An argument bout tv licence

[Horatio]

An interesting article 

http://www.computeractive.co.uk/ca/pc-help/2162820/tv-licence

[gigolo456]

I know somebody who quite openly admits that he doesnt have a tv licence, on the premise that those vans no longer go round our streets checking, etc! Add to that the fact that when you purchase a television, the retailer does not now inform the tv licencing people, so lets face it, the only way they will be caught is if somebody dobs them in!!! I disagree with a lot of our taxes, but I hate people who dont pay!! :@

[simonp]

I'm pretty certain that you have to pay if you merely own a TV. Whether you watch live broadcasts or not, owning a TV means you have the equipment to receive the broadcasts and that is what the license covers you for.

[cmdrfire]

It isn't a Law, it's an Act, which requires your consent.

The Police can't intervene until a court order by a Judge under oath etc. etc.

o.O

An Act of Parliament is legislation - consent doesn't really come into it?

Edit: from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Parliament
An Act of Parliament is a statute (commonly called a law) enacted as primary legislation by a national or sub-national parliament

To keep relevant, you have to pay the TV license if you have a means of viewing television. I've seen someone argue (successfully) that because they have a television but no aerial they do not have to pay the license but take that as anecdotal.

[jonnym]

It isn't a Law, it's an Act, which requires your consent.

The Police can't intervene until a court order by a Judge under oath etc. etc.

o.O

An Act of Parliament is legislation - consent doesn't really come into it?

Edit: from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Parliament
An Act of Parliament is a statute (commonly called a law) enacted as primary legislation by a national or sub-national parliament

To keep relevant, you have to pay the TV license if you have a means of viewing television. I've seen someone argue (successfully) that because they have a television but no aerial they do not have to pay the license but take that as anecdotal.

But this is where the Freeman's of the land argument stems from. You, like many don't understand it. They allegedly follow common law and don't recognise statute law aka law passed by parliament. They say that for an act to be binding (ie: apply to them), it needs consent of the governed and of course they don't consent. A you say, whether they consent or not is neither here nor there but hey.

[cmdrfire]

But this is where the Freeman's of the land argument stems from. You, like many don't understand it. They allegedly follow common law and don't recognise statute law aka law passed by parliament. They say that for an act to be binding (ie: apply to them), it needs consent of the governed and of course they don't consent. A you say, whether they consent or not is neither here nor there but hey.

Oh, right, I've heard of that lunacy before. I saw a video where some young lady was pulled over for not paying tax, or something like this; and then she tried (unsurprisingly unsuccessfully) to argue that the police had no power to arrest her and enforce the legislation as it was apparently maritime law and did not apply to her. Didn't realise it was more than a lunatic fringe tbh 

[Jussa]

It isn't a Law, it's an Act, which requires your consent.

The Police can't intervene until a court order by a Judge under oath etc. etc.

o.O

An Act of Parliament is legislation - consent doesn't really come into it?

Edit: from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Parliament
An Act of Parliament is a statute (commonly called a law) enacted as primary legislation by a national or sub-national parliament

To keep relevant, you have to pay the TV license if you have a means of viewing television. I've seen someone argue (successfully) that because they have a television but no aerial they do not have to pay the license but take that as anecdotal.

I've never had an aerial, I have a satellite dish  

[jonnym]

It isn't a Law, it's an Act, which requires your consent.

The Police can't intervene until a court order by a Judge under oath etc. etc.

o.O

An Act of Parliament is legislation - consent doesn't really come into it?

Edit: from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Parliament
An Act of Parliament is a statute (commonly called a law) enacted as primary legislation by a national or sub-national parliament

To keep relevant, you have to pay the TV license if you have a means of viewing television. I've seen someone argue (successfully) that because they have a television but no aerial they do not have to pay the license but take that as anecdotal.

I've never had an aerial, I have a satellite dish  

looooll same!

[RedRobin]

.
As I understand it, it is actually a Criminal Offence not to have a TV licence if you should have one.

I don't agree with the TV licence and I find it particularly offensive that even if you are registered as blind, you still have to pay a TV licence fee albeit reduced. Also, many old people who can't go out easily rely on watching TV for their connection with the outside world and they have to pay for a licence too.

[andrewparker]

It could be worse, it could be paid for via standard taxation, and then no one really would have a choice.

[andrewparker]

This is quite an interesting breakdown of how the licence fee is divided up.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/whoweare/licencefee/

[cmdrfire]

.
As I understand it, it is actually a Criminal Offence not to have a TV licence if you should have one.

I don't agree with the TV licence and I find it particularly offensive that even if you are registered as blind, you still have to pay a TV licence fee albeit reduced. Also, many old people who can't go out easily rely on watching TV for their connection with the outside world and they have to pay for a licence too.

Mmn, I think we actually get a lot of value from the License. I quite like that the BBC has no adverts (even if the quality of the News service has gone downhill drastically in recent days) and some of the original programming the Beeb does is quite fantastic (I'm thinking mainly of their fact-based documentaries here, like the "Universe" series or anything by Attenborough and so on - "Africa" which was on recently was magnificent in HD). A lot of comparable shows are only made by companies like the Discovery Channel and I find them to be a bit hit-and-miss tbh. Also, Top Gear.
Doesn't C4 also get some portion of its funding from the License as well? Or was that only when it was set up as a new channel?

[rich83]

.
As I understand it, it is actually a Criminal Offence not to have a TV licence if you should have one.

I don't agree with the TV licence and I find it particularly offensive that even if you are registered as blind, you still have to pay a TV licence fee albeit reduced. Also, many old people who can't go out easily rely on watching TV for their connection with the outside world and they have to pay for a licence too.

Why don't you agree with it??


Its the old giffers that are sat on pots of money, they can afford a license, they can afford to pay to travel on busses. The system is wrong....... Very wrong.

[tony_danza]

The licence fee also covers funding for BBC radio, I'm fairly sure blind people are perfectly able to listen to both that, and the fantastic audio description service provided for TV programs.

Look at everything the BBC offers. Bargain.

[Top Cat]

I would happily pay double for mine compared to commercial TV and radio dross . Thank god we still have the BBC and the way it is funded. Commercial radio is just Groundhog day sh*te and just look at the ITV pap that is on. I will consider the world lost forever if we ever loose The BBC and the unique way it is funded.