licence fee.
Curious how you would value that?
BBC Sport - what do they have nowadays? Snooker? Struggle to get anyone subscribing to that. News - Free. Sky, ITN, Facebook, YouTube - none of them charge I don't think there's a single subscription news channel out there. Entertainment, drama, documentaries, films, comedies, box sets, childrens - this is equivalent to Netflix. BBC is inferior to Netflix on these so maybe give it 70-75% of Netflix costs. £5 maybe per month? Weather - Free. Who in this country pays for weather? I can ask Google or Alexa the weather at any time free of charge.
No idea how to price up art and culture, or how popular it is.
Don't see how you can possibly justify £14.60 from that.
I wouldn't, the market would.
I would say £3.99 for news & current affairs £2.99 for childrens £3.99 for sport (MOTD, Wimbledon, and all the reports/red button/reviews I haven't looked at everything they cover) Art & Culture £1.99 Radio £2.99
But there would be some bundles which would make it more sensible. Perhaps more perhaps less.
Take a couple of quid off it all still you can get there or thereabouts.
You don't like the BBC so wouldn't pay a penny which is fine. It wouldn't be for you.
Look at directory enquiries. Was "free" (I think?) then went to 43p when it was deregulated and now is what through the 118 services? A fiver?
People pay for 118 services these days? I thought they must have all gone bust by now. You can get any business phone number by the internet on my smart phone and for residential, anybody i know, i can just message them (or a friend who will know the number).
No idea but up until recently 118 did a lot of sponsoring of tv programmes.
OK google break - usage falling at 40% a year. £11 for a 90-second call. A million a year (at 2018) still used it. Although the model is £2.50 and 75p/min so not sure how they got to £11.
England might as well get another 12 runs and set India the world record to win, which is currently 418.
One issue India have is that it’s obviously not easy to score fast on this pitch. If Buttler and Stokes can’t manage it, even Sharma and Pant are going to find it hard.
So effectively the win is already looking a very tall order.
And they only have three batsmen who can bat really long and defensively - Pujara, Kohli, and Rahane. All the others just play shots.
Admittedly, that’s quite a lineup to get past, but if they do...
Might as well have Archer have a swing. He can hit it (Or get out). Could declare after he gets out, keep Anderson and Leach fresh - they're more blockers tbh.
Commentators are speculating on TV they'll declare at a predetermined time. They'll want two goes at using the ball while its still hard: tonight and tomorrow morning.
Declare early and the ball will be soft already by the morning.
Not sure how good a plan that is, if it is the plan. Surely an earlier declaration gives you more time with a second new ball tomorrow?
One thing that's always struck me as odd about the TV tax is that it's a poll tax. It's funny how a poll tax that raises revenue for the BBC is acceptable to the Left...
It's a massively regressive tax at that, and those prosecuted (10% of all criminal cases in magistrates' courts) are frequently some of those least well off in society, who get a criminal record for their troubles.
That 10% figure came from Andrew Bridgen who has never been able to provide substantial evidence for it.
Others did produce analysis showing that it only accounts for something like 0.5% of court time.
Hmm - cases v time - look like different stats.
I've just edited my post,
(I think he took one days worth of cases at one court and then extrapolated from that which HMCTS said was a poor way to do it.)
So either way, his figures are massively unreliable.
One thing that's always struck me as odd about the TV tax is that it's a poll tax. It's funny how a poll tax that raises revenue for the BBC is acceptable to the Left...
It's a massively regressive tax at that, and those prosecuted (10% of all criminal cases in magistrates' courts) are frequently some of those least well off in society, who get a criminal record for their troubles.
I suspect that will largely be because they live in properties where the TV can be seen from outside.
The TV “license” is something out of the dark ages.
Put a modest tax on internet and mobile data.
Job done.
Or abolish the tax altogether and make it a voluntary subscription model.
People choose to subscribe to Netflix, or Disney, or Prime if they find it provides value for money. Why should the BBC be an exception to that? Maybe the BBC would be better quality if it needed to actually provide value to its subscribers.
