Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > uk.tech.digital-tv > #249413 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-06-17 17:32 +0100 |
| Last post | 2026-06-21 09:19 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 97 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to uk.tech.digital-tv
BBC cuts (round 1?) Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-06-17 17:32 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-06-17 21:41 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-06-17 21:46 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> - 2026-06-19 11:14 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Abandoned Trolley <that.bloke@microsoft.com> - 2026-06-19 11:42 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> - 2026-06-20 11:00 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-22 12:44 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-06-22 13:22 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-06-22 13:25 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-06-22 13:29 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-22 13:32 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Davey <davey@example.invalid> - 2026-06-22 13:52 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-22 14:12 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-23 07:10 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-23 09:17 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> - 2026-06-23 09:22 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> - 2026-06-23 09:42 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-23 17:06 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-06-19 11:49 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> - 2026-06-20 11:04 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-22 12:29 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> - 2026-06-22 13:07 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-22 13:15 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-19 16:49 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-06-19 17:31 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-19 18:06 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) pinnerite <pinnerite@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 18:41 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-19 20:30 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-20 08:52 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-20 11:04 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-20 09:54 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-20 10:58 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-06-20 14:37 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-06-20 15:32 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-06-20 16:24 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-20 17:20 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-06-20 17:54 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-20 21:59 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-20 22:02 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-06-20 23:02 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-06-21 10:40 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-06-21 11:02 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-20 22:03 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-22 12:33 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-23 07:14 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-23 09:19 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-23 09:37 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-23 17:11 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-23 17:33 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-23 20:36 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-06-23 20:57 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-23 22:38 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-06-24 06:17 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-06-24 09:08 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> - 2026-06-24 10:30 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-06-24 13:04 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> - 2026-06-20 12:14 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2026-06-20 17:13 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-21 08:26 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-06-21 09:27 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> - 2026-06-21 10:46 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2026-06-21 13:47 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Davey <davey@example.invalid> - 2026-06-21 14:16 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> - 2026-06-21 10:24 +0000
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-06-21 19:32 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> - 2026-06-21 21:33 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-06-22 07:29 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> - 2026-06-22 08:56 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> - 2026-06-22 13:45 +0000
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-06-22 17:03 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-22 09:56 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> - 2026-06-22 08:58 +0000
