I-Player TV Licence Loophole to be closed

TV licence legislation is to be changed within months to require a licence to watch it whether in real time or delayed

Do you have a link? I thought not!


And if it is correct then good - pay for what you watch!

It was rumoured (leaked?) some time ago that this was likely to happen. I think it will be for all catchups, not just iPlayer.

I expect it will be in the coming budget.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-35708623

In reply to a post by MHC:

Do you have a link? I thought not!


And if it is correct then good - pay for what you watch!

It's all over the news today,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-35708623

Daily Mirror link from google.

I find it hard to believe that only iPlayer will be affected. If it is, then they lose the justification for saying watching anything except BBC stuff still requires a licence.

Perhaps he doesn't realise that although the licence fee funds the Beeb it isn't simply a licence to watch BBC.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

I find it hard to believe that only iPlayer will be affected. If it is, then they lose the justification for saying watching anything except BBC stuff still requires a licence.

TV Licence required to watch Netflix then? Ouch.

Quite right too

Encrypt BBC and i-player and let folk choose

Pay or don't watch

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

TV licence legislation is to be changed within months to require a licence to watch it whether in real time or delayed

lolz, they can change what ever legislation they want but it wont stop people watching I player content who don't have a tv licence ,nor will it increase tv licence sales

Edited by tommy45 (Wed 02-Mar-16 20:23:05)

they need to fill the hole of which the bbc now has to fund the pension free licenses somehow, its clear that agreement with the gov was a two way deal.

Personally I think the bbc with the way its funded is dated and needs a major overhaul, but instead they want to prolong its life by also covering all uses of iplayer.

GOOD!

I think its completely wrong for people to watch it for free while others have to pay.
I just hope they have the common sense to link the restriction to your existing TV licence so that you will need to use the licence number to access the content rather than making people that DO have a licence pay for it twice.

will I need a TV licence for bbc3? which is not now 'transmitted' live?

could I buy a licence to watch bbc online content overseas?

I am sure they would like to introduce an internet tax too.

Same trick they pulled in the early days of Satellite where no license was needed.

In reply to a post by derekdel:

GOOD!

I think its completely wrong for people to watch it for free while others have to pay.
I just hope they have the common sense to link the restriction to your existing TV licence so that you will need to use the licence number to access the content rather than making people that DO have a licence pay for it twice.

LOLzzz

In reply to a post by professor973:

Same trick they pulled in the early days of Satellite where no license was needed.

I seem to recall paying £10 for a 'Ground Station Receiving License' from HM Gov. when I had my first dish...

In reply to a post by TMCR:

In reply to a post by professor973:

Same trick they pulled in the early days of Satellite where no license was needed.

I seem to recall paying £10 for a 'Ground Station Receiving License' from HM Gov. when I had my first dish...

They was referring to when Sky first started up and only had 1 or 2 channels on a 3rd party Satellite which was called Astra, then up went another satellite and another and another ended up being called Astra 1a, ... 1d and then Sky sent up their own Satellite which was Digital to what we are using now.

Back then if you didn't have any TV Antennas or was unable to receive TV transmissions (not talking about from the dish) but if no reception you didn't have to pay for a TV Licence.

We had one of their guys come round here many many years ago when we first got Sky (analogue sky that is) which was using an Amstrad SRX100 which only had 16 channels on it , anyway the guy checked everything and saw the TV antenna on the roof had no cables coming off it and then checked all the wire behind the TV etc. and said that's fine and we had to pay no licence fee.

That was until they changed the terms, they changed it to, if your receiving any television broadcasts via any means then you will have to pay for a licence.

Paul

Edited by PaulKirby (Wed 02-Mar-16 22:29:40)

In reply to a post by PaulKirby:

They was referring to when Sky first started up and only had 1 or 2 channels on a 3rd party Satellite which was called Astra, then up went another satellite and another and another ended up being called Astra 1a, ... 1d

I was looking back before that, I had my 'Ground Station Receiving License' before Astra, going back to before MTV Europe started too...
I remember all the new channels coming out on Astra, what had been just Sky Channel on Eutelsat was rebranded Sky One. Channels came and went up to that point, very few were encrypted as you needed to spend a grand or more on the kit pre-Astra...

