If you are watching Channel 5 live, then what you are doing IS NOT legal! You might not agree with the law, but that does not excuse such behaviour.
However, putting that aside and assuming you do indeed comply with the present law and do not watch any live TV but do use catchup at your home address, that at the moment is a legitimate way round the law, but it is a loophole which might well be closed. In the same way that someone who presenly has money in an ISA can save tax - it is perfectly legitimate to do so. However, the law might be changed to make it illegal. If that happened, anyone with an ISA would have to shrug their shoulders and pay any additional tax which might be due - it has already happened with the tax credit asociated with dividends, which is no longer repaid to ISAs as it once was. Things do not stay the same forever. You used to get tax relief on all sorts of things you don't get it on now, such as life assurance and mortgage interest. If you are presently able to avoid paying for a TV licence, there is nothing to prevent the law being changed so that you will no longer be able to do so.
Good post and its about time the loopholes were closed. Given that more and more viewing is streamed a 'media tax' seems the logical way forward.
I PAY for the TV chitty, netflix, lovefilm and youview boosts. The TV fee is under 40p a day which do me is superb value for money. I could easily live with just whats provided by the BBC licence fee, the rest I don't really care about.
For the price of a Mars bar a day you have access to TV, radio and a big internet site and I just can't fathom out why some folk are so keen to avoid paying it or call for scrapping it. :rolleyes:
Just another way to get people to pay more tax for something they may not use, a disgrace to be honest.
I don't complain about just one, I can tell you.
But that is the principle for most taxes. I "may not use" the NHS, I "may not use" schools if I don't have children, I "may not use" buses or trains but still have to pay towards subsidies. Parks, libraries, opera and ballet (which cost far far more than the BBC per user) and so on.
Yet I don't begrudge paying towards those. They benefit society as a whole and I'm happy to pay my share. Why is it that the people who complain most about paying for the BBC are the most selfish? All they care about is "Me me me. What's in it for me?" and to hell with everyone else? I hate Eastenders, Doctors and Casualty, but I don't have any problem with paying my share of their cost because millions of people do enjoy them. That's what being a member of a society is about.
You want an a la carte system where you can force everyone else to pay for the things you want but you want to be able to opt out of paying for anything you personally don't want, and everyone else can get stuffed. You get what you want. That's all you care about.
You are making the mistake that just because someone is paying a higher band council tax that they are better off than someone paying a lower band, strange how so many people make that same mistake.
It is generally true that people living in bigger houses in more expensive areas are better off. It's far from perfect, but then no system is. It would be more fair than the present system which makes no distinction at all.
The difference being that you either have used the service yourself in the past, or if you can afford to send children to private school, you can also afford to pay taxes. There is no separate "schools tax".
When I used the service in the past my parents were paying the tax to fund it. Are you saying that you should pay the TV licence because your parents watched TV?
The BBC is hardly comparable to this.
It is an essential public service. Every first world country in the world believes that, and funds a broadcaster with public money. Even the USA.
Making everyone pay for a service they may not want is not the solution to a small amount of licence evasion. It'd be like making everyone pay higher-rate income tax because some people avoid and evade their fair share.
That is what happens now. Just as you have to pay more for your groceries because of shoplifters. That missing income has to be funded somehow. If all income tax evasion and the black market was eliminated today then everyone's income tax bill could be reduced significantly.
Making everyone pay for a public service is not fair?
Obviously it's fair! As long as income is taken into account.
Of course the current system does not do this and neither would a "household tax", benefiting the better off.
How would a household tax benefit the better off? Even if it wasn't graded in line with your council tax band, my suggestion, then everyone now paying the TV licence would be better off, not just the wealthy, since it would save the millions now paid to capita to run the collection system and would eliminate evasion.
Part of the problem here is how increasingly ridiculous the idea of television and radio being a public service is seeming to a younger generation.
Cite?
This is why in the UK any attempt at change would be risky to the BBC. It would bring the issue of the "TV as public service" thing out into the open and who knows what might happen?
