digg

Join DiggAbout

The BBC knows where you live; its all in the watch!

liveleak.com — Wow, is this real or fake? I love the veiled threats...fantastic! What do they do to you if you fail to license your TV? Do they send out the bone-crushers? Do folks show up at your door and take your TV?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • valejo, on 05/06/2008, -22/+3It might be in the database, but it's likely that the administrative process of querying and enforcing are much, much, much bigger than is possible, at least with 100% coverage.
  • TheCatsPants, on 05/06/2008, -2/+66It's a real advert. They're not veiled threats, they're real. You'll get a fine if they catch you with receiving equipment in your premises with no TV licence. TV detector vans go out to try to find people watching TV without a licence. Haven't seen one of those vans for years though. Maybe they focus on those addresses that don't have TV licences.
    • meatmcguffin, on 05/06/2008, -0/+15I thought that TV detector vans could only detect CRT TVs and that's why they are now less common and also why shops now ask for your house number and postcode when you buy a TV
      • PaulOwen, on 05/06/2008, -0/+28I'll let everyone into a secret:

        TV DETECTOR VANS ARE FAKE!

        In the 1970s the BBC investigated ways of detecting whether a TV was being used in a household, and what they came up with was the TV Detector Van, whose technology was "secret". In fact, there still isn't a reliable way of detecting if even a CRT monitor is switched on let alone an LCD TV. If you don't want a shop to pass on your address details to TV Licensing, buy online because they can't submit your details without your permission under the UK's Data Protection Act 1998 (the same legislation that prevents ISPs from turning over your details to the MPAA, RIAA whoever).

        Therefore, the BBC retains access to the electoral register to pursue addresses which don't have TV licenses, and under threat of imprisonment (imagine if SkyTV was able to throw you in prison if you didn't get a subscription to their service!) they pursue the registered householders.

        If you don't want to be caught out by TV Licensing here are a few tips:

        1. Buy a TV license. It's not actually all that much money anyway.
        2. Never give your name or address to the person from Capita who comes knocking on your door asking for your details.
        3. Buy your TV online.
        • cr3ative, on 05/06/2008, -2/+7They don't claim to detect the CRT monitor, or the LCD screen; they claim to detect the tuner.
          I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's a slight difference.

          There's a press release milling around on the BBC archives that they did under the freedom of information act which reveals the vans certainly are real (there's budget breakdowns and some technical details), but their accuracy is a "secret".
        • robinohio1, on 05/06/2008, -30/+2Getting a license for a TV is so ***** gay. You UK people put up with that? On a side note, who gives two ***** if the BBC knows where I live? Yeah I live the North American Union and I watch your ***** BBC programming. Well except for Gordon Ramsey. He is a funny mother *****. I like him.

          Maybe you can send your TV vans around when I am watching something on the
          "Richard Quest LIVE in a New York park with his pants down". Limely *****...GET A DENTIST!
          • Cirieno, on 05/06/2008, -2/+14Gosh, what an angry person you are. Did that little outburst help?
          • MrPineapples, on 05/06/2008, -1/+11You are very silly boy. The tv license means you don't have ad on the bbc, which is really good... I barely watch the other channels as I hate adverts and all the good shows are available free & ad free online.
          • MalkyMalc, on 05/06/2008, -1/+20Get a dentist? Going with national stereotypes are we? Ok then, go on a diet and stop bombing me.
        • jrbrewin, on 05/06/2008, -3/+2i only have to look at the quality of programming abroad, or switch over to ITV to justify paying the bbc its license. It's money well spent. adverts suck. programming driven to generate advertising revenue suck.

          If you don't want to get caught not paying the license , don't buy a tv. end of.
        • wellycanada, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2I've not paid for a TV license in over 10 years. Never been caught. No matter now, I don't live there anymore.
    • xaeon, on 05/06/2008, -0/+28Whilst the majority of what you say is true, I have to just mention the bit about the detector vans. These are purely a marketing strategy, as there is no way they can tell whether or not you have a TV in your house via a van parked outside (unless they are spying on you with binoculars, or something). The majority of people, however, are not aware of this.
    • matx, on 05/06/2008, -0/+11This is why I have closed my curtains and bought a dog!
    • macwac, on 05/06/2008, -6/+4Buy a TV second hand.. voila! No need to file your address..
      • fish42, on 05/06/2008, -5/+1a lot of places do ask for that, or make you sign something saying you have got a tv licence already. its daft tho as all you have to do is connect a pc or console to the pc and say its a monitor and not used for tv.

        iirc they also have hand held scannerd not vans now so can walk up to a door while checking. tho doubtful how effective that is
        • Markpdotcom, on 05/06/2008, -2/+4Incorrect, if a device has the ability to receive broadcasts and you don't have a license, you are in breach of the law.
        • chedabob, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Incorrect. If you are using a device for anything other than watching TV, you are not required to own a TV license. It doesn't matter whether it has a tuner or not. I think you have to notify them of it though.
        • xaeon, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2@Markpdotcom
          Wrong. http://tvlicensing.metafaq.com/templates/tvlicensi ...
      • manicleek, on 05/06/2008, -0/+7You don't need to have a license to buy a TV.

        You have to buy a license if you go out and get a TV and bring it into your, as yet, un-licensed home.

        They have a database of all the addresses without a license so if they come round and find out you have a TV you get fined
        • jrbrewin, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1you do however, need a license to watch tv, or use the bbc website or any of their other non-advertisment funded programming.. or at least, the video components that they offer. (e.g. iPlayer from within the UK)
        • bitcloud, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1wtf... have I somehow transported myself into a post apocalyptic distopia?

          A licence to own a TV? what??
        • happyseamonster, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1What if you want a TV to watch videos or games but not broadcasting?
      • robinohio1, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3Are their people in the UK that do NOT have a TV? Also, what does a TV license cost? Is it annual? For each TV? How does it work?
        • Fartbandit, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4The TV Licence currently costs £139.50 on a per household annual basis and is used to fund the BBC with the bonus that the BBC are not allowed to show adverts or promotions of any kind...
        • Modiga, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3Annual cost of about £140, typically that would cover every TV in your household.
        • Stonekeeper, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2I don't have a TV but watch stuff over iplayer. I do still pay the licence but if i find out i don't need it then great :)
        • Jams, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3A colour TV license costs £139 and a black and white costs £40. If you are elderly or blind then you get 50% off. I didn't have a TV for 2 years (who needs one with the internet/books/DVDs) They kept sending me threatening letters because they didn't believe me. Eventually they arranged to inspect my house.. after that they left me alone.
          • happyseamonster, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Did they inspect it? That's insane!
        • chedabob, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1£139 per household but if you live in a building with locks on each door (e.g. University accomodation) you have to pay a seperate license for each room, which is total bollocks.
        • xaeon, on 05/06/2008, -4/+1@Stonekeeper
          If you watch stuff on the iPlayer then, by law, you DO need the licence.
        • Echomote, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5To all the people saying you need a licence for iPlayer, you do not. The site itself even says.
          • xaeon, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3I just checked up and you are indeed correct. As the iPlayer doesn't allow you to view "live" TV, you do not need a TV License. They are, apparently, updating the iPlayer to allow live TV, and at that point you will need a TV License.
        • diggduggjoe, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5So, it is like PBS, but they force you to donate. Awesome!! Socialism at work.
        • UnstableMind, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Wow, I'm more ***** scared for you Brits than I was before. Do you have to pay to take a ***** too? Goddamn, now I know why we Americans escaped.
      • MalkyMalc, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2I just pay mine. Not like it's pricey or anything.
      • borez, on 05/06/2008, -1/+6False name, false address. it ain't rocket science.

