Bitcoin Forum

I pay a TV tax in the UK - its paid to fund the BBC and is an obligatory licence fee . Non payment has traditionally, as a last resort, been punishable by a prison sentence.

   Why the hell am I being forced to pay the wages of a man like Jeremy Clarkson ? The man is a reactionary bigot playground bully bore and now, it would seem, a racist to boot (http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/may/01/jeremy-clarkson-begs-forgiveness-n-word-top-gear).

I'm sick of him. He's a pompous smug bloated twat. I want my money back.

I was once of the mind that the licence fee was needed to provide an impartial media, free from vested interest. But as time has gone on it has become clear the BBC is a puppet of the Government (remember Greg Dyke getting the push for daring to question the validity of the Iraq "weapons of mass destruction" BS) - and it seems to me that if The Guardian can function on advertising revenue and still maintain an impartiality that, quite honestly, puts the BBC to shame, then maybe there would be a good arguement for abolishing the licence fee altogether.

I'm not sure he is a racist to be honest. I did read one of his books a few years ago though and he said this:


Which I actually thought was quite funny. He got in trouble recently for the 'slope' joke too (which I also found mildly amusing), but I reckon they'll probably have to sack him now, but that'll be the end of Top Gear if they do.

But I don't agree with paying the licence fee and it should be scrapped.

Turn your TV off and read a book.

He is a TV personality. How he acts on Top Gear could be radically different to who he is (I doubt this too). The facts is, the series sells and people watch it. Who doesn't hate the TV licence? But what can we do about it?


Even if your TV is off, you still need to buy the TV licence. As long as you have a device capable of TV program reception on the premises, it is mandatory

We can stop paying the licence or protest it for a start. And I don't think his TV persona is any different from the person he actually is. He's just not a PC person, but you kinda have to be nowadays if you want to work for the BBC.

Yet another public body funded by another tax, lets face it, that's what the licence fee is in reality. The BBC can do what they want with the money and there is nothing we can do about it.

Wtf? How do you even know he's saying 'nigger' all I heard was him mumbling ngnnr, oh well, I'm surprised the guardian even bothered picking this up.

I'm starting to think that Top Gear aren't actually racist and they're doing it to deliberately bait people like with the slope thing, does anybody remember that? They said the exact same 'racist' thing except they were doing it in a completely different context, does anybody remember the nigger sweets we had awhile back which immediately got a thread spammed awhile back? I wonder where it is now? :D

As others have said, there's nothing stopping you from turning off your television and just downloading what you want to watch instead, I do it myself.


..... Note to Self: When releasing manga make comments which out of context sound racist to get more free advertisement

And what exactly do you think he was trying to say? It's quite obvious what he intended he just didn't do a good enough job of muffling it enough. http://youtu.be/nlQjdUWqBLE

I hate slopes, they're annoying.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_5hTp6X94vLQ/S_9YgmWRxNI/AAAAAAAAAIY/1O6iEXK4xpU/s1600/L1010772.JPG

Why, what did you think I was saying you stupid moron? :D

Clarkson is an absolute bellend, wouldn't mind if he got the sack.

James May tweeted something similar:  "Jeremy Clarkson is not a racist. He is a monumental bellend and many other things, but not a racist. I wouldn't work with one."

I'm not sure wether he'll actually get sacked. If it was anyone else they probably would but Top Gear is one of their biggest shows, but I don't know how many more times he can get in trouble for this sort of stuff.


What are you actually talking about?

Come, come cryptasm - surely his rakish public schoolboy adolescent mastubatory up his own arse supercilious humour is well worth the £1,000,000 a year we all fork out on the bloke ?

   Jesus Christ, the PM only gets circa £150k per year

Anyone see his pathetic apology? I guess he had to make it but it wasn't very sincere or believable and kinda laughable at several points: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8vnyP65SuA

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2619327/Clarkson-I-didnt-want-apologise-n-word-rhyme-BBC-theyve-told-Im-chance.html

Looks like he's on his final warning but I'm really surprised they've kept him and I expect there'll be a backlash. I guess Top Gear is just too valuable to them to let him go. I'm sure he'll be on his best behaviour now as he wont be able to afford losing his biggest paycheck.

To be honest BBC has some great shows too. Human Planet, Planet Earth are truly amazing. And series like Have I Got News for You, QI, Little Britain, etc great humor IMO. Doctor Who, Sherlock also great series. Top Gear never got my interest though.

In Holland we mostly just have Dutch rip-offs from BBC/USA programs on the "government funded" channels. Then again, BBC def. has much more money.

I enjoy all of those shows out of the ones I've seen, but I also enjoy Top Gear and I have little to no interest in cars. I just find it a very entertaining show and I think a lot of other people do to. It's a very popular show worldwide and the BBC has even boasted about it being one of the most popular illegally downloaded TV shows haha.

The licence issue has always resurfaced whenever one of the bbc fat cats steps into it
Clarkson is an egregious case of a pompous bully and fart

http://youtu.be/WayBkPasR-M

"He's just a walking offence" - Chunkymark aka The Artist Taxi Driver's take on the situation. He always cracks me up.

I wonder if they'll ever stop the liscence fee? I really wish people would just boycott it en mass. That's the only way anything will ever change. They cant penalise everyone and if people just stopped paying it then they'll surely get the message, but as usual people don't really care and just pay it and get on with their lives.

