The mind boggles more than somewhat at this ...

http://www.condomcondom.org/
(Requires Flash and your sound turned on. Don't press "Skip" on the splash page.)

The ringtone is part of an ongoing campaign to prevent the transmission of HIV in India by making the discussion of condoms more socially acceptable.

Don't miss "Parrot Tarot"!

This site was brought to you by the BBC World Service Trust.

Figures. Doesn't the BBC have anything better to spend its money on?

I thought the justification for your TV tax -- pardon me, "license fee" -- was to raise money for "quality programming".

Overseas broadcasting organisations pay for any BBC programmes they wish to use. It is a very successful commercial broadcaster.

But what is the BBC World Service Trust?

Without looking, I'll guess that it is a charitable organization funded from profits of the commercially successful BBC World Service.

Much like the Ford Foundation, etc.

So I think the question stands. Doesn't the BBC have better things to spend its money on?

The entire site could almost have been a spoof on how far out of touch the Madison Avenue types are.

quote:

It is a very successful commercial broadcaster.

Then why does it need the subsidy-imposed-by-law?

We had this discussion in Winnetka!

The BBC is funded by a licence fee paid by those who wish to watch broadcast TV (radio needs no licence nowadays). It is not a tax or subsidy and it is imposed by law only to the extent that you must buy a licence if you wish to watch broadcast TV. If you own a TV and use it only to watch non-broadcast items then no licence is required. And, incidentally, the BBC is NOT, and never has been, owned by or controlled by the Government; indeed, there have been many occasions when the BBC and the Government have been in conflict.

The TV licence is similar to other licences: in the UK you need a gun licence to own a gun; you need a road fund licence to drive a vehicle on the public roads. If you don't want to use a vehicle or own a gun then you don't have to buy a licence.

Some may argue that the common method of paying for TV by advertising is better; having seen TV from many countries throughout the world I can say I have never seen evidence that uncontrolled commercial TV produces anything like the standard of the Beeb's programmes, which are generally of very high quality. And the worst, the very worst, TV I have ever seen anywhere is that which most US TV channels inflict on their poor viewers, who, surely, have done nothing to deserve it. Frankly I would happily pay far more than the BBC licence fee (which is only around 50 pence a day) if the alternative was to have only that ghastly, advertising ridden drivel that passes for much TV in the USA.

And even when US TV airs good programmes (such as those it buys from the Beeb) it's usually extraordinarily difficult to watch them since the action is interrupted every few minutes so that banal advertisements can be aired. Here the Law restricts the number of minutes per hour that broadcasters can devote to advertising (I think it's 6 minutes - but it could be less than that) and whereas I am not generally in favour of too much Government interference in business, I am whole-heartedly in agreement with this policy since it means that no TV or radio broadcaster in the UK can overwhelm its audience with advertising.

And, by the way, what is so wrong with the advertisement in condom a capella? I thought it was very creative. It would be interesting to know whether the series is achieving its stated aim - to increase the use of condoms in India - now that it is well under way.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
Here the Law restricts the number of minutes per hour that broadcasters can devote to advertising (I think it's 6 minutes - but it could be less than that)

You're wrong on this. It changed a few years ago and commercial channels are now able to show a much higher percentage of advertising. I've tried without success to find a reference on line but I think it's now about 12 minutes per hour. It may be higher than that. There was some public outcry about it but it was sneaked in without any great announcement so people only gradually realised it had happened.
Most of them don't show the maximum allowed but channels 4 and 5 are getting pretty close.

One thing that is different in British law is that there has to be a clear demarcation between programmes and advertising. Program segments must end with something that clearly indicates that what follows is advertising and when the advertising finishes there must be a clear indication that the following material is program.

It would be interesting to find out what the limit is. Certainly most broadcasters don't seem to get as high as 20% - certainly Classic FM is well below that; it's rare to have a long work interrupted.

quote:

It is not a tax or subsidy and it is imposed by law only to the extent that you must buy a licence if you wish to watch broadcast TV.

I find it remarkable, Richard, that you fail to recognize that a government-imposed subsidy of any kind is a tax, no matter what euphemism they use to justify it. Also, in essence, the government is limiting the broadcast of news and political discussion to only those who can afford to pay the price of the "license."

Advertising in the US is worse than you think. In addition to breaking into the program every ten minutes for ads, many stations also hype upcoming programs with animations intruding into the corners of the screen while the program is in progress. It's distracting but especially aggravating when they run an ad banner across the bottom of the screen over subtitles for the movie you may be watching or block out important action.

