No TV license?

[Major Scott]

Is this true?
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10200755834122662&set=p.10200755834122662&type=1&theater

Myself, I never watch telly, so I told them so and they sent me a similar letter to the above without the access withdrawal bit. They've never been round, but I've only stopped for a few months. But from what I see on the link, you can tell them they are not allowed to visit your house, so you could get away with watching telly and they can't come to check!

--
No trees were killed in the sending of this message.
However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced

[the Omrud]

On 21/03/2013 10:55, Major Scott wrote:
> Is this true?
> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10200755834122662&set=p.10200755834122662&type=1&theater
>
> Myself, I never watch telly, so I told them so and they sent me a
> similar letter to the above without the access withdrawal bit. They've
> never been round, but I've only stopped for a few months. But from what
> I see on the link, you can tell them they are not allowed to visit your
> house, so you could get away with watching telly and they can't come to
> check!

Is what true? That you can withdraw permission for TV Licencing to walk
up your drive and knock on your door? Yes. But that's not much of a
change - you don't have to let them in if they do knock, and refusing
them access to your front garden is the only thing which this achieves.
They can still look through your windows from the street to see if
you're watching the telly.

--
David

[Major Scott]

I'm surprised you can forbid someone knocking on your door, as the postman and all the salesmen do it. How do I forbid all salesmen from doing it?

And if you were going to cheat like the above, you'd face your telly away from the window. Keeping them at street distance prevents them hearing it.

[David McNeish]

On Mar 21, 3:20 pm, "Major Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:

> I'm surprised you can forbid someone knocking on your door, as the postman and all the salesmen do it.  How do I forbid all salesmen from doing it?

I've no idea how you would enforce it, other than by answering the
door and reminding them that they're not allowed to come to your door.

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2013-03-21, Major Scott <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> Is this true?
> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10200755834122662&set=p.10200755834122662&type=1&theater
>
> Myself, I never watch telly, so I told them so and they sent me a
> similar letter to the above without the access withdrawal bit.
> They've never been round, but I've only stopped for a few months.
> But from what I see on the link, you can tell them they are not
> allowed to visit your house, so you could get away with watching
> telly and they can't come to check!

Most of what Hayley says in that thread is total nonsense of the
"Freeman on the Land" sort. However it is correct that the TV
licence inspectors don't have any special rights of access, so
you do not have to let them in to search for televisions in your
house. That does not of course make it legal to watch TV without
a licence, it simply makes it harder to get caught.

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2013-03-21, Major Scott <n...@spam.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 15:15:02 -0000, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Is what true? That you can withdraw permission for TV Licencing to walk
>> up your drive and knock on your door? Yes. But that's not much of a
>> change - you don't have to let them in if they do knock, and refusing
>> them access to your front garden is the only thing which this achieves.
>> They can still look through your windows from the street to see if
>> you're watching the telly.
>
> I'm surprised you can forbid someone knocking on your door, as the
> postman and all the salesmen do it. How do I forbid all salesmen
> from doing it?

Put a notice on the gate saying so I suppose. In theory you could sue
the salesmen or the companies they represented for trespass, and win
some amazing amount of damages like 50p. I guess if a specific
individual or representatives of a specific company kept repeatedly
visiting anyway, you could get an injunction to stop them doing so.

[Major Scott]

Presumably if they fined you for watching TV and they said they knew because they saw it through your window, you could sue them for trespass or something. But is their fine bigger than yours?

[the Omrud]

On 21/03/2013 15:20, Major Scott wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 15:15:02 -0000, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 21/03/2013 10:55, Major Scott wrote:
>>> Is this true?
>>> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10200755834122662&set=p.10200755834122662&type=1&theater
>>>
>>> Myself, I never watch telly, so I told them so and they sent me a
>>> similar letter to the above without the access withdrawal bit. They've
>>> never been round, but I've only stopped for a few months. But from what
>>> I see on the link, you can tell them they are not allowed to visit your
>>> house, so you could get away with watching telly and they can't come to
>>> check!
>>
>> Is what true? That you can withdraw permission for TV Licencing to walk
>> up your drive and knock on your door? Yes. But that's not much of a
>> change - you don't have to let them in if they do knock, and refusing
>> them access to your front garden is the only thing which this achieves.
>> They can still look through your windows from the street to see if
>> you're watching the telly.
>
> I'm surprised you can forbid someone knocking on your door, as the
> postman and all the salesmen do it. How do I forbid all salesmen from
> doing it?

Put a sign withdrawing the implied consent for salesmen to come up your
drive. But salesmen are not a government agency, so they'll probably
just ignore it.

> And if you were going to cheat like the above, you'd face your telly
> away from the window. Keeping them at street distance prevents them
> hearing it.

The Facebook group seems to have seen this as a way of dodging the tax.
That's up to them - the point of the withdrawal of consent is to keep
people you don't want out of your garden. Most prosecutions happen
because people admit that they're watching the TV.

--
David

[Major Scott]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 15:25:02 -0000, Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:

> On 2013-03-21, Major Scott <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>> Is this true?
>> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10200755834122662&set=p.10200755834122662&type=1&theater
>>
>> Myself, I never watch telly, so I told them so and they sent me a
>> similar letter to the above without the access withdrawal bit.
>> They've never been round, but I've only stopped for a few months.
>> But from what I see on the link, you can tell them they are not
>> allowed to visit your house, so you could get away with watching
>> telly and they can't come to check!
>
> Most of what Hayley says in that thread is total nonsense of the
> "Freeman on the Land" sort.

Explain.

> However it is correct that the TV
> licence inspectors don't have any special rights of access, so
> you do not have to let them in to search for televisions in your
> house. That does not of course make it legal to watch TV without
> a licence, it simply makes it harder to get caught.

It's only illegal if you're caught. :-)

If a person breaks a law and no policeman is watching, does he make a sound? :-)

[Major Scott]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 15:25:02 -0000, Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:

Actually I'd say it prompts them to believe you're hiding something. If you really weren't watching telly you'd be less likely to ask them not to check. I for example would have no objection to a bloke having a quick peek to see if I have a TV. It would shut them up. All I did was fill in an online form and tell them I didn't use my TV for live broadcasts, only DVDs and a playstation. They believed me and never sent anyone round. I wonder if they checked with Sky and saw that I'd recently cancelled them too? In fact..... could having a Sky account and no TV license be evidence?

