Still More Agonies of the Left
Oh, for a world without consequences.
Laurie Penny rails against capital letters. Damn those corporations.
Laurie Penny rails against those who rail against silly things. (Laurie’s own railing against pubic glitter is imprinted on our minds.)
Those who disagree with Polly Toynbee should be banished from politics.
Pining for home comforts.
Fretting about hair and gender performance.
Laurie’s love of categories consciousness has been raised.
There just isn’t enough diversity of people who think like me.
Socialist economics.
Grappling with the big questions.
Radical sisterhood.
Previous instalments here, here and here. Do please keep them coming.
“TV, computer, mobile phone, games console, digital box, DVD/VHS recorder or any other device.”
So if you don’t want to watch the BBC you just have to get rid of the TV, computer, mobile phone, games console, digital box, DVD/VHS recorder or any other device. It isn’t as if possession of a TV, computer, mobile phone, games console, digital box, DVD/VHS recorder or any other device is a basic human right.
Horace,
It would be coercion if it was in fact happening. Do you have evidence that it is? You are describing a hypothetical situation, as you admit (“as they surely would”).
Lee
Well, it happened to me. On two occasions I was harrased by these people despite my being perfectly law abiding. It was nasty. I know several other people who were subjected to it too. And, just 5 mins on google unearthed these:
http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/legal_matters/1047566-Advice-needed-on-harassment-from-TV-Licensing/AllOnOnePage
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1033904/TV-licence-fee-collectors-investigation-bully-boy-tactics-people-sets.html
http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/bully-phone-police/story-14124503-detail/story.html
http://www.metro.co.uk/tv/892167-bbc-spend-13m-chasing-licence-fee-avoiders
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9154568/Thousands-in-court-every-week-for-not-having-a-TV-licence.html
One in ten cases appearing before magistrates, eh? Clearly it IS happening. I wonder why you think it isn’t.
The BBC is such an honest, trustworthy institution (putting aside non-inquiries into Saville’s proclivities for a second) that they lied for decades about the existence of functioning TV detector vans to intimidate people into paying.
Horace,
Riiiight, but none of those links are suggesting that people are being legally pursued for the licence fee just because they own a computer. In fact, at least three of those links demonstrate that some of our media companies are more than happy to publish unbalanced news in furtherance of their commercial agenda.
You need a valid TV Licence if you use TV receiving equipment to watch or record television programmes as they’re being shown on TV. ‘TV receiving equipment’ means any equipment which is used to watch or record television programmes as they’re being shown on TV. This includes a TV, computer, mobile phone, games console, digital box, DVD/VHS recorder or any other device
How do you prove you’ve never watched BBC shows on your ‘computer, mobile phone, games console, digital box, DVD/VHS recorder or any other device’? Doesn’t having the potential to watch them mean you have to pay anyway?
Wouldn’t it be a hell of a lot simpler if the BBC was a commercial channel paid for by ads or subscription?
As a Yank I find this all rather fascinating…
Wouldn’t it be a hell of a lot simpler if the BBC was a commercial channel paid for by ads or subscription?
As stated elsewhere, the horror, the horror! Of course nothing like the horror of the state invading one’s private residence to inventory one’s appliances, but that’s a cultural issue that by my Yankee Imperialistic Hegemonious Corporatus Imbicillious Origniallus Sinnus Naturus it would be gauche of me to comment…and yet I just did. I hate it when that happens.
As a general PITA, I’m curious about throwing in this monkey-wrench…Having visited your lovely country on several occasions, there was a television in my various rooms. I’m quite certain that on a few of those trips I had no time/occasion to watch “the Beeb”. Was I being taxed for that privilege? I presume the proprietor supplying the accommodations is hit with a fee of some sort, but if it’s per room (as opposed to say, x amount for up to 50 rooms, x+y for 51 -100, etc.) it would seem similar to the VAT for which I can request a refund. I’m sure I’m SOL on that one but it seems it would follow…
Sam,
“How do you prove you’ve never watched BBC shows on your ‘computer, mobile phone, games console, digital box, DVD/VHS recorder or any other device’?”