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-22 12:04 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-22 13:10 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-22 15:23 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-22 15:40 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-22 18:01 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-23 07:22 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-23 07:50 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-23 17:12 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> - 2026-06-22 10:13 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-06-22 13:18 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-22 13:29 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> - 2026-06-22 13:56 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> - 2026-06-23 12:35 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-06-23 12:49 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Abandoned Trolley <that.bloke@microsoft.com> - 2026-06-23 13:24 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Davey <davey@example.invalid> - 2026-06-23 17:34 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Abandoned Trolley <that.bloke@microsoft.com> - 2026-06-24 08:25 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-24 08:48 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Abandoned Trolley <that.bloke@microsoft.com> - 2026-06-24 09:23 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-24 13:10 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-24 11:18 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> - 2026-06-25 15:47 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> - 2026-06-22 08:57 +0000
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-06-21 07:31 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> - 2026-06-21 09:19 +0100
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-21 10:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5cec5b591cbob@sick-of-spam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #249450 |
In article <11187ad$lgp5$1@dont-email.me>, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote: > On 21/06/2026 08:26, Roderick Stewart wrote: > > There is no way the BBC can survive in its present form because > > it's not the 1950s any more. > By that argument we could close all libraries and might as well > close the universities as well. Oh come on, if you close the universities where are young people going to be brainwashed into progressive, far far left, woke idiots? We need the next generation to completely kill of the likes of Jaguar, previous woke idiocy didn't finish the job. Also if you closed Unis, think of the knock on effect on blue/red hair dye manufacturers. :-) Seriously though I know many people that enjoy the use of their local library and I don't see them as a subversive national suicide institution. Universities, well clearly they are a problem, I don't know of a solution to deal with them but hopefully one day some government will make them behave with budget control. We can only hope. Bob.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-21 13:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1118mho$q0de$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #249452 |
On 2026-06-21 10:46, Bob Latham wrote: > In article <11187ad$lgp5$1@dont-email.me>, > JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote: > >> On 21/06/2026 08:26, Roderick Stewart wrote: >>> There is no way the BBC can survive in its present form because >>> it's not the 1950s any more. > >> By that argument we could close all libraries and might as well >> close the universities as well. > > Oh come on, if you close the universities where are young people > going to be brainwashed into progressive, far far left, woke idiots? Where are they going to go to get that now? You're idiocies are completely deranged. > We need the next generation to completely kill of the likes of > Jaguar, previous woke idiocy didn't finish the job. Also if you > closed Unis, think of the knock on effect on blue/red hair dye > manufacturers. > > :-) Difficult to see any humour in the deranged whinings of a brainwashed fool. > Seriously though I know many people that enjoy the use of their local > library and I don't see them as a subversive national suicide > institution. Neither are universities. The nearest thing to a 'national suicide institution' are the online sewers that you frequent and whose misinformation you swallow hook line and sinker. Almost everything that you ever post here originated from Russian disinformation sources being repeated other people as stupid as you. > Universities, well clearly they are a problem, I don't know of a > solution to deal with them but hopefully one day some government will > make them behave with budget control. We can only hope. Which is exactly how Universities in undemocratic states like Russia are controlled, in a true democracy no-one of any sense wants the government telling universities what to teach. -- Fake news kills! I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: www.macfh.co.uk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Davey <davey@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-21 14:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1118o7q$qeop$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #249455 |
On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 13:47:50 +0100 Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote: > On 2026-06-21 10:46, Bob Latham wrote: > > In article <11187ad$lgp5$1@dont-email.me>, > > JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote: > > > >> On 21/06/2026 08:26, Roderick Stewart wrote: > >>> There is no way the BBC can survive in its present form because > >>> it's not the 1950s any more. > > > >> By that argument we could close all libraries and might as well > >> close the universities as well. > > > > Oh come on, if you close the universities where are young people > > going to be brainwashed into progressive, far far left, woke > > idiots? > > Where are they going to go to get that now? You're idiocies are > completely deranged. > > > We need the next generation to completely kill of the likes of > > Jaguar, previous woke idiocy didn't finish the job. Also if you > > closed Unis, think of the knock on effect on blue/red hair dye > > manufacturers. > > > > :-) > > Difficult to see any humour in the deranged whinings of a brainwashed > fool. > > > Seriously though I know many people that enjoy the use of their > > local library and I don't see them as a subversive national suicide > > institution. > > Neither are universities. The nearest thing to a 'national suicide > institution' are the online sewers that you frequent and whose > misinformation you swallow hook line and sinker. Almost everything > that you ever post here originated from Russian disinformation > sources being repeated other people as stupid as you. > > > Universities, well clearly they are a problem, I don't know of a > > solution to deal with them but hopefully one day some government > > will make them behave with budget control. We can only hope. > The case of The Donald and Harvard comes to mind. -- Davey.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-21 10:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n9pse4FdimcU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #249450 |
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote: > On 21/06/2026 08:26, Roderick Stewart wrote: >> There is no way the BBC can survive in its present form because it's >> not the 1950s any more. > By that argument we could close all libraries and might as well close > the universities as well. If the libraries only carried publications that projected The Gospel According to Saint Marx-Lenin, you might have had a point, but they don’t and so you don’t. Many universities are in serious danger of becoming basket-cases, as the euphoria of Saint Blair’s Degrees for All policy is becoming rather tarnished by the experience of those that paid very considerable amounts and have now seen that they as a group haven’t done well out of it. The new fashion is to claim mental health issues and get free money for life. -- Spike
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-21 19:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1119an1$105a5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #249454 |
On 21/06/2026 11:24, Spike wrote: > If the libraries only carried publications that projected The Gospel > According to Saint Marx-Lenin, you might have had a point, but they don’t > and so you don’t. But people can be taught online so no need for the university structures and staff. That is the argument used against the BBC by the Far Right.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-21 21:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5cec9689eebob@sick-of-spam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #249460 |
In article <1119an1$105a5$1@dont-email.me>, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote: > On 21/06/2026 11:24, Spike wrote: > > If the libraries only carried publications that projected The > > Gospel According to Saint Marx-Lenin, you might have had a point, > > but they don‘t and so you don‘t. > But people can be taught online so no need for the university > structures and staff. That is the argument used against the BBC The problems with the BBC tax is that it is pretty much though not entirely, compulsory. You have to pay for their propaganda before you can legally watch something more honest. Fixed by making the tele tax optional or by the BBC turning honest. > by the Far Right. Far right. :-) Egregious exaggeration of a political position doesn't hide the idiocy and failure of the last 2 years. Bob.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-22 07:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <111akok$1akqh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #249461 |
On 21/06/2026 21:33, Bob Latham wrote: > The problems with the BBC tax is that it is pretty much though not > entirely, compulsory. So similar to the Advertising Tax, you to pay it unless you want to only buy unbranded products and even if you never watch commercial TV or listen to commercial radio.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-22 08:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5cecd50d8abob@sick-of-spam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #249462 |
In article <111akok$1akqh$1@dont-email.me>, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote: > On 21/06/2026 21:33, Bob Latham wrote: > > The problems with the BBC tax is that it is pretty much though not > > entirely, compulsory. > So similar to the Advertising Tax, you to pay it unless you want to > only buy unbranded products and even if you never watch commercial > TV or listen to commercial radio. Commercial TV has feedback. If they go too woke and produce progs people don't like then the audience will drop and the tv companies revenue. The BBC are fully aware of what they are doing, it's intentional and that most people hate it but so what, they demand their money anyway. No connection with truth or reality. Bob.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-22 13:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n9ssj9FrvsrU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #249463 |
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote: > In article <111akok$1akqh$1@dont-email.me>, > JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote: >> On 21/06/2026 21:33, Bob Latham wrote: >>> The problems with the BBC tax is that it is pretty much though not >>> entirely, compulsory. > >> So similar to the Advertising Tax, you to pay it unless you want to >> only buy unbranded products and even if you never watch commercial >> TV or listen to commercial radio. > > Commercial TV has feedback. If they go too woke and produce progs > people don't like then the audience will drop and the tv companies > revenue. > > The BBC are fully aware of what they are doing, it's intentional and > that most people hate it but so what, they demand their money anyway. > > No connection with truth or reality. > > Bob. The BBC has been hyping-up the coming heatwave and the possibility of a new June temperature record, and this morning Justin Rolat managed completely not to mention that the previous such record was nearly 70 years go in 1957…well before ’global warming’. -- Spike
