Abolition of TV licence fee.....

You need to have a TV licence to watch the freeview channels.

The freeview channels include the BBC ones.

You might have already guessed, that I dont think I have ever hired a film in my life either trisher.

I based my £2.50 an hour on the average cost of hiring films, so maybe £5 for a film lasting a couple of hours. No objection to cutting it down to £2 an hour but anything less is unthinkable. I know I am getting a bargain for £145 a year but there are a lot of people out there who think they never watch the BBC if they really had to look at their viewing habits and pay they might realise differently.

They are free channels because their expenses are all paid for by advertisers. No advertisers= no income. The advertisers pay for the programmes (and influence what is shown) in return for persuading us to buy their stuff.

The BBC has no adverts and no outside income, it is funded by the license fee.

He who pays the piper calls the tune.

www.freeview.co.uk/whats-on/channels

Shouldn't be about the individual, though. What about all those who cannot get out and rely on the television for their views of the world?

How about a penny on the tax rate dedicated to the BBC?

Personally I would not pay £3 a week. £1 a week would be ok.
I dont know how much the TV channels work out at that we pay for. Mr soontobe is in charge of bills.
If it was left to me, I would just have the free channels.
I go to the cinema no more than once a year.

At the moment it works out at about £12 a month. Pro rata that is about £3 a week. Would you pay that much, soontobe ?I

f you go to the cinema for a couple of hours, what would you expect to pay?

Do you have any TV channels that you do pay for, and how much a week do they work out as?

At £2.50 an hour, there is no way I would watch any of it!

What about those of us who like it continuing to pay the licence fee and those who disagree being charged on a pay to view basis, at perhaps £2.50 an hour? My bet is those who claim they don't watch the BBC would soon want to go back to the standard fee, as the cost mounted (There must be the technology to do this now)

paying the licence fee. Sorry I wasnt clearer.

What is a no brainer, soon? It is not clear to me from your post whether your remark is with reference to paying the licence fee or changing the licence fee.

I watch Eastenders and the Apprentice from the BBC. My husband likes the BBC news. I cant think, off the top of my head, what else we watch regularly or irregularly on the BBC.
So a no brainer as far as I personally am concerned. But that is not the rest of the country.

Nae bother, pal (as they say up here).

I stand corrected, thatbags. Apparently it is indeed a criminal offence not to have a tv licence if you're viewing live-screened programmes. I had thought it was only a criminal offence not to pay the fine.

Sorry, I should have checked the links.

It is a very emotive word and that's why people (the BBC and others) want to decriminalise it. But people who are frightened of change, even when it's a good thing go into "Save the BBC!" mode instead of stopping to think.

OK, then you may as well say people are criminalised for parking in the wrong place, or for too long in the right place - it's a very emotive word and it's not being correctly used.

It's all there in those links people put up.

And it is a criminal record against them. That's why there is talk of decriminalising non-payment of the licence fee. You can't decriminalise something that isn't classed as criminal.

I'm not sure people are 'criminalised' for not having a TV licence.

They can be fined for not having one, and if they don't pay the fine then they can be prosecuted for non-payment of that fine. Not quite the same.

There are a lot of things that everyone pays for, but not everyone uses. Some people don't read books; or have no interest in the arts; or are not into tennis, football, keep fit, swimming, etc. But everyone contributes towards the cost of libraries, council sports facilities, the opera/ballet, museums, art galleries, etc. etc. Some people believe that there should be no subsidy of the arts - and that is a valid point of view (although I absolutely disagree with it) - but I don't understand why one particular form of entertainment/information/education should be singled out as an unfair "tax".

I do, however, agree that it seems a bit much to criminalise people for not having a TV licence. I suppose the reasoning behind this is that if there was not a strong deterrent, a lot more people would risk not paying.

I love BBC tv and radio but I do wonder if it is fair that those people who never watch or listen have to pay for those of us who do.

Thanks, jings. Still all up in the air then. Time will tell.

I say, it's a rubbish idea. 'If it aint broke, don't fix it'. And it's not 'broke'.