Also, advertisers are limited to about 2.5 minutes of ads at a time before they must return to the program. But they only need to remain in the program for fifteen seconds on the half-hour before they can run another block of ads.

The hyperbolic Hindi slogan is something like "he who understands it is a man favoured by fate" (sikandar, literally "Alexander the Great")

quote:

I find it remarkable, Richard, that you fail to recognize that a government-imposed subsidy of any kind is a tax, no matter what euphemism they use to justify it.

There is NO subsidy from the Government to the BBC. There is NO tax support for the BBC. The revenue from the licence fee goes to the BBC, NOT to the Government. NOBODY has to pay for a TV licence unless they choose to watch broadcast TV (and not everybody does - my mother never had a TV until she was 80, preferring to listen to the radio. To suggest that the TV licence is a limitation on people's ability to watch news and political discussion is absurd. It would be a sensible as suggesting that the profit that the TV manufacturers and retailers are making is having the same effect. There may be some people around who can't afford to pay a dollar a day to watch probably the best TV and radio programming in the world - but they are also unlikely to be able to afford things like houses, heat and food.

Do not confuse the BBC with some other countries' Government controlled broadcasting organisations; the BBC is, and always has been, independent of Government - just as independent as any of our many commercial broadcasters - all of which are in competition with the BBC.

And I do know just how bad US TV advertising is, I fear. I have many times tried to watch US TV and most recently tried to watch "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" when I was in Canada (but on a US channel). I managed to watch about 45 minutes - which was probably about 15 minutes of actual film - before I gave up in disgust.

QUOTE It is not a tax or subsidy and it is imposed by law only to the extent that you must buy a licence if you wish to watch broadcast TV

From Wikipedia [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom%5B/URL%5D]
The licence fee is set annually by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport by the use of Statutory Instruments. . The BBC is authorised by the Communications Act 2003 to collect the licence fees. The money received is first paid into the Government’s Consolidated Fund. It is subsequently included in the ‘vote’ for the Department of Culture Media and Sport in that year’s Appropriation Act, and passed on to the BBC for the running of the BBC’s own services (free from commercial advertisements), and for the BBC to produce programming for S4C. The licence fee is classified as a tax . . . , and evasion is a criminal offence.

So while the BBC, through its agents, collects the money, it must be first sent to the government for a “vote” on its disbursement. Thus it is a subsidy from the government. While I hope and believe there is little chance of it happening, it still is within the realm of prossibility that the government could halt payment to the BBC, if it wanted to.

[QUOTE] There may be some people around who can’t afford to pay a dollar a day to watch probably the best TV and radio programming in the world - but they are also unlikely to be able to afford things like houses, heat and food.

Can you imagine the uproar that would ensue if I were to offer that as a reason to deny one (especially the lower) class access to a government-mandated process? You can bet cries of “elitism” would deafen the populace.

I never meant to imply (if I did) that the government currently (or at any other time) controls BBC content -- I do know better. But, under this Act as written, they could at least attempt to do so.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: <Proofreader>,

quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom%5B

I couldn't access the Web site with this address.

Yes, Richard, we did discuss this during the Wordcraft Gathering, though it was in Columbus and not Winnetka. This is probably like those "what is art?" or "who invented the light bulb" discussions...never the twain shall meet.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

Ah, I found the correct link here.

I don't know why anyone outside the UK would be interested, but here's the TV Licensing Authority FAQ page.

Here's the right link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom

Pardon the error.

quote:

Yes, Richard, we did discuss this during the Wordcraft Gathering, though it was in Columbus and not Winnetka.

Actually it was in Winnetka I was thinking of, when Ken and I had a long discussion about it. I don't think you were there at the time

quote:

The licence fee is classified as a tax . . . , and evasion is a criminal offence.

Regardless of what Wikipedia decides to call it, this is playing with words. It is a voluntary payment, as are the licence fees for the use of motor vehicles. If you don't want to use a TV to watch broadcast programmes you don't have to pay the fee. This is not an option you have for real taxes. You can't choose not to pay Value Added Tax except by never buying anything; you can't choose not to pay income tax except by not earning anything.

That it is an offence to evade the licence fee doesn't in itself change its status from a licence to a tax. But one thing that has changed (and both the House of Lords and I agree that it is a bad thing) is that a licence is now required even if a TV is used to receive only non-BBC transmissions. In that sense it is now more akin to a tax than a licence. In fact, when they made the change (and it was only three years or so ago) the ONS (Office for National Statistics) stated "...in line with the definition of a tax, the licence fee is a compulsory payment which is not paid solely for access to BBC services… A licence is required to receive ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, satellite, cable..."

I confess I hadn't realised that this change had taken place - it's a typically sneaky piece of Labour legislation that has sneaked in without proper debate and it might yet affect the independence and quality of the BBC - although Their Lordships will doubtless do their best to block any such changes.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Richard English,

quote:

You can't choose not to pay Value Added Tax except by never buying anything; you can't choose not to pay income tax except by not earning anything.

And you can't choose not to pay a TV license fee except by not watching any TV.

So, even if one assiduously avoids BBC programming, the tax/fee is owed? But the entire amount is still paid over to the BBC? That sounds very wacky. Or is the Labour Gov. siphoning off some for other purposes?

In any case, did that change actually result in a significantly greater number of people having to pay it? I wouldn't have thought there were very many who never tuned to the BBC - but my knowledge of the viewing habits of your people is extremely limited.

I also don't understand why this change makes it more possible that BBC's independence would be threatened. The power of the purse was always there.

Arnie: there is another way to avoid paying the VAT, the TV tax/fee, and even to some extent, income taxes: move. A long line of Englishmen, including, with somewhat unfortunate results, P.G. Wodehouse, have taken that route.

Even if you have your TV set modified to be incapable of receiving BBC transmissions you still have to pay the fee.

I have had correspondence with the licensing authority about the imminent switchover to digital, and they indicated (though this seems to be contradicted by their web site) that after the switch over, even though my set will be incapable of receiving ANY broadcast transmissions they would still want me to pay the fee as I intend to use it to watch DVDs. As I said this is not what it says on the web site which specifically states that equipment used solely to watch DVDs or as a monitor for a games console does NOT require a license.

quote:

Originally posted by Valentine:

I wouldn't have thought there were very many who never tuned to the BBC - but my knowledge of the viewing habits of your people is extremely limited.

True. But there were those who did watch BBC but attempted to claim that they didn't when being prosecuted for failure to buy a license. In fact there was probably no one who was affected by the change as, as you note, it's extremely unlikely that anyone with a set never watches BBC. The only ones affected were those trying to pretend they didn't.

Certainly, in the early days of TV broadcasting, when there were just two channels, BBC and ITV, the reverse would often be the case. Out of some sense of snobbery, some people claimed never to watch ITV as it was "commercial" and aimed at the "lower orders".

quote:

And you can't choose not to pay a TV license fee except by not watching any TV.

True. But you can live perfectly well without watching TV. It is an option that many take. But you can't live (in the UK at least) without buying anything.

quote:

As I said this is not what it says on the web site which specifically states that equipment used solely to watch DVDs or as a monitor for a games console does NOT require a license.

When I was managing ABTA's training unit I had some 12 portable TV's which we used to show training videos. The licensing authorities told me that, if the sets were incapable of receiving broadcast TV, then we needed no licence. We removed the aerials from all the sets and that seemed to satisfy them.

But in any case I don't think that you could be prosecuted for owning an unlicensed TV, even if it were capable of receiving broadcast TV, any more than you can be prosecuted for owning an unlicensed car. It is the use of the car or TV that is the offence - which is why the licensing authorities use detector vans to check to see whether you are actually using a TV.

How many is many?

In the US, people like me, who don't have a television set, are as rare as hen's teeth.

Surely there are statistics on this.

So it isn't a tax, it's a fee, even though everyone outside the UK seems to think it's a tax.

And you don't have to pay the "fee" if you only watch DVDs, except in a few months when you'll have to pay for that, too.

And the fee ap0plies to all TVs, even if they don't get BBC?

And you'll pay despite the official web site saying you don't have to.

What's next? Alice is non-fiction?

quote:

So it isn't a tax, it's a fee, even though everyone outside the UK seems to think it's a tax.

It's a licence fee that can be avoided if you don't want to use a TV. And I do not believe that everyone outside the world believes the UK TV license is a tax - even if they have the slightest interest. And certainly the USA isn't "everyone" - it's only 5% of the world's population.

And I do not believe that anyone will ever need to pay the licence unless they use a TV to receive broadcast TV. What might happen, if the nanny state decides to waste even more time and effort, is to introduce the TV equivalent of a Statutory Off Road Notification (SORN).

