X

Cookies

Continue We want you to get the most out of using this website, which is why we and our partners use cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to receive these cookies. You can find out more about how we use cookies here.

Monday, 01 September 2014

Subscriptions  |  evouchers  |  Jobs  |  Property  |  Motors  |  Travel  |  Dating  |  Family Notices

More than 1,000 caught in north and west Cumbria without TV licence

Around 650 people in Carlisle were caught watching television without a licence.

Have your say

I wonder how many of these licence dodgers are more than happy to pay for SKY, the internet and a smart phone?

Posted by Johnstitch on 27 February 2013 at 21:39

@M.Sagan,

Are you just as vocal about the Royal Mail?
How about United Utilities?
There are many 'monopolies' operating, most of them quietly and without controversy, but people seem to pick out the BBC, mainly because of misguided political opinions.

And you do have a choice - don't own a television. In today's world, there's many more source of information and entertainment.

Posted by Nathan on 27 February 2013 at 16:01

@Nathan Yes, my beef is with the BBC - but it could easily be with any such privileged company.

The difference between buying a computer from Apple then having to pay for the internet is that you 'have the choice' of whether or not you pay for your internet service. You can have a PC and not pay for any internet and not use the internet.

It's different with the BBC as you 'don't have the choice' - that is the key difference, and it is my beef with the BBC. Why not have an 'opt out' option whereby you can have a TV but can only access channels funded by commercials?!

Also, at least with an Internet service provider, if you don't like their service or price then you can choose to use someone else....again, it's all down to having the choice!

The BBC is like Royalty in that although it seems to make little sense, we still see it as untouchable and just accept it.

Posted by M. Sagan on 27 February 2013 at 13:27

the BBC squanders millions on huge excess payments to a small London gang. It prosecutes based on a 1940s legislation to keep the billions per year flowing in. Last week an old nu labor minister was given a job at £360,000 per year.Thats about 20 times the avarage wage. It is the same sort of corruption as banks. They just paid off the last guy millions for failing to do his job. Recession,No - You pay the BBC tax - they just carry on - no change. Massive protest needed.Now !!

Posted by jj on 26 February 2013 at 15:06

@M. Sagan Why should people not be allowed to buy a computer from (say) Apple, then go to whatever internet sites they choose without a company making that impossible unless they pay them a yearly fee?!!

(Unsure about the multiple exclamations, but kept them in anyway.)

TV licenses are a fact of life unless you live in a few exceptional and well publicised countries that don't have one (the USA is the biggest that springs to mind).

You evidently don't have an issue with paying a company for services (as you, presumably, have the internet to write this), your main beef seems to be with the BBC. Admit that, and we can move on to the issue of how the BBC spends its money, not whether paying someone for access to a service is acceptable or not.

Posted by Nathan on 26 February 2013 at 13:59

The BBC act now as they did when tvs first entered the living room and bbc was the only channel. They act as if they own a part of the set you buy because your set is capable of receiving their channels. What an arrogant tax!! I agree that there should be a way of disabling bbc channels

Posted by Rod on 26 February 2013 at 11:47

@Nathan Why should people not be allowed to buy a TV from (say) Samsung, then watch whatever channels or dvds they choose without 1 SINGLE company making that impossible unless you pay them a yearly fee?!!
If the BBC want people to pay then they should do as Sky does - stop people, who haven't paid, from accessing their channels?

It's nothing short of state sanctioned bias towards the BBC that only they should have this priveleged position. Are ITV, Channel 4 or Sky allowed to prevent people from having TVs if they don't pay a licence fee?! No, and rightly so.

Your argument misses the point!

Posted by M. Sagan on 26 February 2013 at 04:44

the bbc wast money .pay boss to much money and this is not wright for people of this countre to pay for .and this must stop

Posted by john ward on 25 February 2013 at 16:42

No one is being forced to buy a TV license.
No one is required by law to watch TV.

I suspect most of the objections here are from people objecting to the BBC, not towards paying a tax on broadcast services.

If you feel strongly enough about it - don't have a TV!

Posted by Nathan on 25 February 2013 at 11:03

@Nathan: That is exactly 'not the thing'.

'Some channels have adverts...'. Almost every single channel in the world has adverts of some description (or is funded privately).

"Here's the thing", if the BBC insist on being so priveleged that they can force people to pay a licence fee to watch ANY channel, then that is plain wrong, and the BBC or TV manufacturers should have the technology to block the BBC channels until people pay their annual fee....but that's about as likley to happen as the UK getting rid of the Royal family, and it would sink the BBC.

I'm guessing you're against free access to the radio as well.

It's not about being 'entitled and spoilt', it's about having the choice!

Posted by M. Sagan on 25 February 2013 at 07:58

Page
Make your comment

Your name

Your Email

Your Town/City

Your comment


News & Star What's On search





Vote

Are Community Resolutions a good idea?

Yes, it helps to relieve pressure on the over-stretched justice system

No, it's another case of society being soft on criminals

I've never heard of the scheme

Show Result

Hot jobs
Scan for our iPhone and Android apps
Search for:
NEWS & STAR ON: