LONDON (Reuters) - A man angered at having to pay for a television licence is taking the BBC and the government to court because he says the 116 pound annual charge tramples on his human rights.

Jean-Jacques Marmont of Oxfordshire started proceedings at London's High Court on Monday, claiming the fee breaches his rights to freedom of expression under the European Convention of Human Rights.


View: Full Article | Source: Yahoo News

Good for him! Down with the BBC!!

Considering what some people pay for digital TV these days (Sky or otherwise) I don't see why we should still be paying a seperate fee for the BBC. Why can't they just show adverts to raise some cash like ITV Ch4/5 and most other channels?
Does our TV lisence go toward anything else other than the BBC ?

dAz

more power to jean-jacques elbow!! paying for a licence fee then discovering that the only way to view/hear all of the BBC's output requires subscription to sky/cable IS a violation of human rights (lordy i DO hope he wins his case)

QUOTE

The BBC is overwhelmingly funded by the more than two billion pounds a year it receives from the fee. It declined to comment on the case.

I agree with Jean-Jaques Marmont, why should people have to pay £116 for the repeats and/or the rest of the drivel on the BBC. The BBC gets two billion pounds a year, which is clearly not spent on providing quality programming for people.

It wouldn't be so bad if most of the good stuff didn't end up on UK Gold and other channels that you have to pay to get - programmes which were made using BBC Licence fee money in the first place.

But the BBC have: 24,
had the 'X Files'
and repeats 'The Simpsons'...

what more could you ask for?

Ummm... I think I'm lost. What is this license fee for? Just to have a TV? Or to watch one?

Sorry, I'm just unfamiliar with this method and so confused by the article.

schadeaux

in the UK if u have a tv then u must pay a license fee to have the tv in your home/campervan/caravan/room/this planet even if you never watch BBC.

the tv licence is not paid to the bbc, it is paid to a seperate company, and it allows people here to watch a tv, without a tv you do not have to pay the licence.

Ditto with Shadeaux. I don't get the article

So even if I had a TV just to watch video tapes, I would still pay a license fee, even though whoever gets payed provides no service?

Am I getting closer here?

yes you would, you have to pay thr TV licence if you recieve a broadcast signal, even if it from a VCR or a game console, and you do not have an ariel or cable or sky.

because you are recieving the signal from a VCR or games console you still have to pay it

as you are using the TV.

This may seem a dumb question, but how do they know you are watching it?


I have a big old broken consol TV at home that I use basically as a stand for the TV that works (yeah, so I was born a redneck). Would I pay for both of them?

I have lots of questions about this, as it does intrest me.

you would only pay the licence for the one that works, and only if you was using it to get a picture on it, where ever the picture comes from.

also they can detect it using sophisticated machinery that they have in vans that can detect the minute signal traces that all TV's give off, or at least that is what they say.

The sad fact is that most of the "detector vans" are void of any receiving equipment and they just knock on doors of people who do not have a licence in the hope that when they ask you if you have a tv you reply "Yes i am using a tv illegaly, Please fine me a stupid amount of money".
Or seeing your tv through you front room window.

I beleive that in the "olden days" they used to pick up the spurious RF that is given off by the high tension part of your tv.

But having a PC in nearly every home in the country has made this more dificult, and i'm not sure how they would "Detect" your tv.

If indeed they can.

Down with the licence fee. Robbing gits.

I'm sorry but that is ridiculous!

QUOTE (Althalus @ Apr 14 2003, 10:19 PM)

yes you would, you have to pay thr TV licence if you recieve a broadcast signal, even if it from a VCR or a game console, and you do not have an ariel or cable or sky. because you are recieving the signal from a VCR or games console you still have to pay it as you are using the TV.

Unless you are living in university halls, while although are not exempt from paying the TV licence, do forbid TV licence people to ‘trespass’ on University property.

Now yer funnin' us!


...ain'tcha?

At least you know how much you are giving to the BBC each year. In Canada, pretty much everything goes into "general revenues" and is them plowed into various sources, the CBC among them.

Canada also has strict regulations concerning broadcasting of Canadian content which is regulated by the CRTC. The idea here is that American broadcasting would simply cripple any Canadian based programming so it has to be protected somehow.

For anyone that is interested in the CRTC, check out www.crtc.gc.ca If you watch some of the most recent spate of speciality channels, all of their licences are up for renewal and some want ammendments - make your opinion know now!

Yes, my life is a little dull.

I can't help thinking of the Young Ones episode when the TV detector man comes around, and Mike makes Vyv eat the telly!

But seriously I can't understand why you guys should have to pay a licence. We're spoilt here as we have no licence fees (mind you they still air crap, lame-arse TV shows about renovating, or stupid game shows etc etc etc)

Hope he wins...

I really begrudge paying our TV licence. It's such an outdated concept now. It was first thought to be a fair way for having uninterrupted programs with no comercials to spoil your programs, but now the BBC advertises its own programs and products in between programs so it would be no skin off our noses to have buisnesses advertise their products at these times.
I think the BBC are finding it hard now to justify this fee, when the majority of their programs are repeats and just plain rubbish!!

I hope he wins aswell. It would be good if he received more support from the press though, as this is the first I'v heard about this case.