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-22 17:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <111bmcd$1ku86$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #249484 |
On 22/06/2026 14:45, Spike wrote: > The BBC has been hyping-up the coming heatwave and the possibility of a new > June temperature record, and this morning Justin Rolat managed completely > not to mention that the previous such record was nearly 70 years go in > 1957…well before ’global warming’. He does that regularly, always the "highest temperature" and never "highest temperature since ..." He will be wetting himself at the prospect of a 'temperature emergency'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-22 09:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <8csh3ldmfpeob0812m1t3lcvv5go56nd0m@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #249462 |
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 07:29:40 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote: >On 21/06/2026 21:33, Bob Latham wrote: >> The problems with the BBC tax is that it is pretty much though not >> entirely, compulsory. > > >So similar to the Advertising Tax, you to pay it unless you want to only >buy unbranded products and even if you never watch commercial TV or >listen to commercial radio. > You can choose which products to buy without breaking any laws. You can't choose which broadcasts to watch without breaking any laws, because you're legally required to pay the BBC to watch *any* broadcasts, even if they're nothing to do with the BBC. The only escape from this nonsense is not to watch broadcasts at all, and even then you'll be sent frequent threatening letters implying that you're breaking the law even though they don't know anything about you. I only cancelled my TV licence a couple of years ago but I've already got a folder full of these official looking letters, obviously designed to mislead and intimidate, and every single one of them addressed to "The legal occupier". And yes, when I cancelled the licence I actually did fill in their online form, even though there is no legal requirement to do so, to explain that I no longer needed one, but it hasn't stopped them sending letters that seem to assume "guilty until proven innocent" and that I'm somehow obliged to contact them again to explain myself, even though nobody is obliged to contact them at all. I don't get letters like this from any of the supermarkets or any other household utility. I know I can regard this as a mere irritant, but there are probably people who are scared into paying when they don't need to. It's a despicable practice and needs to stop. Rod.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-22 08:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n9sbpiFpcouU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #249464 |
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote: > On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 07:29:40 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote: > >> On 21/06/2026 21:33, Bob Latham wrote: >>> The problems with the BBC tax is that it is pretty much though not >>> entirely, compulsory. >> >> >> So similar to the Advertising Tax, you to pay it unless you want to only >> buy unbranded products and even if you never watch commercial TV or >> listen to commercial radio. >> > > You can choose which products to buy without breaking any laws. > > You can't choose which broadcasts to watch without breaking any laws, > because you're legally required to pay the BBC to watch *any* > broadcasts, even if they're nothing to do with the BBC. > > The only escape from this nonsense is not to watch broadcasts at all, > and even then you'll be sent frequent threatening letters implying > that you're breaking the law even though they don't know anything > about you. I only cancelled my TV licence a couple of years ago but > I've already got a folder full of these official looking letters, > obviously designed to mislead and intimidate, and every single one of > them addressed to "The legal occupier". > > And yes, when I cancelled the licence I actually did fill in their > online form, even though there is no legal requirement to do so, to > explain that I no longer needed one, but it hasn't stopped them > sending letters that seem to assume "guilty until proven innocent" and > that I'm somehow obliged to contact them again to explain myself, even > though nobody is obliged to contact them at all. I don't get letters > like this from any of the supermarkets or any other household utility. > I know I can regard this as a mere irritant, but there are probably > people who are scared into paying when they don't need to. It's a > despicable practice and needs to stop. > > Rod. Well said. -- Spike
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-22 12:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n9sj5jFo8l4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #249464 |
On 22/06/2026 09:56, Roderick Stewart wrote: > On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 07:29:40 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote: > >> On 21/06/2026 21:33, Bob Latham wrote: >>> The problems with the BBC tax is that it is pretty much though not >>> entirely, compulsory. >> >> >> So similar to the Advertising Tax, you to pay it unless you want to only >> buy unbranded products and even if you never watch commercial TV or >> listen to commercial radio. >> > > You can choose which products to buy without breaking any laws. Not everything is legal to buy, even if you want it to be. > You can't choose which broadcasts to watch without breaking any laws, > because you're legally required to pay the BBC to watch *any* > broadcasts, even if they're nothing to do with the BBC. Actually, you pay the government. The money you pay, like any other taxation, goes into the Consolidated Fund and can be distributed however the government decides. At present the government passes an amount equivalent to what it receives to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport which then historically pays it similarly to the BBC. > The only escape from this nonsense is not to watch broadcasts at all, ... and not use iPlayer > and even then you'll be sent frequent threatening letters implying > that you're breaking the law even though they don't know anything > about you. I only cancelled my TV licence a couple of years ago but > I've already got a folder full of these official looking letters, > obviously designed to mislead and intimidate, and every single one of > them addressed to "The legal occupier". Quite right too. It's not a personal licence but a licence for the premises, which the great majority do require. > And yes, when I cancelled the licence I actually did fill in their > online form, even though there is no legal requirement to do so, to > explain that I no longer needed one, but it hasn't stopped them > sending letters that seem to assume "guilty until proven innocent" and > that I'm somehow obliged to contact them again to explain myself, even > though nobody is obliged to contact them at all. The normal reason for non-renewal is moving out. The normal succession is someone else moving in (the legal occupier) who will normally need to obtain a licence for the premises because, normally, they will need one. > I don't get letters > like this from any of the supermarkets or any other household utility. > I know I can regard this as a mere irritant, but there are probably > people who are scared into paying when they don't need to. It's a > despicable practice and needs to stop. I think there are rather more who need a licence but think it's a good wheeze to pretend they don't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-22 13:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <9b9i3ldo5baih2tt4jh3sn906v01ab1muq@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #249468 |
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 12:04:18 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >On 22/06/2026 09:56, Roderick Stewart wrote: >> On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 07:29:40 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote: >> >>> On 21/06/2026 21:33, Bob Latham wrote: >>>> The problems with the BBC tax is that it is pretty much though not >>>> entirely, compulsory. >>> >>> >>> So similar to the Advertising Tax, you to pay it unless you want to only >>> buy unbranded products and even if you never watch commercial TV or >>> listen to commercial radio. >>> >> >> You can choose which products to buy without breaking any laws. > >Not everything is legal to buy, even if you want it to be. > >> You can't choose which broadcasts to watch without breaking any laws, >> because you're legally required to pay the BBC to watch *any* >> broadcasts, even if they're nothing to do with the BBC. > >Actually, you pay the government. The money you pay, like any other >taxation, goes into the Consolidated Fund and can be distributed however >the government decides. At present the government passes an amount >equivalent to what it receives to the Department for Culture, Media and >Sport which then historically pays it similarly to the BBC. > >> The only escape from this nonsense is not to watch broadcasts at all, > >... and not use iPlayer > >> and even then you'll be sent frequent threatening letters implying >> that you're breaking the law even though they don't know anything >> about you. I only cancelled my TV licence a couple of years ago but >> I've already got a folder full of these official looking letters, >> obviously designed to mislead and intimidate, and every single one of >> them addressed to "The legal occupier". > >Quite right too. It's not a personal licence but a licence for the >premises, which the great majority do require. > Clarify this then. In the old days I believe that battery operated TV receivers (with the battery wholly enclosed) were exempt from TV licence. How do we stand now when nearly everyone has a mobile phone or a tablet? I thought they required a licence but by your logic if they are used outdoors they do not. Is a garden classed as 'premises'?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-22 15:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n9sureFo8l4U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #249473 |
On 22/06/2026 13:10, Scott wrote: > On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 12:04:18 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> > wrote: > >> On 22/06/2026 09:56, Roderick Stewart wrote: >>> On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 07:29:40 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On 21/06/2026 21:33, Bob Latham wrote: >>>>> The problems with the BBC tax is that it is pretty much though not >>>>> entirely, compulsory. >>>> >>>> >>>> So similar to the Advertising Tax, you to pay it unless you want to only >>>> buy unbranded products and even if you never watch commercial TV or >>>> listen to commercial radio. >>>> >>> >>> You can choose which products to buy without breaking any laws. >> >> Not everything is legal to buy, even if you want it to be. >> >>> You can't choose which broadcasts to watch without breaking any laws, >>> because you're legally required to pay the BBC to watch *any* >>> broadcasts, even if they're nothing to do with the BBC. >> >> Actually, you pay the government. The money you pay, like any other >> taxation, goes into the Consolidated Fund and can be distributed however >> the government decides. At present the government passes an amount >> equivalent to what it receives to the Department for Culture, Media and >> Sport which then historically pays it similarly to the BBC. >> >>> The only escape from this nonsense is not to watch broadcasts at all, >> >> ... and not use iPlayer >> >>> and even then you'll be sent frequent threatening letters implying >>> that you're breaking the law even though they don't know anything >>> about you. I only cancelled my TV licence a