wrote:

I would think that the snoopers at GCHQ can easily eaves drop on anyone
as they'll have all the equipment and power to do so. No one's safe!
As for TV detector vans, well that gets me going. The UK is a fairly
easy going place but why the state prosecutes people for not having a
TV license is beyond me. A complete waste of public money. I have some
experience of the prison servive, not as an inmate! and there are
dozens of people in the nick for not having a licence. Pathethic. I do
not own a TV but get several letters each year which are quite
threatening. I hand them over to my solicitor nowadays and I get a
grovelling reply from the b**stards in Bristol but it all starts again
in January. Meanwhile big business continues to avoid its tax
obligations and rifles pension funds while the state does nothing but
continues to harass me. Only in the UK.....
Keep looking over your shoulder....
Regards,
Alan


The original point of the UK's receiver licensing program was to fund
government broadcasting (BBC). Today, I suspect that the TV license
program is simply a profit center, and they don't want to stop it
because the loss of revenue would be too great. I'm surprised that they
would sentence people to prison for not having a license. Wouldn't a
fine be more appropriate? Of course, since the govt is incompetent, they
try to get license fees out of people who don't own a TV. Here in
America, we have big business not paying taxes at all while poor people
trying to claim a tax credit specifically designed for them are audited
and prosecuted mercilessly for no reason at all other than that rich
people are allowed to cheat on taxes while the poor are not. At least we
don't have to license our TVs to the govt-a big advantage of not having
an official broadcaster. At least the UK doesn't license radios anymore.
I have a British radio from about 1970 that I bought on Ebay, a
transistor model with LW/MW/FM, and the license number is on the bottom.
Quite an interesting artifact.

The cost of a license is £126.50, around US$220.00. If you just have
a b/w tv then it's about a third of the cost. To clarify if you don't
have a license, own a tv and are caught using it and somehow do not pay
the fine or at least make an arrangment with the magistrate then prison
looms. My point is that I could walk out of my door in central London,
smash a bottle over a strangers head and quite likley avoid prison.
It's a strange world. If radios in the UK required a license again I'd
give up. Only recently have dog licenses been stopped. Anyhow, little
to do with radio but interesting.
Regards,
Alan

ok,perhaps it is US$220.00 for a tv license over there.She told me one
license is good for more than one tv set in her home,she and her hubby
own two tv sets.I didn't know radios over there also used to require a
license too.Dog licenses? I own a three and a half year old Blue Heeler
Australian Cattle Dog (www.cattledog.com) I dont think Dog licenses are
required anywhere in U.S.A.A couple of years ago,JT and Dave were
talking on their Supertalk Mississippi radio talk show
(www.supertalkms.com) that the city of Jackson is thinking about
requireing people who own pets to have an insurance policy on their pets
to the tune of about $75.00 or $100.00 each year.If they ever pass that
law,you just know some of those crooks (all politicians all over the
World are crooks and they are all stupid) in Jackson city government
will be raking in a lot of money on that deal.Follow The Money,as the
old saying goes.
cuhulin

The original point of the UK's receiver licensing program was to fund
government broadcasting (BBC).

Is BBC self-funding now?

Today, I suspect that the TV license
program is simply a profit center, and they don't want to stop it
because the loss of revenue would be too great.

I'm not sure what your definition of profit is but it appears to differ
from mine. If TV license fees are being used to fund BBC operations,
then any profit would be the tax revenue, less the expense to collect
it, less the expenses of the BBC.


I'm surprised that they
would sentence people to prison for not having a license. Wouldn't a
fine be more appropriate? Of course, since the govt is incompetent, they
try to get license fees out of people who don't own a TV.

That's a pretty strong and all encompassing statement. What makes you
think all of the UK government is incompetent.

Here in
America, we have big business not paying taxes at all while poor people
trying to claim a tax credit specifically designed for them are audited
and prosecuted mercilessly for no reason at all other than that rich
people are allowed to cheat on taxes while the poor are not.

Corporations (big or small) don't pay taxes??? Not the last time I
looked at the numbers.

If people are eligible for an EITC under the rules in place then they
should get it. Otherwise they shouldn't. Period.

At least we
don't have to license our TVs to the govt-a big advantage of not having
an official broadcaster.

Nope, but we get to pay all sorts of income, sales, utility, property,
etc., taxes. Fact is it takes money to run a government and that money
comes from a variety of sources. And we use the tax structure to
support media access programs for the disadvantaged. Look at your
cable and telephone bill.

At least the UK doesn't license radios anymore.
I have a British radio from about 1970 that I bought on Ebay, a
transistor model with LW/MW/FM, and the license number is on the bottom.
Quite an interesting artifact.