[Andrew May]

Why only 50p? Surely if I put a sign at the gate that states that the
fee for knocking on my door is UKP 70 then by knocking on my door they
would be entering into a contract and I could sue for it. Isn't this
what parking companies effectively do?

[Borg]

Also if they 'do' say they saw it through the window, you could claim it
was IPlayer they saw on a monitor.

[Norman Wells]

No it isn't. They offer a service for the amount they charge. That in
contract-speak is the 'consideration'. You are offering nothing of
value by your notice. No contract can therefore be formed.

[Roland Perry]

In message <YyG2t.219322$VO5.1...@fx20.fr7>, at 16:30:02 on Thu, 21
Mar 2013, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

>>Surely if I put a sign at the gate that states that the
>> fee for knocking on my door is UKP 70 then by knocking on my door they
>> would be entering into a contract and I could sue for it. Isn't this
>> what parking companies effectively do?
>
>No it isn't. They offer a service for the amount they charge. That in
>contract-speak is the 'consideration'. You are offering nothing of
>value by your notice. No contract can therefore be formed.

What if the sign offered consultancy services to door-to-door salesmen
and religious ferverts? The amount of consultancy offered could be as
little as "you won't sell anything to this house, and I doubt you'll
sell anything to next door either".
--
Roland Perry

[Major Scott]

What is the punishment for disobeying the sign?

Mind you it would be pointless for them to waste their time calling at the door of someone who is obviously not going to buy anything.

I used to have a sign on my door with a picture of my Scarlet Macaw saying "this bird eats salesman, you have been warned", it seemed to stop 3/4s of them. The other 1/4 used it as a talking point.

>> And if you were going to cheat like the above, you'd face your telly
>> away from the window. Keeping them at street distance prevents them
>> hearing it.
>
> The Facebook group seems to have seen this as a way of dodging the tax.
> That's up to them - the point of the withdrawal of consent is to keep
> people you don't want out of your garden. Most prosecutions happen
> because people admit that they're watching the TV.

That's a bit daft, rather like me admitting I robbed a bank. If you break the law you keep quiet!

[Major Scott]

All they have to do is prove what they saw was broadcast in the last hour. If they see the 9 o'clock news at 9 o'clock......

[Major Scott]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 16:25:02 -0000, August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:

>
> The entity calling itself Major Scott wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 15:25:02 -0000, Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> Most of what Hayley says in that thread is total nonsense of the
>>> "Freeman on the Land" sort.
>>
>> Explain.
>

> There's not really a better survey and analysis of the various lunatic
> pseudo-legal theories knocking around than this Canadian judgement, by
> Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke, in Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571.
>
> http://www.canlii.ca/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.html

[head explodes]

Summary please!

[Andrew May]

Yes I am. I am offering them the opportunity to try to sell something to
me. Lots of company make money by introducing sellers to buyers.

[Simon Finnigan]

You're charging the people knocking on the door a service fee for your
advice?

[Mark Goodge]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 15:25:02 +0000, Jon Ribbens put finger to keyboard and
typed:

Although I suspect it may actually make you more likely to be caught, as
TVL are probably quite likely to intepret this kind of response as a means
of evasion and thus make more effort to investigate in other ways. And
someone who is dumb enough to believe the FotL stuff is unlikely to have
the sense necessary to successfully conceal their lawbreaking.

Mark
--
Please take a short survey on salary perceptions: http://meyu.eu/am
My blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk

[Mark Goodge]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 16:45:02 +0000, Major Scott put finger to keyboard and
typed:

The executive summary is that it's a kind of cult-like belief that it's
possible to opt out of being subject to laws. Some more detail here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemen_on_the_land

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land

[Ian Smith]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:55:02 +0000, Major Scott <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>
> Myself, I never watch telly, so I told them so and they sent me a
> similar letter to the above without the access withdrawal bit.
> They've never been round, but I've only stopped for a few months.

I got a letter along those lines (we won't write to you for a while,
but we won't stop forever sort of thing) and haven't heard anything
more from them for at least a decade.

In the last six months I've been renting a flat. I moved in during
September, and have received one letter a month since November. I've
corrected all the errors on them and keep them by the door for when
the promised inspector turns up. I expect he'll turn up the first day
the next tenant moves in and gives them a scare...

One thing I'm not sure about - none of the letters actually name the
BBC, and I thought letters from commercial organisations had to show
the organisation they come from. Is that not the case?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[Adam Funk]

AFAICT, the summary is that "freeman of the land" theories claim that
the government can only get at you if you consent individually to be
governed. I'm not familiar with all of the jargon, but there are
similar nutty theories in the USA that involve the magic words "posse
comitatus" & "sovereign citizen".

[Major Scott]

Not sure if the words I use could be considered "advice".

[Norman Wells]

As I said, you're offering nothing of any value. Hence, there is no
consideration and no contract.

[Major Scott]

I have seen some clueless cyclists and drivers arguing with police over such things on Youtube. What surprises me is how calm the police remain, I think they just get really confused.

[Major Scott]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 21:00:05 -0000, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:55:02 +0000, Major Scott <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>
>> Myself, I never watch telly, so I told them so and they sent me a
>> similar letter to the above without the access withdrawal bit.
>> They've never been round, but I've only stopped for a few months.
>
> I got a letter along those lines (we won't write to you for a while,
> but we won't stop forever sort of thing) and haven't heard anything
> more from them for at least a decade.

I did get one letter after filling in the online form. I phoned them up and they seemed to have lost my entry. They accepted my word over the phone. Until the next letter. If I get another I think I'll just return it with a post it note attached saying "we've been over this before, check your records".

> In the last six months I've been renting a flat. I moved in during
> September, and have received one letter a month since November. I've
> corrected all the errors on them and keep them by the door for when
> the promised inspector turns up. I expect he'll turn up the first day
> the next tenant moves in and gives them a scare...
>
> One thing I'm not sure about - none of the letters actually name the
> BBC, and I thought letters from commercial organisations had to show
> the organisation they come from. Is that not the case?