In reply to a post by TMCR:

In reply to a post by PaulKirby:

They was referring to when Sky first started up and only had 1 or 2 channels on a 3rd party Satellite which was called Astra, then up went another satellite and another and another ended up being called Astra 1a, ... 1d

I was looking back before that, I had my 'Ground Station Receiving License' before Astra, going back to before MTV Europe started too...
I remember all the new channels coming out on Astra, what had been just Sky Channel on Eutelsat was rebranded Sky One. Channels came and went up to that point, very few were encrypted as you needed to spend a grand or more on the kit pre-Astra...

Yeah I recall Eutelsat for a certain channel we had a lovey old 486 PC running as a Smart Card to decode Videocrypt channels.

But yeah, Sky originally had the one or two channels, one being the Sky 1/Sky Channel/Sky One whatever and the other being Sky News, then they brought out Sky Movies, that's when they started using VideoCrypt which just shifted about the lines on the screen LOL.

As for the price pre astra, yes I agree, we had a motorized receiver, granted I got that cheap, but brand new it cost loads.

But the licencing we was referring to was when Sky was on astra, that was the point when we no longer needed to buy a licence, well until Sky become popular then the terms was changed and we had to pay for a licence.

Paul

They were the days. Built my own motorised mount - 2m dish and Tuti Fruity on 27w Lol. That was before the 16 ch analogue Amstrad and £7 pm for Sky.

In reply to a post by PaulKirby:

They was referring to when Sky first started up and only had 1 or 2 channels on a 3rd party Satellite which was called Astra, then up went another satellite and another and another ended up being called Astra 1a, ... 1d and then Sky sent up their own Satellite which was Digital to what we are using now.

Sky have never sent up their own Birds. They've always used third party ones, owned and operated by SES and Eutelsat.

The 3 birds currently in use at 28.2E/28.5E are all SES, Astra 2E, F and G.

2A is still located there but inactive having reached end of life. Eurobird 1 (later renamed to Eutelsat 28A) operated at 28.5E from the early 00s to last year when it was redeployed and renamed

If the BBC start requiring user authentication (issued with a TV licence) it could make it a lot more difficult. Of course userids can leak, but there are ways of combating that too by detecting too many simultaneous sessions, forcing password resets and so on. There are always workarounds for those that want to go to a of effort, but it's generally too much trouble for most people who will want convenience.

Ah the beauty of being over 75 and getting 3 year free licences

Being an avid demand user how will they legislate for Netflix and Amazon Prime?

NowTV could well require a licence.

One of the issues appears to be students. Their parents would likely tell them a password which they could use whilst at home or away. (Radio 4 this morning)

In reply to a post by 961a:

Quite right too

Encrypt BBC and i-player and let folk choose

Pay or don't watch

I agree... it has the same equivelent to watching Fox/Nat Geo on Sky.... yet without the encryption requirement.

Yes, and clearly any such system would have to have a limit on the number of simultaneous sessions per household (or licence) in order to allow mobile gadgets, smart TV and do on. But those students are presumably already using iPlayer already, so it wouldn't make things worse.

Perhaps the licence ought to be set out in two parts. A fixed base fee per property supplemented by a variable charge according to the number of simultaneous streams (or userids).

Of course it's tricky, but given there are commercial streaming services like NetFlix who get paid that way, I'm sure something can be worked out. Of course the BBC might not like this as it pushes the corporation more down the path of being funded by subscription and not by a hypothecated tax.

It would be relatively easy at the moment. TV broadcasters have a particular sort of licence (whether satellite or terrestrial broadcasters), so it's fairly easy where that broadcaster is offering catchup services. So Sky, ITV, C4 etc can all be clearly defined, especially where they stream content that they've previously broadcast.

The problem would come in the future if/when satellite & terrestrial broadcasting disappears and everything is streamed through the Internet. At that point it becomes very difficult.

nb. if it was done this way, it would mean that the catch-up services of the other broadcasters would have to be tied into an authentication system that comes with the TV licence.

In reply to a post by 961a:

Quite right too

Encrypt BBC and i-player and let folk choose

Pay or don't watch

How does encryption help if access via a number of portable devices using the Internet is allowed? Once some one has a key, they can share it with whoever they like.