        FTR: I have never paid for a TV license at any address, ever and don't intend to, I pay enough rape tax in this country as it is thanks.
    • captmorgan555, on 05/06/2008, -3/+8What is the reasoning behind licensing your TV?
      • ajmuir, on 05/06/2008, -1/+21Ad-free tv/radio/internet. Granted you guys can access the internet and radio part of that equation! The fee also supports distribution of the signal, antenna infrastructure etc..as well as freeview and freesat.
        • PaulOwen, on 05/06/2008, -5/+26The BBC has a lot of media executives who need to be kept in whores and cocaine, all of which need to be paid for from somewhere.
      • SouthsideIrish, on 05/06/2008, -7/+8The same reason for licensing your hose. Had a hose tax when I lived there in the 80's.
        • jackajj, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2o.0
        • robinohio1, on 05/06/2008, -12/+2WTF?!?!?!?! You licensed your god damn HOUSE! Did you need a license for a shovel too? What about a license so you can have sex? You limely bastards live in a totally ***** up country. Good thing I live in the North American Union...where it is safe from licenses on my TV or my garden hose! I am hungry for free government brainwashing but I really do not want to pay for it.
          • steviebaby, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3Your brain definitely needs a good wash. If you had one that is.
          • KingCritic, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4Erm..don't you have to pay thousands of dollars if you need to visit the hospital??
          • Funpolice2050, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1That's what Canada is for.
          • robinohio1, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2The UK is a commie ***** if I ever saw one. At least we have fascism here in the US.
        • Fartbandit, on 05/06/2008, -0/+6We had severe water shortages in the mid 80's which meant the use of a garden hose to water the garden was taxed during that period only. Those taxation laws are no longer in use...
      • SSUK, on 05/06/2008, -1/+14I'm not quite sure myself when I see BBC made DVDs selling for outrageous prices. £60 for a Doctor Who boxset, £18 for 3 episodes of Doctor Who on a singular DVD. *****. I already paid for you to make your half-baked drama, I want to support you make more, but not when you're taking me for a ride in the process. Especially with all the money they must get from licensing the show all over the world. Bollocks to them.

        P.s: Yes, I know the BBC only gets a share of the TV licensing money, but still...
        • Stonekeeper, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3This too has really got my goat.
        • MalkyMalc, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2That is indeed an outrage, but it's not just the BBC, I find most UK dramas are stupidly priced. About £50 for a 13 episode series is outrageous. But we do have iPlayer...
        • PaulOwen, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2The BBC gets ALL of the license fee, other than that which they pay Capita to collect the fees.

          They certainly don't share it with other channels; there is a caveat though - ironically, other stations don't want the BBC to stop getting license fees because the resulting squeeze on advertising revenue would severely impact their own revenues.

          Having said that, the revenue from the license fee dwarfs any rival channels' advertising revenues ... :/
        • tao52nyc, on 05/06/2008, -1/+0Thank God for Azureus...
      • sammydeath, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1i have to pay my licence for re runs of old 80`s programmes and awful awful soaps like eastenders.
    • GOVATENT, on 05/06/2008, -6/+3never mind, read the answer i was looking for. digg down sorry
    • phpftw, on 05/06/2008, -6/+5This, sadly, is real. I never believed in the magic TV detecting vans, seeing as TV's are receivers - not transmitters.
      However, for a while now the TV licencing agency has been asking ALL retailers of electrical receiving / recording equipment to send the name, address, items purchased and date of purchase for any orders placed to them in a suitable format that can be imported directly into their database. Using this list of data from retailers, the TV licencing agency can then cross reference each address to ensure you have a TV license. If you don't, they will come knocking, and also know exactly what you've purchased and when.
      I know this for sure as I've had to develop and integrate this system for one of my clients.
    • coopa, on 05/06/2008, -0/+15I'd just like to point out that you are /not/ automatically fined for not having a licence. I was caught without one when i was a student and so were the other 4 guys in my hall. None of us were prosecuted, we just had to buy a licence on the spot and back date it to when we moved in.

      At my brother's university the licencing team were not allowed on campus grounds without giving 30days notice. The uni would warn everyone in the halls that they had 30days to go out and buy a licence.
      • PaulOwen, on 05/06/2008, -1/+6Students are treated differently though.

        Normal wage earners are fined on the spot AFAIK. I once had a very old TV which could not get a picture, so when the TV licensing people called I said to them "if you can fix my TV, I'll buy a license". They tried to argue that I was still receiving white noise, so I should be charged to which I countered that this is impossible, because if you remove the ariel you still get white noise so it must be generated inside the TV (by little tiny people perhaps).

        She stopped calling.
        • spudnic, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2No, they aren't.

          I haven't had one for going on two years now, I support the BBC, I just don't watch TV any more. Anyway, all I've had are occasional letters telling me to get one, the problem of course being that they can't give me notice of a surprise visit to check my story, so I'm never in when they call.

          Sounds like whoever was handling your case was a moron, you are allowed to have a TV to use for DVDs and things so white noise should have been a non-issue.
      • fandyboy, on 05/06/2008, -0/+6You should have explained that the white noise on the TV is the left over radiation from the big bang, so they were asking you to pay for the beginning of the universe. Although I doubt the intellect of the average TV licence enforcer could understand that concept.
    • blagoaw, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2I've always assumed that the UK's tv license system was the inspiration behind Monty Python's skits about the "cat detector van". It's been going on for a loooong time. Long enough that they no longer see how ridiculous it is.

      In fairness, we accept credit card tracking and license plates as normal, even though it's invasion of privacy.
      • geekanarchy, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3Credit cards are voluntary and can be canceled. I do object to license plates, but being that the state technically has the legal title for virtually all cars, there isn't much I can do.
        I also object to any other compulsory registration or licensure by the so-called authorities, including social security, gun registrations, "Selective Service" (the draft), and income taxes. Again, not much I can do other than complain loudly, unless I want to take my fight to prison.
        • blagoaw, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Credit cards are technically voluntary, but they're standard enough that you can't reasonably avoid them. It's highly inconvenient to make a large purchase or buy something online without using one. The result is that each transaction you make is personally identifiable and a record is made of it. If we had anonymity in our purchases and someone suggested making it all personally identifiable and recorded, I suspect that there would be an outcry. There are always fears when people suggest going to electronic money -- but for the most part, we're mostly already there and people give credit cards a free pass because they already exist. With license plates it's the same thing -- we accept it because it's there. Hooray for the slippery slope.
      • salmacis, on 05/06/2008, -1/+7No, what's ridiculous is the amount of advertising on American TV. Given the choice, I know what I prefer.
        • expert01, on 05/06/2008, -3/+2Being an American, where everyone with access to digital cable can get a DVR for $10 a month, I know which I prefer - and it's not paying around $300/usd a year for TV privileges.
        • wellycanada, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2To be fair, I've seen American TV and at $10 a month, it's a rip off because there's never anything worth watching anyway. You spend half the evening changing channels to find something to watch and the other half flicking around the channels avoiding the adverts. So you don't actually get to watch any TV at all.
        • blagoaw, on 05/06/2008, -3/+1The advertising on American television is equally ridiculous. The image of a van actually driving through a neighbourhood with antennae for the detection of an 'unlicensed' tv, followed up by paperwork and legal repercussions is just too comical though.
        • joeydoo, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1$10 a month for a PVR?? Freeview and Freesat have an EPG included... we don't have to pay any money a month for just getting channel and program updates. BBC setup/part fund free those services.
          Also note we get loads of HBO shows (ALL the good ones), and other American TV which you lot get charged for..... on free to air TV Channels.
          Also now Freesat has started we'll get 95% of good TV without having to pay for another service.
          We get loads for that licence fee.... forced or not.
    • theodenking, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4I guess this was submitted by an non-Briton. I don't think we in the land of CCTV blink an eyelid at these sorts of things any more.
    • domokunt, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4Licensing have no power to enter your property without a warrant. Don't let them in and they have little way of convicting you without going to great lengths. And those detector things are not admissible in court. The fee is a miserable unfair tax, don't pay it.
  • ChrisWalkr, on 05/06/2008, -4/+79It's not the BBC it's the TV Licensing Board.
    http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/
    • rebotfc, on 05/06/2008, -3/+15However the ad does run on the BBC.
      • ChrisWalkr, on 05/06/2008, -2/+4Yes it does
      • sputnike, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1As well as a few other channels as a matter of fact (ITV, Channel 4, Sky One, Paramount Comedy...etc)
    • nigdef, on 05/06/2008, -5/+12yes on behalf of the bbc who get the money
      • ChrisWalkr, on 05/06/2008, -2/+6Yes but still, its not the BBC who has the info.
    • robinohio1, on 05/06/2008, -17/+4$275.62 FOR A ***** TV LICENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 (139.50 in UK money). WTF! You dumb ***** in the UK PAY THAT!!!!!! Man I never would have thought an entire country would get PWNED!
      • TheCatsPants, on 05/06/2008, -1/+15Do you pay for any tv services? Well, so do we, except we can get it without 33% advert content per hour.
      • Cornea, on 05/06/2008, -2/+24Yes - I wish I could get Fox instead of the BBC. Then I too would be able to talk like an eight year old.
      • Fartbandit, on 05/06/2008, -3/+9You pay for cable or satellite don't you?? The Licence ensures we can get access to Freeview or SkyFreeview without having to pay extra with the added benefits of not having ***** 5 min long ad breaks every 10 mins. :) Ive been to America numerous times and the quality of your TV broadcasting is ***** dire in comparison...
        • steviebaby, on 05/06/2008, -2/+5It's impossible to reason with this Grade A *****. He seems to have something against the British.
      • dOOBiEx213, on 05/06/2008, -5/+3The British have let their government step all over them. They're monitored 24/7, and get raped with taxes... at least the U.S. tries to hide it.
        • MrLlama, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2The UK doesn't pay that much in tax compared to most first world countries especially other European countries. Your defenetly not getting monitored 24/7 in the UK, and only paraniod freaks would care anyway. The UK government doesn't step over its citizens - we actually have more than 2 realistic political parties and people are willing to vote for different governments depending on their performance (the governing Labour government were recently put into 3rd place in Local elections due to people disliking it, and its having to review some of its newest unpopular policies).
        • VVCephei, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1What the ***** do you know? By the sounds of things, you don't even live in britain, I do, and I can ensure you, I am not being monitored 24/7... Besides, I would rather live in a country where things arent hidden from us.
    • HeroicLife, on 05/06/2008, -0/+15The TV Licensing Board is legally a "brand" of the BBC meant to disguise their relationship.
    • JettaMan, on 05/06/2008, -3/+7So if I don't want to support the BBC as a British taxpayer how do I do that? Oh wait, I forgot, I must sponsor their state propaganda. My bad.
      • MalkyMalc, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2Duck! Communists!
      • theodenking, on 05/06/2008, -2/+4Don't watch television?
        As someone said above, it also funds Britain's broadcasting infrastructure. And I hardly think "Strictly Come Dancing" qualifies as state propaganda.
      • drlha, on 05/06/2008, -3/+4I'm guessing if you believe that the BBC is a state propaganda TV station, then you're not actually a British taxpayer, and actually an ill-informed Fox News watching US taxpayer.
    • aajjcckk, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5As per commenter 2 above (HeroicLife) - the TV licensing board IS the BBC, effectively.
    • agentmedia, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2"TV Licensing" is a trading name used by companies contracted by the BBC to administer the collection of television licence fees and enforcement of the television licensing system" http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/aboutus/index.jsp
  • Lavarock, on 05/06/2008, -43/+9Britain has the worst free speech record in the first world. This is unsurprising.
    • ChrisWalkr, on 05/06/2008, -3/+33Of course, because having a TV License restritcts free-speech.
      • jackajj, on 05/06/2008, -10/+1No but having to have a TV Liscence to watch TV sounds crazy to me. Just like how working for money "Labour" seemed like slavery to everybody in the western world 200 years ago. Maybe one day we will all need a TV liscence, and a Breathing Liscence, or a Eating fatty food Liscence and it will all feel perfectly normal.
    • PhQnix, on 05/06/2008, -3/+19What? You obviously do not get the concept of a TV license. As far as I am aware TV licenses have never affected free speech.
    • neocr0n, on 05/06/2008, -0/+10Do you have any proof of that or are you just jumping on the hype provided by CCTV cameras?
    • meatmcguffin, on 05/06/2008, -4/+48You're a ***** moron. One look at a British tabloid will tell you that you're full of *****.

      The license fee pays for all the BBC TV and radio stations, all commercial free, and in return Britain gets the finest non-biased news source in the World and the rest of the planet gets the BBC World service for free which is listened to by millions, bias-free and trusted in those countries where government propaganda is rife. Sounds like the license fee propagates free speech, not diminishes it.
      • sexybobo, on 05/06/2008, -11/+2Nothing is non-biased it might be less biased then most but do you really think if they had a story talking about cutting the bbc funding or eliminating government subsidies for the bbc that they would not spin it?
        • powatom, on 05/06/2008, -1/+27The BBC ALWAYS reports it. They even criticise various departments within the BBC.

          It's weird if you're listening to BBC news on the radio and a story comes on about some 'bad news' within the BBC - they report it as if it's some completely different company.
          • meatmcguffin, on 05/06/2008, -1/+20The Hutton report was a classic example of this. *Everybody* knew that the findings of that report were total crap and yet the BBC still used its own news programs to rip itself apart.

            It was that day that i learnt just how important that BBC is for this country and I haven't complained about the licence fee since.
          • spudnic, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3It's not just about the fact they have the balls the properly report negative stories on themselves, they can report negative stories on whoever or whatever company they like without a moment's hesitation.

            They make Fox News's 'Fair and Balanced' slogan look utterly retarded.
        • ToadLeg, on 05/06/2008, -3/+5The BBC is biased in the direction of truth, and they spin it in the direction of understanding.
          • powatom, on 05/06/2008, -7/+3That is possibly the most horrible sentence I have ever read.
          • robinohio1, on 05/06/2008, -5/+4Toad, you need to get a job at the Fox News Channel here in the NAU. You can certainly write good *****.
        • MalkyMalc, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5It's totally true. They're almost paranoid about seeming biased. But I really do believe that they are more impartial as a result of being funded by the public, rather than corporate owners (who have their own agendas).
    • powatom, on 05/06/2008, -2/+11What's a tv licence got to do with free speech?
      • Minarchian, on 05/06/2008, -8/+2If you have to be licensed for something than you have no right to it. If they license you for your tv they can also take that license away from you.

        Remember. Hitler used licensing to take away guns before WWII.

        Granted, the Government may never do this, but why give them the power?
        • powatom, on 05/06/2008, -1/+6What are you talking about? Having a TV licence has no effect on whether you can ACTUALLY watch TV. That's why they're so bitchy about people paying it. They know that there are thousands of people watching TV 'illegally' at any given point in time.

          Regardless, them taking my licence away has no effect on my ability to complain about it. I still don't see the 'free-speech' argument here...
    • MalkyMalc, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2Patriot act, anyone?
    • hiredg3Ek, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3At least we get decent TV in Britain without having to pay for freaking cable! i would far rather get advert free TV and pay the license fee than get the crap you get in the US on terrestrial!
    • dontaskagain, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3I would like to use my British free speech to state my opinions of you....*****
      Good day sir
    • MrLlama, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3Can you show me where you found the statistic that Britain has the worst free speech record in the first world? Its above America and many other first world countries in terms of journalist freedom but I'd like to see where you got your source from.
    • spudnic, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Digg chewed up my link (they STILL haven't fixed that? Christ.)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Bor ...
    • fandyboy, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2I'd like to say what a ***** moron you are, but alas because I am British the secret flame police will batter down my door and haul me off to room 101 for "re-education"

      /SAR-*****-CASM
    • mcmadhatter, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Ironic coming from an American. The USA free speech record has been getting worse year on year.
  • zadadka, on 05/06/2008, -1/+10There's no vans with spinning roof-racks anymore....instead, the Law of the last decade has been that all new TV's and other receiving equipment sold, must have the purchasers home details, which are cross-checked with your VISA address or whetever was used to pay....the Purchaser is responsible for the TV License in the first instance.
    Fines arrive by post.
    • brutalsponge, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Yep. I bought a TV recently and the shop assistant asked for my address and personal details.
      Now if only the TV license didnt go to producing crappy shows.
    • warriorscot, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Actually they send you a few letters, then they come and see but you don't have to let them in, then they can send someone with a warrant but to be honest the easiest thing to avoid it is just to use a TV tuner with a computer.
      • DaleksUnited, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3When I bought my tuner they took my address too...
      • spudnic, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2Yeah you still need a licence for that.
    • LingNoi, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Not that its very useful.. You just pay with cash and put someone else's address down when you buy a TV.
  • breadfred, on 05/06/2008, -2/+79The price we have to pay for not watching adverts.
    • algo, on 05/06/2008, -0/+34worth it.
    • bosssmiley, on 05/06/2008, -2/+6Other than for BBC products.
    • TotalHalibut, on 05/06/2008, -13/+4Not worth it quite frankly. The BBC rarely puts out anything noteworthy these days.
      • Pigeon, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4Rome was good.
        • Price, on 05/06/2008, -2/+4Rome was BBC-HBO, and it was OK.