A huge outcry if the BBC was threatened? Look what happened in the US when Romney suggested cutting PBS funding. That's why the Conservatives, who hate the BBC, don't dare to scrap it or sell it off. They know it would be electoral suicide, not far off scrapping the NHS.
I don't really care to be honest what you think and I will let that go this time, but don't push it.
How can I be a thief if what I am doing is legal? Anyway, watching the Gadget show on catch up which is on Channel 5 by the way have nothing to do with the TV licence fee. The TV licence fee is for BBC and watching live TV. I watch Dr who at my friends place, pretty difficult to watch it at home when it is on a freesat PVR. so do that make my friend a thief as well? after all she pays the TV licence and it is her choice to record it for me to watch when I go up there.
Well, you know that is not going to happen and they can knock as much as they want, I will just ignore them, I got a security camera and I can see who comes to my door.
This have got you wound up.
I haven't got any problem with you watching catchup. That is the law now and that's it. It would be like complaining about tourists enjoying our parks though they haven't paid the taxes to maintain them.
Some countries have already changed their law and require you to pay a broadband tax or a smartphone tax if you don't have a TV licence. Denmark, Sweden and Germany for example. Until that happens then I have no problem with you watching catchup.
But if the licence was included with council tax, an idea I'm warming to actually, then you would be refusing to pay your council tax. It would be your local council knocking on your door. What would be your objection to paying for TV (which you admit you use) while paying for parks, schools, libraries, bus subsidies etc etc that you may not use?
Good post and its about time the loopholes were closed. Given that more and more viewing is streamed a 'media tax' seems the logical way forward.
I think we will be waiting for a long time.
I PAY for the TV chitty, netflix, lovefilm and youview boosts. The TV fee is under 40p a day which do me is superb value for money. I could easily live with just whats provided by the BBC licence fee, the rest I don't really care about.
For the price of a Mars bar a day you have access to TV, radio and a big internet site and I just can't fathom out why some folk are so keen to avoid paying it or call for scrapping it. :rolleyes:
Maybe because some people don't think it is worth 40p a day. Why can't yo get that into your head?
But that is the principle for most taxes. I "may not use" the NHS, I "may not use" schools if I don't have children, I "may not use" buses or trains but still have to pay towards subsidies. Parks, libraries, opera and ballet (which cost far far more than the BBC per user) and so on.
Yet I don't begrudge paying towards those. They benefit society as a whole and I'm happy to pay my share. Why is it that the people who complain most about paying for the BBC are the most selfish? All they care about is "Me me me. What's in it for me?" and to hell with everyone else? I hate Eastenders, Doctors and Casualty, but I don't have any problem with paying my share of their cost because millions of people do enjoy them. That's what being a member of a society is about.
You can not compare the BBC with the NHS. How do you know we are selfish? you don't know any of us.
I used to go to our local theatre, but i was and still is against our council propping it up, not that they propping it up by so much these days. I never been against our council paying for our libraries, even if I don't use them myself, because i know how important they are. in fact a few weeks ago i went to a demo in the city centre calling for a stop to the cuts our council are making to our libraries and museums.
If I was selfish why I would I bother with that?
I don't use our parks, but again I don't mind the council paying to keep them out of my council tax, because it is nice to have somewhere for families to walk and the children to play
You want an a la carte system where you can force everyone else to pay for the things you want but you want to be able to opt out of paying for anything you personally don't want, and everyone else can get stuffed. You get what you want. That's all you care about.
It is generally true that people living in bigger houses in more expensive areas are better off. It's far from perfect, but then no system is. It would be more fair than the present system which makes no distinction at all.
You just keep thinking that, but you are 100% incorrect. some people live in bigger houses because they got a large family, it don't mean they got plenty of money or the house have been in the family for years.
It is an essential public service. Every first world country in the world believes that, and funds a broadcaster with public money. Even the USA.