This rather silly piece of bureaucracy is intended to catch those (mainly vintage vehicle enthusiasts) who use their vehicles on the road only rarely and who don't bother to tax them. Now all owners of motor vehicles, even those who never intend to use them on the public roads, have to complete a declaration to that effect. Although there is no charge for a SORN, it's a nuisance to have to do it every year - and I am at a loss as to understand how it helps prevent unlawful use of an unlicensed vehicle on the public highway.

But you can live without working.
I know several local families that have never worked and never paid any income tax in their lives.

Historically we've had window taxes, salt taxes, council taxes, Value Added Tax, the duty on cigarettes and alcohol is tax (the fact that it's called duty, doesn't stop it being a tax), tax is paid on gambling (in a bookies, betting on a horse you can pay the tax before or after the race), death duty is a tax, you pay tax when you fly etc etc

All of these taxes are avoidable by simply not doing the thing that incurs them. To suggest that the television license isn't a tax because you don't have to pay it if you don't have a TV seems to me to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the whole nature of taxation.

The bottom line is, Richard, that it's a fee that is set by the Government, collected by the Government and disbursed by the Government. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

Granted the BBC request the amount but they don't set it, the Government decide on how much it should be.

In principle the Government could decide to keep it and not give it to the BBC. They don't but they could.

You may well not view it as a tax but it looks like a tax to me. I'm not saying it's a bad idea but whatever you may wish to call it, I'm afraid I agree with those who call it a tax.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
The licensing authorities told me that, if the sets were incapable of receiving broadcast TV, then we needed no licence. We removed the aerials from all the sets and that seemed to satisfy them.

But in any case I don't think that you could be prosecuted for owning an unlicensed TV, even if it were capable of receiving broadcast TV,

Yes and no.
The onus is on you to prove that you never use the equipment not on the Government to prove that you do. This is almost impossible with a functioning set.
It is a common attempt at a defence to say, "but I never use it" and it is just as commonly laughed out of court. The, not unreasonable, presumption is that if you have a TV set in the corner of your living room you intend to watch it.

You have to inform the authority, in writing, that you have a non functioning set and give them access to your equipment to verify that it is non functioning. You cannot simply say - "well I only watch DVDs" as they won't believe you.

quote:

How many is many?

In the US, people like me, who don't have a television set, are as rare as hen's teeth.

Surely there are statistics on this.

Not quite so rare as hens' teeth. These are the figures:

#25 United Kingdom: 97.5 % (2001)
#23 United States: 97.84 % (2002)

SOURCE: World Development Indicators database

So around 2.7 million in the USA and 150,000 in the UK.

quote:

Yes and no.
The onus is on you to prove that you never use the equipment not on the Government to prove that you do. This is almost impossible with a functioning set.

If that is true then it contravenes the provisions of the Magna Carta. A man is innocent until proven guilty. As I wrote earlier, why would the licensing authorities bother with detector vans if all they had to do was knock on the door of anyone without a TV licence and prosecute them if they had a TV.

You have to be proven to be guilty of a crime, not simply capable of it. Or at least that is my understanding of the Law as it has applied in England for the last millennium.

quote:

But you can live without working.
I know several local families that have never worked and never paid any income tax in their lives.

I know. Which is why I didn't use the example of income tax. Direct taxes are easier to avoid than indirect taxes; few people can live without buying, even if they manage to live without working.

quote:

If that is true then it contravenes the provisions of the Magna Carta.

Quite possibly. It's true nonetheless. If you have a functioning set in the corner of your living room, plugged in, perhaps even on standby, you are going to have an extremely hard time of it convincing anyone that you didn't intend to use it and that it's power is on because the little red standby light is soothing to your eyes.

quote:

As I wrote earlier, why would the licensing authorities bother with detector vans if all they had to do was knock on the door of anyone without a TV licence and prosecute them if they had a TV.

In fact the majority of prosecutions have nothing to do with detector vans. They are brought because when you buy a TV you have to give your name and address. If the computer throws up that a TV has been purchased for a premises without a license, that's when they come a knock-knock-knocking at your door.

WHich is of course all very interesting, but does not alter the fact that the license is a tax, just as alcohol duty is a tax, and betting text is a tax.

quote:

If you have a functioning set in the corner of your living room, plugged in, perhaps even on standby, you are going to have an extremely hard time of it convincing anyone that you didn't intend to use it and that it's power is on because the little red standby light is soothing to your eyes.

