|
Post by naughtyfox on Sept 22, 2019 17:07:12 GMT
Endeavour is ITV ... nearly a good point. It's on here in Finland on YLE Channel 1 (same as BBC 1) so I assumed it might have been the BBC, as there are no commercial breaks. When I moved to Himanka I had the chance to catch up on many TV series, and Morse was one of them - I had only ever seen one of two episodes before. I watched the lot, and enjoyed it. OK, Endeavour is a bit artificial, a bit like the Star Wars movies where the newest ones are set in earlier times than the original set of three, we get to see 'Morse' as he was in his younger days, but it is watchable. I think Shaun Evans is a very good actor, as is Roger Allam (Fred Thursday) and Anton Lesser (Reginald Bright). What I would like to see is more scenes where Oxford and the surrounding countryside is featured. It does go a bit fast and is contrived to fit into and hour and a half, but an episode could be spread to three hours over two programmes, as is done with Midsomer Murders. Anton Lesser Rog & Shaun
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Sept 22, 2019 17:15:46 GMT
Does the supermarket act like it has the right to search your home for sugar? does it insist you must be a sugar user and treat you like a liar if you're not? does it send you hate mail and repeatedly harass you at home ignoring all requests to stop?
I'm pretty sure this supermarket sugar analogy is broken. Sugar does none of those things, and its vendor lets you opt completely out of its use without expecting a right to periodically harass you. If TV License did likewise, you'd have a point.
except that the crime occurs in your own home What about the crime the BBC makes of pumping politically correct bullshit into your home?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2019 17:16:49 GMT
Because it's a TV licence, not a BBC licence. It's a tax on TV (including internet TV). Bullshit right there. You only need a licence for watching or recording content as it's broadcast live on TV. If you're streaming on-demand movies or TV shows on Netflix, YouTube or Amazon Instant Video (or any other online video service) you don't currently need a licence. source: which.co.uk To be fair, if you just read the justifications from the BBC and government it might be easy to make that mistake. There are also lots of videos and reports of bullying being used to con innocent people into paying for a licence they don’t need. Seems the BBC aren’t the only ‘public’ body doing that either! My angle on it is that it’s all about funding and using fear to get those funds. There is no reason why the BBC can’t run the same way as all the other media providers. The only reason I wasn’t keen on the BBC getting revenue from advertising was that they could make themselves vulnerable to manipulation by the privateers. However as our government are already more influenced by privateers than the public, then the BBC probably are also.
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Sept 22, 2019 17:24:10 GMT
Because it's a TV licence, not a BBC licence. It's a tax on TV (including internet TV). Bullshit right there. You only need a licence for watching or recording content as it's broadcast live on TV. If you're streaming on-demand movies or TV shows on Netflix, YouTube or Amazon Instant Video (or any other online video service) you don't currently need a licence. source: which.co.uk Hi pedant, no need to be rude, I'm sure you understood the distinction I was making between a TV licence and a BBC Licence.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Sept 22, 2019 17:25:58 GMT
I like the idea of 'the BBC' being supervised by the government, a 'proper' channel without all the advertising crap. I don't mind paying for a licence for this, as long as they don't keep trying to be hip with the Politically Correct lies.
The Brits have made the best films and television series. What other country can match them? The USA comes very close, yes, they have made excellent stuff. Can you think of any other countries that have made stuff worth watching?
Having lived here in Finland, I would venture to say that the Finns have made some good stuff. Here's the beginning of one movie that I thought was OK from end to end, it's based on a book:
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Sept 22, 2019 17:44:10 GMT
There again if you visit the supermarket and don't buy any sugar, perhaps because you don't like it or don't need it, you're free to shop elsewhere, and only pay for what you put in your trolley. The supermarket, quite correctly, will not assume that you want some sugar.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Sept 22, 2019 17:46:10 GMT
If air could be controlled this government would have meters on your lungs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2019 17:47:53 GMT
Bullshit right there. You only need a licence for watching or recording content as it's broadcast live on TV. If you're streaming on-demand movies or TV shows on Netflix, YouTube or Amazon Instant Video (or any other online video service) you don't currently need a licence. source: which.co.uk Hi pedant, no need to be rude, I'm sure you understood the distinction I was making between a TV licence and a BBC Licence. From Wiki... “As part of the agreement with the Post Office, the Postmaster General started to apply a condition to broadcast receiving licences that the equipment used be "Type Approved by Postmaster General" and marked with the BBC logo. Initially, the fee for receiving licences was 10 shillings, and remained at that rate until after the Second World War. With the forming of the public British Broadcasting Corporation in 1927, the Post Office dedicated nearly the entirety of licence fee income to the funding of the BBC” The majority of the licence fee still goes to the BBC but of course they have a lot of competition. The BBC licence...sorry meant TV licence is pretty much a compulsory subscription to the BBC. It’s as much out of date as Bercow and his club.