As you know, I am in favour of a "module" subscription approach to the BBC.
Split it up into component parts. Say:
Sports News & current affairs Entertainment - drama Radio Weather Local Radio/TV Childrens Documentaries Films Comedies Box sets/back catalogue (done by BritBox now) Art & Culture Other?
And charge varying degrees for each with some logical bundles.
You'd need to get to £14.60 to be equivalent to the licence fee.
Curious how you would value that?
BBC Sport - what do they have nowadays? Snooker? Struggle to get anyone subscribing to that. News - Free. Sky, ITN, Facebook, YouTube - none of them charge I don't think there's a single subscription news channel out there. Entertainment, drama, documentaries, films, comedies, box sets, childrens - this is equivalent to Netflix. BBC is inferior to Netflix on these so maybe give it 70-75% of Netflix costs. £5 maybe per month? Weather - Free. Who in this country pays for weather? I can ask Google or Alexa the weather at any time free of charge.
No idea how to price up art and culture, or how popular it is.
Don't see how you can possibly justify £14.60 from that.
I wouldn't, the market would.
I would say £3.99 for news & current affairs £2.99 for childrens £3.99 for sport (MOTD, Wimbledon, and all the reports/red button/reviews I haven't looked at everything they cover) Art & Culture £1.99 Radio £2.99
But there would be some bundles which would make it more sensible. Perhaps more perhaps less.
Take a couple of quid off it all still you can get there or thereabouts.
You don't like the BBC so wouldn't pay a penny which is fine. It wouldn't be for you.
Look at directory enquiries. Was "free" (I think?) then went to 43p when it was deregulated and now is what through the 118 services? A fiver?
Does anyone actually pay a fiver though nowadays with phone numbers freely available for almost everything online? Niche services that next to nobody uses tend to charge more when they're actually used for some odd reason.
I think you're ridiculously overvaluing the value of the BBC there. The BBC has a tiny selection of childrens output. I doubt many people would choose to pay £3.99 for news and current affairs when most people will get theirs free of charge online anyway.
MOTD alternatives on YouTube are increasingly popular free of charge. £3.99 for Wimbledon and the Snooker is a pisstake.
If your model was followed I expect the overwhelming majority of households would pay less than £14.60 per month. What proportion of households do you think would pay that or more? The truth is its just not that good value for money.
Perhaps perhaps not. Not working for you we get that hence my subscription model. I didn't say it was compulsory. It has the benefit of people paying for what they want instead of having to have, say, the Today Programme and the Archers, when they only listen to James O'Brien and Nick Ferrari on LBC.
Comments
"Watching TV" doesn't require a licence fee, "watching live TV" requires the licence fee. There's a difference.
If all you watch is Prime and/or Netflix and/or Disney+ and/or YouTube then there's no need to pay the licence fee; that is 2020 law.
If you want people to pay these taxes despite not needing to then you need to change the law.
As it stands you can get any 2 of Prime, Netflix and/or Disney for about the same price as the Licence Fee and they provide far, far, far better value for money.
Bet the BBC won't cover this tweet.
https://twitter.com/kylemayers10/status/1358684587048660996
I wonder if it would be a pain for, eg @Philip_Thompson to avoid watching the news on Sky.
"Deaths strongly falling in Sweden"
"OH sure, last week's deaths have been revised up by 100% but this week, this week cases are falling"
"Oh sure, the last 2 weeks of cases have now been revised up to the extent that there is a new peak and sure testing levels are down by a third and positivity is still running at 10% but THIS WEEK. THIS WEEK DEATHS ARE FALLING"
People choose to subscribe to Netflix, or Disney, or Prime if they find it provides value for money. Why should the BBC be an exception to that? Maybe the BBC would be better quality if it needed to actually provide value to its subscribers.
But also some of the comparisons for Labour are really poor
I have no idea where Labour go from here
That makes sense, thanks for the explanation.
Taxing the internet to fund a television network is nuts. It's palpably worse than the licence fee. Why should someone who doesn't even own a television be taxed to fund the BBC?
