Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 36

Thread: Eden

  1. #21
    Tribal Elder Humakt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    The hills of Sartar
    Posts
    1,014
    Hmm...I wonder how they would police watching things on your computer.
    You see, the thing is, it is the house that is licensed, not the individual. Which is why you only need the one license for your home, not for each resident living there to have one nor one for each device.
    Therefore, how does that affect watching something online via a laptop, for instance?

    Here's a scenario. Let's assume family A does not have a TV, nor watch TV online or in any other way. As such, they do not have a license. Family B, friends of family A, pay a visit. They DO have a TV licence, but it's for their own home. They bring with them a computer and watch something online. Who is culpable? If it's Family A (because the programme is being watched on their premises), then what would happen if, say, they were watching something online whilst, say, in the middle of the street (that is at no one's home)? Or maybe in a car (if you want to avoid public broadcast accusations)? My point being, if you watch it somewhere away from a residence.
    And what would happen if family A (the ones without the licence) were visiting family B (who do have a licence) but family A brought their own laptop with them and watched something online at family B's home?

    Thinking about it, what if you watch something via your tablet (earphones in so that not everyone can hear it) on the bus or train - whether you have a licence or not? Does that need a public performance licence? And how are you going to police that?
    It's going to be very hard to prove who owns the computer/device that is being used without some serious invasion of privacy and data protection abuses which will cause all sorts of problems for the prosecutors.

    I suspect this is legislation that will actually be very hard to get a conviction on and they are hoping to scare people into towing the line. The mobile nature of so many devices make the threat very hard to enforce. Best of luck to them, I suppose.

    It's not something that is going to bother me - don't have a TV and don't watch online either.
    Last edited by Humakt; 17-07-2016 at 06:02 PM.
    'What is this life if, full of care, we have no time to stand and stare' - William Henry Davies

    Kestrels:
    https://foraknave.wordpress.com/

    Thinking:
    https://thinkingthink.wordpress.com/

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Humakt View Post
    Hmm...I wonder how they would police watching things on your computer.
    You see, the thing is, it is the house that is licensed, not the individual. Which is why you only need the one license for your home, not for each resident living there to have one nor one for each device.
    Therefore, how does that affect watching something online via a laptop, for instance?

    Here's a scenario. Let's assume family A does not have a TV, nor watch TV online or in any other way. As such, they do not have a license. Family B, friends of family A, pay a visit. They DO have a TV licence, but it's for their own home. They bring with them a computer and watch something online. Who is culpable? If it's Family A (because the programme is being watched on their premises), then what would happen if, say, they were watching something online whilst, say, in the middle of the street (that is at no one's home)? Or maybe in a car (if you want to avoid public broadcast accusations)? My point being, if you watch it somewhere away from a residence.
    And what would happen if family A (the ones without the licence) were visiting family B (who do have a licence) but family A brought their own laptop with them and watched something online at family B's home?

    Thinking about it, what if you watch something via your tablet (earphones in so that not everyone can hear it) on the bus or train - whether you have a licence or not? Does that need a public performance licence? And how are you going to police that?
    It's going to be very hard to prove who owns the computer/device that is being used without some serious invasion of privacy and data protection abuses which will cause all sorts of problems for the prosecutors.

    I suspect this is legislation that will actually be very hard to get a conviction on and they are hoping to scare people into towing the line. The mobile nature of so many devices make the threat very hard to enforce. Best of luck to them, I suppose.

    It's not something that is going to bother me - don't have a TV and don't watch online either.
    Well, let's unpick this bizarre and fanciful scenario.....

    The house where the programme is being watched, basically Family A need the licence if Family B come visiting. Although there are exemptions.

    If you are watching programmes live, but streamed on a train/McDonalds or even in the street (why the...?), then you would need to be covered by the licence at your main residence.

    It won't be necessary to prove ownership of a laptop, just who is using it, so if the person caught using it does not have a licence, or is not covered by a family licence, then they are for the high jump. Easy.

    So, in the original post we have the scenario where the OP is not using the TV, his good lady doesn't, youngest child doesn't, but oldest child watches a sneaky EastEnders episode to be cool at school. Then the OP is in the frame as his child has used the TV without a licence. Scary.....

    Personally, I think that the licence is out of date and the whole thing should just be covered by general taxation, a couple of pence off everyone for the BBC, bloody bargain.

    Do you remember those public information commercials showing a detector van?



    Thank the Lord for Google and YouTube!

  3. #23
    Tribal Elder Humakt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    The hills of Sartar
    Posts
    1,014
    Well, you see, by describing it as a fanciful scenario shows that you may be as unaware of how people now interact with media technology just as much as, ironically, the ones legislating about the use of the technology.
    Because there's nothing fanciful about the scenario at all.

    Just because you (and me for that matter) may not relish nor want to watch programmes online whilst on the move (e.g. train or bus) there is a whole new generation who see it as quite a normal and everyday thing to do. As will succeeding generations. This legislation isn't awake to that and will cause more problems than it solves. Assuming they can even catch and prosecute such misdemeanours.

