Board logo

Superb BBC science programmes ..
Jasper - 31/3/10 at 09:34 AM

Just incase anybody has been missing them, there has been some superb science programmes on the BBC over the last year or so, it's been worth the license fee just for BBC Four and BBC HD. Currently really enjoying Wonders of the Solar System and even Richard Hammonds Invisible Worlds.

Good old BBC, nobody else does factual programmes like they do .....

UncleFista - 31/3/10 at 09:38 AM

BBC=quality

I reckon I'm the only person in the UK who doesn't mind paying the licence fee...

BBC1 and mainly BBC2 are the channels I watch 90% of my TV on (which is very little I have to say) and IMHO worth every penny, especially when you compare it against SKY etc...

Edited to add: To say nothing of the hours of radio I listen to and the numerous visits per day I make to the BBC website

[Edited on 31/3/10 by UncleFista]

blakep82 - 31/3/10 at 09:48 AM

invisible worlds was cool last nite
didn't like the way they showed you something cool, then some horrible little bugs in your dinner, then something cool, then spiders etc though

cd.thomson - 31/3/10 at 10:00 AM

Oh thats what my parents were watching. I do like Richard Hammond, but his hair/clothing makes me want to punch him the face these days.

Ethical implications of nailing a spider down and reeling off its silk anyone?!

smart51 - 31/3/10 at 10:02 AM

quote:
Originally posted by UncleFista
I reckon I'm the only person in the UK who doesn't mind paying the licence fee...


Not at all! I think the BBC is the best TV company in the English speaking world. The licence fee is a small price to pay for being able to watch a programme whole, without ad breaks; for making programmes that are good, even if they wouldn't attract large advertising revenue; for upholding standards; for inventing new programmes and formats rather than just importing stuff from America.

I worry for it after the election though. David Cameron's lot are not fond of the BBC at all and are often accused of wanting to take a hatchet to it, which would be a shame.

Irony - 31/3/10 at 10:14 AM

I for one do mind paying the TV license. In fact I do not pay it as I don't watch TV. The TV licensing agency are absolute BAS$%^&Ds. I have told them on dozens of occasions I don't watch TV. I don't want to watch TV. But they constantly hassle me with threatening letters and warnings of dire consequences. I have a 32in LCD for my xbox and DVDs. It does however have a built in TV tuner - they all do. The TV licensing agency has written to me telling as I have the capacity to receive TV signals I have to pay the license. I wrote back telling them should they wish to send a engineer out and remove the component at their cost it would be okay with me. They wrote saying this was unexceptable and as I have a TV I should have a license. They mentioned it was like a shotgun, just because you don't fire it doesn't mean your allowed to get away without a license. So I wrote back saying that I thought their comparison between a dangerous firearm and my telly a bit 'off'.

You should see some of the letters they send. They use horrible red paper with horrible sentences like - you may receive a prison sentence - There is a chance of a huge fine - if caught I will be found GUILTY.

I think they have spent more on letters typed in red ink and stamps than the sodding fee.

They still send men round to check I am not watching Hollyoaks or Eastenders but I have a job so I am never in when they come round to check.


Sorry rant over, sorry, they just 'do' my head in.


P.S Watched Wonders of the Solar System at the girlfriends house and it was quite cool. Is'nt the man from D-ream or something?

[Edited on 31/3/10 by Irony]

smart51 - 31/3/10 at 10:16 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Irony
The TV licensing agency are absolute BAS$%^&Ds.


I have to agree there.

mcerd1 - 31/3/10 at 10:31 AM

quote:
Originally posted by UncleFista
Edited to add: To say nothing of the hours of radio I listen to and the numerous visits per day I make to the BBC website


6 music for me

iank - 31/3/10 at 10:37 AM

quote:
Originally posted by smart51
quote:
Originally posted by Irony
The TV licensing agency are absolute BAS$%^&Ds.


I have to agree there.


But don't seem to do anything except write threatening letters unless you admit to having a TV.
http://www.bbctvlicence.com/index.htm#Most%20recent%20letter

Irony, unfortunately they are correct it's the ability to receive a transmission not the actual watching that is paid for by the license fee. If you remove the tuner or buy a HDMI monitor rather than a TV then you'll be fine. Indeed if you tell them that's what you've done they will continue pestering but without a right of entry they can't prove it unless you are caught watching TV through the window. If you've told them you don't they'll need to persuade a judge to issue a warrant to allow the police to gain entry in order prove you've got a receiver - if they can be bothered (see link above).

p.s. I'm not a lawyer, but that's my understanding of the way the system should work.

iscmatt - 31/3/10 at 11:02 AM

Yes i'm watcing those two progams as well. I watched invisible worlds last night on iplayer with my Denon headphones and i have to say the sounds and music are incredible through decent speaker (this goes for both programs)

thats what i pay my license for, oh and F1 ad the world cup

James - 31/3/10 at 11:17 AM

quote:
Originally posted by iank
quote:
Originally posted by smart51
quote:
Originally posted by Irony
The TV licensing agency are absolute BAS$%^&Ds.


I have to agree there.