          There are some good shows put out by the BBC though.
          Top Gear... Charlie Brooker's Screenwipe... Er... Well that's just about all I watch by the BBC.
          • spudnic, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5BBC news, Have I got News for You, Ideal, Doctor Who, The Apprenctice, QI, and just about all the documentaries, to name a few more..
          • TotalHalibut, on 05/06/2008, -1/+16 programs does not justify 130 pounds per year quite frankly. And Dr Who is terrible, I'd love to know who's responsible for the awful script and the lame special effects.
        • LokitheComplex, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1I like BBC 4. All three of us love it. I'm kind of disappointed with humanity it isn't more popular.
    • xaeon, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3It's not just that. It also pays for upkeep and expansion of the entire TV infrastructure in the UK.
    • SeaICIubber, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3Instead we get an endless loop of cooking, gardening, auctions and home-maker programs....
    • philz, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Somehow they stopped billing my after I sent an email to update my lastname to:
      Miller'); -- drop database *;
    • 2pence, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Try adblock
  • EnderMB, on 05/06/2008, -1/+11I still get those vans driving down my street looking for tax/tv license evaders. The adverts are terrible and just make me not want to pay my tv license.
    • sexybobo, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5How much is a tv license? And if you have more than 1 tv do you have to pay the license fee for each tv?
      • powatom, on 05/06/2008, -1/+11One licence per residence. A normal family only needs 1 TV licence. If your house is divided into individual residences (say, flats or whatever), then each flat with a TV requires a licence. Students living in shared accomodation only have to pay for one licence if they all sign a joint tenancy agreement (ie - the building counts as a single residence).

        Colour TV: £139.50
        B&W: £47

        • EnderMB, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Also, I may be wrong on this but you're only allowed three TV's per household with the normal TV license.
      • Palfo, on 05/06/2008, -1/+9A colour TV licence costs £139.50 and black and white TV licence costs £47.00 per year. Typically per household not per TV owned.
  • owly, on 05/06/2008, -4/+13The advert is real; the BBC puts a fair amount of effort into threatening people. I live in the halls at university and while hardly anyone here has their own television they still mail us a few hundred letters several times a year. Everyone ignores them and I've never yet seen a van here.
    • northernmunky, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4No one has a TV licence in our halls (dorm for the Americans). If a van showed up... we just refused to let them in! Problem solved.
      • robinohio1, on 05/06/2008, -8/+2Yeah...just tell the TV SWAT team that your $275.62 is needed for alcohol, coke, and hookers. Come back next time when my parents send me more money. We might get a license then. Until that time, please leave my front door with all of the details. And then slam it in their limely faces.
        • northernmunky, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2Whats this guy banging on about? Any chance of a translation?
      • DannoSpeaks, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2Also hall for Americans.
      • Tronsama, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4I thank you for translating the meaning of "hall" so that we Americans can understand.
  • groovechamp30, on 05/06/2008, -4/+40I cant believe people still fall for the "TV detector vans". The reason they don't have them anymore is because after the 80s people became technologically aware enough to realise that no technology exists to "detect TVs" from a van parked on the street.

    Its just a guy with a list of names that haven't registered their TV, he knocks on the door, then uses a variety of tactics to get you to pay your TV license/fine you.
    • inditech, on 05/06/2008, -3/+7Not true I'm afraid... Following is an excerpt from http://tinyurl.com/68epbg
      (I have not bothered to correct the typos in the text below)
      ---
      During the World War II, radio engineering saw advances in radar, passive directionfinding, and low-probability-of-intercept techniques, which I’ll discuss in the nextchapter. By the 1960s, the stray RF leaking from the local oscillator signals in domes-tic television sets was being targeted by direction-finding equipment in “TV detector vans,” in Britain, where TV owners must pay an annual license fee that is supposed to support public broadcast services. Its use has since expanded to satellite and cable TVoperators, who use detector vans to find pirate decoders. Some people in the computersecurity community were also aware that information could leak from cross-couplingand stray RF
    • blagoaw, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1If you've got your equipment tuned well enough, I believe the RF given off by a CRT can even be enough to give some sense of what it is displaying, let alone just the fact that it's a CRT. Not sure if it's the decoder or the CRT that they are/were after though.
      • TheCatsPants, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1I think it's the signal given off by the receiver that can be detected. At least they used to claim that they could tell which station you were watching. So it includes video recorders/DVD recorder etc. Anything that can pick up a tv signal.
        • blagoaw, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Detecting RF from a CRT could just as easily be enough to determine the channel too (they would just need to compare it against each channel on a control display (in practice, probably they'd compare it against the RF given off from each channel on the control)).. so it's hard to say.
      • chedabob, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2That's called Tempest Technique, where the image displayed on a CRT can be reconstructed from the electromagnetic radiation given off by it.
        • dsimonpower, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2I believe it's more commonly called watching the TV :P
    • aajjcckk, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3> no technology exists to "detect TVs" from a van parked on the street.

      This is TOTALLY NOT TRUE. It does, and it has for years, and is incidentally still used widely.
      • spudnic, on 05/06/2008, -3/+2While the technology might exist, the vans do not, and it is not used.

        Why would they bother training people to use it, buying all the equipment, and then sitting on the street in a van and realising that, oh look, everyone house on the street has several TVs...

        The fact you'd need a list of houses without TVs licences to make it even remotely practical renders the whole thing pointless, because you can just knock on their door instead.
    • loveandrockets, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2TVs and CRTs contain something called a Flyback Transformer. On old TVs you can even hear it whine in the 15kHz range. It would be easy to construct a device that could detect something in that range and triangulate it to a certain area. (It would take about 3 people with the same device on walkie-talkies but it could be done.)

      Hell, if they really wanted to, they could "Van Eck Phreak" your TV or computer monitor and see what you are watching on your TV or computer screen.
  • spenner, on 05/06/2008, -8/+5I didn't pay for a TV license while at uni. All it basically means it that if you don't pay then it gives them the right to continually SPAM YOU every day with constant empty threats of fines or court prosecution. There is a chance that they they may send a guy to monitor you but if they come to the door they have no rights to enter without an invitation. This together with the possible fines actually does work well as a whole. What they actually spend the money on though is another story!!
    • danjwray, on 05/06/2008, -3/+2Well I know they spent £200M of it on showing the Grand Prix, the single most boring and wasteful sport ever created. They literally drive cars in circles for over an hour, running on rocket fuel, and fly all over the world doing it. Money well spent.
    • 72DH, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3My son currently has this problem at his Uni. He gets letters stating he needs to buy a TV license otherwise they will take him to court. He doesn't own a TV because he would rather spend most of his time drinking himself senseless than rotting his mind with the crap currently being shown on BBC.
  • xaeon, on 05/06/2008, -0/+15This is a real advert, and the threats they make are entirely real. When you purchase a TV, or any kind of AV receiving equipment, you are asked for your house number and postcode. This is then sent to the TV Licensing company, who run that address through their databases. If you don't have a TV licence, they will send out a reminder, which could then possibly be followed up by a house visit. I know, as I myself have had a house visit; though we did spend half an hour arguing with the guy that we didn't need a TV licence for our TV as it was purely for video games and DVDs, not for watching terrestrial television.

    But yes, this is real, and the fine is pretty hefty if you get caught.
    • zimbra, on 05/06/2008, -7/+8Unfairly, you're still supposed to have a TV license even if it's not connected to an aerial and only used for DVDs or whatever.
      • atgmac, on 05/06/2008, -4/+5I can't believe that. If it's only used for DVDs then it's no different from a computer monitor which doesn't need a licence.
        • powatom, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5The licence is for any equipment which has the capability to receive the TV signals. It doesn't matter what you use it for. If it CAN be used to watch TV, it falls under the licence.
          • xaeon, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Not true. The licence is only required if the television is tuned to watch terrestrial (or digital) TV. For DVDs and video games it is NOT required.
          • icecoldtrashcan, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Although they can call to check that you aren't using the TV to receive broadcasts if you haven't alerted them before. I knew somebody who had letters about not paying TV license when he didn't even own a TV.
        • bosssmiley, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4Yep. The TV Licensing People pushed extend their remit to computers that can receive digital TV signals. Now, how do they pay for that infrastructure: I thought the cable companies did that...
          • atgmac, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1But that's different. If you bought a TV tuner for your computer that means it's most probably being used for watching TV.

            But if you have a TV that came with a TV tuner, you don't have any choice and it's not necessarily being used for watching TV.

            Just because you're capable of doing something, it doesn't mean you are actually doing it.
        • Stonekeeper, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2They could argue the same thing: "Why did you buy a tv instead of a monitor? Hey!?!?"
      • CamoChris, on 05/06/2008, -1/+13"You do not need a TV Licence if you only use your TV to watch videos and DVDs or as a monitor for your games console."
        http://tvlicensing.metafaq.com/templates/tvlicensi ...
      • xaeon, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4Wrong. We even had to print off the section of the law to show the guy at the door to prove it (which CamoChris has linked to just above me), as he too incorrectly assumed that you still needed a licence.
    • blagoaw, on 05/06/2008, -4/+4Why don't Britons just put the BBC fee in the income tax like reasonable people. This "tv license" nonsense, while comparably more 'fair', has the unfortunate side effect of being enough to drive a human being insane.
      • jp12380, on 05/06/2008, -2/+4Although I find the "tv license" oppressive as well as the commercial they produced. If there is going to be such a thing it makes sense to only charge those who buy a tv. Instead you are suggesting that everyone should have to pay a tv license whether they have one or not.
        • blagoaw, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2This is precisely the trap I'm talking about. Yes, that's all fine and good because it's more fair. Brilliant. The trouble is that it's a pain in the ass. I'm not an accountant nor a lawyer and I'm already forced to spend too much time dealing with this kind of *****.
        • blagoaw, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3For some explanation on why I'm pretty strongly against this sort of thing at the moment... I've been doing immigration forms for the past couple weeks (it's hell - and often with a turnaround time in sending mail halfway around the world), as well as my taxes which involved some rather confusing calculations after buying and selling stocks in different currencies over the years. It's freaking ridiculous what we do to ourselves. I'd rather just pay a whole lot more or even get struck by a cane -- please just make it stop.
    • guybrush58, on 05/06/2008, -3/+3They cant come in without an invitation, just don't answer the door to them. I have never needed to pay for a TV license.
      • xaeon, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2If you refuse them entry, they could come back with a court order giving them access to your property; and the consequences of not paying will be far worse. (They're far more likely to push for prosecution rather than an out of court settlement if you refuse them entry to your home).
  • masscrazy, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5Theres a similar ad for car tax. "You can't hide"
    • stolenisotope1, on 05/06/2008, -0/+8What about running/driving away?
      • cr3ative, on 05/06/2008, -0/+12You need a license to run or drive anywhere in the UK. Sorry!
  • duk0r, on 05/06/2008, -1/+41It's all in the database, slave.
    • cawpin, on 05/06/2008, -2/+6To be fair, subject not slave.
      • robinohio1, on 05/06/2008, -7/+3Nope...you guys are SLAVES. But then again. I am a scum slave here in the US.
        • northernmunky, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3shame I can't digg you down and up at the same time
      • whataboutdave, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Slave, Subject. There is no difference, really. Subjects are free only by the good graces of the monarch.
        • robinohio1, on 05/06/2008, -3/+1That OLD BAG!!!! Our emperor can kick your monarch's ass! We also have some WAY BETTER than freedom. We have the ILLUSION of freedom.
      • rnewson, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1To be accurate, citizen not subject;

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_subject
        • whataboutdave, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1I hate to be the one to break it to you, but if you swear allegiance to a monarch you are a subject.
        • wellycanada, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Yeah, well I've never sworn allegiance to a monarch.
          • whataboutdave, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1She's on your currency and she approves all of your members of parliament before they can sit in government. You're a subject.
    • Frostek, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4Also, bear in mind the adverts are supposed to be a bit intimidating, otherwise people wouldn't take them seriously (until they got a huge fine).
    • davotoula, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1That line annoys me too... what's next, insurance companies denying you insurance based on your DNA in a database? An employer denying you work based on family history in a database?
  • heavystone, on 05/06/2008, -8/+9Wow, talk about feeding off peoples lack of knowledge and spreading fear. I thought propaganda films were a thing of the past... This advert would just ***** me off and provoke me NOT to pay...which I don't since I don't have a TV.
    • blumpyX, on 05/06/2008, -5/+7it's not propaganda
    • Angostura, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5There's nothing in there which feeds off people's lack of knowledge, it's all pretty accurate.

      I had a knock on the door 3 weeks after buying a new house a few years ago. I'd only got the licence the day before and the records hadn't updated.
      • heavystone, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3There is no chip in your TV that tells anyone were you are located and if you have a TV license. So no, its not accurate at all.
        • Angostura, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3You'll note that there is absolutely nothing in the advert that claims anything about there being a chip on your TV. You'll note that they do claim to have a database of residential properties, with a record of which have licences.

          Hope this helps your meagre comprehension.
  • dkapuchino, on 05/06/2008, -6/+3Uses technology and government databases to scare citizens? Sounds like a great motive to start anti-database legislations.
    • SLockhart, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Or you could just pay your taxes like everyone else.
      • dkapuchino, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0Here's an Idea, how about I let them perform routine checks of my house to make sure I don't have a TV. On the way, I should also let them search my flat, since hey, If I'm not doing anything Illegal, there's nothing I should worry about.
  • LukeHenry, on 05/06/2008, -10/+2Wow, I feel like I have been living under a rock. I've never heard of this. They do not have TV licenses in Canada. but I should have heard of this before, I work in the television industry. Learn something new everyday.
  • sexybobo, on 05/06/2008, -11/+5So the US government spends 1.5billion to make sure every one can watch tv after the digital switch and the UK government makes people pay money to own a tv?
    • meatmcguffin, on 05/06/2008, -3/+20The UK government has been doing the same for the digital switch. The licence fee pays for the BBC which is commercial free and ***** awesome.
      • poidh, on 05/06/2008, -14/+3The BBC is not ***** awesome, unless you like to watch celebrities dancing etc.
        • ChrisWalkr, on 05/06/2008, -4/+17The BBC is awesome.
          • poidh, on 05/06/2008, -13/+1You must like watching Bruce Forsyth dancing around a room with nothing but his big chin as a partner.
          • ChrisWalkr, on 05/06/2008, -1/+15Or maybe i just like the BBC News Site, BBC News Channel, or the BBC Radio Stations. Or the BBC Music Events like One big weekend.
          • powatom, on 05/06/2008, -1/+8@ poidh

            Who wouldn't?!
        • johnnysaucepn, on 05/06/2008, -1/+8If that's all you see on it, then I'm guessing you must really like celebrities dancing.
      • Jalh, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1what happen if you don't watch BBC ?
    • ChrisWalkr, on 05/06/2008, -1/+8The UK government is also spending money on the digital switch over. The TV license is spent like this http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/#spent
    • frazw, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1That's because the U.S. government needs everyone to be tuned in to its propaganda machine. At least the BBC is unbiased.
  • fartbuttes, on 05/06/2008, -28/+12holy ***** England is really gay
    • Jackosx, on 05/06/2008, -16/+5I am from England and I just dugg you up.
      • northernmunky, on 05/06/2008, -3/+5I dugg you down
      • saxreturns, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3If that's how you feel... leave. We won't miss you.
    • johnnysaucepn, on 05/06/2008, -2/+16The UK. I think you mean the UK is really gay.
      On the other hand, we can actually have hour-long shows without getting 15 minutes of ads shoved down our throats, so you have your gayness too.
      • robinohio1, on 05/06/2008, -1/+8Wait? You do not have to deal with commercials on BBC?
        • REBELinBLUE, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3Correct, the average run time of an hour show is just over 59 minutes (obviously not exactly 1 hour because of the credits/ident/odd advert for other BBC shows between the shows, but no break during a show)
        • powatom, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4Nope, commercial free. They only advertise BBC programs, and even then they only last for like, 15 or 20 seconds, between programs. Programs are generally uninterrupted, except if there's an urgent news broadcast or something.
      • spudnic, on 05/06/2008, -0/+115 minutes? Closer to 20 really. The times they show the ads on some America TV are nuts too.Last time I was over there I noticed ads after the first few minutes of a show (literally) rather than between the previous show and the current one, is that common?

        Drove me *****.
    • atgmac, on 05/06/2008, -4/+6Holy *****, you are really ignorant.
  • powatom, on 05/06/2008, -0/+36Doesn't make a blind bit of difference whether you have a TV or not. The tv licensing board automatically assumes that every residence in the UK has a tv. If they're not receiving payments from you, they send you letters warning you to pay up. If you complain, and tell them that you don't have a tv anyway, then they send some-one round to investigate. I know this as when I was living in a rented house, we didn't have a TV initially.

    Nowadays, I don't mind having a tv licence. The BBC generally has good programming (although they mess it up now and again). I have digital too now, and BBC still has most of the programs I'm interesed in watching. What I really hate is the threatening adverts and bill-boards. It makes me NOT want to pay, just to spite them. That, and there's no choice. Any tv requires a licence. We should be able to buy TVs that are incapable of picking up BBC signals (which should technically be possible, once they switch off the analogue signal and go all-digital), for those people who have no interest in watching BBC programs. All of the other channels have adverts, so there is no real reason to continue paying the licence.

    Of course, nowadays they try to hide that the tv licence essentially means 'BBC Funding', so I'm not holding my breath for it to change any time soon.
    • synthesis811, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2Nope you don't need a license unless you are actually watching/recording TV live. So using a TV for games consoles or watching DVDs etc should be fine.
      • powatom, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2I know, but they still hound the hell out of you about it.
        • Price, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1That's true but as long as you got nothing to hide then there's nothing to worry about.
          • powatom, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Uhhhhh no, not really - privacy is a right, not a privilege. Just because I have nothing to hide doesn't mean the government has the right to go snooping.

            Evidence that a crime has been commited is the corner-stone of all legal action. This is exactly why you should take the police name and number of any police-officer who decides to do one of those 'routine-checks' on you, and report them. It is an invasion of your privacy and shouldn't be allowed. Either tell me why you want to stop and search me, or leave me alone.
    • warriorscot, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1All you need to do is call them up and tell them you don't have a television and you don't intend on getting one or using it and they generally stop bothering you.
    • TheAuditor, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1I think some of the money is given to the other free to air broadcasters. Channel 4 and 5 get a percentage, although it is miniscule compared to the BBC
    • loveandrockets, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1I'm curious, how much is a TV license?

      It seems the advertising would more than pay for the license itself. In the US, if people stopped buying TVs, the advertising companies would start giving them away, just so they could get eyeballs on the stuff they sell.
  • brbubba, on 05/06/2008, -22/+7What kind of a communist state are you brits living in over there? If they tried to implement a 150 pound yearly TV watching fee in the US people would revolt. If I can hook up an antenna to my television and receive a signal, then its your own damn fault for not encrypting it.
    • powatom, on 05/06/2008, -2/+12Different point of view.

      We're not all machiavellian, you know. Most people generally really like the BBC, and don't mind paying for it. It works out cheaper than digital, and we get radio, and freeview on top of it. Consider it an English quirk. We're very friendly you know :)
      • whataboutdave, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Just because "most people generally like the BBC" doesn't mean that everyone with a television should be compelled to fund it or face the consequences.
        • powatom, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2I agree, in fact I've said exactly that somewhere else in the comments. The problem is that the licence is for equipment which can receive TV signals, not for the signals themselves.

          I think the legal wording is actually so that the licence covers equipment which receives ANY TV signal, regardless of whether it's BBC or not. We get other channels other than the BBC, but they are self-funded (they're free to us, but we have to put up with commercials). The BBC, as far as I'm aware, is the only broadcaster which receives any of the money collected from the TV licence. If this is the case, the legal wording should be changed so that it only covers TVs capable of receiving BBC signals, and then we should be able to buy TVs which aren't capable of receiving these signals.
      • imacbook, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1I would consider it an English quirk if it weren't actually a quirk of the whole of the United Kingdom, not just a quarter of the constituent countries.
    • calantus, on 05/06/2008, -2/+5no we would not revolt. We would be the same as britain and just except it. Well most of us. You are no different. America is not what it used to be.
    • flappysocks, on 05/06/2008, -1/+14Yeah, but TV is the US is a lot different than it is on the UK. We are not bombarded with commercials anything like you do in the US. Those channels which do have commercials dont overdo it, in fear people will switch over to the BBC instead. TV companies in the US are always worried about upsetting their advertisers. In the UK, TV companies (well the BBC at least) dont care, and serve the viewers instead.
      • frishack, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1How is everyone missing the main point in this argument? All of your news and programming comes from the same source. If you can't see what's wrong with that, then you have been successfully brainwashed.
        • MrLlama, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1What makes you think that there is only one source of news in the UK? There are hundreds, and many different non BBC news channels. Even so the BBC is designed to be completely impartial and is far more so than any commercial news network.
    • johnnysaucepn, on 05/06/2008, -1/+6One with damn good television, and channels with no adverts. And no, doing something illegal is still illegal even if you really, really, want to do it.
  • baploinkadoink, on 05/06/2008, -0/+17I for one enjoy the BBC and don't mind paying for their content but I absolutely hate the way Crapita goes about enforcing things. Much like debt collectors, they pretend they have wide reaching powers to try and scare people into submission. I guess that means they get paid in the end but it's a ***** way to go about doing business.
  • alexcroox, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5I get lots of letters while at uni saying ive brought tv viewing equipment from ARGOS and i dont have a tv license. Yes i have a tv, no i dont have a license, but ive NEVER brought anything tv related from that shop, so out of principle...i won't be paying!

    And yer theres a similar DVLA ad too here: http://www.glassworks.co.uk/search_archive/jobs/dv ... pretty funny
    • Frostek, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Don't have a TV licence and your name is A. Crook? How appropriate...
  • Phoetality, on 05/06/2008, -3/+9They blanket spam warning letters to students because students are
    a.) easily scared
    b.) one of the biggest categories of offenders

    Still. £120 for a years licence is better than £1000+ if you get caught. :s
    • sexybobo, on 05/06/2008, -4/+19Not if you go 10 years with out getting caught.
      • whataboutdave, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5You'll probably get buried but you're spot on.
      • Frostek, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1Yes, because the sort of people who don't pay their TV licence would have taken that annual £150 and put in the bank to put towards future fines? It's so unlikely they would have just spent it on something else instead?
        • whataboutdave, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Hell, I'd do it for the challenge alone.
          • sexybobo, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Also you will have the money in your account pulling in interest for 10 years.
      • MrPineapples, on 05/06/2008, -0/+7I'm on 7 years ;)

        I tell them i'm the babysitter & can't let them in, they don't come back.
    • ZombieKiss, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5Sounds like the RIAA
  • poidh, on 05/06/2008, -13/+8I'm proud to say that I have never, ever paid for a TV license, although for the last 5 years I have watched almost no TV anyway (the net is so much more fun and has far more accurate and relevant information). In any case, the BBC has almost nothing worth watching except for the odd nature documentary and The Apprentice. There is no way that I am paying over 100 pounds a year to watch just a couple of programs. Add in the fact that the BBC has given up its journalistic principles and now refers to terrorists as "militants" and produces programs whitewashing Islam as some kind of "religion of peace", and there's even less of a reason to give them any money.

    Once when I was at uni there was a TV license guy who had broken into the building/ gained entry fraudulently who wouldn't leave after I'd given him 30 seconds to do so, and just carried on jotting down room numbers in his notebook. Myself and a friend picked him up and carried him out of the building. We got nothing but the obligatory threatening letters after that ("pay us you oik, or we'll make you sorry").

    Screw those idiots.
    • johnnysaucepn, on 05/06/2008, -4/+8'Add in the fact that the BBC has given up its journalistic principles and now refers to terrorists as "militants" and produces programs whitewashing Islam as some kind of "religion of peace", and there's even less of a reason to give them any money.'
      Yes! All fair-minded unbiased journalists use pejorative terms in their propaganda, I mean reports!
      • poidh, on 05/06/2008, -4/+3They're supposed to report the facts. Only a small proportion of things are down to opinion. Therefore it's not difficult to report facts.
        • NickFury, on 05/06/2008, -4/+5One man's "terrorist" is another's "freedom fighter" - I would say that "militant" falls somewhere in between and a little closer to the ideal journalistic goal of neutrality. It's a verbal minefield, no doubt, but I'd rather see an attempt at fair-handedness than outright bias. If someone invaded your country and you fought back, would you be ok with people calling you a terrorist? Just some food for thought.
          • poidh, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4You made an error there with the "one man's terrorist" thing. You're suggesting that opinion is more important than fact. Facts _are_ knowable, if not be everyone.
            The journalist is supposed to report the facts. The fact is that someone who straps a bomb to themself and blows up a bus full of civilians is a terrorist. This occurs regardless of opinion.
          • spudnic, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3If you define a terrorist as someone who uses fear of actual or threatened violence for political or military gain then just about every country on the planet is guilty of it. Didn't the US base an entire strategy around it? (shock and awe)

            You see the problem here? There are very few facts in semantics.