They pretend it's not the BBC, even though they are the main benefactor of the TV License.

[Alex Heney]

Their fine comes with a criminal record.

You could only sue them for the actual damages caused by their
trespass.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
The wise open their minds, but a fool opens his mouth.
To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom

[Mark Goodge]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 21:00:05 +0000, Ian Smith put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>One thing I'm not sure about - none of the letters actually name the
>BBC, and I thought letters from commercial organisations had to show
>the organisation they come from. Is that not the case?

They do. TVL is not the BBC. And, although all of the licence fee goes to
the BBC, it is not a subscription for the BBC and paying it does not create
any contract between you and the BBC. The licence fee is a statutory fee (a
tax, by any other name), and therefore the documentation you receive from
TVL only needs to refer to the law and themselves as the officially
appointed collection agency.

(The actual working relationshop between the government, the BBC and TVL is
a bit more complex than that, but that's the basic legal position. The most
important aspect is that you are not paying the BBC: you are paying the
government.)

[Zapp Brannigan]

"Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:uOK2t.98713$zh5....@fx22.fr7...

The sign on the gate might have to say "For advice on winter driving, please
knock - fee £50". If you open the door to an unwanted caller, tell them to
remember de-icer and keep some warm clothes in the car, and then ask for the
contracted fee.

[Major Scott]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 21:35:01 -0000, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 15:35:02 +0000, "Major Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 15:30:07 -0000, David McNeish <davi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 21, 3:20 pm, "Major Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm surprised you can forbid someone knocking on your door, as the postman and all the salesmen do it. How do I forbid all salesmen from doing it?
>>>
>>> I've no idea how you would enforce it, other than by answering the
>>> door and reminding them that they're not allowed to come to your door.
>>
>> Presumably if they fined you for watching TV and they said they knew because they saw it through your window, you could sue them for trespass or something. But is their fine bigger than yours?
>
> Their fine comes with a criminal record.

Would that mean anything? For example applying for a job, they don't care if you got a speeding ticket but they do if you performed a bank robbery.

> You could only sue them for the actual damages caused by their
> trespass.

Psychological damage? They frightened me!

[Adam Funk]

On the one hand, that sounds reasonable, especially if you're a
self-employed consultant or professional advisor (accountant,
solicitor) anyway. On the other hand, many consultans & advisors
don't charge for the initial brief consultation.

[Norman Wells]

That wouldn't form a contract either. It doesn't exclude others
knocking on the door for other advice or any other purpose.

[John Briggs]

Isn't a posse comitatus a pretty effective way for the government to get
at you? It works in most films...
--
John Briggs

[Simon Finnigan]

What if that's my field of expertise? And I do actually get paid to give my
opinion on many fields, online surveys etc, so I could argue that my
opinion and/or advice is worth money.

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2013-03-21, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 15:25:02 +0000, Jon Ribbens put finger to keyboard and
> typed:

>>Most of what Hayley says in that thread is total nonsense of the
>>"Freeman on the Land" sort. However it is correct that the TV
>>licence inspectors don't have any special rights of access, so
>>you do not have to let them in to search for televisions in your
>>house. That does not of course make it legal to watch TV without
>>a licence, it simply makes it harder to get caught.
>
> Although I suspect it may actually make you more likely to be caught, as
> TVL are probably quite likely to intepret this kind of response as a means
> of evasion and thus make more effort to investigate in other ways.

Yes, sorry, I meant that the fact that TV inspectors have no right of
entry makes it harder to get caught evading the TV licence, not that
explicitly notifying TV Licensing that they may not visit is a good
idea.

[Zapp Brannigan]

"Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message

news:B1M2t.290832$zx2.2...@fx29.fr7...

Very well, Simon's larger sign will now say :

"Private Property, No Entry excepting for Paying Clients"
"Implied License to Enter is Repudiated, Void and Withdrawn"
"Entry for Paying Clients Only - £50 for Initial Consultation"
"Do Not Enter Unless You Agree to Contract for This Charge"
"For Advice on Winter Driving Only, Please Knock - fee £50".

It's the same principle as a pay & display car park - if you choose to use
the service after being informed of the charge, then you've contracted to
pay it.

Of course this wouldn't stop fire-fighters or constables acting in the
course of their duty, and nor should it. But whether a TV license operative
can claim some official purpose above that of a door-to-door salesman is
another question.

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2013-03-21, Major Scott <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 15:25:02 -0000, Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:

>> Most of what Hayley says in that thread is total nonsense of the
>> "Freeman on the Land" sort.
>

> Explain.

For example, she says:

"anyone who gets letters about a fine will only be taken to court if
you make contact with with for example if you open your door to TV
licence officer and give your name and sign their form then you have
entered into their contract and you're buggered ... They will always
walk away immediately because you are filming them committing an
offence."

All of that is entirely false. You don't have to "make contact" with
TV Licensing to be prosecuted. TV Licensing do not try and get you to
"enter into contracts" and the law that requires you to have a TV
Licence has nothing to do with contracts. They are not committing an
offence by visiting you.

"It's going to be scrapped soon cos so many people have found out
that its a scam !!"

TV Licences are not a scam and are not "going to be scrapped soon".
People are entitled to feel that they it is an unreasonable charge
(although I don't agree with them) but not agreeing with the law
doesn't magically make it go away and not apply to you.

"a TV licence is only for bcc live broadcast"

Completely untrue. I assume she means BBC, but regardless, you need
a TV licence to watch any TV programme as it is broadcast, including
ITV, Sky channels, cable channels, foreign channels, etc.

"unless you enter their contract you are not obliged to pay
anything ... Legal is made up of legislations or 'acts' which are
brought in by governments (for profit). These 'acts' are actually
contracts. So basically if you don't enter their contract you
haven't done anything 'illegal' ... when you signed your driving
licence you immediately entered into their contract to follow the
road traffic act."

None of the above is even the slightest bit true. Acts of Parliament
are not contracts. They are binding on everyone in this country they
say they apply to, regardless of whether or not you agree to them.
The Road Traffic Act applies to everyone regardless of whether or not
they even have a driving licence.