    Here's another quite likely and difficult one to navigate around - since it's not about ownership of the device but who is using it, who is culpable if a group of people (somewhere private) are watching it, only one of which (not the device owner) has a licence? Who are you going to prosecute? Or is the mere fact that at least one person does have a licence enough? After all, they could well be said to be a (licensed) user of the device. There is nothing fanciful about that scenario. Ever been around someone else's house and watched TV? That's the situation we are dealing with. But with a mobile device it becomes a lot more difficult. And whilst you can not conceive of people watching something on a small screen, there is a whole generation who can and regularly do.

    I'll say it again, this is a nonsense regulation that will be hard to police and prosecute and is designed to scare people into obeying.
    Oh yeah, I kind of agree about abolishing the license and making it a tax instead - but what about people like me who do not have a TV nor watch online. Why should I pay?

    There is another answer - you have to use your license serial number to watch online. But that's dead easy to abuse as well...
    'What is this life if, full of care, we have no time to stand and stare' - William Henry Davies

    Kestrels:
    https://foraknave.wordpress.com/

    Thinking:
    https://thinkingthink.wordpress.com/

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Humakt View Post
    Oh yeah, I kind of agree about abolishing the license and making it a tax instead - but what about people like me who do not have a TV nor watch online. Why should I pay?

    There is another answer - you have to use your license serial number to watch online. But that's dead easy to abuse as well...
    That's just tough I am afraid, it will be a tax and you will pay!

    I have a very good friend who is very wealthy, single (I reckon the two could be related), lives alone with a full SKY package, is as fit as a badger and hasn't used the NHS for at least 20 years due to comprehensive private health insurance. He still pays for libraries, the NHS, schools, public transport, dentists, the bin man etc etc. If I was in charge everyone would pay, essentially we are paying for the BBC, and I would bet you access their news content from time to time (although you will no doubt tell us you don't)

  5. #25
    Woodsman rik_uk3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    South Wales UK
    Posts
    512
    Every house in the UK pays council tax annually or monthly, adding the TVL costs to council tax would cover everyone and honest license payers like myself won't be subsidising the sponging parasites AKA fee dodgers.
    Richard
    South Wales UK

  6. #26
    Wanderer laika's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    M25, J11
    Posts
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by rik_uk3 View Post
    Every house in the UK pays council tax annually or monthly, adding the TVL costs to council tax would cover everyone and honest license payers like myself won't be subsidising the sponging parasites AKA fee dodgers.
    Happy to pay taxes for the good of everyone but would prefer them to go to the NHS and education - no one is in mortal danger of insufficient 'Strictly Come Dancing' so if we're going to increase taxes, let's make it for the stuff that many actually need in the first instance. As for 'parasites', and 'fee dodgers' - I assume you're talking about the bankers and filthy rich who pay virtually no tax rather than the ordinary folk who don't watch live TV. From each according to their ability to each according to their need........

  7. #27
    Woodsman rik_uk3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    South Wales UK
    Posts
    512
    I'm a retired nurse Laika so I love to see funding for the NHS, however we were talking about the TVL fee a very different beast.

    Back on track, I watched episode one...You have a very mixed group with a broad array of skills plus they are equipped with all they need...how can they fail?
    Richard
    South Wales UK

  8. #28
    One with Nature
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    "Always remember, no matter where you go there you are."
    Posts
    1,904
    hello,
    Remember The BBC series Castaway 2000? Interesting read.. http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2016-...-castaway-2000
    Regards
    David

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by laika View Post
    Happy to pay taxes for the good of everyone but would prefer them to go to the NHS and education - no one is in mortal danger of insufficient 'Strictly Come Dancing' so if we're going to increase taxes, let's make it for the stuff that many actually need in the first instance. As for 'parasites', and 'fee dodgers' - I assume you're talking about the bankers and filthy rich who pay virtually no tax rather than the ordinary folk who don't watch live TV. From each according to their ability to each according to their need........
    Unlike rik_uk3 I am still a nurse, mental health. I think the NHS could be funded better obviously, but we could also be better at spending it, the waste is bordering on criminal.

    As for the lack of Strictly, well I agree partly, but you have to also remember the range of news output, including the fantastic BBC website that is paid for by the licence fee. Also the radio output, 1,2,3,4,5,6 all the local content, the World Service...honestly the list of BBC content is very nerly endless! Well worth the fee.

    As for Eden, well who'd thunk it, a slightly eccentric adventurer, a sexy young doctor, a handsome and vulnerable vet, a trim yoga teacher, a black builder, everyone getting pissed and some snogging................it's going to be brilliant

  10. #30
    Woodsman rik_uk3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    South Wales UK
    Posts
    512
    Well done on mental health nursing CM, not my cup of tea but the wife retires after 40 (pension) years in October as senior nurse for patient therapy, she's seen some changes over the decades.

    I wonder if the junior doctor has sutured a wound yet in her career.

    Lot of moaning about the pig being killed. They seem to be cooking a lot of food in terms of volume.
    Richard
    South Wales UK

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •