The TV licence makes me rage.

[SpeedMattersNot]

I can't comment for other individuals, but I've had no such problems. The kind chap visited, saw our TV was plugged into a computer and we had laptops and other paraphernalia available for receiving live TV, yet we did not and do not, receive such threatening letters.

I believe this forum is just exaggerating and is over sensitive to the TV licence fee, the BBC and anything surrounding it.

[Eric Mc]

It gives a phone number to ring.

Ring it.

[Funk]

SpeedMattersNot said:

I can't comment for other individuals, but I've had no such problems. The kind chap visited, saw our TV was plugged into a computer and we had laptops and other paraphernalia available for receiving live TV, yet we did not and do not, receive such threatening letters.

I believe this forum is just exaggerating and is over sensitive to the TV licence fee, the BBC and anything surrounding it.

Why on earth would you let them in? They have no right to enter your home, 'inspect' anything and they've often managed to trick people into a false confession or making them think they need a licence when they don't.

Trust me, there is NOTHING 'nice' about TV licensing and I won't ever let them in.

Would you let Microsoft in to inspect your Mac so they can be sure you're not running Bootcamp? No, clearly not. So why would you let Capita in to root around your home? It's a fishing expedition and they can FRO.

The whole premise of the 'inspection' is flawed anyway - it's not illegal to own a device which is capable of receiving live TV. Any phone, laptop or tablet can do that. It's not even illegal to have an aerial connected - you could be receiving digital radio through it. So the ENTIRE reason for the visit it to a) try and catch people in the act or b) trick you into thinking you need a licence or saying something that (often falsely) incriminates you and which they'll use as the basis to try and prosecute you.

Do not respond to their letters (they don't even know who you are - you're called 'The Legal Occupier' (I guess they don't want to speak to illegal occupiers?)) do not let them in, do not talk to them, don't even identify yourself - you are under no obligation to do anything other than close the door.

Edited by Funk on Wednesday 27th May 11:54

[Hackney]

Funkycoldribena said:

Hackney said:

I wouldn't say anyone who has defended the BBC or the licence has rammed it down your throat.
Quite the contrary.

Simply pointing out that 40p per day is not much based on what you have access to.
Personally, if the choice was
a) pay the licence fee or
b) no fee, but BBC becomes ITV1 and commercial radio
Then it's A every time for me.

Can we charge you 10p a post?Its not much based on what you have access to.

But PH is funded by advertising so I don't have to pay for posts.
And I don't contribute to the BBC so not comparable.

[Hackney]

98elise said:

Sky deliver a service people are happy to pay for, and nobody is forced to pay if they choose not to watch.

To watch sky, i must first pay for the BBC. Thats just fundamentally wrong. Its TV, not the NHS.

But Cotty says the licence is nothing to do with the BBC so you've nothing to complain about.

The fact that he's talking absolute bks is beside the point

[stuart313]

Eric Mc said:

It gives a phone number to ring.

Ring it.

I'll ring that number (premium rate by the way) if you can honesty say you have told the relevant authorities all of the following

You dont need a PSV or HGV licence
You dont need a shotgun licence
You dont need a fishing licence
you dont need a pilots licence
you dont need a alcohol licence
you dont need a wast disposal licence

and on and on...

[BigsimonY]

stuart313 said:

Eric Mc said:

It gives a phone number to ring.

Ring it.

I'll ring that number (premium rate by the way) if you can honesty say you have told the relevant authorities all of the following

You dont need a PSV or HGV licence
You dont need a shotgun licence
You dont need a fishing licence
you dont need a pilots licence
you dont need a alcohol licence
you dont need a wast disposal licence

and on and on...

He has a point this fella

[SpeedMattersNot]

Funk said:

SpeedMattersNot said:

I can't comment for other individuals, but I've had no such problems. The kind chap visited, saw our TV was plugged into a computer and we had laptops and other paraphernalia available for receiving live TV, yet we did not and do not, receive such threatening letters.

I believe this forum is just exaggerating and is over sensitive to the TV licence fee, the BBC and anything surrounding it.

Why on earth would you let them in? They have no right to enter your home, 'inspect' anything and they've often managed to trick people into a false confession or making them think they need a licence when they don't.

Trust me, there is NOTHING 'nice' about TV licensing and I won't ever let them in.

Would you let Microsoft in to inspect your Mac so they can be sure you're not running Bootcamp? No, clearly not. So why would you let Capita in to root around your home? It's a fishing expedition and they can FRO.

The whole premise of the 'inspection' is flawed anyway - it's not illegal to own a device which is capable of receiving live TV. Any phone, laptop or tablet can do that. It's not even illegal to have an aerial connected - you could be receiving digital radio through it. So the ENTIRE reason for the visit it to a) try and catch people in the act or b) trick you into thinking you need a licence or saying something that (often falsely) incriminates you and which they'll use as the basis to try and prosecute you.

Do not respond to their letters (they don't even know who you are - you're called 'The Legal Occupier' (I guess they don't want to speak to illegal occupiers?)) do not let them in, do not talk to them, don't even identify yourself - you are under no obligation to do anything other than close the door.

Edited by Funk on Wednesday 27th May 11:54

Perhaps because I had nothing to hide! I think you're being paranoid and over complicating the matter.

One visit, annual confirmation that I still don't need a TV licence. I don't see the problem.

[0000]

I might just start writing to people asking them to phone me on a premium rate number to let me know they don't have a shotgun licence and see how far I get.

[Moonhawk]

stuart313 said:

I'll ring that number (premium rate by the way) if you can honesty say you have told the relevant authorities all of the following

You dont need a PSV or HGV licence
You dont need a shotgun licence
You dont need a fishing licence
you dont need a pilots licence
you dont need a alcohol licence
you dont need a wast disposal licence

and on and on...

