




| The TV licensing stasi |
|
|
| Written by Tom Clougherty | ||
| Saturday, 27 September 2008 06:01 | ||
|
Comments (10)
![]()
...
written by tiger69, September 27, 2008
Forgive my naivity, are you suggesting that the traditional detector van is no more effective than a mobile empty baked bean can, and that defaulters' names and addresses that appear in local press are ficticious? Or are you a licensing authority plant encouraging more defaulters to generate funds to produce better quality programs (or increase salaries)than you have suggested?
...
written by TV Licensing, September 27, 2008
Even more objectionable than their billboards is the heavy handed way they treat non-TV viewers who don't require a licence. They assume anyone without a licence is an evader and they expect those people to prove their innocence.
...
written by Steve Giess, September 27, 2008
Like the ID-Card item posted above, this whole approach is something that Orwell could only dream of actually happening in 1948. Having 'won' the cold war, we are using the methods of the Stasi - I don't think Sir W. Churchill would have been pleased to see us behind the iron curtain.
Insults to our Intelligence
written by John of Enfield, September 27, 2008
I find these bureaucrats & their advertising an affront to democratic society. Can we work together to a) Stop these Orwellian insults to our British way of life. b) Stop this regressive tax which is becoming more & more irrelevant as technology develops. It will not be possible to differentiate between "Youtube" & "BBC" within what remains of my lifetime (aged 64). The license fee is already a complete anachronism.
Also please don't tell me we need the BBC to save the quality of our broadcasting.
...
written by tiger69, September 30, 2008
Hi, would the original writer please respond to my original entry of 27.09.08, my request is not to be argumentative, I ask on the basis of becoming a potential defaulter, i.e take the chance, (but don't tell anyone).
My cause for hesitation is the comment made by "tvlicensing" of 27.09.08 "They assume anyone without a licence is an evader and they expect those people to prove their innocence". This implies that this person has been through a procedure of some sort, though again by implication, with the secure proof that a license wasn't legally required. Is the solution to simply not answer the door if the TV is on and simply reject any postal penalty on the basis of physical proof not being obtained, or indeed is their electronic evidence sufficient proof. The original writer suggests the latter is insufficient. Is it possble for him/her to point me to evidence of this?
...
written by Blog Administrator, September 30, 2008
tiger69 – as far as I know, they cannot convict you purely on the basis of 'electronic evidence', and rely on physical evidence or self-incrimination. DO NOT just take my word on this, however - I am no legal expert. Get on google and do some digging.
Mr
written by Richard, October 02, 2008
Fixed Tax - fixed taxes favour the well off and burden the least well off - yes John of Enfield a complete anachronism with no place in a modern society - better our Government set aside money each year and let the channels compete for public broadcasting money by tender each submitting it’s proposals and costs for the type of TV that apparently only the BBC can supply.
Of coarse these juicy jobs would have to go .. BBC Trust Chairman receives £140,000 pa; the Vice Chairman £75,495; the Trust members for the UK Nations £40,265; other members £35,230. http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/...inted.html I wonder if any of them actually watch TV ... The time commitment for BBC Trust members is expected to be around 4 days a week for the Chairman; around 2.5 days for the Vice Chairman; and around 2 days a week for the other Trustees
... written by Roger Lancefield, October 09, 2008
Wonderful isn't it? We've got one of these jaw-dropping, intimidating billboards near Streatham Common. Totally out of place in a modern, supposedly consensual democracy. It lacks only a few severed few heads on pikes. One has to wonder what damage occurs to our civic society when key state institutions take such a threatening, confrontational and fear-based approach. Besides, if they really want it to be effective in Lambeth they're going to need to take a more multi-lingual approach given that there are scores of different languages spoken in the borough.
I find it astonishing that the enforcement arm of the BBC can be so (presumably willfully) insensitive at a time of heightened public concern about state surveillance and database culture, and with the "Freedom not Fear" event pending as well. Still, at least the cowed, rain-lashed Eloi at the bus stop opposite will be in no doubt as to what will happen to them should they decline to fund the the likes of EastEnders, website fantasy football and the inflated salaries of the workers in this out-moded church. Come back Noel Edmonds, all (well, almost all) is forgiven! PS. On a pedantic note, that's a computer motherboard, not an aerial view of London ;) Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.
|
The Adam Smith Institute is the UK's leading innovator of free-market economic and social policies. Politically independent and non-profit, the Institute promotes its ideas through reports, briefings, events, media appearances, and its website and blog. For further information, click here.
Email info@adamsmith.org if you would like to subscribe to our fortnightly e-bulletin.
When are they going to be prosecuted?
How do we get the police to take action against them?
What would happen if I were to make a citizen's arrest?