BBC TV Licence
Comments
-
Dodgy as Fook.1
-
Christ mate, with the greatest respect you're not that naive are you?up_the_valley said:I've recieved an email stating im due a refund of £46. I pay by direct debit each month, so can't see why I'd be due a refund. A link asks for bank dets, name and date of birth. I'm thinking dodgy. Has anyone else received this?
It's a scam.3 -
No. Hence "dodgy" in thread. Plenty of people do fall for these sort of things though.Fortune 82nd Minute said:
Christ mate, with the greatest respect you're not that naive are you?up_the_valley said:I've recieved an email stating im due a refund of £46. I pay by direct debit each month, so can't see why I'd be due a refund. A link asks for bank dets, name and date of birth. I'm thinking dodgy. Has anyone else received this?
It's a scam.
.0 -
Absolutely dodgy, as you say. Thank you for sharing.
Trouble is, there are always people who will get caught out, whether through naivety, dementia, or simply having their mind on other things at the time - and some of those can be our nearest and dearest.
So it is always good to be alerted to the latest scams so we are in a position to spread the news to the vulnerable, and forewarn them.4 -
What did the vulnerable do to you?
Changing forearm to forewarn is a bit sneaky. ;-)1 -
Not saying it’s your fault, still think you coulda done more.Fortune 82nd Minute said:
Christ mate, with the greatest respect you're not that naive are you?up_the_valley said:I've recieved an email stating im due a refund of £46. I pay by direct debit each month, so can't see why I'd be due a refund. A link asks for bank dets, name and date of birth. I'm thinking dodgy. Has anyone else received this?
It's a scam.0 -
I once got an email from HMRC - they owed me a small amount (c. £100). I have to give them credit, the site was the dog's bollocks - it was only the URL which gave it away.
Scum of the earth of every single last fucking one of them (not HMRC, who are fine upstanding people..)0 -
Well i got my £45 back. Bloody hard to find on my statement though with all these withdrawals...14
-
You need to go back and get that extra quid.soapy_jones said:Well i got my £45 back. Bloody hard to find on my statement though with all these withdrawals...
2 -
What I just don't understand is how these scammers are allowed to get away with it. Why don't the banks insist that all transactions go to named accounts with verifiable owners and addresses? There should be a full audit trail from start to finish in all transactions. All transactions need to be made reversible. The banking industry really needs to sort itself out.10
- Sponsored links:
-
Licence.2
-
Fuckers!Callumcafc said:
You need to go back and get that extra quid.soapy_jones said:Well i got my £45 back. Bloody hard to find on my statement though with all these withdrawals...
0 -
Just look at the email address it was sent from... easiest way to know if it's legit or not2
-
There is new system coming in next year for the majority of banks which will warn people if the name of a payee account does not match the account details provided, and in some cases will stop payments going through. I suspect it will be a nightmare to start with, particularly for businesses and the charity sector, but is probably a good idea in the long run.Stig said:What I just don't understand is how these scammers are allowed to get away with it. Why don't the banks insist that all transactions go to named accounts with verifiable owners and addresses? There should be a full audit trail from start to finish in all transactions. All transactions need to be made reversible. The banking industry really needs to sort itself out.
Reversible transactions would be a terrible idea as it would remove all certainty that a payment had been made and would basically put a stop to anyone accepting bank transfers for anything.0 -
Got a text today from the "DVLA" asking for me to contact them urgently. Clearly a scam. Most times, you can Google the contents of the messyans it will instantly flag up if it's being used as a scam1
-
Of course it's a scam. When is the last time your government actually got smaller and reduced your taxes? LOL. It seems weird to us that you let your government "license" your own ability to see airwaves travelling in the air or by satellite, as if they own the air. I know they claim that it funds the BBC, but many other countries have plenty of news programs and nature channels and other such things without the government forcing the people to fund the bill by saying "you can't watch anything without our approval."2
-
Name a single country that does it as well as The BBC.NapaAddick said:Of course it's a scam. When is the last time your government actually got smaller and reduced your taxes? LOL. It seems weird to us that you let your government "license" your own ability to see airwaves travelling in the air or by satellite, as if they own the air. I know they claim that it funds the BBC, but many other countries have plenty of news programs and nature channels and other such things without the government forcing the people to fund the bill by saying "you can't watch anything without our approval."
