stopping tv licence fees

[GamekeeperToPoacher]

I am amused to inform you that I recently had a visit from TV licensing.

I answered a knock at the door and was asked "Are you Mr TurnedPoacher?"

To which I replied "and who the fig (close) are you?"

This small scruffy individual then whipped out a card identifying himself as being on behalf of TVL.

My response was to say that I really pleased to see him and that I had been waiting for his visit for two and a half years.

"Why do you keep harassing me? How come you send letters out which say I can check to see if I am on the NO TV list and then have to wait for a letter reply? You have a computer use it! Why do you write to say that you will not bother me for the next 2 years and then send me a letter 2 weeks later? Why do you keep threatening to send a numptie round to visit me when you have been advised that you will NEVER be given access?"

 

He became less flustered and more business like and then said "Do you have a TV?"

I replied "yes"

He said "You do not have a licence"

I said "Agreed!"

He said "Why not?" getting out his notebook licking his pencil stub.

I said "Because I do not need one, Your web site, not some blokes around the corner or anarchistsRus, but YOUR official site says that I don't need one as I do not use my TV for watching TV as it is broadcast or recording TV as it is broadcast!"

He said "That's correct. Do you mind if I come in to check?"

I said "No", and as he made a move to enter completed the sentence by saying "as long as you are able to knit fog or plait jam!" whereupon he stayed where he was.

He then threatened that he would have to pass it back to the office!

So here we are a week or so along waiting to see what will happen.

 

GKTP

 

Just so that we can be clear about this.

 

I do have a TV

I do NOT watch TV as it is broadcast, or close to.

If there is something I would like to watch I wait for at least 24 hours before downloading/watching catch up.

I have no real objection to the licensing system - if you wish to enroll in it then pay your dues.

I do hate bullies who try to 'invent' law and intimidate people.

[Guest jsa12]

it appears auntie beeb is behaving like ma baker.stop paying this disgracful practice of lies' and thuggery.

[chomerly]

If you want to stop paying the TV license fee like i have done myself, and you also want to stop these jumped up, confrontational agents knocking on your door, then all you have to do is send the TVLA (TV licensing Agency/Authority) a notice of removal of implied right of access for your property.

 

A bit like this one below.

 

 

NOTICE

 

 

Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal; Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent

 

REMOVAL OF IMPLIED RIGHT OF ACCESS to the Property:

1 Your Street, Your Town, Your City, Your Postcode

 

Notice is hereby given that Implied Right of Access to the above named Property

along with all associated properties therein, including, but not limited to, any private

conveyance in respect of the following have been removed and will apply to any

Employee, Agent, Principal, Third Party and/or other Persons.

 

Exemptions of notice are:

Police Officers acting under ‘Oath of Office’ and with a ‘Lawful Warrant’

Royal Mail and other Registered postal courier delivery services

 

 

Any infringement of this notice without express pre-written and signed

consent from the Legal Owner/Occupier may result in a fine of, but not exceeding, £250 plus costs

for each Person and Corporation separately, for each infringement made.

I am also demanding that any associated details, are removed from your database and also the mailing list as it is unsolicited mail that you are wasting those who support the BBC’ fee’s on.

 

I may also be discussing my options with a solicitor should you, your company and ANY agents acting on behalf of you and your company decide to ignore this notice.

This will include giving copies of any video evidence, police records, witness statements and this letter to my solicitor.

 

YOU have been forewarned.

[Conniff]

Sorry but a letter saying you can't visit will have no effect on an officer lawfully investigating the non payment of government taxes.

 

If you truely believe that will exempt you from a tv license, can you do me one for income tax please.

[danielr]

If you want to stop paying the TV license fee like i have done myself, and you also want to stop these jumped up, confrontational agents knocking on your door, then all you have to do is send the TVLA (TV licensing Agency/Authority) a notice of removal of implied right of access for your property.

 

A bit like this one below.

 

 

NOTICE

 

 

Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal; Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent

 

REMOVAL OF IMPLIED RIGHT OF ACCESS to the Property:

1 Your Street, Your Town, Your City, Your Postcode

 

Notice is hereby given that Implied Right of Access to the above named Property

along with all associated properties therein, including, but not limited to, any private

conveyance in respect of the following have been removed and will apply to any

Employee, Agent, Principal, Third Party and/or other Persons.

 

Exemptions of notice are:

Police Officers acting under ‘Oath of Office’ and with a ‘Lawful Warrant’

Royal Mail and other Registered postal courier delivery services

 

 

Any infringement of this notice without express pre-written and signed

consent from the Legal Owner/Occupier may result in a fine of, but not exceeding, £250 plus costs

for each Person and Corporation separately, for each infringement made.

I am also demanding that any associated details, are removed from your database and also the mailing list as it is unsolicited mail that you are wasting those who support the BBC’ fee’s on.

 

I may also be discussing my options with a solicitor should you, your company and ANY agents acting on behalf of you and your company decide to ignore this notice.

This will include giving copies of any video evidence, police records, witness statements and this letter to my solicitor.

 

YOU have been forewarned.

I would imagine that you have as much right to charge a fine as private parking companies do. (have a look in the parking tickets section to see what right that is.)

 

Other than that. That letter is crazy. It's just written in some confusing hoping that confusing means legally binding terms. It's a bunch of bull and will have no effect.

 

Who exactly are you hoping to send it to? The letter implies it's a notice to all agents of the crown... Do I assume you're sending it to the queen?

 

(it's written so badly that it reminds me of the similar common law of the land crud that was being spouted by people a few years ago as some kind of excuse to live in a tent in parliament square. They all ended up in court).

 

It's a choice. You either pay a tv license or you don't recurve live broadcasts. (simple as that.)

[Conniff]

Maybe chomerly should also post this in the Bailiffs section to stop them knocking on peoples doors.

[chomerly]

I would imagine that you have as much right to charge a fine as private parking companies do. (have a look in the parking tickets section to see what right that is.)

 

It's not about the money.

The threat of money being levied from you is used in all of the material they send to you in the form of a renewal reminder or because maybe you haven't got a license yet.

 

If they can threaten us with prosecution with a fine if we don't do what they say, then why can't we?

And what makes you so sure that you couldn't successfully fine them anyway?

I know about the parking tickets thread but this is hardly the same thing.

 

When someone continues to come to your property on behalf of a company, after you have made a clear written notice sent via recorded delivery, they are causing you a tort of nuisance.

Read tort law it will explain much more than i am prepared to right now but remedial action can be taken against the offending person/company and it doesn't have to be money.

 

 

Other than that. That letter is crazy. It's just written in some confusing hoping that confusing means legally binding terms. It's a bunch of bull and will have no effect.

 

How so is it crazy?

Can you even validate that statement?

 

I refuse to pay for a TV license.

I refuse because i have a big issue with the BBC.

The above letter is more or less a direct copy of the one i sent them earlier this year.

They sent a letter back stating only that they will adhere to my rights to remove their implied right of access and i have never heard from them again.

Maybe you should read up on various forms of law, starting with constitutional and common law, and then come back and tell its a bunch of bull.

 

Who exactly are you hoping to send it to? The letter implies it's a notice to all agents of the crown... Do I assume you're sending it to the queen?

 

Yes, you do assume but no, it hasn't been sent to the Queen. And why would it be?

 

And where does it say notice to all agents of the crown?

 

(it's written so badly that it reminds me of the similar common law of the land crud that was being spouted by people a few years ago as some kind of excuse to live in a tent in parliament square. They all ended up in court).

 

Common law land crud?

You'll have to elaborate on that a bit.

As far as i was aware, the UK has it's whole constitution established on what is common law.

In fact, the UK is a common law jurisdiction so where does the crud come into it?

 

I really don't know who was arrested or not at parliament square. I doubt highly it was everyone.

They were there to protest about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

They had a legitimate reason for doing it and from the beginning they said that they would move if Britain brought our troops back home.

 

Their forced movement wasn't anything to do with any laws being broken, as their rights to peaceful protests are another of our common law rights.

It was a case of politicians becoming fed up of seeing them out there day in day out and they wanted to get rid of them. This was achieved by allowing the police to remove them and then they would deal with the complaints afterwards with zero repercussions for the officers involved.

 

It's a choice. You either pay a tv license or you don't recurve live broadcasts. (simple as that.)

 

But what if, as i do, make more uses of a TV besides just watching television?

Does that mean i should have a license too?

 

There is NO law that requires me to buy a TV license because i own a television set.

 

The easiest thing to say in this is,

If you haven't actually done this then there is no point commenting.

 

To say that its rubbish and that it won't change anything when you yourself haven't got a clue is just the blind leading the blind.

I have done this and as i stated previously, they were sent a notice giving them fair and forewarning and that they are not welcome at my home.

They even sent a letter back stating that they would adhere to the notice.

 

Don't dismiss something before you have tried it for yourself.

 

 

 

 

Maybe chomerly should also post this in the Bailiffs section to stop them knocking on peoples doors.

 

 

It will work for them too.

It's the same as demanding that they only contact you via letter as you will not speak to anyone face to face and refuse to take their calls.

 

It doesn't remove any obligation to a lawful debt you may owe. I want to make that absolutely clear.

[Consumer dude]

You can almost be sure that they won't knock on the door today. If they do, let us know and we will get santa to sort em out. lol.

[Conniff]

If they can threaten us with prosecution with a fine if we don't do what they say, then why can't we?

 

Only courts can fine someone.

 

But what if, as i do, make more uses of a TV besides just watching television?

Does that mean i should have a license too?

 

If one of those uses includes watching live tv broadcast, then a license is required. It is a criminal offence to do otherwise.

 

I don't think there is anyone saying they like paying this tax, but that is how it is and if you take all the BBC offers, then it's not an unfair tax. You can bet you get a lot more use out of them than you realise and it's not all just old and repeated movies.

[danielr]

If they can threaten us with prosecution with a fine if we don't do what they say, then why can't we?

And what makes you so sure that you couldn't successfully fine them anyway?

perhaps because their fines are imposed with accordance to the law, and your fines are, well... exactly the same as parking "fines" you're saying you'll be sending them a fine if you come knocking on your door, if they come onto your land, after you have removed their access.

it's just like a parking "fine"... if you bring your car to my property... except you say agent where private parking firms say car.

which is what makes me pretty sure...

Only courts can fine someone.

Oh, and that.

 

How so is it crazy?

Can you even validate that statement?

it was that

Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal; Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent

part, that tipped me off, it makes no sense, it's circular...

you letter promises juicy fines against the licensing authority just for sending inspectors to knock...

it's making a promise to people who chose to send this letter, and it's a promise that is just false, and one that won't stand up... -though I suspect that you'd be long gone before the first person is round here asking how they got into a mess of having paid to bring proceedings against the licensing authority that they failed, and had a rather expensive time of it too.

 

Common law land crud?

search for posts by a guy named freeman of the land [or something like that]. he also claimed that everything was based on common law... to be honest, that was a completely separate debate, and one that doesn't bear any resemblance to this thread, the only thing that's anywhere close is his grasp of what could and couldn't be done. (legally) like your threat of a fine.

 

And where does it say notice to all agents of the crown?

if you're not sending it to agents of the crown, then why feel the need to make exceptions for your notice for postmen, who never act on behalf of TV licensing?

 

But what if, as i do, make more uses of a TV besides just watching television?

Does that mean i should have a license too?

 

There is NO law that requires me to buy a TV license because I own a television set.

if your use of a TV is watching videos, then fine, don't pay a license fee.

if you just play computer games on it, then fine don't pay a license fee.

if you use is as an extended monitor on your computer for watching iplayer, then fine don't pay a license fee.

 

The law only covers the reception of live broadcast, (I it used to be operating equipment capable of receiving live broadcast actually, so unless you've actually removed the ability of your TV to receive broadcast you may still be in the wrong... the TV licensing site appears to have changed the language -but I'd happily be proven wrong on that one)

 

I have done this and as i stated previously, they were sent a notice giving them fair and forewarning and that they are not welcome at my home.

They even sent a letter back stating that they would adhere to the notice.

Actually, I said that the letter was crazy, and said that you'd have zero chance of fining them.

the principal, is an interesting one.

you're telling them you have no TV and you don't want their inspectors turning up all the time harassing you.

 

You're right, it's exactly like saying you only want to be dealt with by letter.

 

What I question, is the pseudo legal language of your letter. claiming rights that just don't exist!

 

Also having just read details of a laws regarding nuisance, and the (what I thought was much more likely to apply) laws regarding harassment, I don't think that either can apply to the situation where an inspector comes to your house to make sure that you are living within the law.

(I don't think this is the case any more than you could argue a policeman with a speed camera at the end of your road was harassing you. Someone with a banner decrying either you or the people that you work for could be deemed to be harassing you in this situation, because they are in the vicinity of your property, but a policeman, or other official working within the law?) If they were knocking everyday then you might have something to argue about.

 

As I said, concept: interesting.

Text in the letter: baffling/confusing -deliberately so to make it sound more legal than it actually is.

promises made in the letter: false, and unenforceable.

[tvlicensingblog]

Sorry but a letter saying you can't visit will have no effect on an officer lawfully investigating the non payment of government taxes.

 

If you truely believe that will exempt you from a tv license, can you do me one for income tax please.

 

That's incorrect actually.

The BBC, who act as the statutory Licensing Authority responsible for all TV Licensing matters, have said that they will comply with any lawful instruction withdrawing their implied right of access. In such an event they "reserve the right to use alternative methods of detection", but that's pretty meaningless too because their detection evidence has never been used in court.

Unfortunately I can't live link to the BBC documents confirming either of these two cases, although I have blogged about them in the past under the titles "Fascinating Insight into BBC WOIRA Policies" and "BBC Confirms Detector Van Evidence Never Used in Court" (those articles include links to primary BBC documents confirming the case).

Furthermore TV Licensing employees aren't "officers" in any sense of the word. They are employed by a private company, Capita Business Services Ltd., to sell as many licences as they can because it's in the BBC/TV Licensing/Capita's commercial interests for them to do that. It is also in their own interests to sell as many licences as they can, because they receive commission for each one. A consequence of this, as the BBC has confirmed to us, is that several TV Licensing employees have fabricated evidence to obtain commission payments by deception.

Slightly disappointed with the misinformation in your post, particularly as you're one of the big cheeses around here.

Edited December 28, 2011 by tvlicensingblog

[fro]

I started paying like 5 years ago, and didn't pay for 4 years before that. I was a student at the time and unless they come at 11pm they won't find me at home. TV at that time was only ever used for gaming, although back then i thought i was getting away with it but thinking back i didn't actually require one, never watch live TV didn't have sky at the time either.I decided to start paying as i don't want the embarrassment - dining with friends and TV license at the door etc, In these hard times I will have to cancel my Sky and TV license and adopt my student days technique - gaming and watch iplayer on ps3. I will still own a TV would this also be wrong?

[andydd]

Im under the impression that the BBC do indeed respect the right to withdraw access to your property.....BUT Ive read that they would use this as the step as evidence to get a court warrant to visist the property (whilst it is very rare they do this, it is done).

 

Andy

[tvlicensingblog]

Im under the impression that the BBC do indeed respect the right to withdraw access to your property.....BUT Ive read that they would use this as the step as evidence to get a court warrant to visist the property (whilst it is very rare they do this, it is done).

 

Andy

 

For TV Licensing to obtain a search warrant they must demonstrate the following to the court:

- reasonable evidence that an offence is being committed.

- voluntary access to the property has been refused by the occupier.

By issuing a WOIRA instruction the occupier falls foul of point 2, which could assist TV Licensing in obtaining a warrant.

It has to be stressed that search warrants are extremely rare, with the vast majority of TV licence convictions stemming from the occupiers admission of using TV in an unlicensed property.

[duncy]

We should take this argument a stage further...

 

Why is there a TV licence at all? 98.2% of households have a television licence, and yet it costs £500m to collect the licence fee. It is a most unfair tax on those living on low wage or on social welfare benefits, including pensioners under 70. Those people are paying over a week's income in a regressive tax just to watch the idiot box as they wait to die.

 

It would be far more just and certainly more prudent to simply heave the licence fee into general taxation, and apportion the cost of funding the BBC (et al) fairly across the populus.

 

That would allow for the complete abolition of the TV Licence, and the abolition of the TV Licensing Authority (TVLA) that collects the Licence Fee.

 

That juicy £500m a year contract that the TVLA has with Crapita plc to collect and administer the TV Licence would be torn into lots of little shreds.

 

The flipside is that Crapita plc, darling of New Labour and now darling of Old Tory, would lose a massive chunk of its revenues. That is unfortunate for the City, but alas, in this terminal phase of the economy, needs must.

 

But perhaps there is a darker reason for keeping the licence? Hold on tight for we enter now the realms of Conspiracy Theory. With no TV licence, the Government, elected and otherwise, would lose a crucial bellwether for gauging propaganda penetration.

 

Without no TV licence to check for propaganda penetration, how else could the Government be sure that its fairytale narratives had reached the hearts and minds of the vast majority of the population?

 

The Third Reich outlawed Home Schooling for the same reason. Goebbels deemed Home Schoolers to pose a grave threat to the propaganda model. Home schooled youths were slipping through the safety net of Nazi mental conditioning. Some were even thinking for themselves. And that would never do.

 

The TV Licence is there for the same reasons. To reassure the Government that the masses are thinking in quick step: clickety click, clickety click, hear the tap of the sergeant's stick. This is London! * cue Lillibullero tune * And now for the Archers!

 

Until the licence is abolished, it's easier just to pay the wretched licence fee. At that rate, the Government assumes that your household is safely in the club of brainwashed airheads and passes you by. Move along. Nothing here to see.

Edited February 10, 2012 by duncy

[sequenci]

I don't mind paying £12.37 a month for three episodes of Sherlock a year and a decent news network.

[Aequitas]

The present position is that if prescribed conditions are fulfilled you must pay the licence fee. Surely all law abiding citizens liable to pay the fee should pay. Bearing in mind that those who do not pay are effectively stealing from those who do pay because the level of the fee is set to take account of people not paying, what measures is it reasonable for whoever is responsible for collecting the fee to take to ensure compliance with the law? What is the objection those who insist they are not breaking the law have to the collection agency's authorised representative inspecting their premises to see if the law is being flouted?

 

Let people bear in mind that there are strong media interests who want to see the end of the BBC because it sets the benchmark for quality that they have at least to make a token effort to match. The end of the BBC will spell the end of quality - not a problem if you do not want quality. If you read horror articles in The Sun about how the licence fee is collected remember that it is owned by Rupert Murdoch who controls Sky TV. Once the BBC is gone do you think that Sky is going to (i) reduce it prices or (ii) put up its prices? You will end up paying more for less. Never mind the threats about not paying your licence fee, Sky is ruthless in enforcing its rights through the courts.

[chomerly]

The present position is that if prescribed conditions are fulfilled you must pay the licence fee. Surely all law abiding citizens liable to pay the fee should pay. Bearing in mind that those who do not pay are effectively stealing from those who do pay because the level of the fee is set to take account of people not paying, what measures is it reasonable for whoever is responsible for collecting the fee to take to ensure compliance with the law? What is the objection those who insist they are not breaking the law have to the collection agency's authorised representative inspecting their premises to see if the law is being flouted?

 

 

It's thinking like this that i have a huge problem with.

 

That attitude, or belief of "that if you haven't got anything to hide then you have nothing to worry about" is just shocking.

The fact is, everyone has the right to be left alone and everyone has the right to NOT feel as though you are constantly being watched?

 

What you are basically saying in your post is that everyone is guilty until proven innocent and i'm sorry, that is akin to the behaviour of governments in communist countries.

And to say that those who don't pay for a TV license are effectively stealing is a very broad accusation to make.

 

What if you have someone who never watches television?

 

What if you have someone who never watches television but owns a mobile phone and a computer?

 

Both of those objects are capable of receiving live broadcasts so does it mean that for someone who never watches television they are thieves by the merely owning such devices?

 

 

I believe that if the you, the government and the BBC are so confident that this 'great' British institution is so fundamentally 'great' they should put it to the test by making it a pay per view channel.

And no one can argue that it isn't conceivable due to cost constraints.

The fact that the country will have changed the broadcasting platform from analogue over to digital would mean the cost of scrambling the BBC channels would be pennies in real terms.

 

We know that isn't going to happen though.

It won't happen because there is too much money made from the current system and it won't happen because it would mean the system would be 100% fairer on the population as a whole.

[Aequitas]

It's thinking like this that i have a huge problem with. Etc

 

Fine. I'll run with a lot of what you say.

 

But presumably you do believe people should comply with the law and that the law should be enforced. If so, please answer the question I posed above:

 

What measures is it reasonable to take to ensure compliance with the law?

[chomerly]

Fine. I'll run with a lot of what you say.

 

But presumably you do believe people should comply with the law and that the law should be enforced. If so, please answer the question I posed above:

 

What measures is it reasonable to take to ensure compliance with the law?

 

To be honest, i couldn't care less about the so called 'law' over TV licensing.

I honestly believe that it's a waste of money and it only serves to give news to and current affairs, when it does, in the way it is required by our ever so great government.

 

I believe that qualifies it as propaganda.

 

The fact is, the BBC, it's licensing arm and people like yourself all adopt an attitude like the one i stated in my previous post.

If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about.

 

Well i do have something to hide. Or at least i have a life that is private and i want to keep it that way.

But then the government, especially during Labours shambolic run, loved to change the word privacy for the word hiding.

 

So, to answer your question again, No. I don't care if someone pays their TV license or not.

Even if they do watch TV or not.

There are much more important issues happening in this country than the state of television and/or it's licensing.

 

You can argue that it isn't fair if one person is watching TV under license while another is not.

The fact is, the system in this country isn't fair.

If it was then we would have,

 

1. A proportional representation vote.
   
2. The rich would pay their fair share in taxes instead of moving their taxable income to some offshore account.
   
3. Big business would pay the correct amount of tax owed instead of being let off millions (Vodaphone and Tesco) while small to medium businesses get all manner of fines and grief from the tax department.
   
4. Politicians would be arrested and prosecuted under the law, in the same way you or i would be, if we fiddled our expenses. All are equal under the law are they not?
   
5. The BBC's digital channels would be scrambled so that those who do want it pay and those who do not want it don't.
   

As for reasonable measures for compliance.

 

SCRAMBLE THE BBC's DIGITAL CHANNELS.

 

There can be NO complaints on fairness then.

[Bang!]

Fine. I'll run with a lot of what you say.

 

But presumably you do believe people should comply with the law and that the law should be enforced. If so, please answer the question I posed above:

 

What measures is it reasonable to take to ensure compliance with the law?

 

 

Its good to see you standing up for ensuring compliance with the law.

 

But why do you overlook that there is no law to permit commission seekers having access to your home, or to harass you with letters etc.

 

Now if you can tell us a time that is suitable for some of us to pop round to your house to ensure there is no child porn on your computer - don't worry - we will just check that "the law is not being flouted".

 

Also, anyone who does pop round will have the exact same legal authority as the TV tax commission seekers.

 

So will you let us in?

[Aequitas]

We can have a debate about whether Britain in the 21st century needs public service broadcasting and, if so, how it should be financed. We can talk about whether the BBC is good value for money. We can express disapproval about methods used to encourage payment of the licence fee. The question I pose though is quite straightforward and no one has answered it. Given that the law is as it is, how should it be enforced?

 

In case there is any misunderstanding I do not think that any of the "powers that be" should have the right arbitrarily to enter your house. Entry without consent should be in circumstances clearly defined by law and only after proper enquiry has been made; the only exception should be the proper exercise by the police of their powers of arrest or to prevent the commission of a crime. So I can go along with the "my home is my castle" routine but not to the extent that the right to privacy is twisted to prevent the detection of crime.

 

What some seem to be saying here is that if a duly authorised person calls and makes enquiries concerning TV licences that he is required to take the occupier's word for it that the premises do not require a licence. If it is said that it should be down to the licensing authority to prove the existence of the equipment how are they to go about it? If they are not to go about it then the payment of the licence fee is down to honest citizens paying it. Further, as I said above, those honest citizens are paying more because the level of the fee is calculated to take account of those who do not pay.

 

Chomerly list things he considers unfair. I could easily add to the list. There are some who argue that road tax is unfair if you only take your car out on Sunday afternoon, others that they should not have to pay national insurance if they have private healthcare and so on. Are we to concede that those who consider any particular tax is unfair should be exempt from paying it?

 

Whatever we may think of the government in power at any given moment, Britain is a democracy and there are really no good reasons for its citizens to refuse to abide by the laws passed by elected lawgivers. Being required to hold a licence to be in possession of television signal receiving equipment is hardly oppressive. If you want to know what oppressive is go and talk to older people brought up in Spain, Portugal, Poland or East Germany.

[Conniff]

The question I pose though is quite straightforward and no one has answered it. Given that the law is as it is, how should it be enforced?

 

The TV License is a tax. Failure to pay taxes is a criminal offence so there can be no other means of enforcement.

 

I do not think that any of the "powers that be" should have the right arbitrarily to enter your house

 

They do not have a right of entry into your house without warrant.

 

I also think that all countries should have a state owned media company and television is the most powerful of those media companies.

[Bedsit Bob]

It is only if you're watching

 

Correct

 

or have the equipment to watch live TV.

 

Incorrect.

 

Mere possession of receiving equipment does not require a licence.

[Bedsit Bob]

I don't want to pay licence fee anymore I never watch the beeb, the annoying thing is we have no choice!

 

Actually you do have a choice.

 

You can stop watching and/or recording live TV, then you won't need a licence.