>> However it is correct that the TV
>> licence inspectors don't have any special rights of access, so
>> you do not have to let them in to search for televisions in your
>> house. That does not of course make it legal to watch TV without
>> a licence, it simply makes it harder to get caught.
>

> It's only illegal if you're caught. :-)

I see your smiley, but my point was specifically that a crime is a
crime even if you don't get caught - and even if you manage not to
get caught by one particular method you may still get caught by
another.

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2013-03-21, Major Scott <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 15:25:02 -0000, Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>> Most of what Hayley says in that thread is total nonsense of the

>> "Freeman on the Land" sort. However it is correct that the TV

>> licence inspectors don't have any special rights of access, so
>> you do not have to let them in to search for televisions in your
>> house. That does not of course make it legal to watch TV without
>> a licence, it simply makes it harder to get caught.
>

> Actually I'd say it prompts them to believe you're hiding something.

You may very well be right.

> In fact..... could having a Sky account and no TV license be evidence?

I would think so. Why would anyone pay for Sky if they were not
watching TV?

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2013-03-21, Andrew May <andrew...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 21/03/2013 15:30, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> Put a notice on the gate saying so I suppose. In theory you could sue
>> the salesmen or the companies they represented for trespass, and win
>> some amazing amount of damages like 50p. I guess if a specific
>> individual or representatives of a specific company kept repeatedly
>> visiting anyway, you could get an injunction to stop them doing so.
>
> Why only 50p? Surely if I put a sign at the gate that states that the
> fee for knocking on my door is UKP 70 then by knocking on my door they
> would be entering into a contract and I could sue for it. Isn't this
> what parking companies effectively do?

I was talking about damages for the tort of trespass - you are changing
the scenario and supposing there is a contract instead. It's an
interesting point but it my personal feeling is that it seems a bit
unlikely that a court would enforce your hypothetical contract unless
you went to a fair amount of effort to make it seem reasonable.

[Martin]

It worked for Noye, they need to be careful if they go snooping through
windows.

[Major Scott]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 23:40:01 -0000, August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:

>
> The entity calling itself Major Scott wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 21:35:01 -0000, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 15:35:02 +0000, "Major Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Presumably if they fined you for watching TV and they said they knew
>>>> because they saw it through your window, you could sue them for
>>>> trespass or something. But is their fine bigger than yours?
>>>
>>> Their fine comes with a criminal record.
>>
>> Would that mean anything? For example applying for a job, they don't
>> care if you got a speeding ticket but they do if you performed a bank
>> robbery.
>

> It's a crime of dishonesy, so maybe they would. The various Law
> Societies would certainly take a dim view of it if prospective
> solicitors had such a conviction.

I'd call what the BBC are doing dishonest. So not paying them isn't dishonest, it's correcting a dishonesty.

[Major Scott]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 23:50:02 -0000, Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:

> On 2013-03-21, Major Scott <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 15:25:02 -0000, Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Most of what Hayley says in that thread is total nonsense of the
>>> "Freeman on the Land" sort.
>>
>> Explain.
>
> For example, she says:
>
> "anyone who gets letters about a fine will only be taken to court if
> you make contact with with for example if you open your door to TV
> licence officer and give your name and sign their form then you have
> entered into their contract and you're buggered ... They will always
> walk away immediately because you are filming them committing an
> offence."
>
> All of that is entirely false. You don't have to "make contact" with
> TV Licensing to be prosecuted. TV Licensing do not try and get you to
> "enter into contracts" and the law that requires you to have a TV
> Licence has nothing to do with contracts. They are not committing an
> offence by visiting you.
>
> "It's going to be scrapped soon cos so many people have found out
> that its a scam !!"
>
> TV Licences are not a scam and are not "going to be scrapped soon".
> People are entitled to feel that they it is an unreasonable charge
> (although I don't agree with them) but not agreeing with the law
> doesn't magically make it go away and not apply to you.

I thought what they meant was they were going to close the loophole of telling them not to turn up.

> "a TV licence is only for bcc live broadcast"
>
> Completely untrue. I assume she means BBC, but regardless, you need
> a TV licence to watch any TV programme as it is broadcast, including
> ITV, Sky channels, cable channels, foreign channels, etc.

That's what's wrong with it. Paying the BBC when Sky are giving you the programs. If there is to be a license fee, all broadcasters must receive equal payments from it.

>> It's only illegal if you're caught. :-)
>
> I see your smiley, but my point was specifically that a crime is a
> crime even if you don't get caught

If a bear shits in the woods and noone is around.....

> - and even if you manage not to
> get caught by one particular method you may still get caught by
> another.

Depends how good you are.

[Major Scott]

It wouldn't take much for me to see a TV through a lounge window while I'm standing at your front door.

[Major Scott]

Someone who believes they shouldn't pay BBC for watching Sky, so only pays Sky and not the license.

[Jon Ribbens]

So they're guilty of evading the TV Licence fee and should be convicted.

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2013-03-22, Major Scott <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 23:50:02 -0000, Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>> "a TV licence is only for bcc live broadcast"
>>
>> Completely untrue. I assume she means BBC, but regardless, you need
>> a TV licence to watch any TV programme as it is broadcast, including
>> ITV, Sky channels, cable channels, foreign channels, etc.
>
> That's what's wrong with it. Paying the BBC when Sky are giving you
> the programs. If there is to be a license fee, all broadcasters
> must receive equal payments from it.

You (and her) are entitled to that opinion, but having that opinion
doesn't magically make you immune to the law.

[Chris R]

>
>
> "Jon Ribbens" wrote in message
> news:slrnkkn71t.h...@snowy.squish.net...

> I see your smiley, but my point was specifically that a crime is a
> crime even if you don't get caught - and even if you manage not to
> get caught by one particular method you may still get caught by
> another.