            The FACT is 'someone strapped a bomb to them self and blew up a bus full of civilians', calling them a 'terrorist' is a judgement, not a fact.
    • theright, on 05/06/2008, -2/+4Yes, nearly three-quarters of the license fee is spent on television, but a substantial amount is also spent on other ventures such as radio and the Internet. Do you mean to tell me that you've never listened to a BBC radio station or visited a BBC website?
      • frishack, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2no, have not. Can't stand the accent.
      • poidh, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1I don't listen to the radio, but I do visit the BBC website. But since when has it been acceptable to charge for viewing a publically available website? You must not be a net neutrality advocate.
        • powatom, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Uhh they don't charge you to view it. Which is why foreigners can see it. We just don't have adverts on our version of the site. Apart from that it's exactly the same.
  • keonnerod, on 05/06/2008, -10/+19I've never had a TV license and never will have a TV license. I've had inspectors knock on my door and I've told them to f-themselves. When I moved into a top floor flat there was no way for them to come and check.

    Surveillance state FTW
    • theright, on 05/06/2008, -7/+5You don't have a TV license?

      Do you watch TV? If you do, you're the reason the license fee is so expensive for the rest of us. Complete and utter idiot.
      • tangofish, on 05/06/2008, -0/+8So if we all paid, are you saying they would reduce the fee? I think not.
        • theright, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1Yes, it's common sense.

          I know you have your ill-conceived opinions about taxation, but the television license here in Britain has actually increased below inflation for the past few years. The BBC requested to raise the fee just this year and were turned down, having to make some pretty significant cutbacks.
      • keonnerod, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5I also don't pay my council tax

        HA! Im in ur country refusing you pay your retarded taxes
        • fandyboy, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3Are you living on the street!?
        • keonnerod, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1ha. no.

          My car was towed twice. They cited questionable evidence (what yellow line). It cost me a total of 500 pounds to retrieve it. After that I vowed that I would not pay any more money to the city of Bristol.
      • Comms, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2the ones who don't pay make ***** all difference to the price of it, you prick.
        • MrLlama, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Your wrong. The BBC is a non profit organisation so if there was a huge increase in the number of license fee payers then they wouldn't keep the profit to themselves unlike profit making companies.
      • ratsville, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1theright.. you stupid prick. you ***** brainwashed *****. go and suck the goverments ***** and then swallow
  • JackHererUK, on 05/06/2008, -2/+11The threats are somewhat overblown, you really would have to be some kind of moron to get prosecuted for not having a TV licence. I have been "caught" a few times and while they do read you your rights police style, all they then do is take your credit card details and make you pay for a licence from then on, they don't even try backdating it, let alone fine you.
    • KLowD9x, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3"all they then do is take your credit card details"

      Oh yeah, because your credit card details are just something you really want to give to everyone that knocks on your door.
  • Paddy1, on 05/06/2008, -2/+8There is some loopholes in the TV licence. If you receive TV channels through your laptop and its plugged into the wall then you need a TV licence. However if you watch it on battery power then you are covered by your home TV licence. Handy tip if you are at uni as if they pay you a visit you just take the plug out the wall!
    • nandasunu, on 05/06/2008, -0/+13or just don't let them in, they have no right to enter a house without a warrant.
      • Frostek, on 05/06/2008, -3/+1Then they will come back with a warrant eventually.
        • guybrush58, on 05/06/2008, -0/+7No they won't, all they can do is keep hounding you, they are not allowed warrants.
    • welshie, on 05/06/2008, -3/+1Actually, that loophole is only allowed for battery powered BLACK AND WHITE sets. Your laptop does have a black and white screen, yet is still capable of viewing TV, does it?
      • Paddy1, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2No it includes laptops. If you were watching TV on the train with your laptop would you need to buy a licence just for that journey? It is included in your home licence so you can watch TV anywhere
  • anj747, on 05/06/2008, -0/+6http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/tvdetecto ...
    • sexybobo, on 05/06/2008, -4/+2Wow and people say the US is a police state people wondering around your house with hand held detectors because you don't pay a 135 pound license.
  • Hillsbottom, on 05/06/2008, -7/+6I would rather have the TV license know where i live than be brainwashed by adverts every 10 minuets
    • robinohio1, on 05/06/2008, -2/+5But government brainwashing is good.
    • willywong, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3Or you can go with sky and pay 3 times more than the license and get the longest ad breaks on British television.
    • whataboutdave, on 05/06/2008, -2/+7You have a weak mind if you are brainwashed by ads. I usually just take them as an opportunity to go to the kitchen and grab a beer and a snack.
      • jamesdew, on 05/06/2008, -4/+3thats why americans are so fat
        • whataboutdave, on 05/06/2008, -2/+4I'm hardly fat. but you might be onto something.
  • nycmac247, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5kill your TV?
  • hit9ent, on 05/06/2008, -11/+2I do not watch TV so this is irrelevant.
  • daveyt, on 05/06/2008, -9/+34"What kind of a communist state are you brits living in over there? If they tried to implement a 150 pound yearly TV watching fee in the US people would revolt. If I can hook up an antenna to my television and receive a signal, then its your own damn fault for not encrypting it."
    Sigh.
    Right. Yes its enforced, boo hoo. Is it worth £150? Probably. The a vast majority of Brits (and johnny foreigner) get tremendous value from the BBC - the TV stations, the radio stations, the internet site (the most visited site in Europe).
    No its not perfect. yes it caters to a wide variety of people (and is legally obliged to)
    Yes we would be poorer if it didnt exist.
    No, there are no adverts for anything other than BBC programming or services.
    My opinion, it probably counts for 50% of my TV viewing, radio, or internet. Its the channel it tune in to first, the website I visit first.
    Yes the adverts are daft. Yes we are sleepwalking into Orwellian oblivion. I am the only person I know that understands even a fraction of that. The vast majority of people dont give a *****. Yes its probably bad.
    Enjoy your US programming. I'm sure its just wonderful. I for one, would blow my ***** head off if I had to watch it.
    • optimus378, on 05/06/2008, -7/+1Wow. Unbelievable.
    • willywong, on 05/06/2008, -1/+21You wouldn't revolt. You couldn't even deal with Bush.
      • jamesdew, on 05/06/2008, -0/+12haha ye "spend several trillion dollars of our money on a war we dont want" thats ok that is

        "charge me £150 for a high quality service" thats it i'm revolting
    • daschupa, on 05/06/2008, -7/+3And I'm sure that if I was forced to watch, not to mention pay, for British television, I too would blow my head off. Guess it's a cultural thing.
      • wellycanada, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3Because of course TV from elsewhere around the world is the epitome of high quality entertainment. We might be ***** at most things in the world, but quality TV we've got nailed. Having lived in Canada, the US, most of Europe and Australia, I feel qualified to say only the Swiss have worse TV than the US.
    • ratsville, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2yes mate. its ***** up over here. very ***** up
    • WestEast, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0Well said, ew have impartial news they delivers facts, not hype and not speculation, name a single US Entertainment News channel that can even come close to that!?

      And, in general I cant stand the US channels from the sheer volumne of ads, its frankly ridiculous.
      Plus, from next year we get F1, uninterrupted again!
      BBC website is one of the best on the world, ad free
      BBC Radio, and the Worldwide service
      Programming (which run's for a full hour, not 30mins WITH ads)

      To be honest, BBC News, and iPlayer make it worth it from those 2 alone!
  • MREVOX, on 05/06/2008, -3/+8I don't understand why they don't just include this in taxes? It's harder to avoid, and would probably make the costs go down. In Australia, everyone pays a small tax for the ABC.

    The biggest joke on their website is that if you are blind, you get a 50% discount... that truly is sad.
    • powatom, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4Weirdly, there's no concessions (none that I could find) for deaf people.
      • MREVOX, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4Probably have to pay full price because you can see the picture, and subtitles...
        • powatom, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3They can't hear the radio though, and subtitles are a joke, particularly on live stuff.
    • atgmac, on 05/06/2008, -3/+3Because the BBC isn't run by the government.
      • whataboutdave, on 05/06/2008, -3/+2Hogwash. If the gov't could pull the funding at any time they control it de facto.
      • MrARPA, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2So who were the recent charter negotiations with then ? The BBC poll tax unfairly discriminates against those on low incomes because it does not take into account ability to pay. Taking the fee from income tax, with suitable safeguards, is a far fairer and more sensible solution.
    • Myztry, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3Australia used to have TV licenses. And CB radio licenses. And UHF radio licenses. They are gone except HAM radio licenses. I still have a friend I refer to by his license number (Format VKC-###)
      We still have fishing licenses in most states, though the inland ones are rather silly, given that many lakes are too dry (or empty) for re-stocking.
    • spudnic, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Why is it sad? Seems like a nice concession to me. They also offer various services for blind people, including a thing on some programming where what's happening is described to you in between the dialogue, like having the non-dialogue parts of the script read to you.
  • Meep3D, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2I don't have a TV and thus don't pay the license. They did send plenty of threatening letters for a few months before sending a guy around, but I just told him I don't have a TV and it seems to have gone quiet.

    He did come at around 6pm so although they are not technically allowed in if you did have a TV blaring in the background your pretty much busted.

    It sucks for the people with satellite having to pay for the BBC rubbish though.
    • algo, on 05/06/2008, -1/+6but you get all the bbc's channels on sky too. even the HD stuff.
    • theright, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1I've yet to come across a single person who avoids the entire BBC output. I personally have satellite with every channel you can imagine, but 95% of the stuff is either repeats, trash, or american television we're getting at least six months late.

      Without fail I find myself tuning into BBC for my local and national news. The BBC produce a whole range of brilliant programming, from The Apprentice to Later with Jools Holland, to Question Time, with the obligatory Top Gear in there for good measure. When you're in a car, if you're not listening to a rubbish commercial local station, odds are you're listening to one of the BBC radio stations. When you load up your internet browser, odds are the first place you'll look for news is the BBC News website.

      Almost every single person who attempts to argue against the TV license by claiming they avoid every aspect of the BBC's output like the plague are just saying that to make a point, with the BBC News website open in another browser window, Radio 1 on in the background, and Top Gear set to record on the DVR later that night.
  • chkdg8, on 05/06/2008, -2/+6*****, now they're just bragging about the "Big Brother" society. 1984 is for pre-school. This is slowly becoming some wicked electronic Wizard Of Oz police state.
    • bosssmiley, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1You *do* know Orwell based the Ministry of Truth in "1984" on his memories of working at the BBC, right?
    • MiDri, on 05/06/2008, -0/+7Becoming? The brits have been required to get tv licenses for a LONG time.
      • thegreenginger, on 05/06/2008, -2/+0But this is the first time that the advertising has adopted this sort of Orwellian fear tactic to make people pay by telling them essentially "we know more about you than you do"
        • Frostek, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3Rubbish - they've been like that for years.
        • powatom, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2No it's not. These adverts have been around for years.
        • theright, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1As the other two commenters have stated, this is nothing new. There is no slippery slope here for you to make fallacious arguments on.

          It's a television ad. If you're watching it, chances are it is on a television in your own home. Either you have a television license, in which case you just ignore it (although it's not a bad looking ad), or you don't, in which case the entire purpose of the ad is to scare you.

          Let's face it. An ad with fluffy bunnies and rainbows and catchphrases like "please... we'd really like it if you pay your television license!" isn't really going to do the job, is it?
    • sully213, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Holy Big Brother, Batman! That's exactly what I thought too. 1984 is creepy, but it's just a book. If we had this type of "monitoring" of televisions in the US, there would be riots. Hell, our government is probably already doing something similar, but isn't being as public about it as the UK.
      • TheCatsPants, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2It's not so much to monitor who has a TV, but more to get everyone to contribute to paying for the BBC. I take it that the cable companies in the US expect you to pay for their services, and they would come looking for the money or disconnect you if you refused to pay, yes? Same thing. Oh, except that the BBC doesn't kindly provide 20 mins of ads every hour.
      • Frostek, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1To be honest I'm wondering what it would take for Americans to riot about *anything*...
      • frazw, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Americans would not riot. They'd log on to digg write a comment saying how people should do something like riot, then go back to watching the propaganda they'd been lapping up for free until that day.
        The funding body for your TV, the corporations, have more information about you than the TV licensing database does on us.
  • mlerner, on 05/06/2008, -3/+2It's real, cable companies do it too.. I've also heard they can't detect LCD TV's.
    • welshie, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2cable companies.. Yes. It would be kind of weird taking a TV service from them, if you didn't have a television.
      Strangely, the cable companies want paying to deliver some stuff that they receive for free over the air, and they also want paying for channels that are funded through adverts too. They almost definitely pass TV subscribers details in the UK to the TV Licencing people, so you're paying through the licence fee for the BBC programme content and transmission, and then you're paying another outfit for re-transmission..
    • psyked, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3They don't detect the tv, they detect the resonance of your aeriel or something like that...
      • jamesdew, on 05/06/2008, -1/+0haha that word resonance is used so much by people who dont understand what it means
  • nandasunu, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4Now that the iplayer lets you watch all the bbc tv stuff online, will they start charging licenses for computers, even if there isn't a tv card installed?
    • bosssmiley, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2Yes. They've already got a precedent with PCs with a TV card. They can now argue it's just an extension of the existing rules to keep pace with technology.
    • thegreenginger, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5No they won't because it's not live. It is an extension of the existing rules not to charge because it's like recording for personal use at a later date.
  • acceleration, on 05/06/2008, -4/+11These television licences fund the BBC - which is one of the finest television, radio, internet and news services in the world. It's how BBC can afford to run the 8 or so channels in Britain without running adverts. Whereas in America, the TV services must not be as decent, as they all seem to feel the need to pay every month for subscription/cable television, and even then there are ads too.

    I agree that perhaps the way this organisation (whoever it is that runs these ads) collects money is aggressive and probably unfair. But the TV licence is still worth it.
    • whataboutdave, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4Just because its worth it to you, you feel that all people should be compelled to pay as well. Interesting.
      • acceleration, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Well at least you get a "choice" to pay for the licence (in theory) - you only are supposed to pay if you have a TV. And I doubt you have a TV and *don't* use any of BBC's services.

        In Australia part of everyone's taxes goes to funding the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Australian equivalent to the BBC). TV or no TV, in Australia everyone pays.
  • DeFex, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2What about people who download shows and watch them on their computer or media player?
    • TheCatsPants, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1.
    • blagoaw, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3Watch them come up with a computer tax. I expect it then to be changed to a media display tax to cover all bases and bring the farce to its ultimate conclusion.
    • powatom, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2What about them? The TV licence is for watching or recording the signal as it is broadcast. If you watch something through, say, the BBC iPlayer, AFTER it has already been broadcast on the TV, then you don't have to pay the TV licence.
      • blagoaw, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1That's a little unexpected (not being familiar with the system). If the money paid for the licenses goes into the production of the shows rather than just the broadcasting, then it would seem that the people enjoying it on other devices should share in the payment. This would follow from the same line of reasoning for having the tv license rather than just taxing everyone. (perhaps it's a problem of difficulty of implementation?)
    • TheAuditor, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1I don't know about that, but it is a TV and RADIO license. The radio part was only recently(ish) introduced - I wonder if there are any more changes to the legal obligation on the cards?
  • yogiincork, on 05/06/2008, -3/+12I for one welcome our new BBC overlords
  • Suzilla, on 05/06/2008, -4/+4Does no one here remember those ads that Johnny Cochran did several years ago, saying "Don't Steal Cable!"? One of them even showed a guy being handcuffed in front of his young child and hauled away by the feds. (Illegally accessing / decoding cable or satellite feeds is a federal crime, here in the USofA.)
    It's sad to hear all the libertarian chatter about having to pay for a TV license to get hours of fairly high-quality programming, especially from people who live in a country where we pay, on average MORE than the UK's license fee to have commercial-laden crap pumped into our homes -- and be charged PER SET for it. Get a clue, people.
    • powatom, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3That's the difference though. I can kind of understand where the anti-licence people are coming from. Even IF the BBC is great, they object to the fact that you HAVE to pay for it, even if you don't want to watch it. I kind of agree with them on this, but at the end of the day, it's nice to have. It's like the NHS, in a way - if you're not using it, you don't want to pay for it. But you MIGHT want to use it in the future, so I take the view that it's worth contributing to, even if you see no benefit from it right at this point in time. It just works out cheaper, generally, than paying for