4 ms·

I refuse to pay the license fee and watch BBC content simply because how TV licensing is enforced is grotesque and the cover ups of child molesters committed by

I refuse to pay the license fee and watch BBC content simply because how TV licensing is enforced is grotesque and the cover ups of child molesters committed by the BBC. Put it behind a subscription and give me a choice whether the BBC deserves its revenue, my current opinion falls firmly on no.

felixgallo 8mo ago
I'm sure you feel the same way about Sky News and the tabloids, right?
- pjc50 8mo ago
  You're not legally required to pay for either of those simply because you own a television. I have a lot of love for the BBC and its history, but the license fee is very difficult to justify.
  - crtasm 8mo ago
    You aren't required to pay the licence fee simply for owning a television. It's required if you're using it to watch OTA channels and/or iPlayer, as I understand it?
    - pan69 8mo ago
      > By law, each household in the UK - with some exceptions - has to pay if they: > watch or record programmes as they're being shown live on any TV channel > The rules apply to any device on which a programme is viewed, including a TV, desktop or laptop computer, mobile phone, tablet, games console or set-top box. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz9k27yy839o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz9k27yy839o
  - PaulDavisThe1st 8mo ago
    The justification is pretty simple, even if you disagree with it. It goes something like this: we, the people of the UK, believe that a non-commercial broadcaster and news and production company are of significant value to us, and that in order to fund these social goods we will levy a license fee on the use of any television within the UK. Now of course, you can disagree about the value proposition, and you can disagree about the choice on how to fund it. But that's the justification, and it's not hard.
    - tw85 8mo ago
      If that justification held up, the BBC would have no trouble staying afloat through voluntary subscription fees, pay to watch content and advertising revenue. Instead, they harass anyone who doesn't pony up the license fee and put the onus on them to prove they aren't in violation.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 8mo ago
        The BBC was set up to be advertising free, so that option is not a part of the current structure. The license fee was established because of fundamental beliefs about issues like free riding, externalities and more. You might prefer a subscription based model - I'm sort of on the fence myself, but it's not obviously wrong - but the BBC license fee was set up out of an explicit disbelief that such systems would work. Granted, some of the issues were technological - you couldn't actually stop people watching OTA broadcasts at the time. But even though those have changed, the beliefs about the funding structure have not.
        nephihaha 8mo ago
        The BBC does have some advertising on it, if you can call it that. Most of it tends to be inhouse. So in addition to TV programmes, in the past I have seen them advertising "Radio Times" (a magazine they used to own giving TV listings), tie-in books, TV licences, DVDs/VHS, and their other channels and digital services. They also cross-promote their material. When David Tennant was playing Doctor Who, you would frequently see BBC News 24 being featured in the programme. Nowhere near as bad as other channels in that sense, but still there. Historically, there have been also been substantial numbers of people who watched the BBC without licences in the Republic of Ireland and the Netherlands, but they couldn't do a thing about it. The BBC tended to be watched in the east of the Republic of Ireland and near the border with Northern Ireland. (Not so much in France from what I can tell.) Many of the houses in Dublin used to have massive tall TV aerials to receive it. Most have been removed now. (Within the Republic of Ireland, RTÉ is funded by their own licence system, but also has proper advertising on it, unlike the BBC. It has had similar questions about it.)
nailer 8mo ago
[flagged]
- dgxyz 8mo ago
  100% this. They published straight up misinformation as fact first, announced it as breaking news, pushed it to BBC app, then corrected it all later then pretended nothing happened. I don't pay for a license because the programming is crap now though.
  - mrexcess 8mo ago
    >They published straight up misinformation as fact first Can you add some specifics to this claim? I'm unaware of the BBC having reported "Hamas-sourced" substantial misinformation as fact. I'm sure some errors and retractions have been done - especially given that BBC like all Western media continues to be forbidden to operate freely in Gaza.
    - dgxyz 8mo ago
      During the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital incident they posted an entirely unverified and unattributed story stating that the cause was an Israeli air strike, pushed this as breaking news and 43 minutes later changed the attribution to Hamas and PIJ sources confirmed. This lead to two of my female Jewish friends getting spat on and having their hair pulled on the tube and called murdering zionists. This happens a lot with the BBC in the rush to publish. It is not an excusable situation. There are real consequences. The decline is parallel to the rise in social media and moving the news teams out of London and attention dynamics. You can find a list of problems in the corrections and clarifications here - work through 2023 to 2025: https://www.bbc.co.uk/helpandfeedback/corrections_clarifications https://www.bbc.co.uk/helpandfeedback/corrections_clarificat...
      - deleted 8mo ago
        [deleted]
      - pjc50 8mo ago
IG_Semmelweiss 8mo ago
How, dare I ask, does one "opt out" of a govt subscription service ? Some private companies make it so hard these days (Adobe & NYT being the kings of subcription dark patterns), I am curious how the process goes with a govt entity like the BBC ?
- dgxyz 8mo ago
  One tells them to fuck off when they turn up at the door. And off they fuck.
- PaulDavisThe1st 8mo ago
  > How, dare I ask, does one "opt out" of a govt subscription service ? Currently, by not using a television.
- beardyw 8mo ago
  Here https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/telling-us-you-dont-need-a-tv-licence https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/t...
- nephihaha 8mo ago
  Quite easily. I haven't had a licence for over twenty years. TV Licensing has no right of access to your home, so if they turn up, you can turn them away. You also ignore their letters. TV licensing is actually a private company separate from the BBC and the government. In order to get access, they have to apply for a warrant to get into your home. To do that they have to fill out a lot of paperwork. If you have a TV (and I don't), it should not be visible or audible from anywhere outside these little toerags can hear/see it.
CommanderData 8mo ago
The BBC also behaved indefensibly when covering Israel's genocide of Palestinians. Their behaviour is largely what led to me siding with the Palestinians plight some years ago, the use of words on Israel's side VS Palestinians was enough to lead me down a rabbit hole and I have never seen the BBC the same since. It is literally state news with amazing bits of other content.