How many countries have a broadcaster that receives billions of euros/dollars per year thanks to extortion under penalty of law? I would imagine the budgets for other countries' broadcasters are rather smaller, and with less grandiose expectations in line with that.
That is what happens now. Just as you have to pay more for your groceries because of shoplifters. That missing income has to be funded somehow. If all income tax evasion and the black market was eliminated today then everyone's income tax bill could be reduced significantly.
Could you provide a source for that assertion? It's easy to say it but rather larger to actually work out how much is actually "lost". You also assume that we're all paying more in taxes, instead of the government setting realistic budgets in line with what money it actually gets.
But if the licence was included with council tax, an idea I'm warming to actually, then you would be refusing to pay your council tax. It would be your local council knocking on your door. What would be your objection to paying for TV (which you admit you use) while paying for parks, schools, libraries, bus subsidies etc etc that you may not use?
All of the things council tax pays for can normally only be provided sensibly by one organisation - the council - and that's why we pay for it.
Meanwhile the BBC is not the only broadcaster operating in the UK, we have a rich and plentiful media industry where the BBC is only one part.
Equating the BBC with other services like public transport, education or health is silly too - we need all of those things to keep running as a country, we don't need a massive state owned broadcaster. It is a nice to have and a luxury, but essential it is not. The UK would continue to thrive without it. This is why the BBC should never be paid for in a way that requires everyone to pay for it regardless of whether they want to, even if they don't use the service, and why we make everyone pay for the NHS, schools, public transport and the other things general taxation funds.
I haven't got any problem with you watching catchup. That is the law now and that's it. It would be like complaining about tourists enjoying our parks though they haven't paid the taxes to maintain them.
Some countries have already changed their law and require you to pay a broadband tax or a smartphone tax if you don't have a TV licence. Denmark, Sweden and Germany for example. Until that happens then I have no problem with you watching catchup.
I don't care what other countries do to be honest, Maybe Germany have to make money because they keep bailing out bankrupt countries, I do know and to be honest, I don't care.
But if the licence was included with council tax, an idea I'm warming to actually, then you would be refusing to pay your council tax. It would be your local council knocking on your door. What would be your objection to paying for TV (which you admit you use) while paying for parks, schools, libraries, bus subsidies etc etc that you may not use?
I admitted that i have used channel 5 catch up to watch some Gadget shows, the first time i have used catch up for months and no doubt it will be the last time for months. I will watch Dr who at a friends place, so why should I pay for something that a friend is already paying for? She don't have a problem with it, she pays for a Tv licence because she have a teenage daughter living there, but even she says she would not bother other wise and do what I am doing.
It is there I can use it if I want to, simple as that, if the BBc don't like it then change the rules.
You say about this media tax, what about people who don't have TV, don't have internet, should they pay the full price even if all they got is a radio?
See how unfair this tax is in Ireland and how unfair it would be here.
Are they increasing their income? I thought their income was staying the same but the licence per household would cost less?
According to the Minister they are going to keep the fee at the current level but reduce the advertising minutes RTE can carry so that it will balance to the same income
If anything it will increase the income of TV3 and the Irish feeds of stations like E4 since the advertisers presumably will still want to reach those audiences .
I watch very little live TV these days having various ways of watching via streaming services, but then I also don't use libraries, but I still pay for them. I'm sure equally there are people who dont use the local tip (like I do) but do use libraries. That's just the way it is.
I think most people get worked up about the principle of it, when its really not a lot of money spread over the year and no doubt that the BBC is responsible for some excellent programming, not just on TV but also Radio.
You can not compare the BBC with the NHS. How do you know we are selfish? you don't know any of us.
I used to go to our local theatre, but i was and still is against our council propping it up, not that they propping it up by so much these days. I never been against our council paying for our libraries, even if I don't use them myself, because i know how important they are. in fact a few weeks ago i went to a demo in the city centre calling for a stop to the cuts our council are making to our libraries and museums.
If I was selfish why I would I bother with that?
I don't use our parks, but again I don't mind the council paying to keep them out of my council tax, because it is nice to have somewhere for families to walk and the children to play
So you want a la carte taxation. You will pay for services you consider acceptable but don't want to pay for services the vast majority of people, in the UK and around the world, consider essential.
That's almost a textbook definition of selfish. Only your opinion of what is essential matters, and to hell with everyone else.
I happily pay the TV licence knowing most of it will be spent on programmes that I won't watch, including Eastenders, Casualty etc. But I am happy to do so because I am not selfish and know that millions of people enjoy those programmes and I would be incredibly selfish if I expected the BBC to only make shows that I personally liked. Just as I am happy to fund schools I don't use, NHS services I don't use, parks I don't use, libraries, opera, ballet etc etc.
How many countries have a broadcaster that receives billions of euros/dollars per year thanks to extortion under penalty of law? I would imagine the budgets for other countries' broadcasters are rather smaller, and with less grandiose expectations in line with that.
You'd assume wrong. The German TV licence is £184 for all households, plus businesses.
The total licence fee income is £6.5 billion, almost twice the BBC LF income.
Of course various countries are bigger or smaller than the UK. The countries with more expensive TV licences, and so higher per capita costs, include Germany at £184, Switzerland at £330, Denmark at £260, Norway at £310 and Sweden at £200. Enforcement is much the same, except countries like France add their TV licence to the council tax so evasion is harder and enforcement is easier. You are required by law to say if you have a TV or not.
Could you provide a source for that assertion? It's easy to say it but rather larger to actually work out how much is actually "lost". You also assume that we're all paying more in taxes, instead of the government setting realistic budgets in line with what money it actually gets.
If a government has reduced spending in line with its income then surely it is obvious that the same level of spending could be achieved with far lower taxes if evasion was eliminated?
Why should all homes pay this tax? Not everyone wants or needs to watch television.
I watch very little television. Whole months go by without watching it.
Television should be pay as you view. That way those who have a higher demand for it pay more and those who find it boring pay less or nothing.
I would agree. I don't really watch much TV any more either and I'm thinking of getting rid of pay TV and just using FTA satellite. I spend more time online, reading or out and about than I do watching telly. I think another system that could work is where you just pay for the channels you want to watch (if you only want a few particular channels) and don't pay for the rest.
The collection of the "TV Licence" fee is a lawful activity in the UK, the right to collect the fee is established
by the relevant sections in the current Communications Act and the legacy of previously enacted statutes.
If you think otherwise, why not take a test case to law?
So you want a la carte taxation. You will pay for services you consider acceptable but don't want to pay for services the vast majority of people, in the UK and around the world, consider essential.
The BBC is not essential. Anyone that considers it essential needs a reality check. If indeed it is essential it should be funded through general taxation.
That's almost a textbook definition of selfish. Only your opinion of what is essential matters, and to hell with everyone else.
No, it's not at all
I happily pay the TV licence knowing most of it will be spent on programmes that I won't watch, including Eastenders, Casualty etc. But I am happy to do so because I am not selfish and know that millions of people enjoy those programmes and I would be incredibly selfish if I expected the BBC to only make shows that I personally liked. Just as I am happy to fund schools I don't use, NHS services I don't use, parks I don't use, libraries, opera, ballet etc etc.
Do any of those public services you listed require you to produce a licence before you use them, and exclude you from the facility if you can't?
Last time I checked anyone can walk into a park without someone coming knocking on their door asking for payment.
It's part of being a member of society.
Being part of society surely includes supporting others views, like those of people that just want to watch TV and not fund the BBC. The users that want to keep the BBC expect everyone that doesn't want it to fund their hobby. That in itself is selfish. If a sports fan wants to watch EPL games on Sky he has to fund Eastenders, how is that right? If viewers had the choice to only watch commercial TV and not pay a licence fee I think the majority would be happy with the commercial option. IMHO
All of the things council tax pays for can normally only be provided sensibly by one organisation - the council - and that's why we pay for it.
