• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

TV detector vans

I think they assume that every address in the UK is likely to have a TV set up for receiving. And they would be correct in that assumption most of the time.

So it's not hard to them to compare the UK address list with the licence paid list and check out the ones without licences.

Re: the existence of the licence fee - I think it's a good thing. Radio 4 makes it worth it. Just look at countries like the USA where it's all commercial. They have a terrible state of affairs re: quality news programming and the commercial kids programmes don't pay enough attention to editing speeds etc which are implicated in attention problems etc. I'd rather they spent the money on more educational, news, documentary, new comedy and drama rather than DIY/cooking programmes but there you go.
 
@ TKingDoll & Soapy Sam

Do you catch up on programs when they come out on DVD/Video?

Soapy Sam, if you haven't owned a TV since 83 you've missed so much great comedy.
Actually, there was a time when i was a kid when we didn't have a TV for a few years (I destroyed our sole B&W set by doing a batman jump of a bunk bed straight onto the cable). I remember the days fondly except having no idea what everyone was banging on about at school!
 
Bill C - I got my first home computer in 1982. I didn't have a TV, so borrowed a portable, and obtained a letter from the licencing authority saying I did not need a licence for that use.

Soapy - I did not own a TV (apart from the one mentioned above) from 1977 until about five years ago. When you get it into their minds that you don't have a set they leave you alone for a couple of years, then the harrassment starts again. I ignored the letters on one occaision, and got the knock on the door. The two heavies actually declined my invitation to come in and search the house.

Dave
 
I don't know how it works in the UK (grew up in the US), but my understanding is that the tax covers radio braodcasts, as well (at least in some countries with such a tax). Do they charge radio purchasers, as well, and people who buy cars? Or is radio unenforceable?
 
The licence fee was originally for radio, before TV came in. Then you could buy either a radio-only licence, or a TV licence which also covered radio. More recently they dropped the requirement to have a licence to receive radio alone, so if all you have is a radio you don't need to pay.

I agree with Splossy, I think it's good value, and the quality of the product is far greater than what we'd get with free competition. I can see the argument of why should I pay if I never watch BBC TV though. I just can't see any way of policing that.

Anyway, I'd have paid the licence fee for the Bach Christmas on its own. It's a shame I have to sleep....

Rolfe.
 
There used to be a separate radio licence in the UK, but it was abandoned years ago because there were not enough radio only licences being bought to make it viable. The TV licence covers radio as well. I guess that the number of monochrome licences sold must be pretty low, so are we likely to see the end of tham?

As an aside, I have a holiday home in France (I'm invading by stealth), and recently the cost of the TV licence has been transferred to local taxes, presumably on the assumption that everybody has one. (What I have just posted assumes that I have understood the paperwork I have received with the local tax demands).

Dave

ETA I see Rolfe beat me to it regarding the radio licence.
 
I think the UK would do well to just bury the licence fee in income tax on the basis that we all benefit from having a government sponsored TV service. But of course New Labour have to do all tax by stealth since they made their income tax promises so they are hardly likely to do this.

They do programmes for the Open University and schools for one thing. They raise the bar for news, documentaries and newly commissioned comedy for another. One might say that much UK commercial TV is of a high enough standard but I don't believe it would be without the BBC's high standards. The BBC is admired in many parts of the world and the World Service is a great advert for Britain and it's values. For once the UK has something to be proud of....so we will undoubtably throw it all away over a bit of money.
 
Splossy said:
I think they assume that every address in the UK is likely to have a TV set up for receiving. And they would be correct in that assumption most of the time.

So it's not hard to them to compare the UK address list with the licence paid list and check out the ones without licences.

Re: the existence of the licence fee - I think it's a good thing. Radio 4 makes it worth it. Just look at countries like the USA where it's all commercial. They have a terrible state of affairs re: quality news programming and the commercial kids programmes don't pay enough attention to editing speeds etc which are implicated in attention problems etc. I'd rather they spent the money on more educational, news, documentary, new comedy and drama rather than DIY/cooking programmes but there you go.
Click to expand...

We went to the States for the first time in 10 years this summer: Mrs Monkey sedated and bound me to the seat.

I had forgotten how rubbish their television is, but I also think it has got worse. Even their 'quality' channels are poor. I suppose it is because even subscription channels have to compete for eyeball time in a way tha is not quote true of the BBC. I like earnest and rather dull TV aimed at a thinking audience and I saw little evidence that this catered for in the US (specifically New York this year). I'm not ignoring the existence of high-quality dramas such as the West Wing, which we eagerly import to the UK, but most of the output seemed to be shouting at dullards.

I agree that the TV license people are intrusive clipboard-clutchers, but I'd like to keep the BBC in something like its current format.

Presumably others have noticed the odd transformation of Channel Five from purveyor of nipples to lager-drinkers to channel of often quite good niche documentary-making. Would that have happened if the BBC didn't establish the model?
 
Splossy said:
I think the UK would do well to just bury the licence fee in income tax on the basis that we all benefit from having a government sponsored TV service.
Click to expand...
You might think that, but people who are in gainful employment but who don't have television sets would probably have something to say about it.

I mean, I take your point about it being for the general good, but I seriously doubt it would wash.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm... from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_license :

The following class or description of television receiving apparatus is hereby specified for the purposes of the definition of "television receiver" in the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949[5], namely such apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving television programme services, as defined by section 2(4) of the Broadcasting Act 1990, whether or not the apparatus is installed or used for other purposes.
Click to expand...

Which is still ambiguous - apparently "installed or used" implies that a set *not* being used is still covered, if it is "installed" - so what's the definition of "installed"?

There's also wiggle room re: watching programmes on your computer. My uninformed guess would be that a TV tuner card would (and should) be covered, but streaming video over an internet connection is neither "broadcast" nor "wireless"....

For the record, I also support the TV license fee, although the BBC's standards have definitely dropped over recent years. The argument is always about ratings, unfortunately - the government wants the BBC to produce high-quality output, but if ratings drop then it becomes open to accusations of elitism. The New Labour government's ego prevents it from seeing any difference between "high-quality" and "popular".
 
Here in Ireland, the law is usually similar to UK law, and it states that you are liable to pay the licence fee once you have a TV on the premises, whether or not you use it for DVD, TV or anything else.

And the licence is associated with the house, so if you have a holiday home or anything then you also need a second licence.
 
irishman said:
Here in Ireland, the law is usually similar to UK law, and it states that you are liable to pay the licence fee once you have a TV on the premises, whether or not you use it for DVD, TV or anything else.

And the licence is associated with the house, so if you have a holiday home or anything then you also need a second licence.
Click to expand...

As I have already stated, in the UK you DO NOT need a licence merely for owning a TV set. It has to be set up to receive broadcast channels. I have had this confirmed by the TV Licencing Authority every year since I removed my aerial. Only once have I had to prove it to a man with a clipboard though. He seemed awfully disappointed that I wasn't lying after all.
 
Zoapy Zam, you arr ein Kriminal. Vee haff vays uf making you talk.

(ETA) Good for you. don't let 'em in.
 
Badly Shaved Monkey said:
I had forgotten how rubbish their television is, but I also think it has got worse. Even their 'quality' channels are poor.
Click to expand...

We used to have a couple of good channels but the Discovery channel now only airs people building motorcycles and junk out of cars and the Learning Channel now only shows people rebuilding your house while you're gone. The History Channel is hit or miss but is still my favorite overall.
 
Splossy said:
Re: the existence of the licence fee - I think it's a good thing. Radio 4 makes it worth it. Just look at countries like the USA where it's all commercial. They have a terrible state of affairs re: quality news programming and the commercial kids programmes don't pay enough attention to editing speeds etc which are implicated in attention problems etc. I'd rather they spent the money on more educational, news, documentary, new comedy and drama rather than DIY/cooking programmes but there you go.
Click to expand...

Well, we don't have licence fees and we do have the ABC which often has excellent programs, (yes, and some drivel too), and we also have SBS which gives us foriegn news, not just news from overseas but the actual overseas news and other programs so you get a feeling for what other countries are thinking. I'm not sure any other country has something like it.
 
Badly Shaved Monkey said:
I had forgotten how rubbish their television is, but I also think it has got worse. Even their 'quality' channels are poor. I suppose it is because even subscription channels have to compete for eyeball time in a way tha is not quote true of the BBC. I like earnest and rather dull TV aimed at a thinking audience and I saw little evidence that this catered for in the US (specifically New York this year). I'm not ignoring the existence of high-quality dramas such as the West Wing, which we eagerly import to the UK, but most of the output seemed to be shouting at dullards.
Click to expand...

I would have to agree with this. I don't want to get into an American bashing contest, (I actually like the place), but the TV there is truly appalling. The news, at least what I saw of it, is astoundingly bad especailly for such an advanced, highly developed nation. My wife commented on the difference a number of times after she arrived here, especially on the news content.

Still, it's their TV, they're entitled to have it the way they want it, good luck to 'em. :)
 
I do not have a shotgun licence.

The reason for this is that I do not have a shotgun.

The police have never seen fit to send me a vaguely threatening letter telling me it is an offence not to have a shotgun licence, because it is NOT an offence unless I also have a shotgun.

There is a presumption of innocence.

The entire modus operandi of TV Licencing UK is the polar opposite. Their presumption is that every household has a TV and that any household without a licence de facto harbours a criminal. They have made this very clear in their letters.

I have been in countries where the state habitually works in this way. They are not nice places.
I think this organisation is a public disgrace, I am ashamed that they are tolerated by the populace and I am disgusted that they are sanctioned by government. They are funding, at public expense, a multi-million dollar company which lacks the guts to compete in the free marketplace, while using its broadcasting muscle and favoured status as a quasi-official body as marketing advantages. And they do it through bluster and veiled threat.

I will have nothing to do with them or any organisation they support. It is precisely because of the TV Licence fee that I do not and will not own a TV.
 
kmortis said:
[nitpick]It's TEMPEST, not Tempest. And, seriously, that's about all I can say about it since my clearance lapsed.[/nitpick]
Click to expand...
Also, the correct spelling is "skeptical", not "sceptical".
:p

richardm said:
You might think that, but people who are in gainful employment but who don't have television sets would probably have something to say about it.

I mean, I take your point about it being for the general good, but I seriously doubt it would wash.
Click to expand...
Well, that's basically what we have in the US. The federal government subsidizes PBS, and gets the money from income taxes.
 
Soapy Sam said:
I will have nothing to do with them or any organisation they support. It is precisely because of the TV Licence fee that I do not and will not own a TV.
Click to expand...

You can still own a TV, and watch DVDs at your leisure, like wot I do. It's the new black, you know.

I got rid of the channels when reality TV started to take over. It's amazing how much time you suddenly have. You don't realise how much TV dictates your schedule until you get rid of it.

FREEEEEDOMMMMMM!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom