Slashdot Mirror
British Government Considers Tax on Computers
Jumbo Jimbo writes "A story in the UK Times talks about the UK government's proposals to tax personal computers, as a replacement for the television license currently paid by every household with a TV. These are proposals and aren't intended for a few years yet, but due to the growth of computer ownership, this would probably amount to a tax on nearly everybody. Hope it's not per computer, or those people with a pile of old 286s in the shed could be in for a shock."
I know its better than old news, but are you aware that this is just one of many possible schemes, and that none of them are due to take effect before 2017.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
There is so much conjecture and guess work in this, that I don't know where to start. The BBC has only just had its charter renewed for the next 10 years, so imagining what will happen after that is total guess work.
unless they'll levy the tax on components as well they can hardly prevent me from building my own, it'd be difficult to implement on eBay as well.
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
...When TVs are becoming replaced by computers as a method of visual communication. It's far easier to live without a TV than a computer now, and they know that. So much for the people protesting the tax by not using a TV, if this goes through.
Not mooted until 2017 currently. The playing field will be a lot different by then, so it may be moved forward.
I would expect the fees would be a lot lower than the £120 TV licence currently in place. PC users would not be accessing BBC content 24/7.
[% slash_sig_val.text %]
I'm a big fan of the BBC's independence, and also of the license fee to pay for it, therefore I would like to continue seeing the BBC funded by the taxpayer for the forseeable future. Saying that, I'm not entirely convinced that a computer tax is the right way to go about this.
If you buy a television, you're pretty likely to be watching tv shows on it, and therefore the license fee seems like a good idea. With PCs, the scope of activity is pretty much unlimited, so I can't really see the connection between computers and BBC funding. Although, this may all change in the future as no-one really yet knows how television will eventually integrate with computers. All we can do is speculate.
I'm not stressed. I'm just terribly, terribly alert.
I'm getting a Linux-powered microwave!
Just
Tax on televisions could be justified as a service fee (You pay BBC progams). But for cumputers what is the service you are paying for? And i do not like regressive taxation. In my country (Italy) it is uncostitutional. (and governments ignores that routinely, but that is another matter...) Excuse my horrible english.
Grumble grumble already paying 17.5% VAT on anything and everything with a transistor in grumble grumble computer prices already terribly high in the UK grumble grumble... ;-)
If the issue is that people will one day (heh) be able to watch the telly thanks to broadband internet at home, why not have a small but compulsory licence fee on home internet connections? It's not like conventional TV where any old bit of wire can pick up the transmissions, you'd need a suitably authorised ISP and whatever to connect to the giant BBC media servers, and people can easily opt out by, um, not using broadband. Or something!
Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
The games i play on my computer have nothing to do with TV that BBC broadcasts.
Sample this!
ER?
Im not a specialist in this, but HOW are they going to know if you have computers, apart from actually coming into your house and checking?
With TV's its pretty simple, you have this massive aerial plus they can pick up signals off your TV (or so they claim), does anyone know if PC's give off any types of signal like this?
And if they do come in? Well, im repairing these old pc's for friends and family, i dont OWN any of them.
Same way a PC repair man doesn't need a TV licence for his shop (unless of course hes broadcasting the TV to the shoppers).
- http://www.milkme.co.uk
Presumably the reasoning is that people are using "computers" to access the BBC.
I don't see any relevant application of the tax unless they plan to offer free internet, etc. I think they would be better served to tax other things.. such as each tube ticket and use the money to hire henchmen wjo would force those lazy twats on the tube to work rather than strike when the tea room at earl's court is not up to snuff.
No, they're saying that broadcast television is likely to give way to internet delivered content, and so it makes no sense to charge those people using TVs, and let Internet users have access to the content for free. Even now, I use the BBC's online resources far more than I watch their television shows. By 2017 (the earliest these plans are expected to be enacted), I very much doubt I will still own a television as a stand-alone device.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Time to throw all your computers into the ocean in protest of this tax! Get ready for the revolution and be ready to attack on Christmas....when they least suspect it! To glorious battle we go!
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
"Here's one for you, nineteen for me"
</GEORGEHARRISON>
Moll.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
We fought against taxation without representation. Now, we have representation without enough taxation (at least for our level of of spending). Makes me think about the line in the patriot when MG says, "A king 1000's of miles away can do as much as 1000 kings 1 mile away" (or something like that).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
It should be noted that current licence is effectively based around *households* if I remember rightly. You buy a licence, it doesn't matter how many TVs you've got in your house, they are all covered. I do believe though that when you buy a tv you are technically required to register it under your name and address still (old radio law?). However, if we are to assume that the BBC retains its status as the national broadcasting organisation, protected by law and financed by a licence fee, then it makes sense that they move away from a licence on TV sets. I think the slashdot crowd would agree with the BBC that the TV is not going to be the only device that people will use in future to receive AV broadcasting, so it is forward thinking of the BBC to move away from a model based around the TV. The question is therefore, what is the licence based on? individuals? devices? households? Of course we can step one step backwards and ask if a licence model is the way to go.
If I am to be taxed for ownership of a PC, with the grounds being that I can use this to access BBC-produced broadcasts, then I better actually had be able to access that content.
In other words, that content has to be accessible on a Mac, on Linux (any distro, my choice), on a PC, on some wondeful-but-yet-to-be-conceived-of OS that gets written in 2009...anything. If they're taxing me for it, then I must be able to receive the benefit the tax is actually on.
Incidently, I'm not opposed to the license fee (I'm in the UK). I believe my money to be well spent on the Beeb, though not necesasrily on television so much as radio and the internet.
Cheers,
Ian
Of course it makes sense. What do you think the Modern Oligarchy depends upon? Well educated people have more to lose and are less likely to take risky or low-wage (or both) employment.
Be a realist.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
This will be bad news. If the BBC wants revenue it can encrypt and charge for *its own site*.
And what of the content I provide? Can I get a rebate on the tax by setting up my own website and providing content (or will internet broadcast licences be introduced as well?).
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
This is how British politics works. In the UK, there is a knee-jerk reaction to like more taxes, however unfair and unwise, just as in the US there is an automatic tendency to like tax cuts, however unfair and unwise.
British counter-example.
Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
Would this computer tax cover anything with a microprocessor in it such as calculators, wristwatches, mobile phones, etc. as they are technically computers. And would it include old computers not capable of accessing the internet or server systems and networks?
Fat people are hard to kidnap
Actually at the time of the revolution in the United States British taxes were lower, in fact, were almost non-existent. This is why the capitalist businessmen in the eastern states launched the Boston Tea Party and "No taxation without representation" - because they could not compete with better, cheaper British imports. Thus began the current United States - capitalism without a real principle of fair competition.
Dave Bell
The actual article is quite short and brief, but I condense it here to attempt to avoid questions answered in the article.
... suggested "either a compulsory levy on all households or even on ownership of PCs as well as TVs". It said that technology might render it difficult to collect and enforce the fee.
... ... ... /edited
"THE BBC licence fee should be replaced by a tax on the ownership of a personal computer instead of a television, ministers said yesterday.
Tessa Jowell told the BBC that the licence fee would be retained for at least another ten years until 2017 in return for abolishing the Board of Governors. But the Culture Secretary conceded that technological advances would mean that a fee based on "television ownership could become redundant".
More than six million households have access to high-speed broadband connections and the BBC has begun experimenting with broadcasting video clips over the internet.
A legal loophole highlighted by the communications regulator Ofcom means that viewers could watch television and listen to radio over the internet and mobile devices free, potentially costing the BBC millions of pounds in licence fees.
The Dept for Culture, Media and Sport's Green Paper setting out the BBC's long-term future
Officially, the Government says that changes would not be needed until 2017,... but insiders said that the department would act if internet viewing took off.
Over the next few years, internet broadcasting is set to increase rapidly... The BBC already broadcasts all its radio stations over the internet, and [some TV too]
Ofcom predicts that more than half of Britain's households will be watching television over the internet by 2012. Other emerging technologies will allow television to be broadcast direct to mobile phones. [O2 aiming to test in 2007]
Even go a stage further and insist every household has to have someone with a PC use accreditation to be able to connect to the Internet.
As a computer geek, I'm sick and tired of having to endlessly fix the crappy Windows PCs of friends and relatives, I'm totally bored with spending time keeping my machines (both Linux and Windows ones) updated only to still have my Internet connection slow to a crawl every time the latest Windows worm hits and maybe the government can "sponsor" non-commercial citizens' web-sites so that I'm not constantly bombarded by banner ads and pop-ups every time I load a page in my browser.
UK Gov. can even go a stage further and send out a free Knoppix CD with each PC Tax registration form :-)
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Incase anybody didn't notice, this comment was made as part of a general debate on possible loop holes and issues that might exist when the 10 year renewal is up, it was not part of any formal law or decision making process.
As an MP was rightly pointing out, there is a potential loophole where a household may not own any televisions at all, and only computers and monitors (without any tv tuner card, as thats already covered) through which they may be able to watch the increasing amount of tv programs the bbc make available over the internet, and thus avoid paying the tv license fee under the current rules.
its pretty obvious that someone is going to suggest 'tax all computers instead then' as a solution to that loop hole, it doesnt mean thats sensible or will ever be seriously considered, its just media sensationalism on an otherwise dull topic.
It's going to be interesting to see what a computer precisely is. PCs and laptops are obvious, but how about a dreambox or divx-player or wifi accesspoint running linux or something similar? A firewall appliance? How about a Xbox or a Playstation? Is a subnotebook a computer? A PDA? A smartphone?
Not to mention stuff like internet-connected fridges - an internet connection tax, like one AC mentioned, is more likely. Except that most new mobile phones can connect to the Net, even if they can't display webpages...
Of course this generalisation applies more to the left than to the right, but then the left are in power at the moment... The Tories still try to win votes with tax cuts, but interestingly these days they focus on choice. As you note, tax cuts are not as popular as they once were. I would suggest this is because people realise that taking money away from public services is hardly going to improve them, but that's just my feeling.
The public dental health issue is tricky, but for all other health areas the NHS is considering a lumbering dinosaur, but one that will still suffice for most people. Dental health is difficult because all the dentists are going private, and thus it is hard to actually find an NHS dentist. The quality of NHS dentists is considered by just about everyone to be equivalent to the quality of private, it's just the supply of them that is a problem.
The tax on PCs appears (I haven't RTFA) to be a possible replacement for the TV licence. If this is the case, it would not be a new tax - just moving an old one onto new technology.
They could just add a small percentage tax to the sale of all new computers, and use the funds raised to develop interesting projects like Westminster Wireless City, or to start giving us proper broadband speeds (ie 10/100 Mbs) in London (obviously they shouldn't bother with any of this stuff in the North or the countryside).
UK govt imposed this absolutely HUGE tax hike for the benefit of 'health'
Ah, that would be the National Health Service - you'll find many _civilised_ countries have them, perhaps that's why your unused to universal healthcare.
P.S. My teeth are pretty good, but your morality has a large area of significant decay.
Once upon a time in Europe, there used to be a tax on windows (they were considered a sign of wealth)
I've since emigrated to Australia and here is where you see what effect the TV licence has: the BBC stations provide a benchmark of quality that the commercial stations have to match and they generally do. Well, compared to the Australian stations, they do.
Australian commercial stations treat the audience like a numbers game. They won't make a commitment to a series unless it keeps getting great ratings, and by 'commitment', I mean that they won't keep a series in prime time long enough for it to the story to mature and to catch on (examples: Farscape got booted to beyond midnight after about 4 episodes and you should have seen the backflip with The Sopranos series 4) or they'll decide to axe a show because the station owner doesn't like what he sees (example: Packer pulling the "Michallef" show because of a comment Michallef made).
They show movies, but intersperse them with so many adverts, animated station ID's, "what's next" scrolling banners and the like that you lose any sense of the 'magic' that a good movie can bring. Maybe British TV has gone to hell since I left, but I doubt it can be as bad as commercial Australian TV.
A solution for viewing sanity is the PVR and here's where I link back to the posted topic: by taxing PCs, the British government ministers are looking to the future (2017) when TVs are computers in their own right and internet broadcasting is a much, much bigger phenomenon. Provided that the tax keeps the quality of programming high, then you can't complain - the money is going where it should and you don't end up with a crappy viewing experience.
But what we also like is getting stuff at a reasonably price instead of paying through the nose for it. That's why we tend to support the BBC (cheaper than US-style subscription TV channels, which we also have, despite the fact that there's no adverts) and the health service (no need for all that expensive insurance in case you get cancer and need to stay in hospital for 6 months).
- Broadband video news from the BBC is only available to international users by subscription.
Find out how to get the latest broadband video news from the BBC here.
2nd, If I don't use BBC's servicesI don't claim I know more than I know, and if you know you know more than I know, then by all means, let me know.
We are taxed to the hilt wherever possible, this isnt that unusual.
and the billions they get from stamp duty, tax on petrol etc. etc. dont get you anything back in those areas either.
If you bear in mind that you are supposed to pay tax on chip fat you have converted to diesel fuel then you will realise there is nothing unusually bizarre in taxing computers.
The reason there are so many taxes is to hide the true amount we spend in taxes, if the common man realised how much they are really paying in taxes there would be an uprising.
Still I suppose we have entire generations of benefit claimants to support who cant be arsed working and other small costs like billions spent to kill foreigners, the money has to come from somewhere.
Bush and Blair ate my sig!
Absolute rubbish! You just made this up. I live in the the UK and I don't know anyone who gets 'a warm fuzzy feeling' due to increased taxes.
Since I suspect you pulled this out or your arse perhaps you could link to some scientific study to backup your theory. If not then your theory is no more valid than mine. Mine being that people in the UK do not like tax increases.
So if I build my own computer I don't pay? bring it on!!!!
Seriously though, they will need to ban self built computers if they wish to tax as many people as possible.
Interesting way of looking at it.
I've always thought it was to do with compromises. The government leaks a 'Tax On Computers' memo and all of us have that knee-jerk reaction. The media get its week's worth of stories. The media campaign to stop the new tax. They rally all the readers and tell them how they should think about the new tax. The government then leaks a compromise 'Tax On Calculators' tax memo and everyone is once again happy.
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
Smuggling was big in England too, with the fortunes of some modern day companies being founded on smuggling, Avery being one of them.
**TODO** Steal someone elses sig.
Mainly because the OP is full of shit. People don't "like" tax rises, however if a service is seen to be doing particularly badly at a time (see: the NHS) people will accept tax rises despite grumbling. There is also the fact that the NHS isn't that bad, and hasn't the cost of "health insurance" risen by a huge amount in the US recently?
Also, in the UK, most people don't go the private route, even though it's avaliable for them.
A tax on PCs is probably one of the suggestions so that people go "OMG" and then they throw it out favouring a less controversial suggestion (lets keep the TV licence) etc.
The so called detector vans were a myth cooked up a few decades ago, but one that endured.
What detection technology they did have picked up such a wide range of devices (CB radios, microwave ovens etc) that they were technically useless.
So the Beeb chose a more dracionian approach, they operated under the assumption that all households would have a TV set and so they must all pay the license fee. When an address came up on their system that didn't have a paid fee or a license due to expire, they sent round warning letters about inspectors patrolling your area intimidating folks into paying the fee or facing a £1000 fine.
I don't really like the BBC and resent having to pay a full license fee for the fraction of a percentage of their services I occasionally use, but I can the need for a public service broadcasting system free of advertisements.
Gotta tell ya though, the full size matt black posters with white bold text saying you *will* get caught, they even list names and postcodes of people who've been caught, are very sinister, very 1984ish.
They're working on a similar proposal here in Belgium. They are actually considering a "copyright" tax of 40 euros per computer!! The money won't even benefit society, but will go straight to SABAM (the RIAA/MPAA equivalent in Belgium) This is outrageous and comes down to simple theft.
If this proposal becomes law, I will not buy a computer in Belgium anymore. I live close enough to the German and Dutch border so I'll just buy my equipment there.
For those interested, more info can be found here: http://geenpctaks.be/ (Sorry the page is in dutch, can't find an english translation)
If you are Belgian, please sign the petition against this proposal.
only that it's about to start in 2007 in Germany.
See here.
I thought this was kind of covered already
I don't know quite how they'd do this? I suppose they could tax TV cards at sale, or maybe they can detect the use of the receiving equipment as they currently do. That said maybe they can pick up any CRT display device??
It's been done before: http://www.longparish.org.uk/history/windowtax.htm
References to operating systems aside, the window tax is often cited as one of the worst examples of taxation in British history. You still see old buildings where the windows were bricked up, so the owners could pay less tax.
Taxing specific items is usually a bad idea: hard / expensive to enforce and fundamentally unfair. Better would be a tax which goes directly to the BBC like a "Public Information Services" tax.
Of course that might lead people to demand higher qualities from the BBC plus more say and accountability. That in itself might lead to a shift in perspective of the UK public from government being the masters to government being the servants and no politician wants that to happen.
Ultimately people need to wake up to the idea that http://www.theyworkforyou.com/
"those people with a pile of old 286s in the shed could be in for a shock."
...and anyone with a calculator, washing machine, mobile phone...
Please do not mod parent as insightful, instead it should be modded as inciteful as it is complete b*llsh*t and has obviously been written to wind up us Brits...
A blanket license on computers instead of TVs seems a bit silly.
What they can do is this. Keep the TV license as it stands. However, if you want to watch BBC TV content on the Internet, you must log into the BBC website, providing your TV license details. This shows you have a TV license, and then you can go and watch BBC TV on the Internet.
This means people with TVs only are paying and people with no TV but a computer and broadband get to support the BBC too if they are using BBC content. And people with both a TV and a computer don't end up paying twice since they supply their TV license details to the BBC website when creating their account.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Jeesh... next they'll be taxing Thingy. Thingy? You know... Thingy.
It would be like a mandatory Slashdot Premium, you pay a tax to keep BBC Online and BBC News Online an ad-free website. Given my utter hatred for advertising, I have little problem with this, but I just hope here in Ireland they don't transfer THEIR current system to the internet...
See, in Ireland the state sponsored broadcaster, RTÉ, is supported by funds from TV taxes, like the BBC. Unlike the BBC, they also show loads of advertising. You get the worst of both systems in Ireland.
Yup...
The point is that the NHS was very badly underfunded in the past, so increased funding was clearly needed. British people want free health care: the National Insurance premiums are based on your ability to pay and available to everyone.
Nobody in the UK *wants* to pay more taxes. However, people have made the logical connection between more funding and better services, so are prepared to pay higer taxes if it brings them a benefit. This happened back in 1997 when the right-wing Conservatives were thrown out after decades of heading towards a more US style small government, free market approach to government.
Our taxes are still lower than much of Europe. On a £30,000 salary, you could expect to pay £5300 tax and £2800 National Insurance (health and state pension contributions)
There is something of a warm and fuzzy feeling about the NHS - it was founded in the socialist reforms after world war 2 that aimed to create a more equitable society out of the incredibly poor state the war left the UK in.
The NHS is good enough for most purposes: waiting times are down, staff recruitment is up. I went into my local hospital with a broken arm on a busy afternoon, was seen straight away and was on my way home within a couple of hours. The state of dental care is another matter, of course, and so is the whole MRSA/nursing staff not knowing how to wash their hands thing. I don't know many people with private health insurance.
Really? I'm interested to see where Microsoft are taxing me on my current server (All components individually bought, running Gentoo Linux).
In fact, even my XP desktop is lacking in a Microsoft tax since I actually bought my copy seperate from the components.
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
I assume you can give a cite for this "Huge tax hike for the benefit of health"?
Who, The Times, for publishing such unfounded speculation as "news", or the story submitter, for considering it the same?
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
No, you are wrong. A friend has a TV which he only uses as a display for retro consoles and home computers. A man from TV Licensing dropped by unannounced one day, observed that the aerial lead was disconnected and all channels detuned from those frequencies in use in his region, and declared that no license fee was payable.
No you're not. Why don't you try READING about it or SPEAKING to the f'ing license company. Stop spreading that stupid f'ing urban myth.
Please let me show you...
"If you use a TV or any other device to receive or record TV programmes (for example, a VCR, set-top box, DVD recorder or PC with a broadcast card) - you need a TV Licence."
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/
It's HOW you use it, not what your equipment can be used FOR.
I don't have a TV tuned it or aerialed up at ALL, so called up the TV license people, told them that and they promptly said I didn't have to pay and sent me a form to get a refund of what I'd already paid for that month.
We worked it out once,
Something like
minimum:
20% income TAX from employee
& taxed again from employer
17.5% VAT
I can't remember the details but the result was but it works out as about 50-70p in every £1 is lost, _excluding_ things like ciggies and drink. So that's being conservative.
& Council Tax
& Higher fuel tax getting to work
& Duty tax
There should/could be a website out there tracking the stealth taxes because I really can't tell where my money goes.
We were only totting up the obvious taxes.
This also means that if you drive somewhere from your home to buy some cigarettes or drink you're probably getting taxed >100%.
A blog I run for the wealth
> Everyone I knew who was not English reacted
> normally, ie they were horrified that yet more of
> their money would be stolen without them getting
> anything in return.
except better health care. which is worth paying higher taxes for.
europeans don't moan and groan about the US's lack of health care/ keeness to spend Us taxpayers' money on wars in foreign countries, so why does the limited amount of state intervention in Europe annoy Americans so much?
Incidentally, US corporation tax is higher than in the UK, and with the various state/ federal taxes that you have, ordinary (eg people earning less than 100,000USD/yr) pay _more_ than in the UK.
And get substantially less for their buck.
http://milkshake.dexy.org
No one has yet mentioned the greatest jewel of the BBC: BBC radio. Whether you are considering Radio 4 (news), Radio 3 (culture), or the World Service (international), these are all funded as part of the TV license fee.
Also, I think that it is important that the BBC (especially radio) remains free to access. Personally, I'd like to see the BBC adopt a model such as Mandrake use, i.e. people who like it pay, in order to keep it free for everyone to use.
Same here. I don't own a TV or watch it (except at work - I work for a major rival of the BBC), but I do use the BBC web pages, especially news.bbc.co.uk every day. By 2017 all broadcasting will be digital and the lines between PC and TV will probably have blurred much more than they are at the moment. I don't think that the licence fee in it's current form will continue past 2017, but it will be up to whoever is in government then (not now) to decide what will replace it.
Not exactly true.
They will pester you but if you can prove that you have rendered it incapable of receiving a broadcast, and detuning the receiver is enough, then you are not technically breaking the law.
It's hard to do on "idiot" proof sets, but it can and has been done.
Java gaming nut - http://www.retep.org/ or for the rail http://uktra.in/
How's about "device capable of accessing the BBC website and viewing the content"?
Are you saying that you're routinely visited by guys to check if you have a TV license?!? For air broadcast?!?!?!? What's the difference between that and inspecting your computer to check if you have illegal stuff in it? What kind of law allows that?!? In my country you need a judge to order it. Nobody can enter your house if you do not give your permission (or have a judge order to do so).
Your head a splode
I wouldn't be so sure about that. The US government is the wealthiest, most powerful government in the world. If this is "government by the people", as so many claim, then how can the people "automatically like tax cuts" when at the same time, they obviously like big government? You'd think the exponential growth of the US government over the past century would have been stopped in its tracks, with the people automatically liking tax cuts.
Can I ask why so many people have modded up an obvious troll? Cracks about socialism, protecting property, English teeth? C'mon, engage your critical faculties when modding.
UK taxes are not popular, but yes, increased taxes for important services like the National Health Services will be tolerated. We like public services, we recognise that taxes are necessary, but we don't like them, we don't generally* want more of them, and proposing a tax raise is always an unpopular move.
* Side note: I'd cheerfully pay my taxes provided I can tick boxes for what I want them to go on. I might choose to tick plenty for healthcare and education for example, and perhaps choose to tick fewer related to, eg, military spending.
I'll forego the option of moderating this discussion to tell anyone interested that Sweden is contemplating a very similar change.
The TV-license is going to transform into a "media license" and everyone with access to a computer, TV or other "media"-item is going to have to pay for the use of it.
Personally I'm not a fan of TV-licensing, and this is even less titillating to me.
I enjoy large posteriors and I cannot prevaricate.
You'll be surprised.
Here in the UK, the Police are not allowed to enter your property with out your permission or a warrant.
However, not many people know that certain agencies are permitted, at any time.
HM Customs & Excise can without notice, but even British Gas and the Post Office are permitted to enter your home.
I was surprised when I found out about the Post Office - gas I can understand for gas leaks etc.
There's another couple I can't remember off hand that have that permission, so I'm not sure about TV Licensing, but I'm pretty sure they can.
Java gaming nut - http://www.retep.org/ or for the rail http://uktra.in/
I'm sure your points are valid, but you should mention your personal interest in maintaining the TV License Fee:
Alan Partridge - BBC local radio presenter.
yeah, b+w radios are the way to go! but it did get me thinking, get rid of the slashdot hype and I think the current set up is a licence tied to a defined property, not a device. Mind, I guess this is probably something to do with the granularity of the monitoring kit, perhaps it is too much trouble to check on individual signals from a house? Perhaps if it was all digital then they could licence on a device basis (MAC addresses, something like that)? Not sure if I can be bothered to read the small print on my tv licence. Me student, 5 of us sharing the cost of a tv licence, 25 quid each a year, decent programmes with no advertising, a news service that's up for standing up to the govt. Fair enough deal for me.
okay.
:)
BBC starts from assumption that all PCs have software installed that makes it capable of displaying sound and video over the internet.
that's a fuck right up from the word go.
so let's assume that iWhacks, MAC OS/1, BeOS, FreeBSD, Atari ST500s and BBC Micros (the ones with the ARM processor) are all capable of viewing video and listening to sound, over the internet.
great. so the BBC must first fund [patent-unencumbered!] free software development of video and sound compression and broadcasting technology, in order to guarantee that the technology is available across all platforms.
that sounds good to me.
so your computer _is_ capable, your OS _is_ capable, but you choose _not_ to install capable software: will the BBC force people to pay a license fee just because your PC is _capable_ of being used to view video, listen to sound, and be connected to the internet?
mmm
The TV licencing goons' inability to accept this is, of course, another matter. But then, they can't seem to get it into their brains that some people can manage to live without a TV at all, so subtlities like whether a TV is installed are clearly beyond them.
It's just like the Beatles' (George Harrison) song: if you try to sit, I'll tax your seat, etc...
Ah-ha Mr Wilson...
Well, if the laws planned for 2017, it would be a bit stupid laying it out now, technology will have come allong in leaps and bounds and I suspect the BBC licence fee would probably become a subscription service.
I believe the BBC is working on the problem, as they do do a fair ammount of reasearch, probably best to ask the BBC what they want to do about the problem, before debating ideas with very little merrit for future laws.
If you live in poverty, feeding and housing yourself are higher priorties than having a TV.
Public, unbiased access to BBC radio is not taxed.
As President Bush would say, "Zinger Accomplished."
Yup...
They already know if you don't have a TV license, they don't need to check that. They need to check if you have a TV or not and that it is not "receiving TV signals". Keeping it detuned is not an offence, its if you use one to watch TV.
An "Enquiry officer" WILL however need a search warrant to come into your home. If he doesnt have one, he cannot come in.
Check here for more info.
"So there he is, risen from the dead. Like that fella, E. T." - Father Ted Crilly
Simple answer really is to get a screwdriver, open up the TV (after it's been off for a day, and only insert one hand into the TV in order that any electric shocks don't travel accross the heart), and unplug unscrew some fixings and remove the RF demodulator unit, put everything back and youve got a visual display unit with no way of reciveing broadcasts.
Does anyone know if this is the case or if it's planned by the BBC themselves?
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
I think the Environment Agency has such powers. It's actually quite surprising what they can do according to the law.
---
"I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing and it was everything that I thought it could be."
Nope they cannot enter without a warrant, it amounts to trespass.
No one can enter your property without your permission first, which is why they ask. You have every right to say no.
"So there he is, risen from the dead. Like that fella, E. T." - Father Ted Crilly
Utter bullshit.
In the UK, there is a knee-jerk reaction to like more taxes
Then why is every pre-election budget based around *cutting* tax as much as possible (at least for the general public, companies are another matter), to increase the chances of the incumbent government being re-elected? Why is every tax rise accompanied by moaning, both in the media and amongst the general population?
a couple of years ago the UK govt imposed this absolutely HUGE tax hike for the benefit of 'health'
I've been a UK resident for the whole of my life, and have been working (and therefore paying a variety of taxes) for 6 years, and I have no idea what you're talking about. Could you give a reference for this "HUGE tax hike" of "a couple of years ago"? I would certainly have noticed such a change to my pay packet.
everyone I know who was English was actively happy, they felt reassured that it was a return to socialism and all for the public good
Witness the near-constant moaning in the press and by the Opposition about "stealth taxes" - we have had pensioners protesting in the streets about the increases to the Council Tax in recent years. (Note, however, that it's essentially become the Opposition's *job* to moan about current government policy...) 15-20 years ago, there were literally riots when the Poll Tax was introduced (and quickly scrapped).
In general, as a nation, we accept that taxation is necessary for the greater good of all, but your suggestion that the English enjoy being presented with tax rises is utter nonsense.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
This doesn't mean anything. The people still LOVE tax cuts. It's just that they also seem to like a truly-epic-in-proportions Government and they don't tend to mind being about 8 Trillion dollars in debt.
Note to Republicans: if you're going to cut taxes, how about you cut Government spending, first?
This last tax cut reminded me of quitting your job and buying everything with a credit card instead. I mean, uh, sure, you can do it, but eventually, you're going to get fucked.
Note to Democrats: Stop smiling. You're not much better.
How do you detect a PC? Unlike TVs, which use recievers, PCs are largely selfcontained. If they're going to do anything, it'd have to be a connection tax - detect wifi signal, and charge the ISPs. Separately? Complicated. ... and what will happen to the BBC if TV licenses are removed?
Browsing with +2 to insightful posts and a higher threshold makes the average post seen seem a lot more ingenious
"I'd cheerfully pay my taxes provided I can tick boxes for what I want them to go on."
It's a great theory, but unfortunately it would make sod-all difference. Even if we assigned people to ensure that the money was being spent in the right ways, they'd just be susceptible to sweeping a few minor indiscretions under the carpet as well. The whole reason that we are in this position is that from your monthly income tax payment, too much of it is getting scooped up by middle men, or the people who have figured out how to exploit the system.
On a similar note, I've often remarked that I'd much rather vote for particular motions than for a political party. But then, once we've gone that far, why do we need politicians at all?
My other processor is big-endian.
Look, mate;
I use the railway daily; without it, I'd be totally stuffed, since I can't drive. And I will note here that the amount the UK government provides to its railways is laughably tiny compared to spending on the Continent. I have once used unemployment benefit, and it was fortunate that it existed, because otherwise I'd have been living under a bridge.
When I was a kid, I used the state education system. When I am old, I strongly expect to use old peoples' homes. If I have kids and then die horribly in a freak slipping-on-banana-peel accident, then I strongly expect that my children will find themselves in a children's home. At least, I hope they will, because otherwise the poor little buggers will be out on the streets begging, you get my point?
But I don't use the BBC. I survive just fine without it, and expect that state of affairs to persist indefinitely. TV is not education, it's not health, it's not contingency planning and it's not a basic human need; it's amusement. I'm aware that the ancient Romans used to refer to bread and circuses as the two things that the population desire, and I'm perfectly - indeed radiantly - happy for my taxes to go on the bread. That's the stuff that keeps you alive, well, educated and able to go out there and pursue happiness - but once we've got you to that point, the actual pursuit is your own problem.
I'm happy to cough up for libraries, but damn it, there's enough amusement in books. If people want to watch television, they can do it on their own wage packet.
They knew what they were doing when they decided not to fund the BBC from income tax. It meant that it was possible for the weird fringes of society to be either totally indifferent or become conscientious objectors, and that as quietly as possible.
That said, there is an interesting technical question in dealing with billing non-TV owners for watching online broadcast services. It is not, however, a question that necessarily needs to be answered by undoing one of the fairer elements of British law.
tosh! Have a look at:9 95004 5_en_4.htm
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/Ukpga_1
Gas Act 1995
22.--(1) Where a public gas transporter has reasonable cause to suspect--
(a) that gas conveyed by him is escaping, or may escape, in any premises; or
(b) that gas so conveyed which has escaped has entered, or may enter, any premises,
any officer authorised by the transporter may, on production of some duly authenticated document showing his authority, enter the premises
Brocklesby Park Cricket Club
When is a computer taxable? Assuming they attempt to include home made PC's (although how they can inforce this unless they tax by component I don't know) then does a computer without an internet connection count?
I know a few people who still use computers just to write documents and don't even have dial up let alone the capacity to actually view streaming video or download videos in any sensible time frame. Are they taxable as well? I think this system would just have too many holes to be feasible.
I accept that by 2017 the connectivity to the internet will (hopefully!) be far more to the level that steaming video is entirely possible for the majority of the population, if they actually use it (see my previous point), but by then the more interesting question would be, what counts as a computer?
The way mobile phones are progressing will they be included? PDAs? MP3 players? Hell, random everyday items that we use like fridges and mirrors might have the potential to connect online and stream video, are they taxable as well?
Warning, comments may not have been passed by the sanity department of my brain.
The BBC is one of the more widely used public services in the UK.
Try the world! The BBC's TV and Radio programs are widely watched and listened to around the world by alot more people than use the service in the UK. I don't think people in the UK are quite aware of just how big an international PR medium the BBC is. Other countries can only dream of having a state controlled TV network that is watched by this kind of an international audience. Furthermore, at least in so far as news reporting is concerned, the BBC commands alot more respect internationally than the big US networks do (Althoug to be fair there is a number of notable exceptions to this rule among the latter but it is depressingly small) recent reporting scandals not withstanding.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
One interesting side effect of the NHS is that because they're not concerned about charging you for the treatment, the process of getting that treatment is vastly simplified --- no billing, no registration, no lengthy identification process to ensure that you are actually entitled to treatment. Getting a doctor's appointment is as simple as walking into a surgery and asking for one... they'll ask you your name, and that's about it. (They will check to see if you're on their records, because you're supposed to go to one particular surgery, but you can see a doctor anywhere if you have to.) This means that the NHS saves a vast amount of money when compared to a private health care system, simply on administration fees and process.
The state of dental care is another matter, of course...
Yeah, public dental care here is a farce, and does everything wrong that the NHS as a whole gets right. I basically don't bother any more; I go to a private dentist. (I get so little help from the NHS for dental care that it's not worth going through the paperwork.)