Council tax is only a small part of local council income, most of their money they get from Whitehall. So there's already a blurring of the line between local and national tax. What would be so wrong about replacing the TV licence with a fee on your council tax. Many countries do that. Why would it be "wrong"?
Meanwhile the BBC is not the only broadcaster operating in the UK, we have a rich and plentiful media industry where the BBC is only one part.
Equating the BBC with other services like public transport, education or health is silly too - we need all of those things to keep running as a country, we don't need a massive state owned broadcaster. It is a nice to have and a luxury, but essential it is not. The UK would continue to thrive without it.
Almost everyone disagrees, and almost every other country in the world as well. Even the USA, who call the NHS "socialism!" fund PBS/NPR with public money. There was a huge outcry when Romney suggested cutting their funding.
This is why the BBC should never be paid for in a way that requires everyone to pay for it regardless of whether they want to, even if they don't use the service, and why we make everyone pay for the NHS, schools, public transport and the other things general taxation funds.
But many countries do fund their national broadcaster that way alongside health, schools, police etc.
I don't care what other countries do to be honest, Maybe Germany have to make money because they keep bailing out bankrupt countries, I do know and to be honest, I don't care.
I admitted that i have used channel 5 catch up to watch some Gadget shows, the first time i have used catch up for months and no doubt it will be the last time for months. I will watch Dr who at a friends place, so why should I pay for something that a friend is already paying for? She don't have a problem with it, she pays for a Tv licence because she have a teenage daughter living there, but even she says she would not bother other wise and do what I am doing.
It is there I can use it if I want to, simple as that, if the BBc don't like it then change the rules.
You say about this media tax, what about people who don't have TV, don't have internet, should they pay the full price even if all they got is a radio?
See how unfair this tax is in Ireland and how unfair it would be here.
Then why are you posting in a thread about the TV licence in Ireland?
The collection of the "TV Licence" fee is a lawful activity in the UK, the right to collect the fee is established
by the relevant sections in the current Communications Act and the legacy of previously enacted statutes.
If you think otherwise, why not take a test case to law?
Interesting point. Could the constant letters threatening legal action be seen as intimidation?
I withdrew Rights of Access to Capita, had a visit from TVL man, who was very polite and seemed a decent guy. Told him I'd withdrawn access and he went on his way. 3 days later I had a letter, again nicely worded, acknowledging withdrawal of access and I wouldn't be bothered for at least 3 years.
Then for about a week I had a letter pretty much every day telling me I could be taken to court and what to expect!
Fair play to the TVL man though, he was fine and nothing like the horror vids I've seen on YT.
The BBC is not essential. Anyone that considers it essential needs a reality check. If indeed it is essential it should be funded through general taxation.
No, it's not at all
Do any of those public services you listed require you to produce a licence before you use them, and exclude you from the facility if you can't?
Last time I checked anyone can walk into a park without someone coming knocking on their door asking for payment.
All reasons why I would prefer funding the BBC from general taxation. Though the idea of putting it in with council tax, as France does, would be an improvement as well.
Being part of society surely includes supporting others views, like those of people that just want to watch TV and not fund the BBC. The users that want to keep the BBC expect everyone that doesn't want it to fund their hobby. That in itself is selfish. If a sports fan wants to watch EPL games on Sky he has to fund Eastenders, how is that right? If viewers had the choice to only watch commercial TV and not pay a licence fee I think the majority would be happy with the commercial option. IMHO
So I should have the right to opt out of funding schools? I don't have children, so how is it fair I pay for schools? I have BUPA so why should I pay for the NHS? Let me think of all the things I am forced to pay for that I don't use. Train and bus subsidies, libraries, ballet and opera subsidies, embassies in countries I'll never visit, aid to countries that have their own space programme or are building aircraft carriers for their navy...
Comments
Good post and its about time the loopholes were closed. Given that more and more viewing is streamed a 'media tax' seems the logical way forward.
I PAY for the TV chitty, netflix, lovefilm and youview boosts. The TV fee is under 40p a day which do me is superb value for money. I could easily live with just whats provided by the BBC licence fee, the rest I don't really care about.