I don't expect anything to change here, with me still able to watch output from EVERY worldwide pay provider for free. The BBC and their license won't alter the sites I use. All the encryption in the world will never stop folks sharing worldwide.

Edited by professor973 (Thu 03-Mar-16 11:50:01)

In reply to a post by Michael_Chare:

In reply to a post by 961a:

Quite right too

Encrypt BBC and i-player and let folk choose

Pay or don't watch

How does encryption help if access via a number of portable devices using the Internet is allowed? Once some one has a key, they can share it with whoever they like.

Sky, Netflix, Amazon... ect... they seem to be doing ok!

We going a bit too deep into this discussion...

IMO, If the BBC want to be a premium channel and keep there no advertisments policy then they sould become a Premium TV service that requires a subscription to watch, encrypt the live broadcast's, sign in's required for OD content and let people choose...

As it stand's, there's nothing on the BBC that I really watch, I used to watch BBC 3 frequently in the evenings, but that was more filling time before bed and it was content I'd already seen earlier from box sets or premium TV channels (2-5 years ago)

I used to listen to Radio 1 frequently but over the last 2 years it lost all its talent and now is just rubbish.... as we speak I'm live streaming Heart on my Sonos and if the advertisments get on my nerves I'll pop on something from Spotify Premium...

No way am I paying for less and less entertainment, if that means taking my aerial/dish and shoving it up some TV detectors .... then so be it.

If AljaBeeba really want to call the odds, then they need to follow their purpose remits and abandon their bias!

Edited by professor973 (Thu 03-Mar-16 13:33:08)

In reply to a post by mlmclaren:

Sky, Netflix, Amazon... ect... they seem to be doing ok!

AIUI, Netflix are remarkable tolerant of duplicate logons.

I agree closing the Iplayer loop hole, and that is where it should stay. I went without a Tv licence for about 3 years maybe more and in that time I did not bother with Iplayer, I looked at it once when they the UI just to see what they had done. But i did use 4 on demand now and again and Netflix, even Sky now.
Sky now is a bit of a funny one as it also have live channels, but I never used them.

I think and other people agree with me that all that will be done is the wording change, something like You need to be covered by a TV Licence if you watch or record programmes as they're being shown on TV or live on an online TV service. This is the case whether you use a TV, computer, tablet, mobile phone, games console, digital box, DVD/VHS recorder or any other device. Also if you use BBC Iplayer.


I do not know how they will police this as they find it difficult to police the law as it stands, I know someone who used Sky for over 20 years without a TV licence and carried on watching TV without a licence when he got rid of Sky.

In reply to a post by professor973:

If AljaBeeba really want to call the odds, then they need to follow their purpose remits and abandon their bias!

If they dropped their Pro this and Pro that bias, they may gain more credibility , Channel 4 seems to be following the BBC with it's liberal agendas

I don't have Sky.
Feel people who only watch Sky should not have to support the BBC.
If there was a reduction in the BBC's income then there may be some measure to combat the BBC's excesses e.g. Sending four hundred staff to Washington DC to cover the election of Bush.

Tow the BBC out to sea and sink it, then have a licence for the Internet and watch what you like, will all end that way anyway.

It's fairly simple to control the number of simultaneous sessions allowed from a single userid.

We have quite a few people at work use iplayer in their lunch times. So think work may have to fork out 12000+ licences, or block BBC - wonder which one it will be?

Will companies get sued if they allow their staff to watch streaming tv without a license?

Since a licence is based on premises and family unit within premises (if lodger rents out a room he has to get his own licence), wont every 'new premise' have to have a license, effectively making every mobile and portable computer into its own separate premise and require a license?

It is not a licence, it is another stealth tax, to make you pay again in many cases for what you have already seen many many times over.

Edited by deleted (Fri 04-Mar-16 06:33:46)

We all know it is a method to extort money from people anyway. As for the legality of it, it is still based on contract law, except, they intimate people into contracting by sending threatening letters to a database of addresses that they have no records on ie. addresses which have not contractually agreed that they do or do not require a TV license. But at the end of the day, it's still a contract, just like the one you would enter into if you took out a Sky subscription for 12 months.