A good question. Apparently the BBC doesn’t know much about who’s using such devices to watch their programmes. The corporation has “vowed to prosecute” people using phones, tablets, etc without a license but they don’t appear to have any means of establishing who has. Given the growing popularity of portable viewing devices, I don’t imagine SKY would have dropped the ball on that.
“Wouldn’t it be a hell of a lot simpler if the BBC was a commercial channel paid for by ads or subscription?”
Stripping the BBC of its antiquated privileges would also solve the problem of its political leanings. Upthread, Anna linked to a piece pondering the viability of the BBC brand minus its coercive advantage, and whether the Beeb’s institutional culture – described as “complacency and entitlement” – would be a hindrance to its success.
Lee
You were suggesting that coercion is not taking place, and asked me to tender some evidence. Well, dismiss the stories behind those links if you like (though perhaps you’d like to provide some evidence that the facts reported in the Telegraph, Metro and Mail are false) but it seems to me that we have evidence here of coercion.
Supposing person A has no television, games console, recording apparatus, mobile phone, or any other equipment that can receive television transmissions, except for a computer. Now suppose that person A regularly watched television transmissions on that computer despite not being in possession of a valid license. Now suppose that the authorities become aware of this? What do you suppose they’ll do? Shrug and say, “oh let’s not pursue this, since after all he only has a computer”?
Thousands of people in court every week, millions spent on detection and prosecution. Letters warning that anything you say to the officers of the licensing authority may be used in evidence, prosecution of property owners for not paying for licenses for empty premises, an MP speaking out on behalf of harassed constituents … and a woman weeping down the telephone to try to get them to stop harassing her with demands for payments from her recently deceased father.
Clearly you don’t consider this sort of thing coercive activity, so we’ll just have to differ on that. But never mind, you get to watch Autumnwatch without any commercials, so something good comes out of it.
The BBC, funded like a tax on letterboxes to fund junkmail.
White girl problems.
Lee, even getting rid of your TV isn’t an option. Try this site for stories of BBC (Capita) and their intimidation of those without TVs.
http://www.lime-marmalade.net
Also, from the BBC’s annual report for 2005/2006:
For 2005-2006 it cost £153.4 million just for one year’s fee collection.
Horace
Let’s go over this one more time, and then perhaps we might attend to more urgent matters. You originally stated that mere purchase or possession of a computer would require a licence fee to be paid. This is not currently the case in the UK, and it’s not likely to be in the foreseeable future, especially while the coalition is in power. Again, if you have evidence that people without TVs are being pursued for mere possession of a PC, I’m all ears.
I don’t deny for a single second that some coercion of a different kind is taking place, e.g. people being incorrectly pursued for licence fees that they’re not required to pay. That is of course deplorable. I only make the case that the Mail group and the Telegraph have a long-standing antipathy to the BBC and that it’s in their interests to publish stories of this nature.
I am sufficiently bloody minded that in the unfortunate case of my being forced to live in the UK I would decline to own a TV simply to aggravate the TVLA. They have nugatory powers and rely on intimidation of the easily-cowed to do their job. Entry to property can only be after obtaining a warrant and must be in the presence of a police officer. Otherwise they are trespassing. Simply ignoring the dunning letters except for the occasional reminder of one’s TV-less status is sufficient.
As for the apparently grey area surrounding other devices, note the language: “You need a valid TV Licence if you use TV receiving equipment to watch or record television programmes as they’re being shown on TV.” It does not say a licence is required if one is merely in possession of equipment capable of receiving real-time TV programming. Now, it is the case that retailers in the UK pass your address details on to the TVLA every time you buy a TV, but not when you buy a computer. And if you buy a TV for cash, I’m not sure how they do even that.
It is a moral duty to frustrate and defy jobsworths.
I had a license inspector knock on my door one evening. I was asked if I had a television. I said that I did. I was asked if I watched live television on it. I said that I didn’t. And that was pretty much it, just a suggestion they might check up in a few months to see if things had changed. Presumably to see if I was now using the television to watch live transmissions rather than the alternative uses a television has.
The madness we are descending into is like a disease. It’s spreading. Every election there are more and more crazy people and soon we will be outnumbered … then it’s mambo banana patch.
I think we need more Political diversity and thus Murdoch’s channels need to get a portion of the TV-Tax in relation to their market share, and access to the State transmission network operated by the BBC.
It’s for all the people!