Every adult in Britain will be forced to carry 'carbon ration cards'

[Peikko 1,575]

Actually the whole myth of decector vans lurking around the streets at night WAS very Orwellian and very much perpetuated by the BBC, I remember that ad as kid, that showed the van under the street light and the person peeping out of the curtain

I remember that ad.

It was rather creepy, but they didn't/don't exist - how could it possibly have worked? It was all an attempt to 'guilt' people into buying their licence and it probably worked. When you consider the quality of progaming and NO ADVERTS the licence fee was/is incredibly cheap and I never had a problem paying it. I wish I had that option here if it meant decent ad free tv.

[GaryC 7]

Don't be surprised if Obama and his leftist friends dont try to implement this in the US.

The Cap and Tax proposal is the beginning of it. First business and then the individual.

[mawilson 2,133]

Actually the whole myth of decector vans lurking around the streets at night WAS very Orwellian and very much perpetuated by the BBC, I remember that ad as kid, that showed the van under the street light and the person peeping out of the curtain

I remember that ad.

It was rather creepy, but they didn't/don't exist - how could it possibly have worked? It was all an attempt to 'guilt' people into buying their licence and it probably worked. When you consider the quality of progaming and NO ADVERTS the licence fee was/is incredibly cheap and I never had a problem paying it. I wish I had that option here if it meant decent ad free tv.

You have it here - it's called "premium channels".

As for the licence fee being cheap.... £139.50 is not THAT cheap.

[Peikko 1,575]

I thought it was compared with what $40.00/month? for these so called 'premium' channels which while they have a 100+ channels, still don't have progams like 'Top Gear' or 'Working Lunch' or 'Later...with Jules Holland'. At least, I haven't found anything simlilar.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Actually the whole myth of decector vans lurking around the streets at night WAS very Orwellian and very much perpetuated by the BBC, I remember that ad as kid, that showed the van under the street light and the person peeping out of the curtain

I remember that ad.

It was rather creepy, but they didn't/don't exist - how could it possibly have worked? It was all an attempt to 'guilt' people into buying their licence and it probably worked. When you consider the quality of progaming and NO ADVERTS the licence fee was/is incredibly cheap and I never had a problem paying it. I wish I had that option here if it meant decent ad free tv.

There was a Freedom of Information Act disclosure from the BBC where they disclosed exactly how the whole "detector van" thing works. They do have the technology to do it - but its usually employed as a prelude to a search warrant before charges are filed. In other words - they have to have a pretty good idea (through other investigative channels) that a particular address isn't paying the license fee before they'll use it.

They don't have a fleet of black vans driving around the country looking for non-payers.

[Welshcookie 17]

Actually the whole myth of decector vans lurking around the streets at night WAS very Orwellian and very much perpetuated by the BBC, I remember that ad as kid, that showed the van under the street light and the person peeping out of the curtain

I remember that ad.

It was rather creepy, but they didn't/don't exist - how could it possibly have worked? It was all an attempt to 'guilt' people into buying their licence and it probably worked. When you consider the quality of progaming and NO ADVERTS the licence fee was/is incredibly cheap and I never had a problem paying it. I wish I had that option here if it meant decent ad free tv.

You have it here - it's called "premium channels".

As for the licence fee being cheap.... £139.50 is not THAT cheap.

Oh and btw, this enforced tax does actually indirectly affect the American tax payer.....since the UK government insisted that all US airmen in the dorms pay this tax(individually, not building), regardless to the fact that US channels only are streamed to their TVs ... all servicemen (not just airmen in dorms) now get the TV tax reimbursed by the US government.

[Peikko 1,575]

You don't really want me to take the 'affects the US tax payer' seriously do you?

Well, you may enjoy the pay to view channels, I prefer not to pay and don't view them. I would welcome the chance to pay $280 per year to get some comparable ad free programing but it will never happen so I am happy to be more a less a tv free zone.

Edited June 11, 2008 by Purple_Hibiscus

[mawilson 2,133]

I thought it was compared with what $40.00/month? for these so called 'premium' channels which while they have a 100+ channels, still don't have progams like 'Top Gear' or 'Working Lunch' or 'Later...with Jules Holland'. At least, I haven't found anything simlilar.

I think it's about $10/month per channel. £139.50/year is more than $20/month.

[Peikko 1,575]

So? I would pay that for the type of programming the BBC produces and think it cheap.

[Peikko 1,575]

Currently I don't pay for TV, I just watch terrestrial if at all. US tv isn't all bad, they can and do produce great programs, but I would pay more for even better TV. You have to admit though, that the US commercial is woeful compared with some of the classics that have come out of the UK.

[Welshcookie 17]

The TV tax isn't all about the "quality" of programs the BBC is churning out....it is, and I don't know how anyone can dispute the fact, an enforced tax on the people of the UK....if you don't pay it, you go to jail, full stop. It is just another way this government finds a way of ###### us out of money.

The BBC make a whole lot of money on books and mags (no Mags...not you ).

I watch the BBC maybe twice a week, most of time we watch Sky as we both enjoy the History Channel or the "lifestyle" cooking etc channels....we pay quite a bit for it...30 pounds a month....but y'know, i'm happy to do that because that is what I CHOOSE. Even if you do not own a TV here expect to pay the tax anyway.

Edited June 11, 2008 by Welshcookie

[mawilson 2,133]

And it's not like all the channels are ad free - only BBC1 and BBC2.

ITV and Channels 4/5 have ads.

[Welshcookie 17]

And it's not like all the channels are ad free - only BBC1 and BBC2.

ITV and Channels 4/5 have ads.

I appreciate the pee breaks actually

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I thought it was compared with what $40.00/month? for these so called 'premium' channels which while they have a 100+ channels, still don't have progams like 'Top Gear' or 'Working Lunch' or 'Later...with Jules Holland'. At least, I haven't found anything simlilar.

If you're making an argument for the necessity of tax-payer funded BBC I'm not sure these are the best programs to make your case. Incidentally, they show Top Gear on BBC America and Jools Holland is on Fuse.

It's not any trouble finding an equivalent to Jools Holland anyway - most of the same bands he has on his show will be doing the talk show circuit at the same time in the US and on Letterman you even get the same cheesey "playing along with the band on the keyboard trying and failing to be cool" only with Paul Shaefer.

There are any number of shows about cars - maybe Jeremy Clarkson makes the show, but do the taxpayers really need to pay him the rumored 600,000 GBP salary?

[no name 1]

maybe Jeremy Clarkson makes the show, but do the taxpayers really need to pay him the rumored 600,000 GBP salary?

My hubby would say yes!

I like the long haired hippie guy....but they all try TOO HARD to look cool, I hate it. And Richard Hammond is creepier as time goes on.