This would be the national insurance rise about a year ago when the NHS pointed out that as they were the nations largest employer it was going to cost them an awful lot too.
Sam
blog.sam.liddicott.com
Ye gods, have you ever checked the BBC site for errors?
I had to write to them once; they'd put up an article about a bomb scare in Bath, but on their map, they'd accidentally indicated that Bath was somewhere north of Birmingham.
Their proofreading is not what it once was.
How does this work in Scotland? no trespass law there.
I always thought the law was "If you have equipment capable of receiving..."
But the BBC says this:
"If you use a TV or any other device to receive or record TV programmes (for example, a VCR, set-top box, DVD recorder or PC with a broadcast card) - you need a TV Licence. You are required by law to have one."
Looks like using one for a DVD player, or your old Commadore 64 would be OK without a licence, the key is "If you use", not "If you have".
You DO need one "If you use" a tuner card in your PC to watch TV, but not if you use it for digitising home movies.
Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated up.
They can't just tax computers en masse, does my microwave count, what about my burglar alarm, etc.
I think what they'll end up taxing is something like "visual display hardware capable of rendering full motion video at a minimum resolution of xxx by yyy at zzz frames per sec".
There's no other way to do it. Video cards, projectors, what else would need to be covered I wonder ?
It would include mobile phones which are increasingly being used to view sports clips, news headlines, music videos and movie trailers.
I don't know how they'll manage to avoid licensing cinemas though. I mean define a cinema, plenty of pubs fall into the category of large screen places for public viewing of video. So what's the difference.
Then I got the perfect tax loophole: add "bbc.co.uk 127.0.0.1" to your host file. No BBC tax then. ;-)
The BBC. Like I don't get enough hassle from them already for simply not needing a TV License as I don't watch TV.
Cue BBC zealot posts saying how wonderful the BBC is and how we should all pay for it.
Read this very carefully zealots - I DON'T CARE. I don't want to watch TV I just want to be left alone. My issue is the constant harassment I suffer, NOT the fact there is a license - by all means have a license - I really don't care - I don't watch TV, I don't need one. Just respect my choice and leave me the **** alone.
If they want to make me pay tax to simply own a computer however then I WILL have an issue with it.
"So the Beeb chose a more dracionian approach"
Technically, it's the TV Licensing Agency, not the Beeb themselves.
"Gotta tell ya though, the full size matt black posters with white bold text saying you *will* get caught, they even list names and postcodes of people who've been caught, are very sinister, very 1984ish."
Not so much sinister as silly and vaguely offensive. Government agencies shouldn't go around acting like wannabe gangsters. Presumably the reason they do it is because the actual chances of being prosecuted for having no TV license are miniscule, so they feel the need to intimidate people.
IANAL, but I listen and learn.
It only counts if the property doesn't belong to you.
breaking and entering
'housebreaking: trespassing for an unlawful purpose; illegal entrance into premises with criminal intent '
'The gaining of unauthorized, illegal access to another's premises, as by forcing a lock.'
'The act of gaining passage into and entering another's property (as a building or vehicle) without privilege or by force; also The crime of breaking and entering see also burglary'
'Breaking and entering is defined as the crime of illegally entering a residence or other enclosed property using any amount of force (even pushing open an unlocked door). If criminal intent can be established, breaking and entering can be considered a burglary, a felony in most U.S. jurisdictions. If there is no criminal intent, breaking and entering can be considered trespassing, which is usually a misdemeanor crime.'
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Why is there no tax on stupidity?
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
Stupid idea. Computer != television, if it has a TV tuner then treat it as a TV, otherwise...nah.
The BBC is Britain's jewel in the crown. I know many Slashdotters probably couldn't live without the unbiased news Auntie provides through its website or on BBC World, it must be a refreshing antidote to the Fox News/CNN/MSNBC crap you get over there. The World Service Radio is absolutely invaluable as well, with its news broadcasts in countries with very restrictive regimes. That alone is worth the £110 a year licence fee. But of course thanks to the Murdoch media everyone here is thinking that the licence fee is a waste of money (while £35 a month on Mr Murdoch's BSkyB full of shopping channels is perfectly acceptable...)
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
My beowulf cluster of computers.
trespass is a civil offence not a criminal one.
it may affect any information gained by trespass being admissible in a court of law though.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
I think he replied to himself under the guise of a fictional charcter
1) Create new slashdot account
2) post ignorant but funny comment
3) respond under your true account
4) fail to profit with karma cos you only get mod'd FUNNY, if that.
I think its funny.
Sam
blog.sam.liddicott.com
I seem to recall us having a little argument with them about their taxes a couple hundred years ago, too...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
After all, they are "entering" your home (if only slightly) when the postman comes into the porch to put the post through the letterbox.
No, they routinely visit properties that don't have a license registered at that address. According to this site and USENET, though, you're not obliged to let them in unless they have a warrant.
We're not quite a police state yet, despite the previous and present government's moves to turn it into one (CJA, RIPA, ID Cards + ID database, Anti-Terrorism Act etc. etc.).
Really? I'm interested to see where Microsoft are taxing me on my current server (All components individually bought, running Gentoo Linux).
In this particular case, it's you taxing everyone who has to use the Gentoo thing :)
They are legally allowed to knock on the door just as in any other country and you are legally allowed to ignore them. I used to simply be rude to them. I used to tell them that I was a visiting burglar or anything. Often I would just tell them to go away and refuse to answer any questions. If I did not have a TV then I did not see what right a man from the TV tax department had to bother me and when I had a TV and no license there was no way I was just going to say 'fair cop guv, you've got me bang to rights'. I would just tell them to go away. I was at a friend's house once when they called and he did not have a license and they could hear the TV, we just told them it was not a TV and refused to let them in to check. They have no right to enter but they will ask as if they do. It is all bluff.
They have a register of licenses and they assume that anyone without a license is on the fiddle. 90% of the time they may be right but they do not have the right to harass me when I do not have TV.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
Me too. It's lunch time here, and as I sit in the open plan office where I work and look around, I can see a page from the BBC News web site up on about half the screens in the room. There is a reason for that.
I have a mild dislike of some of the current arrangements to finance the Beeb, but ultimately, I'd rather have the good points about the service with the current somewhat flawed system for paying for them than risk losing the service in an attempt to save a tiny amount of money.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
post office might be to prevent allegations of trespass if a guy walks up your path to post a letter.
or might just be a law from ages ago. AFAIK there is/was a law that stated that only 'Royal mail' post vans can go through red lights - because the post they carry is the property of the Queen during transit and may not be impeded. or something like that - mad stuff from the past. disclaimer: or it could just be BS of course.
No, it's legit because, as this post pointed out, the tvlicensing.co.uk website itself says that you only need a license if the equipment is being used to 'receive or record TV programmes'. His TV isn't, and, more importantly, the official was satisfied that this is the case.
Pile of 286s? what about the pile of dead babies in my shed? *ducks*
Kiteboarding Gear Mention slashdot and get 10% off!
Nobody can enter your house if you do not give your permission (or have a judge order to do so).
The TV licensing authority can't enter your house without a warrant either, and they nearly never get one since they have no evidence to declare "reasonable suspicion" before a judge. They rely on people not knowing their rights, and nearly all of their prosecutions for not having a license make use of written notes of doorstep conversations (read confessions) that they have intimidated people into signing.
A latent existence
come to think of it when I die why not just pass a 'Death Tax' and shaft me in my grave!
They've already thought of it - it's called inhieritence tax.
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
His television isn't installed (i.e. tuned, or connected to an aerial) or "used for the purpose of receiving any television programme service" so it's not a television receiver in the eyes of the law.
Well, it'll be fun when we move to digital radio and all the people who live in poverty will have to buy themselves a bundle of electronics to keep that public, unbiased access - eh?
There's no reason why you hard-working UK citizens should have to put up with this crap. Unplug your telly/pc/whatever, drive it right on down to the Thames or whatever your nearest waterhole is and TOSS IT IN!
Let "the man" in parliament know you ain't gonna pay no taxes what you ain't got been done voted fer yet. No more.
Hey, it worked for us!
Sincerely,
USA
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
> TV is not education, it's not health
Well, it ought to be, at least partially, and in the UK it's closer to being so than most places thanks to the BBC.
I'm fine with continuing to fund BBC in current manner, but you do derive benefit from it even if you never watch it, listen to the radio, or read the website.
The BBC justifies its cost due to its PR benefit alone. The world service enhances UK's reputation abroard and leads via circuitous routes to more money for British companies etc.
Increased obesity levels in US are partly due to excessive advertising for fast food. The strain on the NHS extra commerical channels would have is enough to justify the license fee.
But, you're still right, its better that those who directly use it should pay for it. I just wish that other areas of government spending worked in the same way... for instance, let those who support invasion of Iraq pay for it.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
Ah, your descendants will pay death duties when you pop off this mortal coil :)
Only they call it inheritance tax these days. And they'll only pay it if you're worth more than £263,000, which if you own a house, you almost certainly are. But the principle is there!
how else can a post man deliver mail to your door if he has to trespass to get there?
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
I am gripped with terrifying memories of Willy Rushton singing a song on TV listing all the people who, in the words of this inimitable song, have "a statutory right of entry to your home."
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
cheers for correction!
The TV licencing people work by writing to all the residential addresses in the country that don't have licences telling them that they'll be in big trouble if they have a TV and no licence. They will usually follow that up by sending an inspector round. There's no obligation to let the inspector in, but if you do so voluntarily and the inspector is satisfied you don't have a telly, the threatening letters will stop, but only for a few years.
If you don't let the inspector in, they can only gain entry to search for an illegal telly by providing evidence that you have one to a court - typically this will be done by using TV detector equipment, or observing the glow of a TV through the curtains from the street at night. Not sure if they use that one so much today seeing as it could be a PC monitor and not a telly.
However, if you don't have a telly and you don't let the inspectors in to have a look around, they will keep pestering you with letters and doorstepping until you give in. From the TV licencing people's PoV it makes sense as only something like 1% of the population genuinely don't own a TV, but it does royally piss off the people who don't and keep getting pestered.
A few years ago they ran an advertising campaign where they displayed randomly selected street signs from around the country with the slogan "we know that X households in this street are watching television illegally" but they had to drop it after complaints from the residents in those streets who felt they were being unfairly accused.
I would be suspect about this report until I see sources other that The Times being listed. I've had a look on Google News and the few stories listed all point back to the Times article.
The Times is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, who are totally opposed to the way the BBC is funded, as it is a direct competitor to his Sky TV service.
People like The Sun's former editor, now involved in broadcasting, Kelvin McKenzie were all over TV, on commercial channels, this week to put the BBC down.
Now, this move might be true..... But there is considerable spin being aimed at the Beeb at the moment.....
The TV-license is now non-existent, everybody just pays more taxes. Aaaand nobody has been able to figure out how much more taxes are paid in exchange for the license fees. *shrugs* Whether you pay with the left hand, or the right hand: it does not make a real difference, I guess.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
Years and years ago Esther Rantzen's "That's Life" programmme performed a song about all the officials who have a "Statutory right to enter your home". It was quite scary how many there were...
Just as you should be forced to fund the state education system
I feel I shouldn't have to; let the parents pay for their kids education.
old people's homes
People should be saving for retirement and be paying for themselves. Or, alternately, realize that clinging to life in body that needs so much hospital visits and drugs to keep it alive is foolish. You might be alive, but your QoL is low.
subsidised railway
There are otehr ways to encourage railways without subsidies.
unemployment benefit
Maybe people would be more able to cope with unemployment if taxes were lower.
children's homes
I'm not sure what you mean; orphangies? I'm not sure we even have those anymore..
The BBC is one of the more widely used public services in the UK.
