Viewcrime: TV Tyranny in Great Britain
best column
by Paul Jacob
"Thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealed for ever. You
might dodge successfully for a while, even for years, but sooner or
later they were bound to get you."--George Orwell, 1984
No, it's not quite the bleak vision of George Orwell. But it's close
enough.
In 1949, Orwell published a novel set in the far-flung future of three
and a half decades later. It tells of a semi-recognizable Britain, now
scooped up in the mega-state of Oceania, whose citizens are controlled
via telescreens in every room. These screens transmit the all-seeing
gaze of Big Brother and Big Bro's myriad clerical proxies. Under this
Oceanic surveillance, even one's innermost thoughts are not secure.
Orwell envisioned an apparatus of control so "scientific" and total
that it couldn't help but produce the totally submissive citizen--the
man who, though he might resist for a while, in the end always "loves
Big Brother."
In 2003 what the British citizen must fear is not the telescreen in
every room, but the bureaucrat in every room checking whether you have
a telescreen. If you do but aren't paying your "TV license fee," woe
unto you! You won't be punished for thoughtcrime, but you will be
punished for viewcrime. And if you choose not to own a TV at all...woe
unto you again!
I only recently learned of Great Britain's TV tyranny, thanks to a
report about an erroneously invoiced German cat (about which more
later). Britain's mandatory license-fee regime, which is hardly new,
seems to be so ingrained that most of the queen's subjects just
grumble and pay. This is how frogs get boiled, of course--slowly and
by routine--so that even the frogs just shrug their shoulders about
it. "What do you mean, we're being boiled alive? Of course we're being
boiled alive. It's always been this way."
In various forms the TV license fee has been around since the 1920s,
when it applied to radio. The scheme was later used to fund the
British television monopoly, so that the government could claim that
fees, not taxes, were the funding source. This is a bit of
doublethink, obviously; the BBC is a government construct, not the
product of voluntary interactions between TV service buyer and TV
service seller.
It used to be the post office that collected this license fee. But
since 1991, the task has devolved to the BBC itself, specifically its
dummy corporation the Television Licensing
Authority(http://www.tv-l.co.uk/tvlic/index_frameset.html). Meanwhile,
TV dealers are required by law to collect the names and addresses of
people who buy televisions. This info then goes into a giant database.
Let me be perfectly clear. This is mandatory. This is about watching
television. In Great Britain, TV watchers must pay Ł116 per annum in
order to...watch television (if it's a color TV; watching
black-and-white is cheaper). Eight TV channels, 12 radio stations. The
BBC. This is real. This is true.
Persons who refuse to pay the fee while yet owning a TV are treated
like criminals. Persons who claim not to own a TV are treated like
criminal suspects. A new breed of human called TV inspectors force
their way into homes to check the status of professedly telly-free
British citizens.
John Hammond(http://www.getreading.co.uk/pfriendly.asp?intid=2804)
does not own a television. The 69-year-old spends his spare time
listening to gramophone records--and flipping through accusatory
letters from the Television Licensing Authority. "I rang them and they
were extremely sarcastic and said I should buy a licence whether I
have a TV or not to stop them bothering me." He says that eight years
ago, TV inspectors broke into his home. He frets that they might do it
again.
Journalist Jonathan Miller(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/07/16/do1601.xml)
stopped paying the license fee. TV inspectors came to his home
(apparently there is an endless supply of these inspectors). Miller
told them he was willing to go to court about it. "[T]he licence fee
makes no sense," he says. "If everyone loves the BBC so much, why is
the public forced to pay for it? It's an extortion racket." He lost
his case in one court but is appealing.
Erika Sigvallius(http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/thejournal/content_objectid=13208765_method=full_siteid=50081_headline=-Honestly--honestly--honestly---I-have-no-TV--name_page.html)
is a teacher. She owns no television. There is so much else to do! The
TV inspectors want to search her home. Of course, some people who
claim to have no TV are lying. So "of course" one must search the
homes of all people who make such claims. Ms. Sigvallius is of the
opinion that her home is her castle. The TV Licensing Authority
disagrees, saying that "our policy to visit addresses that claim to
have no television is in the interests of the honest majority of
people who pay for a licence."
Why, it's doubleplusungood not to let busybodies invade your private
sanctuary at will.
What's my "analysis" of all this? Only that nobody should be trying to
impose a funhouse mirror version of Orwell's dark vision. Also that
British socialists should reconsider their creed.
Greedy rapacious capitalists will never send men tapping at your
window in response to your unwillingness to pay for a service you
never signed up for. What we have in America with our greedy rapacious
capitalism is a few ad-funded networks that nobody gets fined for
watching, plus an array of additional viewing opportunities for
consumers who want to pay for them. This latter is called cable
television.
What happens with cable is a process called "charging." This is
preceded by another process called "choosing." Only the people who
choose to purchase the cable service are then charged for it. Of
course, in America cable companies tend to get protected from local
competition, which is not right. And there are other absurd
interventions in broadcasting. But such regulations are still light
years away from treating everybody who fails to subscribe to your
service like a criminal suspect and demanding to rummage through his
home.
I was going to say something now about that German cat, but I'm out of
time. I promise, though, to tell you about it real soon, in my Common
Sense e-letter(http://www.termlimits.org/Press/Common_Sense/), which
is distributed free to all intelligent, well-informed people.
Meantime, the British should take a cue from the Americans they once
tried to conquer. We had a Boston Tea Party, and the British should
have a London TV Party--just dump all the TVs over the pier in one
glorious flamboyant public display of ain't-gonna-take-it-any-more.
Give up those tellies. Make it a national movement. Regain some of
that dignity and freedom you've lost. Don't love Big Brother.
---
Paul Jacob is Senior Fellow at U.S. Term Limits
(http://www.termlimits.org), a Townhall.com member group. This column
was originally published at the Townhall.com web site. To subscribe to
Paul Jacob's free, thrice-weekly e-letter, visit
http://www.termlimits.org/Press/Common_Sense/