I'll give you a clue, you can't.9 -
Also, hardly just a UK thing.
"The Museum of Broadcast Communications in Chicago[3] notes that two-thirds of the countries in Europe and half of the countries in Asia and Africa use television licences to fund public television. TV licensing is rare in the Americas, largely being confined to French overseas departments and British Overseas Territories."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence0 -
Someone’s been watching a bit too much Fox News....NapaAddick said:Of course it's a scam. When is the last time your government actually got smaller and reduced your taxes? LOL. It seems weird to us that you let your government "license" your own ability to see airwaves travelling in the air or by satellite, as if they own the air. I know they claim that it funds the BBC, but many other countries have plenty of news programs and nature channels and other such things without the government forcing the people to fund the bill by saying "you can't watch anything without our approval."
5 -
Well, it seems “weird” to many of us that your government doesn’t think it’s necessay for any old nut job to have a licence to own lethal firearms. But each to their own.NapaAddick said:Of course it's a scam. When is the last time your government actually got smaller and reduced your taxes? LOL. It seems weird to us that you let your government "license" your own ability to see airwaves travelling in the air or by satellite, as if they own the air. I know they claim that it funds the BBC, but many other countries have plenty of news programs and nature channels and other such things without the government forcing the people to fund the bill by saying "you can't watch anything without our approval."
I wouldn’t dare to presume that my view on this is right, but I know which stance I prefer.
16 - Sponsored links:
-
You are all out of touch. In 2017 a poll in your own country showed 29% said the fee should be scrapped altogether. Another 15% said only those who want BBC should pay the fee. Which means 44% do NOT want to pay the fee and do NOT find BBC worth that fee.
Of the 41% who thought the situation was the way it should be (which for those of you not able to count, is less than the 44% that do not), 28% of them felt it should be advertiser funded. So there are not too many in favor of the current way of doing things.
BBC is well trusted in the USA, in fact it ranks first, at 90%. I get to watch it on my cable without a fee (thank you very much for supporting me with YOUR fee!) But PBS is trusted at 86% and is not funded by some ridiculous fee that only gets more expensive each year, it provides awesome news, and I don't have to pay $200 or be refused the ability to watching anything at all, for it to exist.
Finally, I know most of you are old farts, but the youth (16 to 34 year olds) in your watch Netflix as much all BBC services, combined, and also listen to more streaming services than all BBC radio stations, combined. Among the next gen, who clearly will not be tolerant of this nonsense (16-24 year olds,) BBC is already a useless dinosaur and streaming and Netflix eat it's lunch.
788,000-910,000 are cancelled their license each year the last four years and that rate is expected to climb. If it is so great and people like it, why are millions leaving it?
So, hate to ruin your pro-BBC license fee fantasy world, but you are all a minority of opinion within your own country on this issue. Most people in your country do not agree with you. And less are agreeing with you each year and proving it with their choices.6 -
44% is a majority now, good to know!
I also fall into your 'youth' category and although I don't live in the UK anymore, if I did, I'd have no problem paying the fee as it is a service that improves our global image, the BBC is revered around the world in a way no other TV company is. The fact that a British broadcaster ranks No1 is the states should tell you everything you need to know, the fact that we're not spammed with constant adverts is a lovely bonus.
Just because people are cancelling, doesn't automatically mean they don't agree with the fee, less and less people are watching TV in the same way anymore.
I'm still waiting to hear of this magical country that produces TV that's even remotely close to the standards set by the BBC, we're not just talking news, but documentaries, soaps, dramas, sports..... Come on Napa, how hard can it be.
