[jambutty]

Oh! No! Not this old chestnut again!

Those who object to the license seem to think that the BBC should stand on its own two feet and not be funded by the TV License.

The real truth of the matter is that the BBC doesn’t get the license money and whether the BBC should stand on its own two feet or not does not come into the issue. That is a separate argument and has no place in the license debate.

The government gets that money because the government has decreed by law that anyone who wants to use a TV has to have a license to do so. Much in the same way that hams need a license to chat over the airways. Or CB enthusiasts, if there are any left, need a license to do their thing. Drivers need a license to be able to drive on the public highway or armed forces property and if they want to take their vehicle on the public highway or armed forces property they need a Road Fund License. There was a time when people needed a Dog License to own and keep a dog.

The government funds the BBC from government funds. Government funds are made up from all sorts of taxation, which also include the TV license fee. Whether the BBC gets more or less than the fee raised is open to conjecture. But the BBC also makes money over and above the government handout. They make first rate TV and Radio programmes and sell them all over the world and then there is the marketing side with records, CD’s, DVD’s etc. Of course they also buy a load of tripe from the states but then that is what most people want to watch over here. American dross.

If there were no BBC we would still need a TV License. The license does not guarantee that you can receive TV programmes so those people complaining that they cannot receive channel five and deserve a cheaper license fee haven’t got a case.

That all said the fee of £135.50 pa (that’s just £2.61 per week or a fraction over 37p per day) is exceptionally good value. Even when it rises to £150 pa it will still be terrific value. If you and your family watch just one film per week it is still a mile cheaper than going to a cinema and more comfortable.

So for just 37p per day and a one off fee of about £50 for a digibox most people in the UK can have over 30 channels to choose from for no extra cost.

I am very discerning about what I watch on TV and consider much of what is shown as drivel but I can usually find something that is to my liking.

Dons anti flack jacket, steel helmet and crouches down inside an armoured car.

chav1 if you have a TV set in the house that is CAPABLE of receiving TV signals either through an aerial, cable or satellite dish you have to have a license for it. If your computer or any other equipment can do the same you have to have a TV license. But you are right it is none of the BBC’s business and it never has been directly. It is government business and the law.

It’s not what you are using your TV for sarah but what it is CAPABLE of being used for. If the detector van comes a calling and your TV set is not in use or you are watching video and you don’t have a TV license you will still get done. To get away with it you would have to prove that you do not watch TV programmes by any means and the only way you can do that is to prove that your TV is not CAPABLE of receiving and showing TV programmes.

It would also appear that if your phone can receive and show TV you still need a licence

That too is being argued about ***Mr D*** but I cannot see how they will be able to police it.