Your ex-wife may dob you in, for example.
--
Chris R

[Mark Goodge]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 23:50:02 +0000, Zapp Brannigan put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>

>"Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
>news:B1M2t.290832$zx2.2...@fx29.fr7...
>> Zapp Brannigan wrote:
>>> "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
>>> news:uOK2t.98713$zh5....@fx22.fr7...
>>>> Simon Finnigan wrote:
>>>>> "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>
>>>> As I said, you're offering nothing of any value. Hence, there is no
>>>> consideration and no contract.
>>>
>>> The sign on the gate might have to say "For advice on winter driving,
>>> please knock - fee £50". If you open the door to an unwanted caller,
>>> tell them to remember de-icer and keep some warm clothes in the car,
>>> and then ask for the contracted fee.
>>
>> That wouldn't form a contract either. It doesn't exclude others knocking
>> on the door for other advice or any other purpose.
>
>Very well, Simon's larger sign will now say :
>
> "Private Property, No Entry excepting for Paying Clients"
> "Implied License to Enter is Repudiated, Void and Withdrawn"
> "Entry for Paying Clients Only - £50 for Initial Consultation"
> "Do Not Enter Unless You Agree to Contract for This Charge"
> "For Advice on Winter Driving Only, Please Knock - fee £50".

That would certainly have the effect of withdrawing the implied licence,
but I don't think it would do any more than make the person ignoring it a
trespasser. I don't think it would be enough to form a contract.

>It's the same principle as a pay & display car park - if you choose to use
>the service after being informed of the charge, then you've contracted to
>pay it.

Yes, but if you deliberately leave a car on private property then you have
demonstrably parked it[1]. You have, therefore, unarguably carried out the
act which is stated to lead to a contract. But someone knocking on your
door, even with a notice such as the one you suggest, may still have other
motives besides asking for winter driving advice. And, while it would, of
course, be on the balance of probabilities (being a civil case), if they
could convince a court that they had some other motive for knocking - even
if in so doing they accepted that they were trespassing - then no contract
exists.

For example, if, when you open the door to them, they say "I haven't come
to ask for driving advice - I've come to let you know that your fence has
blown over in the wind last night" then no contract exists. They may still
be trespassers, but that's all.

[1] Although, in this context, it's worth noting that a broken down car is
not considered to be parked, at least provided that the driver or owner is
making all reasonable efforts to remove it as soon as possible. That is,
for example, a defence against being ticketed for a yellow line offence. So
even a contract for parking normally accepted by action is not, in fact,
accepted if the motive for leaving the car there is for a purpose other
than parking it.

[Percy Picacity]

Surprisingly enough (to the TV licence rebels) many employing managers
might regard evading the TV licence as dishonesty rather than a blow
for liberty.
--

Percy Picacity

[Roland Perry]

In message <slrnkkn74c.h...@snowy.squish.net>, at 23:55:02 on
Thu, 21 Mar 2013, Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> remarked:

>> In fact..... could having a Sky account and no TV license be evidence?
>
>I would think so. Why would anyone pay for Sky if they were not
>watching TV?

It could be part of a bundle, just like some people might have Internet
and a phone from a cable company[1], and never use the phone part.

[1] Yes, I know there's almost only one now, but the same principle
applies.
--
Roland Perry

[Ian Smith]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 21:55:02 +0000, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 21:00:05 +0000, Ian Smith put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
> >One thing I'm not sure about - none of the letters actually name the
> >BBC, and I thought letters from commercial organisations had to show
> >the organisation they come from. Is that not the case?
>
> They do. TVL is not the BBC.

TVL is the BBC.

"'TV Licensing' is a trade mark of the BBC and is used under licence
by companies contracted by the BBC to administer the collection of
television licence fees and enforcement of the television licensing
system. The majority of administration is contracted to Capita
Business Services Ltd. ('Capita'). Over-the counter services are
provided by PayPoint plc ('PayPoint') in the UK mainland and Northern
Ireland, and by the Post Office in the Isle of Man and Channel
Islands. Marketing and printing services are contracted to Proximity
London Ltd. Media services are contracted to Mediaedge:CIA
International Limited ('MEC'). The BBC is a public authority in
respect of its television licensing functions and retains overall
responsibility."

TV Licensing is the BBC, it's just that they use subcontractors to do
the legwork. It's a letter from teh BBC just as much as a letter my
company sends is from my company even if I get a graphic designer to
do design the header and a printer to print it and pay someone else to
mail it out.

Besides, the letters from TV Licensing says none of the above. Even
if the above were relevant, the letters don't say they are from
Capita, PayPoint, Proximity London Ltd, or MEC. So I am receiving
letters from a commercial organisation that do not identify the
organisation they are from.

> The most important aspect is that you are not paying the BBC: you
> are paying the government.)

Actually, I'm not paying anyone. All that you said is irrelevant - I
receive letters from the BBC, and the letters do not say so.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[Percy Picacity]

As a matter of interest, even though the BBC collects the money (and
bears the cost of doing so), the government decides who gets it and it
doesn't all go to the BBC.

--

Percy Picacity

[Man at B&Q]

You would need a bloody long neck.

MBQ

[the Omrud]

I was about to post a flippant response, but on reflection I want to
know what you consider to be the BBC's dishonesty. I'm ignoring, for
the purposes of this question, the fact that the Government sets the
licence fee, and not the BBC.

--
David

[Norman Wells]

Zapp Brannigan wrote:
> "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
> news:B1M2t.290832$zx2.2...@fx29.fr7...
>> Zapp Brannigan wrote:
>>> "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
>>> news:uOK2t.98713$zh5....@fx22.fr7...
>>>> Simon Finnigan wrote:
>>>>> "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>
>>>> As I said, you're offering nothing of any value. Hence, there is
>>>> no consideration and no contract.
>>>
>>> The sign on the gate might have to say "For advice on winter
>>> driving, please knock - fee £50". If you open the door to an
>>> unwanted caller, tell them to remember de-icer and keep some warm
>>> clothes in the car, and then ask for the contracted fee.
>>
>> That wouldn't form a contract either. It doesn't exclude others
>> knocking on the door for other advice or any other purpose.
>
> Very well, Simon's larger sign will now say :
>
> "Private Property, No Entry excepting for Paying Clients"
> "Implied License to Enter is Repudiated, Void and Withdrawn"
> "Entry for Paying Clients Only - £50 for Initial Consultation"
> "Do Not Enter Unless You Agree to Contract for This Charge"
> "For Advice on Winter Driving Only, Please Knock - fee £50".

That's much better.

Solicitors have very similar terms.

[Adam Funk]

You mean "Round up the posse, boys!" in Westerns? See also "If you
are the Federales, where are your badges?"