There are better ways to fund this as well; and I'd rather not have someone being able to look and see what I have in my house for the privledge of watching tv..
You're NOT breaking the law. I think you just made that up. The device has to receive the TV signal. You don't need a license for a computer monitor or a TV which isn't tuned in to any channels. But you do need a "TV" license for ANY device which utilises the TV channels, even if it isn't a TV. Eg you need a licence even if you ONLY have a video and no TV.
The TV licensing website says this:
"If you use a TV or any other device to receive or record TV programmes (for example, a VCR, set-top box, DVD recorder or PC with a broadcast card) - you need a TV Licence. You are required by law to have one." (source)
Can I offer an a-MEN?
The BBC is awesome. After relying on BBC News for a while, the major US networks all look pretty Las Vegas. Streaming Radio 6 gets me through the workday.
And The Office/Young Ones/Cutting It/Little Britain... damn!
DN
In the langaue of the current tv license rules, that should be Using a device capable of accessing the BBC website and viewing the content
Like tinyurl, but one letter less! http://qurl.co.uk/
Nobody can enter your house if you do not give your permission (or have a judge order to do so).
The grandparent poster's friend was probably just stupid/polite enough to let the spy in.
I live in the Socialist Soviet Republic of Sweden, and we also have to pay a tax^H^H^H licence for the pleasure of being fed propaganda from The Party via the government-owned and -controlled TV. Many incorrectly think that the STASI agents checking up on licences have some sort of authority, but all you have to do is to say "I don't have a TV" and shut your door in their faces.
Mind you, they're known for lying in their reports. They have ticked the "admits possession of TV receiver" box on their forms despite no such thing having happened. They have lied about seeing/hearing a TV set, et c. They get bonus pay for each discovery of a licence evader, you see.
So, it's smarter to smile politely to the STASI and come up with a good story, rather than greeting them with curses and a slammed shut door.
Help savingAmigaOS and a free PowerPC market
state controlled TV network
The BBC is not state controlled! It is a chartered, independent , publically funded body. The BBC's prime responsibility is to the UK public (not to the UK government, not to some media mogul). And the organisations' news division have a history of critical examination of the UK government.
I don't pay a british licence fee, but I *wish* I could (if it would allow to me access their digital satellite transmissions. It's encrypted but access is free to UK residents - which I'm not.).
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
is it available to dload online? And the stupid 20secs timeout is a joke for a onle line comment like this!
Sigs are for wimps
The police [in the UK] can enter your house with a warrant card and they all carry them. Trust me on this. They don't even need a valid reason.
Don't believe everything you see on the TV.
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
No, TV Licensing people can not enter your home.
As students, we get sent round a leaflet every year saying what our rights our about TV licensing. It's always clear that you do not have to let them in. However they can usually check from outside, just by listening for the emitted frequencies.
So, it's smarter to smile politely to the STASI and come up with a good story, rather than greeting them with curses and a slammed shut door.
Of course you should have a peek-hole in your door and never open it for people who look suspicious. Are they carrying papers, or a fake detection/positioning antenna? Then you're not at home.
Help savingAmigaOS and a free PowerPC market
(a) that gas conveyed by him is escaping, or may escape, in any premises;
"I'm conveying gas. May I use your bathroom? Oh, step aside, of course I may!"
Help savingAmigaOS and a free PowerPC market
TV Licensing cannot enter your place without a warrant. If they can see or hear a TV, though, you're basically busted. If you ask them if they have a warrant they'll leave, and sometimes they'll come back with a warrant.
I have a TV license, but it's good to make them jump through loops when their records get cocked up.
Same here, with certain exceptions (which are mentioned in the sibling posts of this one). The TV licensing people can obtain a warrant through a court if you refuse them entry, although they generally don't. They only visit houses of people who have no registered TV license, and if you send them a note saying you have no TV they usually leave it be, with possibly a single check...
If people are actually watching BBC stuff on their computer. Otherwise, not.
Basically they assume every household has a TV *somewhere*. They take a list of all the homes in the country, cross-check it against the list of homes who paid for TV licenses and then spot-check check people who think they don't need a license.
You don't have to let them in to check your "story"; they'll simply go away and start legal proceedings against you for not paying the license fee, which in turn forces you to provide proof in order to avoid a fine.
Even if you don't have a TV it can be such a pain in the ass to convince them you don't have one that it's often easier to just buy the license to get them to go away.
> HM Customs & Excise can [enter your property] without notice...There's another couple I can't remember off hand that have that permission, so I'm not sure about TV Licensing
I believe the TV Licensing Authority falls under Customs and Excise.
This is where the serious fun begins.
Here in the UK, the Police are not allowed to enter your property with out your permission or a warrant.
Actually, that isn't true. The Police are allowed to enter your property without a warrant or your consent under certain conditions
Hehe... well, yes :)
To be fair, I wouldn't mind paying a whatever, a 'culture tax' or something, that partly went to fund the BBC nationally and internationally - particularly if it also funded foreign-language TV in Britain, which is desperately necessary if we're going to shake the whole 'monolingual' stigma. I really do see the BBC as a good service on the world scale, though it's a little bizarre that much of its greatest usefulness is for those who are outside the reach of British TV licencing.
I'd even like to see the BBC funded directly by such a tax, but not under today's system and not on today's terms; that's why I suspect the system is better off the way it is, because all sorts of questions otherwise arise such as the acceptability of funding the BBC to produce soap TV, or gameshows, or derivative reality TV. As a governmental group, should they be held to all the standards that other governmental groups have to deal with, and what does this mean for controversial shows or themes? It could defang the BBC. It would certainly confuse it. I work with government-funded groups, and trust me when I say that if you needed a committee per policy, you'd need a football stadium just to site chairpersons' meetings.
But mostly, I just hate the idea that TV is seen as a necessity, as though people who claim to go without are either lying or insane. I find the current TV licencing threats plastered all over the Underground to be totally over the top, which is generally symptomatic of TV Licencing. The whole thing just lacks a sense of dignity or of respect.
Ok, but they are still required to produce "some duly authenticated document showing his authority" whatever that may be. It isn't specified.
If your gas meter is not in your home, then they still have no right to enter your house.
"So there he is, risen from the dead. Like that fella, E. T." - Father Ted Crilly
...There's no obligation to let the inspector in, but if you do so voluntarily and the inspector is satisfied you don't have a telly, the threatening letters will stop, but only for a few years...
I had one of their meatheads come to me a few weeks ago who insisted even on looking in my wardrobes and bathroom for concealed tv equipment. Of course I had none so he went away satisfied that I wasn't breaking the law.. and lo and behold not a month has passed and already they're sending me their propaganda again.
The various (largely indistinguishable) governments in the UK have been talking about taxing home computers since the early 1980s.
Plus £1000 council tax and £3500 (17.5% of remainder) as Value Added (sales) Tax, for a total of £12500 a year, for a tax burden of about 40%.
Another odd one IIRC is your neighbour; should the party wall between your properties somehow collapse. It seems they're free to come and go through the hole as they please. If they want to come in the door however they still have to knock...
I feel I shouldn't have to; let the parents pay for their kids education.
I was going to start by asking you if you have any idea how much it costs to put a child through school for at least eleven years, but you clearly don't so I'll skip that.
There is no way that the majority of people could afford to pay for even one of their childrens education, even if a) There are two parents & b) Both parents worked full time.
If you think returning to an Edwardian two teir system where only the wealthy get educated then I guess it all makes sense to you, but it perpetuates a large ignorant underclass within society. It's a self purpetuating problem; a child doesn't go to school, can't get a proper job because they have no education and so can't afford to send their children to school. What a great system that would be; a country where the majority are uneducated and unable to even read or write.
The idea that you don't directly benefit from helping to pay for educating someone elses children is laughable.
Don't forget that the UK endures 17.5% VAT (sales tax) on almost all purchases made with already-taxed-once income. Not to mention additional tax (duty) on a range of other goods such as fuel and alcohol.
Here in the UK, the Police are not allowed to enter your property with out your permission or a warrant.
r e_evil_impli.html
Might be worth pointing out that the House of Commons has already voted to reverse this in the Prevention of Terrorism Bill and the House of Lords will probably allow it.
http://www.spy.org.uk/spyblog/archives/2005/02/mo
Nonsense. I was making a joke about him having "Alan Partridge" as a nick. Neither of the accounts are particularly new (I've had mine a few years - can't remember exactly how long). Check my posting history - I already have excellent karma (until this gets modded offtopic).
But, if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide!
Not routinely, but there are people who work as inspectors, and they do visit households. The licensing authority have a list of all the residential addresses UK, and they have a list of all the addresses to which current licenses have been issued. They do visits to addresses where the license has lapsed and the occupant doesn't respond to letters prompting them to renew, and possibly occasional spot checks on other addresses which are unlicensed. There also used to be a radio license at one time, but they don't collect that any more.
Wireless and Telegraphy Act 1949 (as ammended), the Broadcasting Act 1990 and the Wireless and Telegraphy (Television Licence Fees) Regulations 1997. Those kind of laws.
The UK Parliament passed laws which say that operating television receiving equipment is an activity restricted by law, and that you need a license to do it
Licensing inspectors don't have a right of entry. They can knock on your door and interview you. They will ask to inspect any equipment that you admit to owning, but you aren't obliged to let them do so. If you refuse access, and they have good reason to suspect that you do have equipment, then they can go to the local Magistrate's court and ask for a warrant.
The first of these leaflets (from an anti-license campaigning group) describes the inspection and prosecution process in some detail.
You don't pay VAT on everything, so it's not "17.5% of the remainder". Council tax is a ridiculous system, though.
Are you saying that you're routinely visited by guys to check if you have a TV license?!?
No. I have never been visited by the TV Licensing Administration. Nor do I know anyone who has. It's not 'routine'
It's simple - they have a list of addresses which have paid for their TV license. Subtract those from a list of all the properties in the country and there's your list of people who don't have a TV license. Now go and check to see if they have a TV or not.
"I was surprised when I found out about the Post Office - gas I can understand for gas leaks etc."
I believe the Post Office access rights date back to the days when they ran the telephone service.
Maybe people would be more able to cope with unemployment if taxes were lower.
How's that? Unemployed people don't pay income tax in the UK, since they have no income. What was your point again?
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
Well I DON'T use the poxy railway, so why should I subsidise your transport needs? Can't you walk? What's wrong with a bike? I've NEVER claimed unemployment benefit, so why should I pay for it? I didn't go to a state school, so why's MY pocket being picked for those that do?
You see, collective responsibility is the basis of our taxation-funded society. You can't just opt out because you're one of the luddite TV or radio or WWW refusniks. You don't use the BBC, that's your problem, the majority of us DO, and consider it a valuable national social resource.
That was classic intercourse!
In the UK, TV Licensing people need a search warrant from a magistrate before they can enter your property against your will.
Not at all. They can try, but without a warrant are powerless.
Many "agencies" try this (e.g. sherriffs officers) with a high degree of success because people don't know their rights and do the things that people in uniforms tell them to do.
Every now and then there is a campaign ("The TV Detector van is in your area"). The vans have various antennae on top and drive around built-up areas slowly to try and scare everyone into buying a TV licence, however I have heard it on good authority than there is actually no detection equipment in the van at all - it's just a bunch of fake antennae.
I believe they do have hand-held equipment that can be used for specific cases.
It sounds draconian but it's really just an ongoing PR stunt because there isn't really any other way of enforcing it.
There is nothing wrong with giving specific implicit permissions to certain categories of state employees. The need for search warrants exists not because your house is sacrosanct, but because without such a rule we risk moving towards a police state.
If there is a rule that a TV Licensing guy may enter to check the TV connection, this doesn't create any real danger for civil rights. And if you really value your privacy so much (or are doing something illegal that you don't want anyone to know about), just pay the license fee.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
TV Licensing staff are like vampires - you have to INVITE them over your threshold, and can also ask them to leave at any time.
s ing.jsp/
See the PDF file linked halfway down this page http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/aboutus/abouttvlicen
Sorry you are wrong in this believ
From http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/aboutus/
As a result of The Broadcast Act 1990, the BBC were made responsible for licence administration. TV Licensing is the trading name used by the BBC's agents who collect the licence fee on their behalf.
Over 1200 staff are employed at TV Licensing's main Contact Centres based in Bristol and Darwen in Lancashire.
Oooh 'eck DM!
It's not about the computers or the televisions -- it's about the money.
The solution is to lobby your representative and urge them to spend less.
Chip H.
TV licensing can't... but the last I heard (on a usenet group... so it must be true!) was that when they first turn up, if you tell them to go away, then they have to do that. However, they can then get a warrent and *I believe*, on their next visit they arrive escorted presumably by police. Or maybe lawyers.
Whatever, I have personally had them arrive for a first visit and when I said they couldn't some in, the guy gave me a look like "I know you're guilty" and said something like "Right! Ok" like he was going to find out if I had a TV one way or another.
I think when the guy arrived, I had about 2 weeks left in the flat I was in, so I wasn't going to pay for a new licence then. And luckily they didn't turn up again before I left so I can't confirm what they do next.
Oh, other disinformation I have heard on usenet is that if on their first visit they find you *do* have a TV setup for reception, then they give you the chance to pay your licence. Nope. Friend of mine let them in, they saw the TV set working, and they hit them with the £1000 fine or court case thing. Hence, thats why I wouldn't let them past the door!
Aside from the fact that I thing its absolutely rediculous to be forced to pay simply for owning the equipment, I also hate the fact that no one (and I mean, no one) knows exactly what the rules are. Can you own a set, but just not have an aerial? Can it have a TV tunner that is de-tuned? No one knows, and because of the uncertainty, most people will pay.
Not that the BBC isn't worth the money, but I just object to not really having much choice in the matter!
So the TV Licensing Authority are being inconsistent.
I also telephoned them to ask if I could use a FreeView digital set-top box in order to receive digital radio channels without a TV license, given the fact that I do not have a TV and am therefore unable to watch any of the TV channels it also provides.
Their answer was that I would need a TV license.
The problem is the ambiguity in the statement "If you use a TV or any other device to receive or record TV programmes..."
One person at the TVLA interprets that to mean a set top box requires a TV license (because it receives TV programmes) regardless of whether a TV is plugged into it. Another person interprets it to mean that a detuned TV doesn't need a license.
Maybe its different in America, but in Canada an officer from the fire department can come into your house and make sure that there are no fire hazards with no warning. And you have to let them in. This is OK because when they come in they aren't looking for anything other than fire violations and won't pass the information on. Similarly I'd imagine the license man can come in but he can ONLY count TVs. Apparently they have them here in Japan as well, but they haven't knocked on my door yet.
Since your UID is smaller than mine, I can only conclude that you're trolling. -s20451 (410424)
My mobile phone has more processing power than was required to put people on the moon.
My wristwatch has a faster processor than my first PC had.
Is either of these a "computer" ?
find more potp = www.planetofthepenguins.com
At the moment you just pay one cover-all license for all TV's or tuners (ie TV-cards etc) in your home, not one each. Ah people think its gay but really its less than just about any cable/satellite package and it funds the entire BBC including radio, TV and internet, they also have great training facilities and R&D and export tons of programming around the world. The BBC is more than just a TV station. Computers already have a tax its called the Microsoft tax maybe the government could just charge MS and threaten to boycott them if they dont pay ;)?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
A tax is ever a good thing.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
That's what the Monty Python "Fish License" sketch is about - it's a parody of the enforcment methods:
"What van?"
"The cat detector van!"
"The loony detector van, more like..."
"He said they could pinpoint a purr at 400 yards, and Eric, bein' such a 'appy cat..."
etc.
It sounds like the issue has been stated a few different times -- the buried point is regarding things that can receive a broadcast signal. So... why not just place a tax on video cards that have tuners? Reading this makes me glad I don't live in a socialist country. I thought the taxes on the bloated system here were bad...
Let me ask you this: who defines "quality" in TV? If no one wants to watch what you call "quality" TV, then why should they pay a tax for it? The only possible just and reasonable justification for a tax on TV would be if the results were distributed among producers based on viewer ratings. Anything else would be, at least, undemocratic.
They won't make a commitment to a series unless it keeps getting great ratings
Yes, they are absolutely right in doing so, why should they ever consider doing otherwise? Do you think Ford should have made a lasting commitment to the Edsel? If a series doesn't get good ratings, it's not a good series according to the public and should be dropped.
No, the TV licensing people still require a court order to enter. However you are free to give your permission for them to enter, if they show up unannounced without an order.
This happened to a friend of mine. The man showed up at the door and said he was with TV licensing and asked "may we come in?" My friend asked if he had permission, and the man replied "Yes.. if you give it." My friend said no and the man had to leave.
Psychiatrists and social workers too can enter without your consent.
After the Computer Act is passed, we'll see a whole bunch of FSF folks dressed up in Google polo shirts dumping computers into the Charles River.
I also have had this, a couple of years back I had a TV and no license. I contacted TV Licensing, explaining that I did indeed own a TV, and it was not used for watching broadcast channels, but mostly for PC tv out, consoles, DVDs etc. The lady on the phone advised me that this was indeed a legitimate reason for not having a TV License and I received a letter stating this and that I was exempt. This had to be renewed every year, as the exemption only covers you for 12 months from the declaration. I never had a visit from them, not that it would have made any different because the aerial wire had been cut and was hanging outside the window, I couldnt use it even if I had to!
The annual taxes on my cable bill are about $48.
The various taxes and mandatory "fees" on my various phone lines is $132 a year.
This is about half what the Brits pay, but not insiginificant.
That's probably just an urban legend. Someone tried to pass that around the U.S. as a sort of joke. "A fire truck, police car, ambulance, and mail truck are at a four-way stop. Who gets the right-of-way?" The answer was supposed to be the mail truck, because it's a federal vehicle. Obviously, that's incorrect simply because it's not an emergency vehicle. In theory, if there was such a law on the books perhaps a vehicle driven by an FBI officer with a "bubble" would have the right of way, but I say the fire truck wins because, well, I'm not pulling out in front of a ten-ton fire truck.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
The current TV Licence is per-household. There's no reason to assume that a computer based licence would be any different.
I'll be interested to see what happens in ~2012 when the analogue signal gets turned off. In theory, at this point, ordinary televisions and video recorders would no longer come under the licence, only digital receivers. Meaning that, for a period at least, I could use my games consoles without needing a licence.
The whole TV Licencing thing is absurd anyhow. I never knew it existed before, but $150/year to use equipment that you have already paid for is moronic. I guess it pays for the BBC? Why don't they just go private and get advertising funds like everyone else? What if you don't even watch the BBC? You are still forced to support them? And they have these TV Licencing vans with EMF equipment in them that can tell if a TV is being used in a house within 30 seconds. Did you know they actually threw 20 people in jail in 2003 for not having a TV Licence? That is fucking ridiculous.
And people keep trolling the USA about this kind of thing. "Am I glad I live in [even more socialist state]!"
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
What concerns me is that you mention getting there, being "seen" (which only means that they perceived the photons bouncing off your corpus), and were home in a couple of hours.
At no point do you indicate that you actually got the arm fixed.
Do they suck your blood before they leave?
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Back in the days of supertax the maximum rate for investment income in the UK was theoretically 105% but reduced by concession to 95% of income. Very few people paid that rate but the Beatles/Apple Records had notorously bad financial planning skills.
Hope it's not per computer, or those people with a pile of old 286s in the shed could be in for a shock.
Ob Monty Python ref: Especially if you've got two sheds of old 286s!
"Have you written any of your recent works in this shed of yours?"
"It's a wonderful idea. But it doesn't work." -- Tad Danielewski
Right, the US has sales, liquor, and tobacco taxes as well. Liquor taxes are LOWER in the UK, though, which makes a night at the pub affordable, compared to the States.
So, your 'hypothetical' $40K a year employee in the U.S. would be losing about 30% of his income to federal and state taxes, plus sales taxes on the remainder (going with your method of calculation here), bringing the total tax burden to a par with the British system. Except the American has to pay for his own health insurance, from a private company, who will provide much shittier service, almost guaranteed.
Oh, and the American doesn't get public transit, either.
--
I Hit the Karma Cap, and All I Got Was This Lousy
What if I only use a TV to watch videos/DVDs/as a monitor for my games console? Do I still need a licence?
You need to notify us in writing that this is the case and one our Enforcement Officers may need to visit you to confirm that you do not need a licence. [My emphasis]
Isn't that almost exactly the experience I described in my first post on this matter? (TBH, I don't know whether said friend wrote in advance, or let them just find out on a routine check).
Also, nowhere have I asserted that deviating from 'normal' behaviour (i.e. owning a TV and having a license for it) doesn't attract a bit more attention/harassment than one might like. That said, some of the complaint letters linked from the marmalade.net site are somewhat inflammatory. If I was a call-centre worker on minimum wage and received one, I'd be tempted to put the sender on the shitlist just for the sake of it.
You are wrong. In England, at least, it is a search warrant that is required, not a Warrant Card, which is just an ID card that the filth carry. A search warrant must be issued by a judge (and/or maybe a magistrate). As previously stated, other agencies have others powers.
In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not.
Public dental care is farce because the dentists aren't under enought incentive to treat you.
I'd guess in the States having your kids teeth straightened costs serious cash. On the other hand if all the other kids have it done, not having it done would put them at a disadvantage. People will spend serious money on their kids so it all works out.
Last time I was in the UK I spent ages phoning public dentists all of whom seem to have amazingly unfriendly receptionists / office hours.
Oddly enough, I broke both arms pretty badly on another visit to the UK, and the initial treatment was very good. Waking up in a filthy ward next to people who'd caught drug resistant bugs in the hospital sucked though.
I think for emergency stuff public provision is probably OK, but for the preventative or elective things it just isn't the solution - that needs to be done by private companies for a profit.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
They do hide the fact that you can do this pretty well though.
I was caught once by a little old lady who looked like she needed to sit down.
In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not.
In my country we have the right to bear arms, which rather deters anyone but a peace officer from dropping in unannounced. See - it does keep the government honest. :)
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
That's not complete disinformation, but they might well be pursuing non-payers more aggressively now. I say this because when I was a student, back around 1993 or 1994, my shared house had a call from the licensing agency. Our TV was on and visible from outside the front door, so we were busted, but the official gave us a week or two to get a license. That might well have been an unofficial and unsanctioned action, but officials are human beings too and respond to both aggression and politeness the same as you or I.
It sounds to me like they are indeed being inconsistant, but only because it's easier to have a rule about digital set-top boxes than really listen to what you were saying.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
It's actually £121, so that's about US$240 at current rates.
I guess it pays for the BBC? Why don't they just go private and get advertising funds like everyone else?
Because then the BBC would produce (more) populist crap, just like the other advertising-funded channels do to get their ratings (and corresponding advertising sales revenue).
In Britain, there was also a hearth tax. You paid money for each fireplace you had.
Back in the days where income tax would have been very difficult to levy, as there was no way for the government to know how much people earned (income often came in the form of goods and livestock, like chickens, rather than cash), taxing the number of fireplaces was a decent way of taxing the wealthy more.
It was assumed that if you had more fireplaces, you had a bigger house, and therefore more money.
