Why the license fee is a rip-off

On 10 Mar 2007 12:35:00 -0800, "Lakeuk"
wrote:

On 10 Mar, 19:28, "Turkey Cough" wrote:
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/f...dlesbrough/liv...

And your point?

He's a sad ******* who watches football.

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 08:13:25 +0000 (GMT), charles
wrote:

In article ,
Alex Heney wrote:

You can own as many TV sets as you like, and you will not need a
licence unless you use one or more of them to receive television
programme services.

It is the reception of those services which requires a licence (or the
act of installing a set for the purpose of receiving those services).

How many people would bother to own a tv set if the don't intend to use it?

There are thousands of sets in use that don't require a licence. All
those used as monitors for games or dvds

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 00:09:31 -0000, "Bob Smith" [email protected]
wrote:


"Turkey Cough" wrote in message
...

"Lakeuk" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 10 Mar, 19:28, "Turkey Cough" wrote:
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/f...dlesbrough/liv...

And your point?


It was the BBC's rate the players page which always just says "loading"
I guess some idle BBC fecker decided to fix it when he realised he might
be in line for the sack like the rest of the wasters on the gravy train
atthe BBC.

What you don't realise is that the licence fee is a tax. It is a tax to

Now known as the Ross-Wogan tax

fund an organisation that is in place to provide the government with secure
communications in times of war.

Why does our license fee fund a world service?

It doesn't. The world service is funded by the foreign office out of
their allowance from general taxation

Why is the BBC at the
forefront of digital TV? Why does the BBC invest in digital compression
technologies? For the aformentioned goal.

The BBC is not in place to provide you with entertainment. It is a front
for a stealth tax. The BBC has no incentive to provide entertainment, its
cash comes in regardless of the ****e it pumps out. If the BBC was to
encrypt its services and allow access only to paying customers, it would be
dead within a year.


The BBC is there to pump out the propaganda the government of the day
requires them to pump out

"Alan White" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 14:20:03 GMT, "Ophelia" wrote:

True, but would you swap it for those Lochs???? )

Er...

G eggsackerly!!!!!!!

On Mar 11, 8:39 am, ":Jerry:" wrote:

Judging from the many threads on Usenet, quite a few, those who own
Playstations for example. The problems is, quite rightly IMO, proving
that an installed TV set is not and will not be used to receive a
broadcast signal.

Hang on, I thought the burden of proof was on TV Licensing to prove
that you were receiving broadcast signals, not you having to prove
that you weren't?

Ah, it's that myth that the legal bods seem overly keen to
perpetrate...........namely that you're innocent until proven guilty.

On 2007-03-11, :Jerry: wrote:

Judging from the many threads on Usenet, quite a few, those who own
Playstations for example. The problems is, quite rightly IMO,
proving that an installed TV set is not and will not be used to
receive a broadcast signal.

Well, I'm one of them, my "TV" is a large LCD flatscreen plugged into
a computer, DVD player and games console, on which I post to groups
like this, watch stuff downloaded from UK Nova, browse the web, watch
DVDs, play video games etc. TV license bods know this and haven't
bothered me since I wrote to them telling them so. That was well over
a year ago now.

It's hardly a "tax" as people moan on about, as you can unsubscribe to
the service and stop paying just as you can with Sky. The main
difference from Murdoch is that if you do unsubscribe, you still get
the use of many radio channels and one of the best news websites
around.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

In article ,
AlanG wrote:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 08:13:25 +0000 (GMT), charles
wrote:

In article ,
Alex Heney wrote:

You can own as many TV sets as you like, and you will not need a
licence unless you use one or more of them to receive television
programme services.

It is the reception of those services which requires a licence (or the
act of installing a set for the purpose of receiving those services).

How many people would bother to own a tv set if the don't intend to use
it?

There are thousands of sets in use that don't require a licence. All
those used as monitors for games or divides

but how many are used in a household that doesn't have a tv set being used
to receive tv?

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

On 11 Mar, 15:19, "Anthony R. Gold" wrote:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 11:21:02 GMT, Palindrome wrote:
It is not an offence to have an installed tv set, without a licence.

Having is never the issue.

From personal experience with TVLA revenue protection officers, it is
not necessary to *prove* anything. At most, all you need to provide is a
reasonable explanation as to why you have an installed tv, but no
licence. In my case, it was because the tv had been provided and
installed by my landlord as part of a furnished flat. My "reasonable
explanation" was simply that I did not use it and had no intention of
using it. No problem.

It's a reasonable explanation why YOU did not need a licence, but your
landlord clearly has installed a TV set to receive programs and I can see
no argument for his not holding one.

What makes you believe he installed the set for the purpose of
receiving TV programmes?

TimB wrote:
On 11 Mar, 15:19, "Anthony R. Gold" wrote:

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 11:21:02 GMT, Palindrome wrote:

It is not an offence to have an installed tv set, without a licence.

Having is never the issue.


From personal experience with TVLA revenue protection officers, it is
not necessary to *prove* anything. At most, all you need to provide is a
reasonable explanation as to why you have an installed tv, but no
licence. In my case, it was because the tv had been provided and
installed by my landlord as part of a furnished flat. My "reasonable
explanation" was simply that I did not use it and had no intention of
using it. No problem.

It's a reasonable explanation why YOU did not need a licence, but your
landlord clearly has installed a TV set to receive programs and I can see
no argument for his not holding one.


What makes you believe he installed the set for the purpose of
receiving TV programmes?

Whatever his reasons, at most there was a requirement that he was
licenced at the time of installation.

There is no argument for his holding one whilst I was the tenant. Once
installed, there is no argument for anyone holding a licence for that
property, if no one there is using that installed equipment for the
purpose of receiving broadcast transmissions.


--
Sue

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 17:57:08 +0000 (GMT), charles
wrote:

In article ,
AlanG wrote:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 08:13:25 +0000 (GMT), charles
wrote:

In article ,
Alex Heney wrote:

You can own as many TV sets as you like, and you will not need a
licence unless you use one or more of them to receive television
programme services.

It is the reception of those services which requires a licence (or the
act of installing a set for the purpose of receiving those services).

How many people would bother to own a tv set if the don't intend to use
it?

There are thousands of sets in use that don't require a licence. All
those used as monitors for games or divides

but how many are used in a household that doesn't have a tv set being used
to receive tv?

No idea.
I'm not a stasi style **** from TVL going round spying on people