couple of years ago but >>> I've already got a folder full of these official looking letters, >>> obviously designed to mislead and intimidate, and every single one of >>> them addressed to "The legal occupier". >> >> Quite right too. It's not a personal licence but a licence for the >> premises, which the great majority do require. >> > Clarify this then. In the old days I believe that battery operated TV > receivers (with the battery wholly enclosed) were exempt from TV > licence. No, that's another misunderstanding. They were never exempt, nor are they now. The use of such devices was permitted under the domestic premises licence when away from home. If you didn't have one, you were acting illegally. > How do we stand now when nearly everyone has a mobile phone > or a tablet? I thought they required a licence but by your logic if > they are used outdoors they do not. Is a garden classed as 'premises'? Same thing. You need a TV licence for your home. Then you'll be covered for any mobile devices away from home.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-22 15:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <8rhi3l52k7ea4qhlk9eg4fg1769fji7mnf@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #249485 |
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 15:23:40 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >On 22/06/2026 13:10, Scott wrote: >> On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 12:04:18 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> >> wrote: >> >>> On 22/06/2026 09:56, Roderick Stewart wrote: >>>> On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 07:29:40 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 21/06/2026 21:33, Bob Latham wrote: >>>>>> The problems with the BBC tax is that it is pretty much though not >>>>>> entirely, compulsory. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So similar to the Advertising Tax, you to pay it unless you want to only >>>>> buy unbranded products and even if you never watch commercial TV or >>>>> listen to commercial radio. >>>>> >>>> >>>> You can choose which products to buy without breaking any laws. >>> >>> Not everything is legal to buy, even if you want it to be. >>> >>>> You can't choose which broadcasts to watch without breaking any laws, >>>> because you're legally required to pay the BBC to watch *any* >>>> broadcasts, even if they're nothing to do with the BBC. >>> >>> Actually, you pay the government. The money you pay, like any other >>> taxation, goes into the Consolidated Fund and can be distributed however >>> the government decides. At present the government passes an amount >>> equivalent to what it receives to the Department for Culture, Media and >>> Sport which then historically pays it similarly to the BBC. >>> >>>> The only escape from this nonsense is not to watch broadcasts at all, >>> >>> ... and not use iPlayer >>> >>>> and even then you'll be sent frequent threatening letters implying >>>> that you're breaking the law even though they don't know anything >>>> about you. I only cancelled my TV licence a couple of years ago but >>>> I've already got a folder full of these official looking letters, >>>> obviously designed to mislead and intimidate, and every single one of >>>> them addressed to "The legal occupier". >>> >>> Quite right too. It's not a personal licence but a licence for the >>> premises, which the great majority do require. >>> >> Clarify this then. In the old days I believe that battery operated TV >> receivers (with the battery wholly enclosed) were exempt from TV >> licence. > >No, that's another misunderstanding. They were never exempt, nor are >they now. The use of such devices was permitted under the domestic >premises licence when away from home. If you didn't have one, you were >acting illegally. Thanks for clarifying my understanding. Was there not a fairly flexible interpretation whereby students were allowed to use a TV at university regardless of whether their parents were watching TV at home at the same time? > >> How do we stand now when nearly everyone has a mobile phone >> or a tablet? I thought they required a licence but by your logic if >> they are used outdoors they do not. Is a garden classed as 'premises'? > >Same thing. You need a TV licence for your home. Then you'll be >covered for any mobile devices away from home. > When you say 'you' and 'your' I assume you mean everyone living in the home. Does this mean living as a sole residence, main residence or living there at all? Does it include a holiday home? Does the wholly contained battery rule apply, so a device cannot be used for watching TV while plugged in?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-22 18:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n9t82nFo8l4U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #249486 |
On 22/06/2026 15:40, Scott wrote: > On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 15:23:40 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> > wrote: > >> On 22/06/2026 13:10, Scott wrote: >>> On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 12:04:18 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 22/06/2026 09:56, Roderick Stewart wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 07:29:40 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 21/06/2026 21:33, Bob Latham wrote: >>>>>>> The problems with the BBC tax is that it is pretty much though not >>>>>>> entirely, compulsory. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So similar to the Advertising Tax, you to pay it unless you want to only >>>>>> buy unbranded products and even if you never watch commercial TV or >>>>>> listen to commercial radio. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You can choose which products to buy without breaking any laws. >>>> >>>> Not everything is legal to buy, even if you want it to be. >>>> >>>>> You can't choose which broadcasts to watch without breaking any laws, >>>>> because you're legally required to pay the BBC to watch *any* >>>>> broadcasts, even if they're nothing to do with the BBC. >>>> >>>> Actually, you pay the government. The money you pay, like any other >>>> taxation, goes into the Consolidated Fund and can be distributed however >>>> the government decides. At present the government passes an amount >>>> equivalent to what it receives to the Department for Culture, Media and >>>> Sport which then historically pays it similarly to the BBC. >>>> >>>>> The only escape from this nonsense is not to watch broadcasts at all, >>>> >>>> ... and not use iPlayer >>>> >>>>> and even then you'll be sent frequent threatening letters implying >>>>> that you're breaking the law even though they don't know anything >>>>> about you. I only cancelled my TV licence a couple of years ago but >>>>> I've already got a folder full of these official looking letters, >>>>> obviously designed to mislead and intimidate, and every single one of >>>>> them addressed to "The legal occupier". >>>> >>>> Quite right too. It's not a personal licence but a licence for the >>>> premises, which the great majority do require. >>>> >>> Clarify this then. In the old days I believe that battery operated TV >>> receivers (with the battery wholly enclosed) were exempt from TV >>> licence. >> >> No, that's another misunderstanding. They were never exempt, nor are >> they now. The use of such devices was permitted under the domestic >> premises licence when away from home. If you didn't have one, you were >> acting illegally. > > Thanks for clarifying my understanding. Was there not a fairly > flexible interpretation whereby students were allowed to use a TV at > university regardless of whether their parents were watching TV at > home at the same time? https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/for-your-home/students-aud1 >>> How do we stand now when nearly everyone has a mobile phone >>> or a tablet? I thought they required a licence but by your logic if >>> they are used outdoors they do not. Is a garden classed as 'premises'? >> >> Same thing. You need a TV licence for your home. Then you'll be >> covered for any mobile devices away from home. >> > When you say 'you' and 'your' I assume you mean everyone living in the > home. Does this mean living as a sole residence, main residence or > living there at all? Does it include a holiday home? Does the wholly > contained battery rule apply, so a device cannot be used for watching > TV while plugged in? https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ30
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-23 07:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <va9k3ll4sh5d70fgm0msjqt4iennhl5gbu@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #249468 |
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 12:04:18 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >> and even then you'll be sent frequent threatening letters implying >> that you're breaking the law even though they don't know anything >> about you. I only cancelled my TV licence a couple of years ago but >> I've already got a folder full of these official looking letters, >> obviously designed to mislead and intimidate, and every single one of >> them addressed to "The legal occupier". > >Quite right too. It's not a personal licence but a licence for the >premises, which the great majority do require. If they can prove that somebody isn't paying when they should be, who do they prosecute, the person or the premises? Rod.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-23 07:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n9uoljF6cchU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #249495 |
On 23/06/2026 07:22, Roderick Stewart wrote: > On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 12:04:18 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> > wrote: > >>> and even then you'll be sent frequent threatening letters implying >>> that you're breaking the law even though they don't know anything >>> about you. I only cancelled my TV licence a couple of years ago but >>> I've already got a folder full of these official looking letters, >>> obviously designed to mislead and intimidate, and every single one of >>> them addressed to "The legal occupier". >> >> Quite right too. It's not a personal licence but a licence for the >> premises, which the great majority do require. > > If they can prove that somebody isn't paying when they should be, who > do they prosecute, the person or the premises? The 'legal occupier', being the person responsible for activities on his premises.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-23 17:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <52cl3lpm9vv62mjju0uflvosbbuerh4mdt@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #249496 |
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 07:50:27 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >On 23/06/2026 07:22, Roderick Stewart wrote: >> On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 12:04:18 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> >> wrote: >> >>>> and even then you'll be sent frequent threatening letters implying >>>> that you're breaking the law even though they don't know anything >>>> about you. I only cancelled my TV licence a couple of years ago but >>>> I've already got a folder full of these official looking letters, >>>> obviously designed to mislead and intimidate, and every single one of >>>> them addressed to "The legal occupier". >>> >>> Quite right too. It's not a personal licence but a licence for the >>> premises, which the great majority do require. >> >> If they can prove that somebody isn't paying when they should be, who >> do they prosecute, the person or the premises? > >The 'legal occupier', being the person responsible for activities on his >premises. Would that be husband then :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | uk.tech.digital-tv
csiph-web