I still don't really get it, unfortunately. Why the BBC thinks it is any different from the likes of Sky? Why are they above all other media companies? Why do the BBC have the apparent authority to legislate and charge for a TV license, yet all other companies employ a pay-per-view, subscription based policy for charging? Why, in this now modern would, have the BBC not gone the same route? Why can't they make iPlayer subscription based?

I smell a rat, to be blunt. The monopoly that is the BBC should now end, it should become just like another other media business (Sky, Netflix etc) and the license fee should be scrapped. We are not in the 20th century any more - TVs are thinner, consume less power, and have moved onto receiving DBV digital signals rather than analogue. Time for the BBC to have its gravy train derailed, and decommissioned.

Edited by deleted (Fri 04-Mar-16 07:24:31)

A TV licence allows you to stream live TV using a mobile device, although it has to be battery powered. So if people are using a tablet or a mobile phone to watch live TV, then they are OK. If they are watching live TV using a PC or laptop connected to the mains then there home TV licence will not cover it. The position with "catch up" would be similar should the law change to per make payment of a licence a requirement. It is also very possible the BBC could come up with a system of requiring licence holder authentication to watch iPlayer.

In my experience many office buildings have a TV licence already. Very often staff rooms, canteens and meeting rooms have the TV capability. The cost of a TV licence is, after all, rather a small thing in such a context at £145.50 per address.

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/b...

It is absolutely not to do with contract law. The TV licence is not a contract covered by civil law, as would be the case with, say, Netflix. The TV licence is actually a tax (technically a hypothecated tax as its revenue is intended to fund broadcasting). As such, the non-payment of a TV licence is covered by criminal law. If you don't have a TV licence when required you get summonsed to a magistrate's court (and they deal only in criminal matters) and you get fined. (In a civil court you only pay damages).

So be under no illusion, if you do get summonsed for non-payment, it is for a criminal offence and absolutely nothing at all to do with contract law.

The subject of de-criminalisation of non-payment of the TV licence fee is regularly raised in parliament, but the BBC are wholly opposed to the notion as it makes enforcement much more difficult and expensive.

In reply to a post by mixt:

I still don't really get it, unfortunately. Why the BBC thinks it is any different from the likes of Sky? Why are they above all other media companies? Why do the BBC have the apparent authority to legislate and charge for a TV license, yet all other companies employ a pay-per-view, subscription based policy for charging?

That's because the BBC is different. The BBC is the State Broadcaster. It means they are an arm of the government.

Now because we, supposedly, live in a liberal democracy with an independent press, the government keep the BBC at arms length. But that doesn't change the nature of what they are.

The BBC does not legislate for the TV licence, parliament does, because parliament is the body that has authority over taxation. The BBC make a pitch for how much they think they should get just like any other government department.

As a public service broadcaster, Channel 4 get some of the license fee too, as do ITV, I think.

In reply to a post by essdee:

As a public service broadcaster, Channel 4 get some of the license fee too

Unlike the BBC, Channel 4 receives no public funding. It is funded entirely by its own commercial activities.

Thank you for the correction. My memory on that point was clearly incorrect. Although, I do note that license fee funding for C4 was proposed but then withdrawn, which is probably where my error came from.

Thanks for the clarification, but this demonstrates the draconian society that is the UK corporation.

FYI, I do have a license (just to be clear on that). But, if I didn't have one....

Why is it a criminal offence? What loss or harm have I committed against anyone for not having one? Answer: nothing. What they will say is that this is more like a case of "fraud" - the loss or harm is viewing material that has taken money to produce, that I have not paid for. Notice I used the word money there? So under my line of thinking, that means this is a civil/contractual/commercial matter, nothing more.

No, but they will make it a criminal matter because that's just how they do things.

Assuming I would even attend court for non-payment (a summons is an invitation to their place of business, btw), a judge can jump and shout, throw a hissy fit in a magistrates court all they want, but I'll just stand there and go "please demonstrate why this is a criminal offence". "Because it's in our legislation, as passed by government" doesn't sell it to me, I'm afraid. I'll reply with "please demonstrate to me where I have agreed to be governed by his government". They'll answer "your birth certificate" and I'll say "created on behalf of my parents, wishing a contract to be established between my legal person and the state for the purposes of contracting with it. This doesn't show I agreed to be governed. Whose signature was on that documentation? Certainly not mine."

PS - I finally received an "invitation to contract" aka "invitation to vote" through the post, at the property I bought a few years ago. But interestingly, this time, it was no longer addressed to "The Occupier", but my legal person (legal name). I'm still going to do what I normally do with all this kind of correspondence and stamp it with red-ink with a label over the window citing "NO CONTRACT - RETURN TO SENDER", as I normally do. If they want to have a little discussion about my reason for doing this, I'm sure I'll get a knock at the door in due course. As far as I'm concerned, everything ever offered to you, through your letter box or otherwise, is an invitation to contract. The fact some government can just make up legislation as they wish, to benefit some top-cats, who just happen to deem that not owning a TV license is a criminal offence, is nothing more than a 4 letter word that will be censored here if I type it.

Oh, and let's not forget about the BBC's association with Jimmy Savile, and that entire can of worms, shall we?

Yeah, I have a problem with authority. But I live by common law principles. This is an authoritative government that wishes to control and monitor all individuals. All be it, not as badly as some other world governments, but that is what it is trying to do.

I wish them luck with that because they'll need a miracle to pull it off, and there will be a revolution before they manage it.

Edited by deleted (Fri 04-Mar-16 11:56:46)

It's a criminal offence because it is a tax. That's why the BBC don't want to be given responsibility for it, as it would then not be a tax, and non-payment would be a civil liability for which they would need to sue the "non-payer".

The TV licence was introduced in July 1946 by the then Labour Government, and has been retained by all subsequent governments. It's the current government that might give the responsibility to the BBC thus stopping it being a criminal offence. Somehow I feel that clashes with other parts of your post.

My rant goes beyond TV licensing Rob.

In terms of any taxes, where did I agree to pay any, at all? I do pay them, but read what I typed again...

Where did I personally agree to pay any of these taxes, at all, at any point?

I didn't, and I never have.

So by default, it you don't pay any of them, you're deemed a criminal. What loss or harm has been done to anyone by me not paying them? Nothing.

This was the point of my rant. It's a fundamental one.

Most will say that we all pay taxes because... "that's just how things are done around here". Aka the "5 monkeys in a cage" experiment. And this is the reasoning most people will use.

If you are summonsed to appear in a magistrates court and don't turn up, it's very simple.You will be fined in your absence. If you fail to pay the fine, then an arrest warrant will be issued, and, at the extreme, people can (and are - about 50 a year) jailed for not paying fines in such circumstances,

Also, challenging a magistrate to explain why this is a criminal offence will get people nowhere (or worse). Their job is to apply the law as written and according to how it has been interpreted.

Note, I've not arguing for or against the law, but law it is. Non-payment of a licence fee when it is due is a criminal offence because it is a tax, and an aggressively enforced one. Approximately 200,000 people a year are prosecuted a year for this.

Do you vote in any national or local elections?
Do you drive?
Are you or have you ever been married or in a civil partnership?

Edited by RobertoS (Fri 04-Mar-16 13:00:14)

Of course you haven't personally agreed to pay tax, you just happen to have been born into a society where you have no choice. Indeed, there has been no choice but to do so since people started settling into communities. In the early days it could have been tax in kind (we'll take 20% of your crops, or a cow) and a lot of it went to the

You are more fortunate that your ancestors back in medieval times, as most of those taxes went directly to enriching the aristocracy, local warlords, the church or others in power. A little of it might be returned by way of welfare (like some grudging help for the aged and infirm by the church), bu mostly it was a dead loss to the serfs. At least these days we get a say as to how taxes are raised and spent by way of parliamentary elections, imperfect as that process may be.

If you don't want to pay tax, then really your only option in this country is to become a monk, or a tramp, or follow some other role outside of the normal economic system. A.E. Bates managed to get Pop Larkin working in that mode in a rather more affluent manner, but I rather think that just a little bit of a fantasy.