Then the crime would not be that of using a TV without a licence; it would be that of intending to use a TV without a licence. Whether that is a criminal offence I do not know. But I know jolly well that I would be prepared to go to court and fight for my rights were I to be summonsed for such an offence.

Just as you need to have been proved to have driven on the public highway without a road fund licence, to be guilty of the offence of using an unlicensed motor vehicle. It's not enough that you have a motor vehicle - even if it's sitting in your driveway with its engine running.

Which is why detector vans are used; not to see whether you own a TV but to see whether you're using a TV. It is an offence to use an unlicensed TV to receive broadcast transmissions, even if it's not your own TV.

Overheard on the Hens' Teeth Network .....

Hen's Incisor to Hen's Molar Jerry Thomas hasn't had a working TV for seventeen years.

Shhhhhh !!!

I am astounded to hear that the UK government has "detector vans". Any idea how they work? The airwaves are flowing into the house, whether one has a receiver or not.

quote:

Then the crime would not be that of using a TV without a licence; it would be that of intending to use a TV without a licence. Whether that is a criminal offence I do not know.

If, as BobHale says, the burden of proof is on the tv set owner to prove that it isn't being used to receive TV signals, then the crime is in fact using a TV without a license (unless that burden is met). Thinking about buying a TV set, with the intention of using it without a license would be the crime of intending to use a TV without a license - and I'm reasonable sure that that is not a crime.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Valentine,

quote:

If that is true then it contravenes the provisions of the Magna Carta.

Unless I'm misremembering, the presumption of innocence is even less explicitly a part of the Magna Carta than of the US Constitution.

The crime is not that of having a working TV without a license, but of not paying the government a lawful tax which they have imposed. The fact that it eventually is given to the BBC doesn't make it any less a tax.

it seems Gestapoesque that purchasing a TV allows agents of the BBC, not the government, to peer in your windows to see if your set is on. And that's according to testimony on the official website.

Whatever happened to a man's home is his castle?

This does seem a long way from the condom video.

There's probably a tax credit for using a condom while watching the BBC.

quote:

There's probably a tax credit for using a condom while watching the BBC.

Or perhaps a voyeur peering in to make sure you are using it. Can a detector van check you out?

Do you have to turn in the used condom to get the credit? Because apparently the government won't take your word for it.

Would such a credit be limited to one per household, like the TV license? So if you're extremely horny, you could lose big money.

Would everyone be required to use the one household condom to get the rebate, or could they bring in their own?

What if the condom belonged to a club?

If they did impose a tax fee on condoms, what about the other problems?

Would a Muslim with more than one wife have to buy more than one license, one per wife? Could he seek a religious dispensation?

Would the BBC retain the rights to film the event? Would it be “Play-per-View”?

What equipment would officials grab to haul you into court? And, if you enjoy the arrest too much, can they charge an extra “fee”?

Would you have to appear in person to show the equipment in order to register it?

Would having a color set raise the rates?

And, if you never use a condom, would you still have to pay a pole tax?

I foresee new government oversight here.

Pulled down the shades so no one can peer
Into the house, my castle, my lair.
Check out the street,
Vans to defeat,
Just to get free TV off the air

When I watch the Beebe on TV
And try to not pay a TV fee.
I get the heebie
Also the jeebie
‘Cause I know the Beebe is watching me.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: <Proofreader>,

quote:

I am astounded to hear that the UK government has "detector vans". Any idea how they work? The airwaves are flowing into the house, whether one has a receiver or not.

As I understand it, TV sets emit a signal which can be detected at close range by a suitably-equipped receiver - or that is what is claimed. Some maintain that they are just a con and that, when people see a prominently-marked "detector van" they will be frightened into getting a licence if they don't have one. There are details of one person's investigation here http://www.bbctvlicence.com/Detector%20vans.htm A contrary point of view is here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-468466/The-new-...ctor-reach-home.html

quote:

The crime is not that of having a working TV without a license, but of not paying the government a lawful tax which they have imposed. The fact that it eventually is given to the BBC doesn't make it any less a tax.

As I have tried to explain, obviously unsuccessfully, the licence fee, although it is paid to the Government, is not a tax. A licence is a permit and in the UK licences may, or may not, be charged for.

You need a licence to OWN a gun. You need a licence to DRIVE a car. You need a licence to RECEIVE broadcast TV. The fee paid is specifically for that benefit and if you don't want the benefit then you don't need to pay the fee. I no longer own a gun; I don't have to pay for a gun licence. I do use a TV and am happy to pay for a TV licence.