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Sept 22, 2019 17:50:35 GMT
Hi pedant, no need to be rude, I'm sure you understood the distinction I was making between a TV licence and a BBC Licence. From Wiki... “As part of the agreement with the Post Office, the Postmaster General started to apply a condition to broadcast receiving licences that the equipment used be "Type Approved by Postmaster General" and marked with the BBC logo. Initially, the fee for receiving licences was 10 shillings, and remained at that rate until after the Second World War. With the forming of the public British Broadcasting Corporation in 1927, the Post Office dedicated nearly the entirety of licence fee income to the funding of the BBC” The majority of the licence fee still goes to the BBC but of course they have a lot of competition. The BBC licence...sorry meant TV licence is pretty much a compulsory subscription to the BBC. It’s as much out of date as Bercow and his club. Yeah, but, if you made your TV incapable of receiving any BBC output they'd still insist on a licence - it's been tried.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Sept 22, 2019 17:50:38 GMT
Does the supermarket act like it has the right to search your home for sugar? does it insist you must be a sugar user and treat you like a liar if you're not? does it send you hate mail and repeatedly harass you at home ignoring all requests to stop?
I'm pretty sure this supermarket sugar analogy is broken. Sugar does none of those things, and its vendor lets you opt completely out of its use without expecting a right to periodically harass you. If TV License did likewise, you'd have a point.
If you get a bag of sugar from the supermarket and try to leave without paying for it, they can detain you and you can be prosecuted. Seems pretty indistinguishable from watching tv without paying, except that the crime occurs in your own home, not as you try to leave the supermarket. As you say, the private company that has the enforcement contract do push their luck, but that is nothing to do with the concept of having a tv licence, only a bit of detail about how it is enforced. However because sugar is under a fiver, there will be no prosecution, the police would nor even record the crime.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Sept 22, 2019 17:52:05 GMT
From Wiki... “As part of the agreement with the Post Office, the Postmaster General started to apply a condition to broadcast receiving licences that the equipment used be "Type Approved by Postmaster General" and marked with the BBC logo. Initially, the fee for receiving licences was 10 shillings, and remained at that rate until after the Second World War. With the forming of the public British Broadcasting Corporation in 1927, the Post Office dedicated nearly the entirety of licence fee income to the funding of the BBC” The majority of the licence fee still goes to the BBC but of course they have a lot of competition. The BBC licence...sorry meant TV licence is pretty much a compulsory subscription to the BBC. It’s as much out of date as Bercow and his club. Yeah, but, if you made your TV incapable of receiving any BBC output they'd still insist on a licence - it's been tried. Yes because that law has been superseded by the communications act, covering any live tv, which is why it won't work
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Sept 22, 2019 17:57:39 GMT
Strangely enough the position on a boat is that you don't need a TV licence if you have one for a land-based address, although both televisions can not be switched on at the same time. I don't know how they could check this.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Sept 22, 2019 18:02:21 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2019 18:04:01 GMT
Basically the BBC pretty much had the monopoly on broadcasting, so there wasn’t much between a BBC licence or a TV licence.
Nowadays the BBC no longer hold that monopoly but they are using an antiquated system along with bullying tactics to get their funding.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2019 18:05:22 GMT
They go to your land address then use mobile phone location data to nip over to where you are moored and simultaneously keep an eye on it all. 4 staff a car and some diesel. Not exactly complicated. It is £1000 after all.
|
|