Tv Licensing ?

[silverclaws]

I disagree with the concept of a license, because a license is the granting of permission by virtue of having paid up, that being the only qualification necessary is the fact that one has money to spend.

What's your stand on the driving licence?

Or a firearms licence? Do you disagree with these too? Should we all be allowed to go and buy guns and ammunition along with our weekly groceries?

Driving licence, one has to pass a test to state one is safe to operate a motor vehicle on the public highway, that form of licensing has good sense as a basis, a sense that promotes the safety of other road and pavement users.

Firearms, one has been certified as psychologically and morally better able to have the responsibility necessary with a fire arm for it's allowed purpose in this country and yes to prevent the circulation of lawful weapons and ammunition. Again a licence worth it's salt as it is for the promotion of safety of other people in this country ideally.

Does the TV licence fall into the same category as a driving licence and a fire arms licence, if so how ?

 

[IDB1]

Does the TV licence fall into the same category as a driving licence and a fire arms licence, if so how ?

You claimed to disagree with the concept of a licence.. the other examples are of licences.

And, for a firearms licence

one has been certified as psychologically and morally better able to have the responsibility necessary with a fire arm for it's allowed purpose in this country

your claim may be how it's supposed to be but the reality isn't quite as comforting.

 

[silverclaws]

The tv licence is a requirement that everyone should hold one as there is no provision for people who do not wish to own nor view a television, so in effect the tv licence is a tax on every household that is in the TVL's database and that because of information supplied in the past where new information is irrelevant, because it is not believed.

So fine ditch your tv, inform TVL you don't have a tv, but do you think it will stop there ?

Evidence proves it doesn't, it may for a while, but people who have got rid of their TV's and informed TVL have been harassed years later via the very same tirade of threatening letters followed up by visits to one's household, the same as if someone was refusing or had forgotten to pay the tax.

Guilty until proven innocent at the time, but for evermore remain a suspect and therefore expect to be harassed on a regular basis.

How that differs from the established premise of one is Innocent until Proven guilty in UK law.

 

[IDB1]

The tv licence is a requirement that everyone should hold one as there is no provision for people who do not wish to own nor view a television, so in effect the tv licence is a tax on every household that is in the TVL's database and that because of information supplied in the past where new information is irrelevant, because it is not believed..

There is provision, prove you don't have a TV. That the people who enforce the TV licence don't believe you is possibly more testament to the conclusion that a large chunk of those without a TV licence still watch channels that, by law, require a licence.

One bad apple and all that.

Guilty until proven innocent at the time, but for evermore remain a suspect and therefore expect to be harassed on a regular basis.

How that differs from the established premise of one is Innocent until Proven guilty in UK law.

It's not the only law that puts the accused in the position of proving innocence rather than the norm.

 

[silverclaws]

Like I said, one could go through the whole rigmarole of allowing the inspector at the door to gain access to view your equipment or lack thereof, but the suspicion always remains, as they do not have the right to search your premises and so believe one can stash away the offending equipment anywhere out of their sight, so for that time only one is innocent

But time moves on, situations change, but instead of waiting to be informed of changes, the TVL assumes there is a change and continues with their unpleasant and threatening methods of again attempting to illicit monies from householders on the basis that one just must have a tv as it is inconceivable to think there are actually people that have no wish to watch tv.

So again to stop the same repeating over and over ad finitum the house holder must allow the tv inspection contractor access to their private dwelling to again check if what they are saying at the door and the information supplied to the TVL in all honesty is true.

People who have reported on the ongoing battle with the TVL have said it is permanent ground hog day, which as a method of battle is an effective tactic, that of wearing an opponent down until their just accept.

It just makes one wonder if the TVL subscribe to gradualism.

 

[dyna-ti]

If it has a screen then the BBc and the Gov will collude to find a way to include it.
Remember this isnt about a fee to watch the BBc but a stealth tax on everyone in the UK

 

[JeRkY]

And I'll repeat, has the public truly realised benefit from services already privatised? Or have they been sold a wooden nickle, and merely seen "profit" and revenue skimmed off the top, whilst lack of investment because of the profit ethos, has seen a lack of service / infrastructure improvement, and demands of more revenue because there's inefficiencies they've ignored in favour of funding "profit".

It depends on how you measure success or improvement. And even that's largely useless as we have no way of knowing how fantastic or otherwise for example British Rail would be had privatisation not occurred. Not surprisingly I'd be inclined to say yes, because I prefer to not to live in a totalitarian world where all my services are provided by government. Competition makes prices fall, look at mobile phones or broadband compared to 10 years ago, would innovation be so fast or prices so low were BT to be in a monopoly situation? What would their incentive be?

Using your example of the privatisation of the countries rail network. I was reading not too long ago that the government now subsidises railtrack with a larger annual budget now than it did the entire BR organisation in 1994. And at the same time perceived quality of service associated industries and major project success rates have all suffered as a result due to poorly organised profit motivated firms making do with what was essentially for its time quality railstock and infrastructure for far longer than the conservative government at the time expected them to.

There are several articles I can link you too but wiki sums it up quite nicely in one spot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatisat ... vatisation

Privatisation isn't necessarily bad. The destruction of well regarded institutions for the benefit of shareholders should be considered carefully and resisted where morally required. (Alright BR had a bad rep but by todays standard most commuters would forgive a bad cup of tea)

 

[technodup]

Some 70% of voters want a vote on Britain's EU membership, and by a substantial nine-point margin respondents say they would vote for UK withdrawal.

Forty-nine per cent would vote to get Britain out of Europe, against just 40% who prefer to stay in.

Yes, I did read it - that's not the point.

The point I was trying to make, is that it's one thing to be mouthy at a certain point, completely another thing to actually follow through when voting. Which is why such polls aren't always that accurate when elections take place - idealism is one thing, but pragmatism tends to sting when the tick is near the box.

I never said anything was certain except that a majority want a say on it. You called 70% a few blowhards. FWIW I believe dependent on the question we would seek to limit our involvement with the EU.

I suspect many of the rich pay nothing like the percentage of tax that normal rate tax payers pay.

What's that line about statistics again? Much as I'd like to derail this further I won't, except to say WTF would anyone want to a) pay more than half their earning to government or b) pay any more tax than they can get away with?

But when I look at recent major government projects, Olympics, Millennium Dome, Scottish Parliament, NHS IT system, Edinburgh trams, defence procurement etc etc they're so over budget and/or late it's a wonder anyone wants them to run anything.

All those things were built by private companies.

Aye, commissioned by, paid by and overseen by government.

 

[Neil]

Some 70% of voters want a vote on Britain's EU membership, and by a substantial nine-point margin respondents say they would vote for UK withdrawal.

Forty-nine per cent would vote to get Britain out of Europe, against just 40% who prefer to stay in.

Yes, I did read it - that's not the point.

The point I was trying to make, is that it's one thing to be mouthy at a certain point, completely another thing to actually follow through when voting. Which is why such polls aren't always that accurate when elections take place - idealism is one thing, but pragmatism tends to sting when the tick is near the box.

I never said anything was certain except that a majority want a say on it. You called 70% a few blowhards. FWIW I believe dependent on the question we would seek to limit our involvement with the EU.

And I already said that I believe it's one thing to let people sound off when asked for a poll, quite another when it comes down to the wire and people actually vote.

Europe is often a contentious issue, but there's an awful lot of ignorance and reactionary guff spouted by a very vociferous demographic.

And anyway, has got precisely feck all to do with whether the BBC situation WRT licence fees is democratic, it was just a distraction.

I suspect many of the rich pay nothing like the percentage of tax that normal rate tax payers pay.

What's that line about statistics again?

You hum it, I'll play it.

Much as I'd like to derail this further I won't, except to say WTF would anyone want to a) pay more than half their earning to government or b) pay any more tax than they can get away with?

Did you forget? You asked about funding for the NHS, and questioned whether I just (presumably, punitively) advocated "Tax the rich" to which I responded suggesting a more equitable solution - and that's the point - I assert most of the rich probably pay nothing like the same proportion of tax that the lower classes pay - never mind anywhere near the feasible percentage of higher rate taxation.

All I'm suggesting is something more equitable - not necessarily some increased higher rate - just more measures to make it less avoided - or perhaps evaded. Look at why IR35 was brought in.

But when I look at recent major government projects, Olympics, Millennium Dome, Scottish Parliament, NHS IT system, Edinburgh trams, defence procurement etc etc they're so over budget and/or late it's a wonder anyone wants them to run anything.

All those things were built by private companies.

Aye, commissioned by, paid by and overseen by government.

So?

People are so ready to criticise the public sector for failing to meet deadlines or budgets - where's all the righteous indignation that the private sector often can't manage it, either?

 

[fiks]

If you don't have a TV, or don't watch live TV as it is broadcast, just ignore TVL!

Remember TVL have no powers at all (absolutely zero powers), they cannot actually do anything. All they can do is send you letters, which can go straight into the recycle bin, or knock on your door, in which case you just shut the door without saying a word.

It seems you could even remove their implied of access to your door if they keep on knocking on your door.

TVL rely on most people doing the right thing and use scare tactics on the rest. The scare tactics are similar to the ones used by bailiffs who similarly have no powers, as long as you do not let them in; official looking threatening letters, misleading statements of the consequences of failing to pay etc.