[Adam Funk]

Especially if you force her to watch TV illegally too.

[Handsome Jack]

Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> posted
>On 2013-03-21, Major Scott <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 15:15:02 -0000, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Is what true? That you can withdraw permission for TV Licencing to walk
>>> up your drive and knock on your door? Yes. But that's not much of a
>>> change - you don't have to let them in if they do knock, and refusing
>>> them access to your front garden is the only thing which this achieves.
>>> They can still look through your windows from the street to see if
>>> you're watching the telly.

>>
>> I'm surprised you can forbid someone knocking on your door, as the
>> postman and all the salesmen do it. How do I forbid all salesmen
>> from doing it?
>

>Put a notice on the gate saying so I suppose.

Or lock the gate. You could fit one of those sinister old bell-pulls to
it (like in "The Adams Family") for legit callers to use.

--
Jack

[John Briggs]

"It worked for Noye" because he was a gangster. That he was both a
police informant and a freemason muddied the waters.
--
John Briggs

[Chris R]

>
>
> "Adam Funk" wrote in message news:oqqt1ax...@news.ducksburg.com...

I could defeat a defence of marital coercion by showing how much more often
X-Factor and Celebrity Masterchef are watched in our household compared to
the rugby and cricket.
--
Chris R

[Roland Perry]

In message <aPOdnVpZQZd1zNHM...@brightview.co.uk>, at
12:45:01 on Fri, 22 Mar 2013, Chris R <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk>
remarked:

>I could defeat a defence of marital coercion by showing how much more often
>X-Factor and Celebrity Masterchef are watched in our household compared to
>the rugby and cricket.

We all watch whatever we want, just not necessarily either live, nor on
the same TV set.

--
Roland Perry

[John Briggs]

On 22/03/2013 11:20, Adam Funk wrote:

> On 2013-03-21, John Briggs wrote:
>>
>> Isn't a posse comitatus a pretty effective way for the government to get
>> at you? It works in most films...
>
> You mean "Round up the posse, boys!" in Westerns?

The "posse comitatus" was the authority for the (High) Sheriff to invoke
"the power of the county". This was codified by the Sheriffs Act 1887
(possibly under the influence of the earliest Westerns, but more likely
to prevent the new County Councils from usurping that common-law right):

"Every person in a county shall be ready and apparelled at the command
of the sheriff and at the cry of the country to arrest a felon..."

Wikipedia tells me that that particular provision was repealed by the
Criminal Law Act 1967 (also implausibly late in the day...)

This is one of the examples in Lynn White's essay "The medieval origins
of the Wild West".

> See also "If you
> are the Federales, where are your badges?"

I am not familiar with that one, and suspect that it has a different
legal basis :-)
--
John Briggs

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Major Scott wrote:
>>
>> I'd call what the BBC are doing dishonest. So not paying them
>> isn't dishonest, it's correcting a dishonesty.
>
> I was about to post a flippant response, but on reflection I
> want to know what you consider to be the BBC's dishonesty. I'm
> ignoring, for the purposes of this question, the fact that the
> Government sets the licence fee, and not the BBC.

Remember that Scott apparently believes in making up his own rules as
he goes along, not following laws he does not agree with, based on
his subjective idea of common sense

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> Adam Funk wrote:
>
>> See also "If you
>> are the Federales, where are your badges?"
>
> I am not familiar with that one, and suspect that it has a
> different legal basis :-)

There's no legal basis for that one, so we don't need no steenkin'
badges.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[John Briggs]

On 22/03/2013 16:40, Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
> John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> Adam Funk wrote:
>>
>>> See also "If you
>>> are the Federales, where are your badges?"
>>
>> I am not familiar with that one, and suspect that it has a
>> different legal basis :-)
>
> There's no legal basis for that one, so we don't need no steenkin'
> badges.

Ah, *that* one :-)
--
John Briggs

[Major Scott]

Depends on the design of the house.

[Scion]

Jon Ribbens put finger to keyboard:

> On 2013-03-21, Major Scott <n...@spam.com> wrote:

>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 15:25:02 -0000, Jon Ribbens
>> <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Most of what Hayley says in that thread is total nonsense of the
>>> "Freeman on the Land" sort. However it is correct that the TV licence
>>> inspectors don't have any special rights of access, so you do not have
>>> to let them in to search for televisions in your house. That does not
>>> of course make it legal to watch TV without a licence, it simply makes
>>> it harder to get caught.
>>
>> Actually I'd say it prompts them to believe you're hiding something.
>
> You may very well be right.
>

>> In fact..... could having a Sky account and no TV license be evidence?
>
> I would think so. Why would anyone pay for Sky if they were not watching
> TV?

Minimum contract term?

[Major Scott]

Nobody can honestly say they believe the license fee is just.

[The Todal]

I honestly think it is just.

I still admire the BBC's output, I would not want it to be supported by
commercial advertising and I think the fee is quite modest considering
what we get. On the other hand, when the BBC decided to buy the "Lonely
Planet" empire, then sold it at a loss, I think they made an error. I
think laws and rules should be put in place to ensure that they stick to
broadcasting not developing a multi-million pound publishing empire.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-21841479

[Major Scott]

I'd never sign up to such nonsense.

[Major Scott]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 17:40:02 -0000, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:

> On 22/3/13 16:55, Major Scott wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 16:35:09 -0000, Stuart A. Bronstein
>> <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote:
>>
>>> the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Major Scott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd call what the BBC are doing dishonest. So not paying them
>>>>> isn't dishonest, it's correcting a dishonesty.
>>>>
>>>> I was about to post a flippant response, but on reflection I
>>>> want to know what you consider to be the BBC's dishonesty. I'm
>>>> ignoring, for the purposes of this question, the fact that the
>>>> Government sets the licence fee, and not the BBC.
>>>
>>> Remember that Scott apparently believes in making up his own rules as
>>> he goes along, not following laws he does not agree with, based on
>>> his subjective idea of common sense
>>
>> Nobody can honestly say they believe the license fee is just.
>
> I honestly think it is just.
>
> I still admire the BBC's output, I would not want it to be supported by
> commercial advertising and I think the fee is quite modest considering
> what we get.

