Why the license fee is a rip-off

Alex Heney wrote:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 10:59:46 -0000, ":Jerry:"
wrote:


"Roderick Stewart" wrote in
message ...
snip

That's irrelevant. The licence is for *using* a TV set. It's still
perfectly legal to own one (or a dozen) without a licence.

As long as they are not installed, so yes if they are up in the loft,
don't have plugs fitted or have their receiving circuit disabled...


Utter rubbish.

Are you surprised? Jerry _always_ posts rubbish. I used to think he was a
troll but came to realise he's just an idiot.

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 12:26:35 GMT, Palindrome wrote:

Alan White wrote:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 11:21:53 +0000, Ian wrote:


If everyone involved in this thread were to do a Google newsgroup
search, you could all read this same discussion which takes place every
year.


No, every month :-(

Which is rather interesting, in its own right.

Clearly there is a significant proportion of the population who are
misinformed about tv licencing law. Which is quite amazing for a law
which directly affects almost the whole population.


It isn't all that amazing really, since the vast majority of the
population *do* us a TV set for watching broadcast TV, and so do need
(and mostly have) a licence.

They don't need to know the fine detail.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
One man's error is another man's data.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Ian Rawlings wrote:
||
|| 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.

Of course it's a tax (albeit voluntary) - it's no different to VED, unless
you also claim that isn't a tax. You can't 'unsubscribe to the service'
because you don't get a service for your money, you get permission to use a
TV to watch TV programmes; just as VED gives you permission to use your car
on the road. In neither case is a service provided. The fact that the
government chooses to give the money to one broadcaster only from all those
available, to provide a TV service for those that want those particular
channels does not change this.

--
Rob

On 2007-03-11, Rob wrote:

Of course it's a tax (albeit voluntary) - it's no different to VED, unless
you also claim that isn't a tax. You can't 'unsubscribe to the service'
because you don't get a service for your money, you get permission to use a
TV to watch TV programmes;

Just as I get permission to chew a chocolate bar if I pay the evil
chocolate bar tax at the shop!

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 19:34:10 +0000, Ian Rawlings
wrote:

On 2007-03-11, AlanG wrote:

Unfortunately my missus likes watching coronation street. It's a bit
like paying Sainsburys a £5 every time you shop at Asda.

Get her to pay ;-)

I would rather the bbc was privatised and the ross-wogan tax abolished

Episodes of corrie etc appear on UKNova and other sites pretty quickly
so it wouldn't stop you, but the license fee is probably saving you an
ear-bashing so don't forget to take that into account!

The tv tax doesn't pay for coronation street.

Ian Rawlings wrote:
|| On 2007-03-11, Rob wrote:
||
||| Of course it's a tax (albeit voluntary) - it's no different to VED,
||| unless you also claim that isn't a tax. You can't 'unsubscribe to
||| the service' because you don't get a service for your money, you
||| get permission to use a TV to watch TV programmes;
||
|| Just as I get permission to chew a chocolate bar if I pay the evil
|| chocolate bar tax at the shop!

No that's nothing like it. However if you had to pay the government for
permission to buy confectionery from other outlets, so that they can then
make chocolate bars available at their nominated shop, then you would be
nearer to it.

--
Rob

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 21:57:06 +0000, "Anthony R. Gold"
wrote:

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 21:20:17 +0000, Alex Heney wrote:

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 11:21:26 +0000, "Anthony R. Gold"
wrote:

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 10:56:02 -0000, ":Jerry:"
wrote:

But the proof is that the set is installed, you need to prove that you
don't use it to receive a broadcast signal.

Why bother when even the act of installation required the same licence?


Not necessarily.

If it was installed by a professional TV installer/dealer, then he did
not need a licence to do so.

Only because he is acting at the behest of someone who does have the need.

The law does not mention that.

It just exempts those installing whe
-------------------------------------------------
(5) Subsection (1) is not contravened by anything done in the course
of the business of a dealer in television receivers solely for one or
more of the following purposes-

(a) installing a television receiver on delivery;
(b) demonstrating, testing or repairing a television receiver.
------------------------------------------------


And once again, if it wasn't such a person, the authorities would have
to prove who did install it,

That difficulty is irrelevant to the issue of whether one was needed


True.

and that they did not have an appropriate
licence in force at the time of installation.

TVL does keep records of the premises where holders and members of their
household benefit from such licences.


They do. Which won't help unless they can prove who installed it.

AFAIK, nobody has ever actually been done under that clause, probably
because proof is just too difficult.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Life is a series of very rude awakenings.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 22:49:33 +0000, Ian Rawlings
wrote:

On 2007-03-11, Rob wrote:

Of course it's a tax (albeit voluntary) - it's no different to VED, unless
you also claim that isn't a tax. You can't 'unsubscribe to the service'
because you don't get a service for your money, you get permission to use a
TV to watch TV programmes;

Just as I get permission to chew a chocolate bar if I pay the evil
chocolate bar tax at the shop!

There is no such tax.

You pay for a specific chocolate bar, and that gives you the right to
eat that specific chocolate bar.

You don't pay Cadbury's a fee every year to be allowed to eat
chocolate bars from any manufacturer.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Does killing time damage eternity?
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 21:26:31 -0000, "Adrian A"
wrote:

Alex Heney wrote:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 10:59:46 -0000, ":Jerry:"
wrote:


"Roderick Stewart" wrote in
message ...
snip

That's irrelevant. The licence is for *using* a TV set. It's still
perfectly legal to own one (or a dozen) without a licence.

As long as they are not installed, so yes if they are up in the loft,
don't have plugs fitted or have their receiving circuit disabled...


Utter rubbish.

Are you surprised? Jerry _always_ posts rubbish. I used to think he was a
troll but came to realise he's just an idiot.


Not in my experience.

He often posts rubbish, true.

And he certainly tends to have a very idiosyncratic usage of English
at times.

But he does quite often make valid points, and can (sometimes) be
engaged in rational discussion, at least in the other group where I
regularly come across him.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I'm the person your mother warned you about.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Why is it that people often quote what is taking place in other countries,
when most dodnt have a clue whats really happening in them.

The very well paid TV celebrities are all being paid out of pockets of theUK
public. It is the licensing authority who have been given an open license to
rip off the UK public. Where is the bulk of the money coming from this
rip-off going? Is it to help fund the cost for yet another illegal war?
Taxation by stealth is also the present day norm in the UK. Its time that
the UK citizens have a say in what happens in their own lives. Not those who
often clearly dont know what work is and still get public money regardless.
UK people are like sheep. They are being led to the slaughter without even
knowing it.


For facts about the world we live in, and you probably know little about,
click the link below. Help to rid the world of secret societies. Never vote
into office anyone known to be a member of them. Its your future and the
future of the world at stake here. There are no two ways around this fact.

Visit this website for an insight of things that are and things that will
continue to be. Wake up world lest you sleep forever.

http://100777.com/node/list

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Chris Morrison wrote:


Only in Britain could the state get away with it for so long.

I think you'll find that many other European countries have a similar
licensing system.

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11