felixgallo 8mo ago

I'm sure you feel the same way about Sky News and the tabloids, right?

pjc50 8mo ago
You're not legally required to pay for either of those simply because you own a television. I have a lot of love for the BBC and its history, but the license fee is very difficult to justify.
- crtasm 8mo ago
  You aren't required to pay the licence fee simply for owning a television. It's required if you're using it to watch OTA channels and/or iPlayer, as I understand it?
  - pan69 8mo ago
    > By law, each household in the UK - with some exceptions - has to pay if they: > watch or record programmes as they're being shown live on any TV channel > The rules apply to any device on which a programme is viewed, including a TV, desktop or laptop computer, mobile phone, tablet, games console or set-top box. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz9k27yy839o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz9k27yy839o
- PaulDavisThe1st 8mo ago
  The justification is pretty simple, even if you disagree with it. It goes something like this: we, the people of the UK, believe that a non-commercial broadcaster and news and production company are of significant value to us, and that in order to fund these social goods we will levy a license fee on the use of any television within the UK. Now of course, you can disagree about the value proposition, and you can disagree about the choice on how to fund it. But that's the justification, and it's not hard.
  - tw85 8mo ago
    If that justification held up, the BBC would have no trouble staying afloat through voluntary subscription fees, pay to watch content and advertising revenue. Instead, they harass anyone who doesn't pony up the license fee and put the onus on them to prove they aren't in violation.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 8mo ago
      The BBC was set up to be advertising free, so that option is not a part of the current structure. The license fee was established because of fundamental beliefs about issues like free riding, externalities and more. You might prefer a subscription based model - I'm sort of on the fence myself, but it's not obviously wrong - but the BBC license fee was set up out of an explicit disbelief that such systems would work. Granted, some of the issues were technological - you couldn't actually stop people watching OTA broadcasts at the time. But even though those have changed, the beliefs about the funding structure have not.
      - nephihaha 8mo ago
        The BBC does have some advertising on it, if you can call it that. Most of it tends to be inhouse. So in addition to TV programmes, in the past I have seen them advertising "Radio Times" (a magazine they used to own giving TV listings), tie-in books, TV licences, DVDs/VHS, and their other channels and digital services. They also cross-promote their material. When David Tennant was playing Doctor Who, you would frequently see BBC News 24 being featured in the programme. Nowhere near as bad as other channels in that sense, but still there. Historically, there have been also been substantial numbers of people who watched the BBC without licences in the Republic of Ireland and the Netherlands, but they couldn't do a thing about it. The BBC tended to be watched in the east of the Republic of Ireland and near the border with Northern Ireland. (Not so much in France from what I can tell.) Many of the houses in Dublin used to have massive tall TV aerials to receive it. Most have been removed now. (Within the Republic of Ireland, RTÉ is funded by their own licence system, but also has proper advertising on it, unlike the BBC. It has had similar questions about it.)