Hardly comparable though. The enforcement effort is likely to be commensurate with the uptake of those activities, the risk of people evading and the ease with which they can evade.

It is estimated that over 96% of UK households have a TV (or other equipment) capable of receiving or recording broadcast television.

What are the uptake rates on those other activities - and what enforcement measures are in place to control them.

I suspect the enforcement measures around pilot, HGV and alcohol licences are a lot stricter than they are for a TV licence. Yes you may not have to self declare that you don't need one - but then again, there are likely to be much better controls in place to prevent you carrying out those activities if you don't - which would make self declaration pretty pointless.

[Funk]

SpeedMattersNot said:

Funk said:

SpeedMattersNot said:

I can't comment for other individuals, but I've had no such problems. The kind chap visited, saw our TV was plugged into a computer and we had laptops and other paraphernalia available for receiving live TV, yet we did not and do not, receive such threatening letters.

I believe this forum is just exaggerating and is over sensitive to the TV licence fee, the BBC and anything surrounding it.

Why on earth would you let them in? They have no right to enter your home, 'inspect' anything and they've often managed to trick people into a false confession or making them think they need a licence when they don't.

Trust me, there is NOTHING 'nice' about TV licensing and I won't ever let them in.

Would you let Microsoft in to inspect your Mac so they can be sure you're not running Bootcamp? No, clearly not. So why would you let Capita in to root around your home? It's a fishing expedition and they can FRO.

The whole premise of the 'inspection' is flawed anyway - it's not illegal to own a device which is capable of receiving live TV. Any phone, laptop or tablet can do that. It's not even illegal to have an aerial connected - you could be receiving digital radio through it. So the ENTIRE reason for the visit it to a) try and catch people in the act or b) trick you into thinking you need a licence or saying something that (often falsely) incriminates you and which they'll use as the basis to try and prosecute you.

Do not respond to their letters (they don't even know who you are - you're called 'The Legal Occupier' (I guess they don't want to speak to illegal occupiers?)) do not let them in, do not talk to them, don't even identify yourself - you are under no obligation to do anything other than close the door.

Edited by Funk on Wednesday 27th May 11:54

Perhaps because I had nothing to hide! I think you're being paranoid and over complicating the matter.

One visit, annual confirmation that I still don't need a TV licence. I don't see the problem.

Ah, the ol' "..nothing to hide, nothing to fear..." line.

I have nothing to hide but I'm not in the business of inviting the employees of privately-owned companies into my home for them to root through it when that 'inspection' is pointless anyway - it's not illegal to have a TV connected to an aerial so the inspection is utterly ridiculous. The ONLY reason for the visit is to try and trip you up or make you think you need a licence that they can make commission on.

Can I come and have a look at your computers, TVs and laptops just because I want to? I have as much right to do that as Capita do.

[Funk]

[redacted]

[peter tdci]

BigsimonY said:

stuart313 said:

I'll ring that number (premium rate by the way) if you can honesty say you have told the relevant authorities all of the following

You dont need a PSV or HGV licence
You dont need a shotgun licence
You dont need a fishing licence
you dont need a pilots licence
you dont need a alcohol licence
you dont need a wast disposal licence

and on and on...

He has a point this fella

There is a small difference. Those other licence examples seem to be more about compliance than revenue raising. For instance, I think that I've read somewhere that the shotgun licence fee doesn't cover what it costs the police to issue one.

Rightly or wrongly, the TV licence fee is used to fund what the BBC and the World Service make and broadcast. That's why every last possible fee is pursued - they aren't a contribution towards an admin cost. When you have collected from everyone who pays up voluntarily, you are left with those people who don't need to pay - and those who are trying to avoid paying. To a collector, they are probably difficult to tell apart

How we consume 'media content' has changed dramatically over the last generation and the funding model for the BBC will have to be change accordingly, but as the current government doesn't want to appear to be increasing taxes, it isn't likely to happen soon!

[manic47]

Eric Mc said:

It gives a phone number to ring.

Ring it.

That's all it took for me - my mother-in-law moved in with us due to ill health, was eligible for a free licence so mine bit the dust.
It did take a couple of calls mind you, for some reason the system saw the two different surnames as each needing a licence.

They've not bothered me for years.

That said, it's a pretty painful way of avoiding the TV licence.

[Moonhawk]

[redacted]

[Funkycoldribena]

Moonhawk said:

Pretty much every country pays for public service broadcasts in one way or another - so if we assume "just abolish it" isn't an option - which of the alternatives would people prefer?

No they dont,go and look at the table again...

[Moonhawk]

Funkycoldribena said:

Moonhawk said:

Pretty much every country pays for public service broadcasts in one way or another - so if we assume "just abolish it" isn't an option - which of the alternatives would people prefer?

No they dont,go and look at the table again...

I ignored all of the countries that have a licence in one form or another (for obvious reasons) and started to look down the list of countries that have abolished it:

Australia, Belgium (Flemish region), Cyprus, Gibraltar, Iceland, India, Netherlands - all pay for public service broadcasts via government grants or general taxation (which is basically the same thing). Even a quick scan of the list of countries that have never had a licence shows that many fund public service broadcasts via government grants.

It'd make the discussion flow far easier if you just said which countries you feel don't contribute any funding - than posting some cryptic "go and look" message. The only country on the wiki page that seems to indicate it's TV is entirely commercially funded is Monaco.

Edited by Moonhawk on Wednesday 27th May 15:46

[MissChief]

I think someone's tin foil hat is on a bit tight.