I don't understand why we're forced to pay for the licence at all. They should just get their money from advertisements or privatise it instead. There just seems to be so many fuck ups with the BBC as of late and we foot the bill. Some of the salaries they pay people lark Clarkson are ridiculous.

Both are valid options and I'd be happy if they both were acted on or implemented, but I can't see a point anytime soon where the license fee is scrapped, as much as I'd like it to. Most people don't seem to be happy with paying it, but don't care enough to not, but every time something like this happens the case gets brought up again to scrap it.

that's weird. why do they need to tax you when money can be raised from advertisements? fucking brits man.. you already drive on the wrong side of the road!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom

I'm not actually sure why we have to pay it, but I've often wondered why they can't just use adverts. It's only the BBC that we have to pay for and all other channels are free.

Then the quality would go down very fast.
But maybe you like to hear the latest celebrity gossip instead of real news, for example.

Thats the argument yes - but I'm not sure if its true TBH.

Its quite often the case that those with higher disposable incomes might be a bit more discerning in their veiwing habits/tastes. Advertisers are willing to pay to capture that audience - they would only be able to do that via quality TV programmes.
   That was my point in the OP about the Guardian - the days when newspapers relied on circulation figures/sales of newspapers alone to make a living are long gone - they rely on advertising revenue.
     If the argument that abolishing the licence fee leads to a deterioration of quality then why are newspapers like the Guardian/Independant/FT still in existence ?

Since when is the BBC the only source for real news? It's hardly impartial either. I watch very little on the BBC and I most certainly don't use it for my source of real world current events. I also don't want to have to pay for it.

Apparently, OP is not the only one who hates him. His wife does too. She is divorcing him after 21 years:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2620201/Clarksons-wife-went-holiday-toast-end-marriage.html

It may be old news for some, but it's the first time I heard about it  :D

There's nothing obligatory about the license fee. I don't own a TV. Problem solved.

I can't imagine a reality where I have time to sit down and watch television. Having said that, if I were to start watching TV, I would happily pay the £10/month or whatever it is now to not have to see ads. I hate ads. With a passion.

But I think you have to pay it if you own a computer or even other devices that are capable of streaming media. And just download TV programs or steam them online somewhere.

You have to pay it if you watch a broadcast while it is being sent out. There is no fee for using a service like iPlayer or some other non-live technology:

http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/help/about_bbc_iplayer/tvlicence

Oh, I wasn't aware of that. I wonder if I've just bought into hearsay and fear-mongering. The bbc and the tv licensing people seem to like scaring people into paying it.

If I lived in a household where I had to pay the bills / tv licence, I just wouldn't pay it. It's simple enough to get around having to pay it legally. In the most extreme case I just wouldn't have a TV aerial installed but I think you can get away with just having the ariel unplugged. I never watch live broadcast TV anyway and just download all the stuff I want to watch.

I'm the same. If there is something I want to watch...well that's why God invented Bittorrent.

I had a friend once who actually went through this. He stopped watching TV when he had kids, but didn't get rid of his TV. From what I can remember, if you detune your set, you're fine. There used to be a lot of scaremongering about "detector vans", stealthy, unmarked vehicles patrolling the streets looking for unlicensed TV sets :) Pure FUD, of course.

Yeah, I always knew those detector vans were bs. I mean, seriously, how can they detect whether people are watching TV or not? It'd be far easier just looking through your window  ;D. The TV licensing people just know full well they can't really enforce it well at all, and if you don't want to pay it you can easily and legally get away with it, so they just resort to fear-tactics to get the sheep paying because they think they either have to or it's not worth the risk or hassle not paying it.

Not if you just sit at home all day watching Justin Bieber videos and viral hits on Youtube  ;D. I'm not sure I buy that whole idiot box argument as well. I mean, sure, if all you do is watch is mind-numbing soaps etc, but I love watching the occasional quality drama and sitcom, as well as documentaries, and I don't think those are exactly stifling or reducing my mental capacity  :D.

This is quite a good run down on when a TV licence is required : http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/utilities/tv-licence (http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/utilities/tv-licence)

What I don't understand is why would I need a UK licence for watching, for eg, Italian TV (being broadcast live) via satellite ? Doesn't seem right to me.

 2 questions   1) can they really decipher (from outside my home) wether I am watching live tv or not ?

            and 2) can they enter my home with a warrant without my permission ? I seem to remember seeing somewhere that you could prevent them from doing so - or at least stall them.

1). No they can't, unless they can quite clearly hear the TV playing in the background. I can't remember where I read it but they essentially just use good old fashion detective work and cross referencing you on a database. It's very likely that 99% of households have a tv and 99% of them probably watch live tv at some point during the year. If you're down on the database as not having a liscence then you'll probably eventually get a visit from them and they'll be operating under the assumption that you're guilty of evading it until proved otherwise.

2). No. You need to let them in. They're not going to kick down the door just to see if you're watching TV.

Did you mean to write that? Even the police have no right of entry without a warrant.

He said with a warrant. They can enter your house without one if you just let them in though.

Aar, yes, that makes more sense. I'm drinking coffee right now, will be more on the ball very soon.

Even with a warrant, I would still make them knock the door down :)

Its weird ... why do you guys fund a tv?  and how will it become impartial if it is paid by the government.

It's not paid for by the government, but the people. You could probably argue why do people fund any government?