But again +1 channels is again really unnecessary, as all the shows are on catchup about an hour after the original showing.
Edit - although surely Starmer would be happier coming in after Johnson has had some time cleaning up his own mess? Then he has the perfect alibi for any mistakes he makes.
https://twitter.com/gavinbarwell/status/1358487991866523652?s=21
The PM is an incompetent imbecile. The sooner he's gone the better.
I enjoyed watching Sharon poison Ian Beale for free.
Because of plenty of people don't yet their taxes for education.
I've never claimed any social security benefits yet I contribute my taxes towards them.
However many others nowadays don't watch live news. If you get your news online from prerecorded videos or articles then that isn't live so no fee required.
We only changed PMs twice during WWII.
1) Chamberlain > Churchill
2) Churchill > Attlee
Split it up into component parts. Say:
Sports
News & current affairs
Entertainment - drama
Radio
Weather
Local Radio/TV
Childrens
Documentaries
Films
Comedies
Box sets/back catalogue (done by BritBox now)
Art & Culture
Other?
And charge varying degrees for each with some logical bundles.
You'd need to get to £14.60 to be equivalent to the licence fee.
Schools are a public service.
You definitely do need a licence for Sky Sport on Now Tv.
Now if any of that is enforceable is a different matter. And that is why the tv licence needs to go. Nobody can enforce it.
Greens +3
You have forgotten Churchill to Churchill in May 1945.
The BBC is a TV network. TV still exists if the BBC vanishes.
The current licence fee is demonstrably fairer than a deranged internet tax because at least the licence fee is paid by TV (and radio) owners for a network that exists on both those media.
Somebody who doesn't watch TV, or own one, being compelled by force of law to pay a tax for an organisation they'll never use is nuts. Better to stick with the licence fee, which at least has a vague link between payment and usage.
Personally, I'd have a more limited licence fee for news and a few other core programmes/channels, then have a subscription for those who want more from the BBC.
Abolish the DFE and give the money as vouchers to parents to send their kids to the newly privatised schools.
I watched the biopic on Lance, last week. The biggest takeaway was if one crossed Lance, their career was over. During Lance's time they were all at it and many got caught.
Cycling remains "dirty". I live across the village green from Nicole Cooke's parents and although I can't claim to know her, when she is home exchange very brief pleasantries with her, so I read with interest Nicole's withering analysis on Team GB, Team Sky and so on. Nicole is a clever woman, so is careful that what she writes crosses no boundaries. She has however raised an eyebrow when former teammates forget three doping tests and get away with it.
Some US sprinters are up there with Lance, take a ban and return later.
I do wish Sam Allardyce had access to performance enhancers for his players. An exception I could turn a blind eye to.
We should use that data to disenfranchise them.
I'm right.
The BBC is a public service broadcaster.
We have this argument occasionally on PB.
But unless you get the basic concept of public service broadcasting, it’s just two sets of people talking past each other.
BBC Sport - what do they have nowadays? Snooker? Struggle to get anyone subscribing to that.
News - Free. Sky, ITN, Facebook, YouTube - none of them charge I don't think there's a single subscription news channel out there.
Entertainment, drama, documentaries, films, comedies, box sets, childrens - this is equivalent to Netflix. BBC is inferior to Netflix on these so maybe give it 70-75% of Netflix costs. £5 maybe per month?
Weather - Free. Who in this country pays for weather? I can ask Google or Alexa the weather at any time free of charge.
No idea how to price up art and culture, or how popular it is.
Don't see how you can possibly justify £14.60 from that.
Since its illegal to access it without paying for it, it is not a public good.
It is a weird subscription service already, it is not a public service.
And we know the shambles that is, so no I do not agree
'Some 48 per cent say Labour has changed for the better under Sir Keir, who took over last April. Just four per cent said Labour had got worse and 35 per cent said he had made no difference. Over-35s, graduates and white collar workers were more positive, while younger voters were more likely to say he had made no difference.