Taxes differ in a significant way. I pay various taxes - on my income, on my expenditure, and eventually I will on my estate. I have no way of choosing whether or not to pay most taxes and, more importantly, on how they are spent. I have, this year, paid £1000 to bail out Northern Rock - I had no choice in the matter; I have paid a lot of money - although I don't know exactly how much - on fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; I have paid £175 for the right to watch broadcast TV. And only that last payment is optional. If I want I could, today, stop paying for my TV licence and would be guilty of no offence providing I don't use my set to watch broadcast TV.

I assume that you are suggesting that the "duty" paid on alcohol, petrol, cigarettes etc., the departure tax paid at airports and all the other examples I gave are not actually taxes because you have the option not to do the thing that incurs them.

If that's not what you are saying then I am completely at a loss to understand your argument.

If it is what you are saying then I wash my hands of the whole argument as you clearly do not have the slightest idea of what a tax actually is.

Some excuses from those caught not paying for a TV license.

I'm amused by the "Notes to Editors" listing the "several easy ways to pay for a TV Licence", which is similar to the message given in their commercials and messages on TV. There are several easy ways to pay for a Ferrari, too, but the big stumbling block is that I would actually have to pay, not the difficulty of paying.

I had run across the excuses page. The humour in some gets lost in translation.

I also had run across some of the pages describing the Detector Vans. No doubt the appearance of the Van has some effect, but if it is all a con, why is the Beeb trumpeting their new fleet that has removable identification - making it a stealth van? Perhaps that's all part of the con.

quote:

I assume that you are suggesting that the "duty" paid on alcohol, petrol, cigarettes etc., the departure tax paid at airports and all the other examples I gave are not actually taxes because you have the option not to do the thing that incurs them.

That is NOT what I am saying - or at least not what I am trying to say.

Taxes and duties levied through general taxation and excise go into the Government coffers and you have no say as to whether or not you get benefit. Tax on purchases, no matter what they may be fall into this category. The VAT that you pay on a new TV could be spent on anything and you have no say in the matter.

But the licence fee for your TV, car or gun (not to mention your licences for exporting, embryo research, sale of alcohol, piloting aircraft or gambling) is a fee for permission to use the licensed item or facility in accordance with the terms of the licence; that the licence fee might also be a useful source of Government income is not the point.

If the BBC were supported by general taxation, then everyone would have to pay through their taxes, whether or not they wanted to watch broadcast TV. OK, in the case of TV most people want to use one and so there is maybe merit in paying for the BBC through normal taxes - but imagine the uproar if it were decided that, say, everyone who wanted to use a gun could do so, with any of the necessary security checks funded by the taxpayer and the gun owner having to pay nothing for the licence.

Of course it is as difficult to avoid general taxation as it is to avoid paying for a TV licence - but at least in the case of a licence (any licence) you can refuse to buy one because you don't want the service; try telling the airlines that you are happy to pay their fare but not the so-called "climate-levy" because you don't believe in global warming and don't want to help in defeating it.

quote:

I also had run across some of the pages describing the Detector Vans. No doubt the appearance of the Van has some effect, but if it is all a con, why is the Beeb trumpeting their new fleet that has removable identification - making it a stealth van? Perhaps that's all part of the con.

Some years ago I owned a flat that I rented out. The tenant did a runner and left me with a trashed flat and an arrears of rent.

Whilst I was in the flat with the decorator, agreeing what needed to be sorted out, the front door bell rang and I heard the announcement, "TV licensing - we know that there's no TV licence in force at this address". So I let the man in and, seeing the empty flat, soiled carpets and trashed fittings, he nodded his head slowly and said, "sorry to bother you, sir. You'll hear no more from us. I hope you catch up with him".

The flat didn't have a view of the car park and so I don't know whether he'd come in a detector van or whether he had just called as there was no licence at the address.

I subsequently found that the tenant (who turned out to be a male stripper - as I discovered when I found some of his papers in a drawer) had also failed to pay for any electricity, gas, telephone, water or council tax! Fortunately all the creditors, who doubtless had had the same thing happen many times before, were happy to write off the debt up to the date I advised them - though whether they ever tracked the man down I know not. Certainly I got nothing.

I'll try one last time before I give up.

Please explain in short simple words for me how it is different that I don't pay the tax on cigarettes because I don't smoke than it would be not paying the "tax" on television if I didn't own a set.