For the price of a Mars bar a day you have access to TV, radio and a big internet site and I just can't fathom out why some folk are so keen to avoid paying it or call for scrapping it. :rolleyes:
Yet I don't begrudge paying towards those. They benefit society as a whole and I'm happy to pay my share. Why is it that the people who complain most about paying for the BBC are the most selfish? All they care about is "Me me me. What's in it for me?" and to hell with everyone else? I hate Eastenders, Doctors and Casualty, but I don't have any problem with paying my share of their cost because millions of people do enjoy them. That's what being a member of a society is about.
You want an a la carte system where you can force everyone else to pay for the things you want but you want to be able to opt out of paying for anything you personally don't want, and everyone else can get stuffed. You get what you want. That's all you care about. It is generally true that people living in bigger houses in more expensive areas are better off. It's far from perfect, but then no system is. It would be more fair than the present system which makes no distinction at all.
Lets see how it works in Ireland....
I haven't got any problem with you watching catchup. That is the law now and that's it. It would be like complaining about tourists enjoying our parks though they haven't paid the taxes to maintain them.
Some countries have already changed their law and require you to pay a broadband tax or a smartphone tax if you don't have a TV licence. Denmark, Sweden and Germany for example. Until that happens then I have no problem with you watching catchup.
But if the licence was included with council tax, an idea I'm warming to actually, then you would be refusing to pay your council tax. It would be your local council knocking on your door. What would be your objection to paying for TV (which you admit you use) while paying for parks, schools, libraries, bus subsidies etc etc that you may not use?
Are they increasing their income? I thought their income was staying the same but the licence per household would cost less?
For example:
Now:
10 million homes. 90% have a TV licence costing £100. RTE income £900million
New system:
10 million homes. All pay the fee of £90. RTE income £900 million.
I think we will be waiting for a long time.
Maybe because some people don't think it is worth 40p a day. Why can't yo get that into your head?
You can not compare the BBC with the NHS. How do you know we are selfish? you don't know any of us.
I used to go to our local theatre, but i was and still is against our council propping it up, not that they propping it up by so much these days. I never been against our council paying for our libraries, even if I don't use them myself, because i know how important they are. in fact a few weeks ago i went to a demo in the city centre calling for a stop to the cuts our council are making to our libraries and museums.
If I was selfish why I would I bother with that?
I don't use our parks, but again I don't mind the council paying to keep them out of my council tax, because it is nice to have somewhere for families to walk and the children to play
You just keep thinking that, but you are 100% incorrect. some people live in bigger houses because they got a large family, it don't mean they got plenty of money or the house have been in the family for years.
Ok, lets see, but Ireland is not the UK.
How many countries have a broadcaster that receives billions of euros/dollars per year thanks to extortion under penalty of law? I would imagine the budgets for other countries' broadcasters are rather smaller, and with less grandiose expectations in line with that.
Could you provide a source for that assertion? It's easy to say it but rather larger to actually work out how much is actually "lost". You also assume that we're all paying more in taxes, instead of the government setting realistic budgets in line with what money it actually gets.
All of the things council tax pays for can normally only be provided sensibly by one organisation - the council - and that's why we pay for it.
Meanwhile the BBC is not the only broadcaster operating in the UK, we have a rich and plentiful media industry where the BBC is only one part.
Equating the BBC with other services like public transport, education or health is silly too - we need all of those things to keep running as a country, we don't need a massive state owned broadcaster. It is a nice to have and a luxury, but essential it is not. The UK would continue to thrive without it. This is why the BBC should never be paid for in a way that requires everyone to pay for it regardless of whether they want to, even if they don't use the service, and why we make everyone pay for the NHS, schools, public transport and the other things general taxation funds.
I don't care what other countries do to be honest, Maybe Germany have to make money because they keep bailing out bankrupt countries, I do know and to be honest, I don't care.
I admitted that i have used channel 5 catch up to watch some Gadget shows, the first time i have used catch up for months and no doubt it will be the last time for months. I will watch Dr who at a friends place, so why should I pay for something that a friend is already paying for? She don't have a problem with it, she pays for a Tv licence because she have a teenage daughter living there, but even she says she would not bother other wise and do what I am doing.
It is there I can use it if I want to, simple as that, if the BBc don't like it then change the rules.
You say about this media tax, what about people who don't have TV, don't have internet, should they pay the full price even if all they got is a radio?
See how unfair this tax is in Ireland and how unfair it would be here.
According to the Minister they are going to keep the fee at the current level but reduce the advertising minutes RTE can carry so that it will balance to the same income
If anything it will increase the income of TV3 and the Irish feeds of stations like E4 since the advertisers presumably will still want to reach those audiences .
I think most people get worked up about the principle of it, when its really not a lot of money spread over the year and no doubt that the BBC is responsible for some excellent programming, not just on TV but also Radio.
So you want a la carte taxation. You will pay for services you consider acceptable but don't want to pay for services the vast majority of people, in the UK and around the world, consider essential.
That's almost a textbook definition of selfish. Only your opinion of what is essential matters, and to hell with everyone else.
I happily pay the TV licence knowing most of it will be spent on programmes that I won't watch, including Eastenders, Casualty etc. But I am happy to do so because I am not selfish and know that millions of people enjoy those programmes and I would be incredibly selfish if I expected the BBC to only make shows that I personally liked. Just as I am happy to fund schools I don't use, NHS services I don't use, parks I don't use, libraries, opera, ballet etc etc.
It's part of being a member of society.
In what way would their solution not be suitable for the UK?
The total licence fee income is £6.5 billion, almost twice the BBC LF income.
Of course various countries are bigger or smaller than the UK. The countries with more expensive TV licences, and so higher per capita costs, include Germany at £184, Switzerland at £330, Denmark at £260, Norway at £310 and Sweden at £200. Enforcement is much the same, except countries like France add their TV licence to the council tax so evasion is harder and enforcement is easier. You are required by law to say if you have a TV or not. If a government has reduced spending in line with its income then surely it is obvious that the same level of spending could be achieved with far lower taxes if evasion was eliminated?
Maybe I should get a discussion going in my university
I would agree. I don't really watch much TV any more either and I'm thinking of getting rid of pay TV and just using FTA satellite. I spend more time online, reading or out and about than I do watching telly. I think another system that could work is where you just pay for the channels you want to watch (if you only want a few particular channels) and don't pay for the rest.
victim's property or loved ones, intimidation, or false claim of a right.
The collection of the "TV Licence" fee is a lawful activity in the UK, the right to collect the fee is established
by the relevant sections in the current Communications Act and the legacy of previously enacted statutes.
If you think otherwise, why not take a test case to law?
No, it's not at all
Do any of those public services you listed require you to produce a licence before you use them, and exclude you from the facility if you can't?
Last time I checked anyone can walk into a park without someone coming knocking on their door asking for payment.
Being part of society surely includes supporting others views, like those of people that just want to watch TV and not fund the BBC. The users that want to keep the BBC expect everyone that doesn't want it to fund their hobby. That in itself is selfish. If a sports fan wants to watch EPL games on Sky he has to fund Eastenders, how is that right? If viewers had the choice to only watch commercial TV and not pay a licence fee I think the majority would be happy with the commercial option. IMHO
Then why are you posting in a thread about the TV licence in Ireland?
Interesting point. Could the constant letters threatening legal action be seen as intimidation?
I withdrew Rights of Access to Capita, had a visit from TVL man, who was very polite and seemed a decent guy. Told him I'd withdrawn access and he went on his way. 3 days later I had a letter, again nicely worded, acknowledging withdrawal of access and I wouldn't be bothered for at least 3 years.
Then for about a week I had a letter pretty much every day telling me I could be taken to court and what to expect!
Fair play to the TVL man though, he was fine and nothing like the horror vids I've seen on YT.