- Some 36 per cent think he “has what it takes” to become PM, which is down two points from August, while 33 per cent think he is ready to be PM now. His scores as a potential PM are higher than either Mr Corbyn or Mr Miliband, the previous two Labour leaders, achieved during their near-decade of opposition. Sir Keir is seen as decisive by 46 per cent and indecisive by just 28 per cent.'
The overall voteshares of Conservatives 42%, Labour 38% and LDs 7% and Greens 8% from Mori in their new poll would give a Conservative majority of just 8, so still a significant swing to Labour even if the Tories would just scrape home
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=42&LAB=38&LIB=7&Brexit=2&Green=8&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVBrexit=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=18&SCOTLAB=24.5&SCOTLIB=6.5&SCOTBrexit=0.5&SCOTGreen=2.1&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=47&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019
Been watching the cricket; no sense of urgency, is there!
400 ought to be enough, though. And the commentariat have been suggesting that declaration tonight will two opportunities for Anderson and Archer.
I would categorise the argument more that people who like the bbc output want to keep it cheaper for themselves by making lots of people that have no desire for it to pay for it
Of course, selfish people don’t like the idea, but I don’t think you’re one of those.
1) opt out of EU scheme
2) early significant funding of drug companies developing vaccines and manufacturing capabilities
3) signing agreements quickly for large quantities of vaccines from a range of suppliers.
4) early establishing a vaccine task forcd fod delivery.
Boris will have definitely had to decide the first. That was a huge decision. I would presume the other decisions were also agreed by Boris.
I would say it is a bit like a football manager. He didn't win the game, but his neck is on the line if you lose and you ultimately had to sign off on the signings and the tactics (despite in modern football signings and tactics are identified by a team of analysts).
https://www.cricketcountry.com/articles/chris-tavare-shocks-the-world-by-hitting-a-six-87507
You may want to switch it to being a public service, but the BBC already isn't. Today it isn't one and I see no reason whatsoever to make it one now.
I would say
£3.99 for news & current affairs
£2.99 for childrens
£3.99 for sport (MOTD, Wimbledon, and all the reports/red button/reviews I haven't looked at everything they cover)
Art & Culture £1.99
Radio £2.99
But there would be some bundles which would make it more sensible. Perhaps more perhaps less.
Take a couple of quid off it all still you can get there or thereabouts.
You don't like the BBC so wouldn't pay a penny which is fine. It wouldn't be for you.
Look at directory enquiries. Was "free" (I think?) then went to 43p when it was deregulated and now is what through the 118 services? A fiver?
And of course under such a system they would stop licensing stuff to other platforms (I've just paid £12 to watch Blackpool, a BBC series, on prime).
I think you're ridiculously overvaluing the value of the BBC there. The BBC has a tiny selection of childrens output. I doubt many people would choose to pay £3.99 for news and current affairs when most people will get theirs free of charge online anyway.
MOTD alternatives on YouTube are increasingly popular free of charge. £3.99 for Wimbledon and the Snooker is a pisstake.
If your model was followed I expect the overwhelming majority of households would pay less than £14.60 per month. What proportion of households do you think would pay that or more? The truth is its just not that good value for money.
Others did produce analysis showing that it only accounts for something like 0.5% of court time.
Declare early and the ball will be soft already by the morning.
Not sure how good a plan that is, if it is the plan. Surely an earlier declaration gives you more time with a second new ball tomorrow?
OK google break - usage falling at 40% a year. £11 for a 90-second call. A million a year (at 2018) still used it. Although the model is £2.50 and 75p/min so not sure how they got to £11.
Still that is 15 "good" years of shocking prices.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46369401#:~:text=The most popular service, 118,services are elderly, Ofcom said.
So effectively the win is already looking a very tall order.
And they only have three batsmen who can bat really long and defensively - Pujara, Kohli, and Rahane. All the others just play shots.
Admittedly, that’s quite a lineup to get past, but if they do...
(I think he took one days worth of cases at one court and then extrapolated from that which HMCTS said was a poor way to do it.)
So either way, his figures are massively unreliable.
With Woakes and Broad available I’m not sure that’s smart, but I suppose there’s a certain logic to it.