nailer 8mo ago

[flagged]

dgxyz 8mo ago
100% this. They published straight up misinformation as fact first, announced it as breaking news, pushed it to BBC app, then corrected it all later then pretended nothing happened. I don't pay for a license because the programming is crap now though.
- mrexcess 8mo ago
  >They published straight up misinformation as fact first Can you add some specifics to this claim? I'm unaware of the BBC having reported "Hamas-sourced" substantial misinformation as fact. I'm sure some errors and retractions have been done - especially given that BBC like all Western media continues to be forbidden to operate freely in Gaza.
  - dgxyz 8mo ago
    During the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital incident they posted an entirely unverified and unattributed story stating that the cause was an Israeli air strike, pushed this as breaking news and 43 minutes later changed the attribution to Hamas and PIJ sources confirmed. This lead to two of my female Jewish friends getting spat on and having their hair pulled on the tube and called murdering zionists. This happens a lot with the BBC in the rush to publish. It is not an excusable situation. There are real consequences. The decline is parallel to the rise in social media and moving the news teams out of London and attention dynamics. You can find a list of problems in the corrections and clarifications here - work through 2023 to 2025: https://www.bbc.co.uk/helpandfeedback/corrections_clarifications https://www.bbc.co.uk/helpandfeedback/corrections_clarificat...
    - deleted 8mo ago
      [deleted]
    - pjc50 8mo ago

IG_Semmelweiss 8mo ago

How, dare I ask, does one "opt out" of a govt subscription service ? Some private companies make it so hard these days (Adobe & NYT being the kings of subcription dark patterns), I am curious how the process goes with a govt entity like the BBC ?

dgxyz 8mo ago
One tells them to fuck off when they turn up at the door. And off they fuck.
PaulDavisThe1st 8mo ago
> How, dare I ask, does one "opt out" of a govt subscription service ? Currently, by not using a television.
beardyw 8mo ago
Here https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/telling-us-you-dont-need-a-tv-licence https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/t...
nephihaha 8mo ago
Quite easily. I haven't had a licence for over twenty years. TV Licensing has no right of access to your home, so if they turn up, you can turn them away. You also ignore their letters. TV licensing is actually a private company separate from the BBC and the government. In order to get access, they have to apply for a warrant to get into your home. To do that they have to fill out a lot of paperwork. If you have a TV (and I don't), it should not be visible or audible from anywhere outside these little toerags can hear/see it.

CommanderData 8mo ago

The BBC also behaved indefensibly when covering Israel's genocide of Palestinians. Their behaviour is largely what led to me siding with the Palestinians plight some years ago, the use of words on Israel's side VS Palestinians was enough to lead me down a rabbit hole and I have never seen the BBC the same since. It is literally state news with amazing bits of other content.