Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

How to cancel your BBC License fee, LEGALLY

I was thinking of chucking our tele, and just watching the ones over the back
they all have TVs bigger then a luton vans side
when I do my teeth at night I see all sorts of things !!
just need to work on the audio side of it

Bang on the wall and ask them to turn it up a bit.
 
I was thinking of chucking our tele, and just watching the ones over the back
they all have TVs bigger then a luton vans side
when I do my teeth at night I see all sorts of things !!
just need to work on the audio side of it
1592258312812.jpeg

That’ll sort you out and no mistake Mr S.
 
I was thinking of chucking our tele, and just watching the ones over the back
they all have TVs bigger then a luton vans side
when I do my teeth at night I see all sorts of things !!
just need to work on the audio side of it
Not sure about the sound.
See if you can connect to it with your phone on unsecured miracast/screencast, Play a grotty porn to it in the middle of them watching Eastenders
 
I dont suppose it happens any more, but many years back , when you purchased a television or hired one, they notified the licencing people directly
at least that was what I was told when I bought our first one
That would flag the address as having equipment that could receive transmissions, (It covered anything capable of receiving - TV, video, computer with a TV card etc). It didn’t necessarily mean that you were watching and needed a licence. It also didn’t mean that the person making the purchase was going to put the equipment in their address.
Buy a TV and video recorder and you might be watching videos.
TV cards became standard in a generation of computers so buy in that price range at that time and the TV card was fitted

If the address wasn’t covered by a licence then it just generated letters, and may have resulted in a knock on the door.
 
Joe Venture of the Tax Payer's Alliance suggests that the BBC is stuck in 1996.

The BBC is stuck in 1986

JUL 30 2020
By Joe Ventre, digital campaign manager

1596290158136.png


A couple of points:

1. Joe claims that satellite TV was then in it's infancy. Without context this is nonsense. Satellite TV was first proposed in 1945. The first public broadcast via satellite was in 1962. Satellite TV as an industry though started mid 1970s, even though your average punter may not have been aware of it. Joe must be referring to British satellite TV being in it's infancy in the 80s. This was not made clear.

2. YouTube is free. In terms of pounds and pence it's as free as other free to air broadcasts that are financed through advertising. Free as in freedom varies. Where you live may determine what you can watch due to censorship. Anti-Western hate speech still seems to be allowed. Who is the moral arbiter?

Anyway, as Joe says, times have changed and alternatives are available, yet BBC are suggesting a broadband tax to fund their largely unaccountable activities over which we have no choice in the matter. Again, who is the moral arbiter?

The BBC is stuck in 1986
 
I feel like any thread on BBC licensing needs this link. A sort of database of the never ending letters.

There’s an easy solution for them to stop receiving those letters - instead of taking their time to publish their ‘battle’ on the Internet they can just tell them that a licence isn’t required, in doing so they would get an acknowledgement plus perhaps one letter per year just to check there is no change. That would be 14 or 15 letters since 2006, instead of 158

(but then they wouldn’t feel special on the Internet)

 
There’s an easy solution for them to stop receiving those letters - instead of taking their time to publish their ‘battle’ on the Internet they can just tell them that a licence isn’t required, in doing so they would get an acknowledgement plus perhaps one letter per year just to check there is no change. That would be 14 or 15 letters since 2006, instead of 158

(but then they wouldn’t feel special on the Internet)

You miss the point.

"I have saved £2,141.50 and, assuming 50p a letter, cost the BBC a further £75 in postage."

For the minimal effort of throwing them in the bin you are literally defunding the BBC with each one they send.

Also why do I have to tell them anyway? I don't own anything by Apple or use Apple's services. Apple doesn't keep sending me letters and I don't have to tell them I don't want them.
 

Mattb

LE
There’s an easy solution for them to stop receiving those letters - instead of taking their time to publish their ‘battle’ on the Internet they can just tell them that a licence isn’t required, in doing so they would get an acknowledgement plus perhaps one letter per year just to check there is no change. That would be 14 or 15 letters since 2006, instead of 158

(but then they wouldn’t feel special on the Internet)

From empirical research (admittedly a good ten or so years ago), I can tell you that approach doesn't work.
 
I feel like any thread on BBC licensing needs this link. A sort of database of the never ending letters.

What a bunch cnuts... The first and only thing anybody / everybody should do upon deciding they don’t need and thus won’t be buying a TV licence is to advise Capita (aka TV Licensing) that their implied right to access to your property is unequivocally withdrawn.

Nothing more, nothing less - no reasons or explanations are necessary. Then bin any letters unread forever more. Remember, you are no longer contributing to the cost of the BBC’s wilful money wasting by way of millions of unnecessary baseless threat letters.

If they want you, a rarer than rocking horse shit warrant will be necessary to knock on your door and as long as you are not breaking the law and make no self incriminating remarks to the TVL knobhead they lose.

There’s an easy solution for them to stop receiving those letters - instead of taking their time to publish their ‘battle’ on the Internet they can just tell them that a licence isn’t required, in doing so they would get an acknowledgement plus perhaps one letter per year just to check there is no change. That would be 14 or 15 letters since 2006, instead of 158

(but then they wouldn’t feel special on the Internet)

If the law requires people to advise TVL that their viewing habits have changed then indeed, people should inform them of that change.

On the other hand, the consequence of not breaking the law (by not telling them) should not be endless threats of dire consequences and gaol. (Most people do not want to feel speshul on t'interweb).
 

Latest Threads

Top