On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 12:03 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
(Paul Cummins) wrote:

In article ,
(David Hansen) wrote:

Even when there is a licence at a particular address people often
get one of these threats from the BBC.

as I did when I bought a TV and gave my address. I got a threatening
letter from the TV Licensing, and they didn't even apologise when I gave
them *my* TV Licence number.


Read my number out once to renew one and was told it was not a valid
number,
it was a slightly non std one called a detached licence Even so the
robotic call handler denied there was any such thing and declined to
call a supervisor,as my exasperation increased I asked for a her
name,informed her that I had started to record the conversation .She
then asked if I was having a bad to which I replied" it was fine till
I had to deal with you" at which point she hung up. Next day I asked
to speak to a supervisor straight away and was put through to one.
After a brief preamble I played the recording back and asked what the
next stage would be as their staffs incompetence was preventing me
from renewing my licence and further if it ever got a court the
recording would be offered as evidence. Fortunately the Supervisor did
know about detached licences and pro ceded to renew it but I hope the
first Twit got a bollocking.


Since that day, I have never, and will never, renewed my TV licence.
To be honest I rather have the BBC for all its faults than some of the
alternatives and think the fee is good value compared to them. Its
just their collection agents who need shooting. Cannot be too far away
from the stage when all receiving equipment sound and vision could be
fitted with a card slot or similar. Then we can get rid of the
licence.
People like me can still pay for it ,them who think it is poor value
or claim they only watch Sky or ITV or listen to commercial radio can
avail themselves of them instead.


G.Harman

On Feb 7, 1:05*pm, wrote:

On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 12:03 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
(Paul Cummins) wrote:
[snip]
Since that day, I have never, and will never, renewed my TV licence.

To be honest I rather have the BBC for all its faults than some of the
alternatives and think the fee is good value compared to them. Its
just their collection agents who need shooting. Cannot be too far away
from the stage when all receiving equipment sound and vision could be
fitted with a card slot or similar. Then we can get rid of the
licence.
People like me can still pay for it ,them who think it is poor value
or claim they only watch Sky or ITV or listen to commercial radio can
avail themselves of them instead.

The BBC's strategy with Freeview, after the collapse of the ondigital/
ITV Digital pay service, was to get lots of digital television kit out
there that didn't have any capability for pay TV - i.e. no card slot,
no decoder etc. Anyone now proposing that the BBC goes subscription
would have to deal with this fait accompli - the installed user base
is simply not equipped for subscription TV, and any attempt to move
the BBC onto a pay TV model would be met with this massive problem.
Greg Dyke et al knew what they were doing with Freeview - they were
guaranteeing the future of the free to air model of broadcasting.

On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 13:05:21 +0000 someone who may be
wrote this:-

To be honest I rather have the BBC for all its faults than some of the
alternatives and think the fee is good value compared to them.

I agree. Less than buying the Scum newspaper every day apparently.

It is the arrogance of the BBC in collecting their subscription, in
particular the threatening unsolicited marketing materials they send
out demanding an answer, which needs to be sorted. I don't have a
subscription for all sorts of things and none of them bombard me
with threatening pieces of paper.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 16:56:44 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

It is the arrogance of the BBC in collecting their subscription, in
particular the threatening unsolicited marketing materials they send
out demanding an answer, which needs to be sorted. I don't have a
subscription for all sorts of things and none of them bombard me
with threatening pieces of paper.

But how many of these subscriptions of which you speak are backed by
an Act of Parliament?

Sticking your head in the sand and calling it a conspiracy shouldn't
make it go away.

On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 17:09:20 +0000 someone who may be Ivor The
Engine wrote this:-

It is the arrogance of the BBC in collecting their subscription, in
particular the threatening unsolicited marketing materials they send
out demanding an answer, which needs to be sorted. I don't have a
subscription for all sorts of things and none of them bombard me
with threatening pieces of paper.

But how many of these subscriptions of which you speak are backed by
an Act of Parliament?

Quite a few of them.

The nearest to the BBC are the Performing Rights Society. However,
they do take "get lost" for an answer. The BBC breaks various rules
and regulations by continuing to threaten people who are not
interested in receiving the marketing materials they pour out.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54