Edit: You also might wanna have a better look at how the PBS is funded, no way is that better than our license system.2 -
You know, you might wanna look into how much PBS costs taxpayers in the USA per year before you spout off.... its about £1 per person, per year. YOU may think such is "no way better" than your system, but for most rational people, it is. About 1,400%+ better. But hey, who is counting.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Edit: You also might wanna have a better look at how the PBS is funded, no way is that better than our license system.
0 -
Please show where I ever said 44% was "the majority."Stu_of_Kunming said:44% is a majority now, good to know!
0 -
1)Which means 44% do NOT want to pay the fee and do NOT find BBC worth that fee.
2) but you are all a minority of opinion within your own country on this issue. Most people in your country do not agree with you.
Also not sure when giving an opinion became spouting off, but it seems reasoned debate is beyond you, so I'm out.3 -
I watch a bit of PBS over here and they do have some interesting documentaries . Can I ask though, is there much difference between what we get in Europe and what you see on PBS's home turf? If there isn't a huge difference, then you are deluding yourself whilst insulting the BBC in even attempting a comparison.NapaAddick said:
You know, you might wanna look into how much PBS costs taxpayers in the USA per year before you spout off.... its about £1 per person, per year. YOU may think such is "no way better" than your system, but for most rational people, it is. About 1,400%+ better. But hey, who is counting.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Edit: You also might wanna have a better look at how the PBS is funded, no way is that better than our license system.4 -
Its not suprising there is growing criticism of the Licence fee. Most people would prefer, understandibly not to stump up a fee.
Its actually remarkable that despite this the majority still want the BBC to be funded as it is, especially when theres pretty constant propaganda in the Murdoch controlled press slagging the way the BBC is funded and how wasteful an organisation it is. I suppose how this effects your opinion depends on whether you think Murdoch may have an ulterior motive for this criticism into the way its funded, and whether a underfunded cashstarved BBC would benefit his own subscription service.
In addition you have the loathsome Daily Mail complaining that the BBC is a hotbed of pinko leftwing gay propaganda. Its not suprising then that a large section of the public believe that the license fee is unfair.7 -
The more criticism the TV Licence fee gets from Americans, the more I think it's 're right way to fund the BBC.
On balance, I'd pay more for the BBC than I would for Fox News.8 -
In my view, three quid a week isn't too expensive. Especially when shared by everyone in my household. And when it goes to fund a pretty good mix of content. Including
BBC 1, 2, 3 and 4
Radio 1, 1 Xtra, 2, 3, 4, 5 Live, 5 Live Sports Extra and 6
Local radio
BBC News output
BBC Parliament
The World Service
Attenborough, Brent, Comic Relief, Doctor Who, EastEnders, Fawlty Towers, Gunpowder, Hancock, iPlayer, Jonathan Pie, Knowing Me Knowing You, League of Gentlemen, Match of the Day, Newsround, One Foot in the Grave, Parkinson, QI, Royle Family, Salamander, This Life, Upstairs Downstairs, Vicar of Dibley, Wallace and Gromit, X-Ray, Young Ones and Z-Cars.
If there's a better way to fund such an enormous, pervasive and important mix of programming, that expands on the UK's influence worldwide and sets out a balanced, impartial perspective on every aspect of British life in every domestic language (and does so without the malignancy of advertising or sponsorship), then we should adopt it. But the truth is, there simply isn't.
(And a word to anyone considering chucking stones at a behemoth of British culture: make sure you've fully surveyed your greenhouse first)14 -
£150 a year,
If it wasn't for my wife insisting, I wouldn't pay it.
Perhaps if jug ears was booted off of MOTD, my opinion might change.
Also BBC Scotland show a live top league game every Saturday.
Would it be too much to ask for some live football (from any league)?
Also feel their is a biased opinion of the EU vote portrayed by the BBC.
3
