2,200 in Plymouth caught without a TV licence

“I wonder how many were 'NOT' caught...why are people letting these criminals into their houses - ? if people are comfortable paying a corporation to cover up peodos and dish them propaganda and negative ***** like Eastenders...then they need to serious look inside themselves...wake up sheeple!”

“@davidevans604 - Your points are well made. The BBC is the envy of the world and does provide us with interruption-free programs. Adverts spoil programs with enforced promotions. But some people need the breaks to find the next bag of crisps and can of lager.
And all for less than £3.00/week.
Sky with films or sport cost a hell of a lot more per week and although there is a huge selection of channels, they are mostly rubbish, but to be fair, they do the best uninterrupted sports coverage. So it's worth having both.”

“davidevans604

I cant work out if your post is satire or serious, I dont care about having no adverts if the shows that are `uninterrupted` are a load of ***** and then like I said theres the bbc`s obvious political bias on certain issues as easily shown up by there news reporting.....which is just wrong as being funded by the taxpayer they have a charter to act in a neutral way towards controversial issues.

What quality programming are you talking about? eastenders? or homes under the hammer?.....lol”

“I can't believe some of the cr-p I've been reading!

The BBC is recognised throughout the world as the best in the world. Anyone can watch a programme through without being interrupted by adverts every 15 minutes. How can anyone watch a thrilling drama to be plunged into some mind-numbing, asinine advert that tries to brainwash me into buying a product I don't want or need!

The BBC produces programmes of superior quality, generally, and for less money than most of the commercial channels.

Who wants the choice of dozens of channels, what about talking, reading, listening to music, exercising ................?”

“but the bbc is also funded with tax funds....thats the disgusting thing, one or the other! not both! and if the license option then give people a choice if they even want to receive the channel before you charge them for it!....common sense.”

“It's the channel that the government want you to have, so it can control the output. If you didn't pay the fee the government would only subsidise from the taxes.”

“Its time this `tv tax` was scrapped, it was originally setup to fund the bbc yes? the `national` tv channel at the time however there is a lot more choice out there now and I think many people would quite like the `choice` even if it meant giving up the bbc, I certainly would!

I pay for virgin media and I watch mostly cable channels I cannot remember the last time I watched the bbc and I find the way they work detestable, It is morally wrong to charge me as a republican for example to pay for a channel im not watching and then have to watch them spend that money on simpering disgustingly biased coverage of the royal family in all there affairs.

I would be quite happy to do away with bbc from my tv guide and its about time we were given the choice rather then being forced to pay as if its some kind of tax, no other country does this so why do we let our gov get away with it?”

“I stand corrected -

You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder.
Source - http://tinyurl.com/y9yz8fw”

“There are interesting videos on youtube filmed by householders telling licence investigators to clear off. One investigator even turned up with a search warrant and the police, but the householder refused to open the door and told them out the window-"I'm not letting you in, ha ha ha!" and they went away looking sheepish, including the police..:)”

“@JMonners - Certainly! It's worth the subscription just for the cricket coverage alone :-)”