There was also a poll-tax, ("poll" originally meant "head" rather than "voting place") where there was a flat tax on each person in the household, payable by the head of the household. This could be rather burdensome on poor people, especially if they had sizable families.
The Prince of Hessen (in central Germany) raised money by drafting all the young men and selling them off to other countries as mercenaries. The term of service was something like 10 years, if I recall correctly. The young men being sold off as soldiers had no choice in the matter. That's why there were Hessian soldiers present at the Battle of Trenton during the American Revolution: the British had purchased them as mercenaries from Hessen and were using them in the colonies.
The Swiss used to be famous for their mercenaries as well. There wasn't much wealth in Switzerland at the times, so hiring the men out as mercenaries brought in needed cash. I believe, however, that unlike the poor fellows in Hessen, being a Swiss mercenary was voluntary.
German knights along the Rhine in the Middle Ages forced ships to pay money just for the privilege of sailing by their castle. Ships refusing to do so had the tendency to get confiscated. They earned the name "robber-knights" for that nice bit of extortion. So kids, remember that those romantic images of knights aren't all that accurate. They could often be greedy, violent thugs looking out for their own self-interests.
Those cash-strapped rulers came up with some imaginative ways of raising funds when they needed them. Sometimes people just had to bear it, and sometimes there were rebellions when the subjects felt that they were being taxed unfairly.
Let me give our British cousins some American advice. Don't worry you don't have to pay the tax on these. Here's what you do. Get dressed up as Indians (or native Americans if you prefer) and sneek into the harbor and get on the ships where these machines are being shipped into Great Britain. Then dump them all overboard into the harbor.
We had something like this with the British government a few hundred years ago. Since the rebellion we haven't had to pay one penny in taxes (to the British government).
It would've been circa '96/'97 when my friend was caught out. He would've been polite but it was in a fairly affluent area of Lond in a particularly nice bit of London and he does come across as very middle class so it might well have been a clash of personalities!!
That might well have been an unofficial and unsanctioned action, but officials are human beings too and respond to both aggression and politeness the same as you or I.
Hmmm. I don't know if they have to meet any targets, but the individual I encountered was not a particularly nice person IMHO. He tried playing the nicey-nicey chappy, just here to have a look around, no bother honest, "oh, have you got a TV" type approach, but seemed a little underhand. Once I'd just said nope to his request to have a look around he came across much much less friendly.
That's agrivated tresspass not tresspass.
I've picked up litter infront of enough CS cas firing riot poilce to know the difference.
We've had hundreds of police, helecopters, dogs, CS gas and horses.
join the free parties, it's a riot every weekend.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Why don't they just go private and get advertising funds like everyone else?
Well, the funny thing is, I do really like the way the BBC operates and I like the way it does give (for the most part) unbiased opinion.
The only thing I do object to is being forced to pay for something regardless on the threat of a large fine (or prison apparently, although I didn't think it'd go that far... they must've been watching all the TV channels at once!).
I think that in the same way that the British people pay through income tax for the NHS, and education, then if we believe that good quality news, current affairs and informational programming is important, then we should pay for it through taxation. I would be happy with that.
No, that's the prole tax.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
I was going to start by asking you if you have any idea how much it costs to put a child through school for at least eleven years, but you clearly don't so I'll skip that.
I do, I simply don't care that it would cost parents alot. Its not my responsiblity to raise thier kid. Next time don't make assumptions, you just make an ass out of yourself.
There is no way that the majority of people could afford to pay for even one of their childrens education, even if a) There are two parents & b) Both parents worked full time.
Maybe potential parents should think of this BEFORE they have kids. By your logic, I should be able to get help paying for an expensive car. After all, I want it and I can't afford it, but that shouldn't stop me from getting one, right? If two people can't afford to take care of their kid themselves, they shouldn't have a kid.
If you think returning to an Edwardian two teir system where only the wealthy get educated then I guess it all makes sense to you, but it perpetuates a large ignorant underclass within society.
Having an HS diploma doesn't really prove you know anything at all. American primary education has failed. I still see a 'large ignorant underclass' within our society. And i'm forced to pay for them too. If your way worked, there really shouldn't be any ignorant people should there?
The idea that you don't directly benefit from helping to pay for educating someone elses children is laughable.
I incur a huge cost with minimal return. That is, there are still alot of ignorant people around. Please tell me, why should a decision someone else makes negatively affect me?
If i'm going to pay for someone elses kid, I want a say in their decision to have a kid and other aspects of the kids life.
Erm, that's what it is for, dood.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
here's a link, no pickes though. (I've got some nice ones of people being hit by the police and blood going everywhere!).
http://tash.gn.apc.org/bristol1.htm
Despite this, the police turned up in force and told us we wouldn't be having a party. When questioned on what laws or powers they were using to shut us down (much to their dismay, the criminal Justice Act and the licensing laws do not cover free warehouse party's). The policeman in charge replied: "What are you, a fucking Barrister now...? You're not having a party because I SAY SO..!"
Numerous policemen then lined up in an attempt at preventing people getting into the warehouse. But when it became apparent that we weren't going to be intimidated into not having a party, they waded in and began indiscriminately beating party people with their truncheons. As a result of this action, alot of people received injuries, some of them quite serious. One woman was on the floor being beaten by at least 3 or 4 policemen and one man was held down over a railway line by two policemen who repeatedly smashed his face into a sleeper until his nose caved in.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
They already tax the purchase of computers at 17.5% VAT (value added tax) on the purchase price.
How much more does Tony Bliar and his thieving government bastards want. Do they want a pound of flesh? Will they be taxing the breathable air over the UK?
Sigs. We don't need no steenking sigs.
I've just moved to the US, and I'd far prefer to have the BBC available over here - without the adverts that they insert into the exported BBC channels they show.
For every hour of TV, about 20 mins will be adverts for things I don't want and will never buy. The Tivo is the only thing keeping me watching TV at all over here, because I can skip the ads. They even interrupt MOVIES for crying out loud!
Even the ad-supported channels in the UK are nowhere near as bad as the USA. I've got 300 channels of pure unadulterated crap, from which every now and then a semi-decent program emerges, in small pieces. Thank [insert deity] for the Sci Fi channel, it's the only thing I watch these days.
So, instead of ruining all my TV viewing ever, I used to pay ~£10/month. Well worth it. And even more so when you're forced to put up with the alternative.
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
Where are you getting this information from?
TV licencing told me on the phone a few years ago that I could use my TV to watch videos without a licence. They added a comment to that effect in their database. So long as you de-tune from all the broadcast channels and unplug the aerial, you're fine. Straight from the horses mouth.
I don't think people in the UK are quite aware of just how big an international PR medium the BBC is. Other countries can only dream of having a state controlled TV network that is watched by this kind of an international audience.
Who cares about British news? I like British comedy. British comedy generally requires 3/4 a brain to be funny. US comedy generally requires about 1/4 a brain to be funny. Lately alot of US comedy is around centered bodily functions. (I have an automatic ick-gross reaction to that and have been avoiding it like the plague.)
When I buy blank DVDs for backing up my computer at work, I have to pay a tax because I "could" be burning music or videos to them, however, since I don't have a single song or commercial video at work, I'm paying a tax for nothing.
2/3 of the ~3,000,000 (iirc) houses that were visited by Centrica (the company that enforces the TV licensing law) managed to fox the system by simply not answering their doors.
Inland Revenue. The tax office actually has greater enter and search powers than the police, in the sense that they need less judicial approval / paperwork to do it. They can be bloody sneaky about it too (co-ordinated raids on seperate premises etcetera).
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
You are wrong. In England, at least, it is a search warrant that is required, not a Warrant Card, which is just an ID card that the filth carry.
Just to back you up on this with some actual information, The Beat Officer's Companion (10th Ed.) states that a policeman does not have power to enter a private premises unless authorised to do so by a senior officer of the rank of Inspector or above. I believe the officer needs authority of a judge to do this. The main exception to this is arresting someone on the premises. If they're after material / evidence as well then they'll likely need a warrant.
If you're holding a public meeting in your house or something though or burning the house down, then all bets are off.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
It is time to push Disappearing Computer Projects!
Same here. The guys friend was just unlucky, he thought he could show the guy he didn't need one. Inspectors turn up at your door..."can I come in?" they ask. You say no, there is nothing they can do. They aren't the police, and even the police need just cause or a warrant to come in!
I don't know what happens if you continually do this, I guess they have some proceedure. Probably involves a court summons. Personally, I don't mind paying for the BBC, it's the best broadcaster on the planet. Not commercial. No special interests. No bias to favour the owners leanings (cough FOX!). Inovative shows and technology, e.g. the BBC have been at the forefront of just about every new technology. It's a misnomer that they are a TV & Radio broadcaster, their official remit is to use any broadcasting technology. Their web site has always been one of the best on the net, and recently I discovered the childrens section of their site, it's outstanding. NO ADDS!! I'm sure all the parents out there would appreciate a form of entertainment that doesn't literally revolve around selling product.
I've been expecting this announcment for a while. With TV broadcast slowly moving over to TCP/IP (like everything else), it was inevitable. If you can receive the BBCs signal, you should be paying for it. But what if you aren't in the UK...well, it's gonna get messy!
The BBC is funded by "taxes", not advertisement. I put taxes in quotes because it is payable serperately from your other taxes.
The reason this is done is to make sure the BBC is independent. The goverment can't simply decide to cut funding, when they do not broadcast favorable propaganda.
The TV license is actualy quite inexpensive for most people; if they increased income tax by that much, nobody would notice. But it is only controversial because, without it you are breaking the law, just like you would be not paying any other taxes.
In return for that, we get uninterupted TV shows and probably the best, most honest and objective news reporting in the world and inspiring other broadcaster to do the same.
Americans tend to trust Fox, CNN or the networks instead. Would I swap places to save GBP120 a year? Hell no!
If you don't let the inspector in, they can only gain entry to search for an illegal telly by providing evidence that you have one to a court - typically this will be done by using TV detector equipment, or observing the glow of a TV through the curtains from the street at night. Not sure if they use that one so much today seeing as it could be a PC monitor and not a telly
Unless I'm mistaken... computer monitors refresh at a minimum of 60hz often times 72hz or higher. Wouldn't the glow be different? Here in NTSC land in order to test a camera shutter speed I use a standard TV and watch it through the frame as I snap at 1/60th, 1/125th, 1/250th... etc etc. higher than 1/60ths will show 1/2 the TV screen, 1/4, 1/8th etc etc. Could not a similar technique be used in Pal land?
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
that's what you get for having no bills of rights. You have no guaranteed rights... sad.
In the U.S., firefighters and emergency medical personell have a similar permission.
There seem to be quite a few (1%?) topics posted here over the last few months that have been sourced directly from the BBC web site.
I would be willing to pay my licence fee for just access to the website.
After all, I read the news on it every day, and if it wasn't there, I might be tempted to buy a daily newspaper which could cost more than the licence fee - over a year.
Your point looks right on. The person who suggested possibly taxing computers also suggested simply taxing households (though perhaps the term "levy" has slightly different connotations than "poll tax" did?) I don't know the UK's tax system enough to know whether a specific TV tax on households would be perceived as better or worse than simply funding BBC from general taxation, either by the public who'd have to pay it or by the BBC, who'd have to keep fighting for higher amounts while risking having it cut if the party in power doesn't like their recent programming decisions.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
"Hut, hut, hut, hut!"
Splash, splash, splash...
Snap!
"Aaaaaarrrrrgggghhhhh!"
"Ooops. Did I leave that mantrap there? Terribly sorry about that. Do mind the shark tank on the way out. I'll mail your friends to you once I've fished them out."
Don't they remember what happened last time they tried to tax a big, independent, powerful group?
TV Licensing are actually run by Crapita, the famously incompetant computer service company.
You can't be sent to jail for not having a TV Licence, the maximum penalty is a fine of £1000.
"typically this will be done by using TV detector equipment" Evidence from TV detection equipment is treated in the same way as other forms of intrusive monitoring (wire taps, bugging, climbing in through a window). They'd have to get a warrant before they could collect the data for use in court (thus your only really at risk if they can observe your TV activity from a public place).
Wouldn't you already pay sales tax on a computer in the UK?? I know it's not the same as your TV tax thing but would that not be the same? Woudl it not be more efficient to just put a tax on the ISP bill?
Gorkman
Wouldn't it make a lot more practical sense to tax the sale of TVs then to go around with probes and try to tax the possesion of TVs?
Oh yes, because you must be anti-social if you don't work hard to support everyone else but yourself.
It did, in fact, already happen. It was called the Boston Tea Party.
We now (yanks) are facing the same situation, where a greater percentage of wealth is gobbled up by the machine.
I wonder what the new country will be called?
I'm pretty sure (95%) TV Licensing people cannot enter your home without permission / a warrant. They are a profit making company, not a government organisation.
http://dave1010uk.blogspot.com/ - the st
In the United States, the standard for allowing unauthorized entry by authorities is "imminent threat". Leaking gas is definitely an imminent threat, and most certainly the fire department can enter your house to fix it.
Melissa
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
Well we are the country with the highest ratio of CCTV cameras to people in the world...
The TV license is justifable and acceptable 'tax' as it provides us the the BBC and pays for a lot of the broadcasting infrastucture.
A PC/Computer is not, as the government did not pay for the infrastructure, nor are they a provider of any non-gov related content.
They've already charged us, as there is taxes in the ISP bills that we all have to pay to use the net.
TV cards are already detectable and taxable under the tv license rules.
----- I refuse to have an argument with an unarmed person
Yes.
What kind of law allows that?!?
Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1948. (Or was it '49?)
In my country you need a judge to order it. Nobody can enter your house if you do not give your permission (or have a judge order to do so).
Same in this country (some caveats for "hot pursuit", "public danger" like fires).
What actually happens is that employees of a private company with access to the database of people who have paid for a TV license will turn up on your doorstep if your license goes out of date and "ask" for permission to enter and verify that you don't have and equipment which requires to be licensed. (Note that there is no official consideration that you might not actually have such equipment - that's not something that enters into official thought.) At this point you are perfectly at liberty to say [deep breath]:
Since the normal modus operandii of License Enforcement Officers is to terrorise grannies, they were somewhat taken aback to be identified immediately and responded to firmly by someone who was tapping the back of his door with the ice axe that hangs there (it's good for double-glazing salesmen too). The fact that the rain was hammering down sideways, running off the tips of their sodden noses in continual streams, didn't help them. And when they tried sentence 2 of their standard script ("Could we come in to talk about this?") and received an emphatic refusal and instruction to get their illegal arses off my property before they find out what the Tony Martin School of Hospitality teaches people, they decided to find an easier target.
TV licensing people are not very popular. And they're very, very obvious.
Another friend had a visitation while he was knobbing a whore in his living room. The licensing people hammer on the door; he comes to the door with shirt undone and tadger hanging out:
-- "We're the TV people."
"Thank fuck - I thought you were her husband!"
-- "We'll come back later."
They never came back.
What's the difference between that and inspecting your computer to check if you have illegal stuff in it?
Not a lot.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
It is not practical to expect children to educate themselves. It is not practical to expect the sick or injured to cure themselves, nor for the old or disabled to take care of themselves. The fact that you didn't go to state school rather explains your attitude, but we'll pass on that and merely reiterate that denying basic education is a no-no, as is denying unemployment benefit. These strategies are damaging on a very real, practical level.
The case for subsidised railway is a little less blindingly obvious, so it is fortunate for you that the UK government barely bothers subsidising them, isn't it? However, there are a few reasons for public transport, not merely that it is childishly facile to suggest walking from London to Newcastle, but possibly all that stuff you might remember having heard about the disadvantages of the car as a means of transport and the supposed advantages of public transport... remember?
This sort of thing is collective responsibility, either to each other or (horrors) to the environment.
TV, on the other hand, you can do without, and nobody dies in the process. Nobody has proven to me as yet that society has been materially improved by its existence, as opposed to the other media currently available. It's a fad; internet seems to be displacing TV; before TV it was radio, all the way back to the days when those with the spare cash would amuse themselves with books and/or manuscript music. Personally, I don't feel that TV deserves any more of my cash than all the other fads, as far as state funding is concerned (proportionally to base cost). Given that my tax money already goes into various councils (eg Arts, Museums, Libraries and Archives, etc.) and corresponding groups on the local level, I don't see where TV's special need for massive quantities of funding arises.
The Government cannot afford to pick a specific medium and treat it as 'the fad to end them all' (look at Minitel for an example of what happens when governments do this). Thus the BBC's opt-in funding model, which delegates the choice to individuals - which seems to have worked, all in all, pretty well.
Last time I checked you live in, and benefit from, society. Don't say you don't benefit, because unless you're a hermit living in a shack in Montana that you built yourself (Using stone tools) and your posts to Slashdot are somehow magically beamed here by pure thought, you benefit from the actions of others every single day. In fact, you rely on thousands of other people just to keep you alive.
Yes, I have skills that others find value, and hence they pay me for my time. I then take that money, and pay someone else for doing or building something for me.
My problem is with someone forcably taking money from me to give to someone else because they decided to have children.
In other words, money I earned is being stolen and given to someone else because they can't support themselves. I support myself, why can't other people? I do
Tell that to the 20 people thrown in jail in 2003 for not paying the licence and not paying the fine.
Scroll down to page 5.
But as far as I understand it, the tax only pays for 1 network, the BBC. That would be like paying for just NBC, or just ABC, or just TNT, etc. $240/year is a ton of money to be paying for just 1 network. Now, if that money covered half of the TV programming available, I would be fine with it. I currently pay $35 / month = $420 / year for access to 20 or 30 different networks and stations (about 70 channels total, some networks control multiple channels). How much does the TV Licencing tax actually get you? How many channels does the BBC offer?
You mean the page where it says "No one can be imprisoned solely for licence fee evasion."?
Not really; Murdoch's (aka 'Fox') basic 'Sky' package is 20GBP per month (in addition to the license, obviously :-), rising to about 40GBP per month with all the channels.
How much does the TV Licencing tax actually get you? How many channels does the BBC offer?
If you're still using an analogue terrestrial receiver, then you get two BBC channels, two privately-held channels funded by advertising (ITV + five), and Channel 4 (publicly owned, but funded entirely by advertising and other commercial activities).
If you're using a digital terrestrial receiver (20-30GBP one-off payment for the set-top box), then you can usually get all the Freeview channels - the two full BBC channels, BBC3/CBBC (new comedy and kids programmes, respectively - they share a single MUX), BBC4/CBeebies (documentaries, current affairs, arts and kids, respectively), abc1 (US shows), BBC, ITN and Sky News, Sky Sports News, Sky Travel, UKTV History, three music/yoof channels (TMF, The Hits, FTN), BBC Parliament, and a bunch of home shopping channels. You also get a whole raft of radio stations, including the BBC's eleven stations.
So, all in all, it's probably fairly comparable with your arrangements.
We still don't have enough of them IMHO.
Jonathanjk.com
There is no such thing as the Royal Mail anymore.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
Wow, you're narrow-sighted. Let's look at the situation:
You must do A.
If you do not do A, then B happens.
You will not be imprisoned for not doing A.
You will be imprisoned for B.
Therefore, if you do not do A then B happens and you are imprisoned.
The simple fact of the matter is that 20 people were thrown in jail for not paying the fee, and then not paying the fine (as I said before). If the TV Licencing fee did not exist, these people would have not gone to jail as a result of not paying the fee. Although they may have gone to jail for some other reason, such as murdering someone, etc.
OT I suppose, but I remember it too:
"I am a po-liceman (he is a po-liceman)...he has a statutory right of entry to your home"
It wasn't Willie Rushton though. It was Richard Stilgoe, and he did it for the BBC's early evening "Nationwide" programme hosted by Michael Barratt.
It might possibly have been done as part of his regular "Consumer Unit" spot with Valerie Singleton. Another song of his from that spot was about disposable razor blades and how they were cheaper to buy actually with the razor.
BTW Richard Stilgoe is still going; he presents the thrice-yearly "Family Concert" youth orchestra events at the Royal Festival Hall on London's South Bank. They're superb fun, if you want to introduce kids to live classical music this is a great way to do it.
You are sadly misinformed. Britons pay more tax now than ever before. Much of it is indirect taxation, the so-called "stealth taxes" but some individuals such as IT contractors are being forced to pay through the nose on direct taxation as well (double NI, no tax relief on operational or capital costs).
It grieves me deeply that people such as you continue to propagate this myth about us not paying enough tax when, all told, the government already takes (one way or another) 70%-80% of what we make. And then proceeds to piss most of it down the fucking drain on pointless harebrained schemes like the Millennium Dome and "Regional Assemblies".
Where did I say we don't pay enough tax?
You must have a really bad accountant if you're paying 70-80% tax. Especially considering that the overall tax burden in the UK is around 40% of GDP, with a greater share in direct taxation than most of Europe.
Where did I say we don't pay enough tax?
You strongly implied as much.
the overall tax burden in the UK is around 40% of GDP
The figures you quote are the bogus government figures which ignore all the stealth taxes and even then weight the statistics toward lower rate taxpayers.
The real tax burden includes not only Income Tax and National Insurance (which alone will take a middle class earner's PAYE over your 40% figure) but also VAT (17.5%), Council Tax, Stamp Duty, CGT, Inheritance Tax, TV licence fee, tax on your pension earnings, and the list goes on and on. And you can add to that the cost of preparing your own tax return since we now have to do the Inland Revenue's work for them.
You must have a really bad accountant if you're paying 70-80% tax.
He no longer has any say in the matter; the IR35 rules are very prescriptive. The Inland Revenue has taken the step of issuing rules which state that any scheme which gets you out of IR35 or otherwise reduces your liability, is automatically and *retrospectively* null and void. They have basically eliminated the concept of tax avoidance (which used to be legal) and now lump it together with tax evasion (which was always a crime). They have even made accountants thenselves liable in the event of any "misreporting" (which is a movable feast under the current rules). They are obliged to report to the IR if they suspect that you might not be totally compliant. So your accountant can no longer be counted on to fight your corner against this greedy government agency - if he did, he could end up in court facing serious fines and maybe even prison. His role is now effectively reduced to that of an auxiliary tax collector whose services *you* have to pay for out of your own pocket.
People in other businesses might not be so badly affected yet but its clear to see that this government has only contempt for knowledge workers. The IR35 tax regime is clearly designed to discourage us from being in business on our own account, indeed it makes it pointless to do so.
However as the new interpretation of S660 starts to seep through (which rules out sharing dividends with your spouse, and which will be applied retrospectively over the past six years), all manner of microbusinesses will start to be hit with sudden additional tax bills of tens of thousands of pounds.
Of course small businesspeople are in the minority, and those who are worst hit will doubtless be targets of envy for the great mass of basic rate taxpayers, so the government doesn't expect any great outcry. Until we have been bled dry, that is, and it gets to be their turn.
I guess as a newly employed, non-car-owning, non-property-owning, non-smoking remote software developer with no pension plan (yet) and not much inheritance coming my way who's just finished 7 years of university education entirely at the taxpayers' expense (I'm just old enough to have received a grant), I have a fairly rose-tinted view of the tax system in this country ;)
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
It won't last long. Your turn soon. Heaven help you.