Then YOU pay for the BBC. I might think that Sky have better programs, so I CHOOSE to pay them. I should not be forced to pay for the BBC when I prefer other channels, just as you should not be forced to have a Sky subscription. The BBC should encrypt their channels just like Sky does, and those who pay the license fee get those channels.

[Jon Ribbens]

The Todal just said it is, and I say it too.
Obviously, you are not correct.

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2013-03-22, Major Scott <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 17:40:02 -0000, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:
>> I still admire the BBC's output, I would not want it to be supported by
>> commercial advertising and I think the fee is quite modest considering
>> what we get.
>
> Then YOU pay for the BBC. I might think that Sky have better
> programs, so I CHOOSE to pay them. I should not be forced to pay
> for the BBC when I prefer other channels, just as you should not be
> forced to have a Sky subscription. The BBC should encrypt their
> channels just like Sky does, and those who pay the license fee get
> those channels.

You don't get to decide any of that - the government does.
You could write to your MP to complain, I suppose.

[Ian Smith]

> As a matter of interest, even though the BBC collects the money
> (and bears the cost of doing so), the government decides who gets
> it and it doesn't all go to the BBC.

I know. Nothing I have said states otherwise. That is also
irrelevant to what I said.

It remains the case that TVL are the BBC, with the legwork contracted
out to various other bodies, and the letters from TVL (ie from the
BBC) do not say they are from the BBC. They do not provide the
details of the organisation sending them out, nor the address of its
registered office.

[David McNeish]

On Mar 21, 9:35 pm, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

> You could only sue them for the actual damages caused by their
> trespass.

Surely if the postman etc causes actual damage while on your property
you can sue them anyway? I'm not sure what practical difference this
withdrawal of the implied right of entry actually makes.

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-03-22, John Briggs wrote:

> On 22/03/2013 11:20, Adam Funk wrote:
>> On 2013-03-21, John Briggs wrote:
>>>
>>> Isn't a posse comitatus a pretty effective way for the government to get
>>> at you? It works in most films...
>>
>> You mean "Round up the posse, boys!" in Westerns?
>
> The "posse comitatus" was the authority for the (High) Sheriff to invoke
> "the power of the county". This was codified by the Sheriffs Act 1887
> (possibly under the influence of the earliest Westerns, but more likely
> to prevent the new County Councils from usurping that common-law right):
>
> "Every person in a county shall be ready and apparelled at the command
> of the sheriff and at the cry of the country to arrest a felon..."
>
> Wikipedia tells me that that particular provision was repealed by the
> Criminal Law Act 1967 (also implausibly late in the day...)

I knew that was the etymology of the Western "posse" (but I didn't
know the details). There's also the Posse Comitatus Act, which was
part of the end of the Reconstruction after the (American) Civil War &
limits the Federal government's use of the armed forces internally.

I think the survivalist/militia/tax-rebellion groups that use the term
as a talisman may have conflated the two things.

> This is one of the examples in Lynn White's essay "The medieval origins
> of the Wild West".

Now that sounds like interesting reading --- thanks!

>> See also "If you
>> are the Federales, where are your badges?"
>
> I am not familiar with that one, and suspect that it has a different
> legal basis :-)

It's from _The Treasure of the Sierra Madre_, part of the dialogue
that includes the widely misquoted (but close) line "We don't need no
stinkin' badges!" Of course, it turns out that what I quoted up there
was slightly wrong too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqomZQMZQCQ

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-03-22, The Todal wrote:

> On 22/3/13 16:55, Major Scott wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 16:35:09 -0000, Stuart A. Bronstein
>> <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote:
>>
>>> the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Major Scott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd call what the BBC are doing dishonest. So not paying them
>>>>> isn't dishonest, it's correcting a dishonesty.
>>>>
>>>> I was about to post a flippant response, but on reflection I
>>>> want to know what you consider to be the BBC's dishonesty. I'm
>>>> ignoring, for the purposes of this question, the fact that the
>>>> Government sets the licence fee, and not the BBC.
>>>
>>> Remember that Scott apparently believes in making up his own rules as
>>> he goes along, not following laws he does not agree with, based on
>>> his subjective idea of common sense
>>
>> Nobody can honestly say they believe the license fee is just.
>
> I honestly think it is just.

So do I. The BBC isn't perfect, by any means, but having it is a lot
better for society than not having it.

[John Briggs]

TVL may be the BBC, but they are actually collecting the money on behalf
of the Government, and the money is paid to the Treasury. The Government
have designated them as the [Government] Television Licensing Authority.
I think the Government thought up this wheeze because the BBC are the
main eventual beneficiaries, so they have made them (rather than the
Treasury) bear the losses of collection. So it is not exactly a
coincidence that the BBC are both the collecting authority (on behalf of
the Government) and the main beneficiaries, but in legal terms they are
completely independent activities.
--
John Briggs

[Major Scott]

I've yet to see anyone explain why paying A to watch B's programs is just.

"I like BBC programs" is NOT a reason to make everyone pay for them.

[Major Scott]

The government decides what are the programs we should be watching? That is not just. That is a dictatorship.

[Major Scott]

They should get paid by the people who WANT TO watch their programs, just like every other channel does.

I say again, would you like it if Tesco required a payment every time you shopped at Asda or Morrisons?

[John Briggs]

On 22/03/2013 17:40, The Todal wrote:
>
> I still admire the BBC's output, I would not want it to be supported by
> commercial advertising and I think the fee is quite modest considering
> what we get. On the other hand, when the BBC decided to buy the "Lonely
> Planet" empire, then sold it at a loss, I think they made an error. I
> think laws and rules should be put in place to ensure that they stick to
> broadcasting not developing a multi-million pound publishing empire.

They only sold it at a loss because the Government forced them to sell
it. Why shouldn't they develop a multi-million pound publishing empire?
That would reduce their reliance on the licence fee (something no
Government would want, obviously.)