But don't seem to do anything except write threatening letters unless you admit to having a TV.
http://www.bbctvlicence.com/index.htm#Most%20recent%20letter

Irony, unfortunately they are correct it's the ability to receive a transmission not the actual watching that is paid for by the license fee. If you remove the tuner or buy a HDMI monitor rather than a TV then you'll be fine. Indeed if you tell them that's what you've done they will continue pestering but without a right of entry they can't prove it unless you are caught watching TV through the window. If you've told them you don't they'll need to persuade a judge to issue a warrant to allow the police to gain entry in order prove you've got a receiver - if they can be bothered (see link above).

p.s. I'm not a lawyer, but that's my understanding of the way the system should work.



I get some of this (but not anywhere near as bad as Irony has suggested) as we don't have a license as we don't watch TV.

All the documentation I've had says you need a licence if you watch *live* TV.
This is backed up by the links above.

I repeat: you only need a licence if you watch or record live TV! Be this on computer, TV mobile etc. etc.


I should add, I think the BBC is brilliant. It's clearly the best TV service in the world and it should be protected from scummy Cameron and his cronies who have made deals with Rupert Murdoch who owns Sky and The Sun and The Times.
We don't watch TV as we're not at home much and we have so much to do when we are we don't have time to watch TV and it's just a waste of time!
Having said that, I watched both the Invisible and Solar System programs at my parents and they were excellent!

Cheers,
James

iank - 31/3/10 at 12:12 PM

Here's the primary legislation. It was updated in 2004 to exempt computers attached to the internet - TV licensing were trying to demand money from people with computers but no TV's. i.e. the Live TV bit you mention.

http://195.99.1.70/si/si2004/20040692.htm

They key wording IMO is

quote:
Meaning of "television receiver"
9. - (1) In Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV reception), "television receiver" means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose.


Which by my understanding means if you have a tuner (which has the purpose of receiving live TV) then it only needs to be installed (i.e. plugged in) to make you liable for a license.

This is certainly consistent with the opinion of TV licensing in Irony's post.

James - 31/3/10 at 12:48 PM

quote:
Originally posted by iank
Here's the primary legislation. It was updated in 2004 to exempt computers attached to the internet - TV licensing were trying to demand money from people with computers but no TV's. i.e. the Live TV bit you mention.

http://195.99.1.70/si/si2004/20040692.htm

They key wording IMO is
quote:
Meaning of "television receiver"
9. - (1) In Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV reception), "television receiver" means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose.


Which by my understanding means if you have a tuner (which has the purpose of receiving live TV) then it only needs to be installed (i.e. plugged in) to make you liable for a license.

This is certainly consistent with the opinion of TV licensing in Irony's post.



Hmmm, that's interesting... hard to understand the 'legalese' in the link though!

I'm only going by the letters we've been sent.. but they definately say we're ok having a TV to watch DVDs which is what we do with it. The TV obviously has a built in tuner though.

What we don't have is an aerial or cable as I took it off the roof. You can't get any signal here at all without an aerial on a 20ft pole so hopefully an inspector will see we can't have one in the loft (as not high enough) and leave us alone. They certainly haven't sent anyone round since the last letter saying they would 6 month ago!

Thanks,
James

coozer - 31/3/10 at 01:19 PM

They once turned up at my mates house with the cops and a warrant.

They turned the house upside down, didn't find a tv as he didnt use one then tried to do him for the radio.... at that point the copper told the licencing bloke to get out...

Much like the DVLA they are a law unto them selfs.

Liam - 31/3/10 at 02:29 PM

quote:
Originally posted by iank
Here's the primary legislation. It was updated in 2004 to exempt computers attached to the internet - TV licensing were trying to demand money from people with computers but no TV's. i.e. the Live TV bit you mention.

http://195.99.1.70/si/si2004/20040692.htm

They key wording IMO is
quote:
Meaning of "television receiver"
9. - (1) In Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV reception), "television receiver" means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose.


Which by my understanding means if you have a tuner (which has the purpose of receiving live TV) then it only needs to be installed (i.e. plugged in) to make you liable for a license.

This is certainly consistent with the opinion of TV licensing in Irony's post.


No it has to be installed for the purpose of recieving... to make you liable for a license. i.e. installed with the intention of using it to recieve...

If you install a TV for the purposes of playing DVDs, computer games etc, you do not require a license. Beeb have confirmed this in various freedom of information requests and letters. Info all on that site you originally linked to . The scare tactics they use to harrass people under the name of the TVL would make you think differently though!

We're currently not paying as due to our ongoing house renovation, I've still not got round to installing dish/aerial, loft amp, aerial sockets etc etc. Have an old telly but it's just for games at the moment. I do like and respect the BBC* though and fully intend to get a license when I've got the TV stuff installed.

*Though my opinion of them has gone down slightly after reading the stuff on that website

[Edited on 31/3/10 by Liam]

Peteff - 31/3/10 at 03:21 PM

I think the license fee is another tax on the household budget. How much goes on producing programmes and how much on over inflated salaries ? I used to get a threatening letter from the authority in a house we used to live in telling me it had come to their attention that I didn't have a license for the property at no15 ***** street and action would be taken against me. I informed them every time that I didn't have one for no15 as I lived at no19 but they kept sending me threats for a whole year. The letter was addressed to me at no19 so how did they think I needed one for no15?

02GF74 - 31/3/10 at 06:56 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Jasper
Currently really enjoying Wonders of the Solar System and even Richard Hammonds Invisible Worlds.



I was gonna watch that but couldn't find it