Pursuing similar reasoning, they have sold off Radio Times - with the
consequence that the accuracy of its programming information has plummetted.
--
John Briggs

[John Briggs]

He was not correct before either of you answered: he was saying that you
could not say it, which is irrespective of whether anyone actually did.
--
John Briggs

[Ian Smith]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 19:50:09 +0000, John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On 22/03/2013 18:05, Ian Smith wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 09:20:02 +0000, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 2013-03-22 07:20:01 +0000, Ian Smith said:
> >>
> >>> Actually, I'm not paying anyone. All that you said is irrelevant
> >>> - I receive letters from the BBC, and the letters do not say so.
> >>
> >> As a matter of interest, even though the BBC collects the money
> >> (and bears the cost of doing so), the government decides who gets
> >> it and it doesn't all go to the BBC.
> >
> > I know. Nothing I have said states otherwise. That is also
> > irrelevant to what I said.
> >
> > It remains the case that TVL are the BBC, with the legwork contracted
> > out to various other bodies, and the letters from TVL (ie from the
> > BBC) do not say they are from the BBC. They do not provide the
> > details of the organisation sending them out, nor the address of its
> > registered office.
>
> TVL may be the BBC, but they are actually collecting the money on behalf
> of the Government, and the money is paid to the Treasury.

I know. That doesn't affect anything I've said. It is also
irrelevant to what I've said.

When my company sends out invoices the VAT element is money we are
actually collecting on behalf of the government and the money is paid
to the Treasury. That doesn't exempt my company from putting its name
and registered address on the letters, so why doesn't the BBC do
likewise on the TVL letters?

[Ian Smith]

That's not true, is it. I pay for commercial TV channels even though
I never watch them - the advertising costs are added onto the cost of
the products I buy.

[John Briggs]

Tesco doesn't have authority to collect taxes.
--
John Briggs

[John Briggs]

The Government levies a tax on watching television programmes. That it
pays some of the money to the BBC does not affect their right to levy
that tax.
--
John Briggs

[John Briggs]

It would if your sole activity was collecting taxes on behalf of the
Government. You would only need to state your Government authority for
doing so.
--
John Briggs

[Adam Funk]

The state sets the national curriculum, instead of letting children or
parents decide what they want to learn in school. The state & local
authorities set speed limits instead of letting people drive as fast
as they like. Etc.

(AFAICT all the governments from various parties in recent decades
have complained that the BBC is biased against them; that tells me the
BBC is getting something right.)

[Adam Funk]

And you can't avoid that hidden advertising surcharge even if you
don't watch TV at all.

[Mark Goodge]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 08:40:01 +0000, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>In message <slrnkkn74c.h...@snowy.squish.net>, at 23:55:02 on
>Thu, 21 Mar 2013, Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> remarked:

>
>>> In fact..... could having a Sky account and no TV license be evidence?
>>
>>I would think so. Why would anyone pay for Sky if they were not
>>watching TV?
>

>It could be part of a bundle, just like some people might have Internet
>and a phone from a cable company[1], and never use the phone part.

I used to have my Internet and phone from a cable company, but TV from Sky.
The cable subscription included basic rate TV, but I rarely used it.

Mark
--
Please take a short survey on salary perceptions: http://meyu.eu/am
My blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-03-22, John Briggs wrote:

> On 22/03/2013 17:40, The Todal wrote:
>>
>> I still admire the BBC's output, I would not want it to be supported by
>> commercial advertising and I think the fee is quite modest considering
>> what we get. On the other hand, when the BBC decided to buy the "Lonely
>> Planet" empire, then sold it at a loss, I think they made an error. I
>> think laws and rules should be put in place to ensure that they stick to
>> broadcasting not developing a multi-million pound publishing empire.
>
> They only sold it at a loss because the Government forced them to sell
> it.

Not really relevant, but ISTR a government-forced "market price"
sell-off in the US is going to lead to a worldwide helium shortage in
the future.

> Why shouldn't they develop a multi-million pound publishing empire?
> That would reduce their reliance on the licence fee (something no
> Government would want, obviously.)

Good point. I see no problem with that.

[John Briggs]

On 22/03/2013 19:05, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2013-03-22, John Briggs wrote:
>>
>> This is one of the examples in Lynn White's essay "The medieval origins
>> of the Wild West".
>
> Now that sounds like interesting reading --- thanks!

Here's a more accurate reference:

Lynn White Jr, "Legacy of the Middle Ages in the American Wild West"
(reprinted in his "Medieval Religion and Technology: Collected Essays",
[1978])
--
John Briggs

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-03-22, John Briggs wrote:

> On 22/03/2013 19:25, Major Scott wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 19:05:09 -0000, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>

>>> So do I. The BBC isn't perfect, by any means, but having it is a lot
>>> better for society than not having it.
>>
>> They should get paid by the people who WANT TO watch their programs,
>> just like every other channel does.
>>
>> I say again, would you like it if Tesco required a payment every time
>> you shopped at Asda or Morrisons?
>
> Tesco doesn't have authority to collect taxes.

And it has *no* democratic accountability.

[Mark Goodge]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 19:25:02 +0000, Major Scott put finger to keyboard and
typed:

You are not paying the BBC. You are paying the government for the right to
watch TV. The government ring-fences that income and uses it to pay for a
state-funded broadcaster. But there is no inevitable link between the two.
The government could easily decide to do something else with the licence
fee money if it wanted.

>I say again, would you like it if Tesco required a payment every time you shopped at Asda or Morrisons?

Every time you shop at Tesco or Asda, you pay tax in the form of VAT. The
government uses that money to subsidise things like libraries. Just because
you don't use them doesn't mean you can choose not to pay the tax.

[Major Scott]

They're paid for by those companies that advertise. You are free to buy products that do not advertise. I actually avoid companies that produce annoying adverts, or advertise so much that it annoys me.

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2013-03-22, Major Scott <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 18:05:02 -0000, Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 2013-03-22, Major Scott <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>> Then YOU pay for the BBC. I might think that Sky have better
>>> programs, so I CHOOSE to pay them. I should not be forced to pay
>>> for the BBC when I prefer other channels, just as you should not be
>>> forced to have a Sky subscription. The BBC should encrypt their
>>> channels just like Sky does, and those who pay the license fee get
>>> those channels.
>>
>> You don't get to decide any of that - the government does.
>> You could write to your MP to complain, I suppose.
>
> The government decides what are the programs we should be watching?

No. Hope that helps.