Alternatively, hunt down a part of the world where tax isn't paid. Good luck with that, and in any event, if you do find such a place then be prepared to do without public services.

But back to the issue at hand. There are moves afoot to decriminalise the issue of not paying the TV licence and gradually transform the BBC to a (necessarily rather smaller) subsciption service. That is controversial, but if you wish to lend you support to that, there are many politicians and pressure groups supporting not to mention a few commercial rivals. You would, for instance, find yourself allied with Rupert Murdoch on this matter.

I respect your post, but I can only do one thing:

*shakes head*

.... so they arrest you. Then what?
.... so you get forced to appear in court. Then what?
.... so they put you away for several years....

so what?

Again, I ask, what harm or loss has occurred due to me NOT paying it?

I've asked this extremely simple question now, 3 times in related threads, and nobody can answer it! Or they are just selectively choosing to ignore this point, because... "law is law", as you so eloquently put it. But I agree, since "law is law", it decides to make it a criminal offence.

Fair enough.

But it doesn't make it one in my books. And it never will. If the law has a problem with that, I'll quite happily go to jail for it, though reflecting on that statement, I'd rather be deported and live elsewhere. Which will be a shame for them, as they'll lose about £18k of income tax payments from me annually for doing that.

*shrugs* their choice, I guess.

Do you vote in any national or local elections? - no

Do you drive? - yes, but I could choose not to, as the only reason I do so most times would be for commercial purposes, travelling in a commercial capacity.

Are you or have you ever been married or in a civil partnership? - no

Next set of questions please.

C4 have indeed mooted the idea that they get some of the money but, not surprisingly, the BBC fought that idea. One of my bugbears is when people call the TV Licence fee the BBC Licence fee. In law it is not, and how the money is distributed is essentially down to the government of the day.

One way in which licence money fee was redirected was, indirectly, to BDUK. When the TV service went digital a certain amount of money was set aside, from the licence fee, to assist some disadvantaged parts of the population with the migration costs. That money was underspent and, rather than going to the BBC, that excess went to the BDUK project.

In reply to a post by mixt:

Again, I ask, what harm or loss has occurred due to me NOT paying it?

You don't think being locked up in prison causes you loss or harm?

Thinking about your question here.... nope, I don't.

The reason for them sending you to prison is simply due to your refusal to contract with the system, and the lack of power they have in making you do it. So if you will not contract, they effectively remove you from it, by sending you to jail. That is their power trip. The only loss or harm I would experience would be.... social isolation from every day society, and as for harm, who knows - I've never been in prison before. But I would rather be given the option to be deported, and live elsewhere if they don't want me here.

I can assure you - it would cost them more financially to keep me in prison, since I would be out of work. They'd be down £18k a year on income tax payments, down £1000 a month on interest payments on a mortgage (or what ever my current interest charges are) but would be having to fund my expenses whilst in jail, but seeing nothing from me financially, due to me no longer working.

Hmmm.... as you wish then.

In reply to a post by mixt:

The only loss or harm I would experience would be.... social isolation from every day society,

To most people losing their freedom is a pretty big deal.

In reply to a post by mixt:

But I would rather be given the option to be deported, and live elsewhere if they don't want me here.

That's not how it works.

In reply to a post by mixt:

I can assure you - it would cost them more financially to keep me in prison, since I would be out of work. They'd be down £18k a year on income tax payments, down £1000 a month on interest payments on a mortgage (or what ever my current interest charges are) but would be having to fund my expenses whilst in jail, but seeing nothing from me financially, due to me no longer working.

Aside from social isolation, your "loss" would also be loss of earnings since you can't work in prison. Maybe you'd lose your home if you are unable to keep up mortgage repayments due to loss of income. There's also potential loss of future earnings as being a convicted criminal can affect employability.

Edited by Oliver341 (Fri 04-Mar-16 13:29:27)

To most people losing their freedom is a pretty big deal.

As it stands currently, I'm not truly free anyway. So I don't see this is a big deal.

That's not how it works.

Can you cite this? Where is this statement coming from? And why do you genuinely believe it to be true?

Aside from social isolation, your "loss" would also be loss of earnings since you can't work in prison. Maybe you'd lose your home if you are unable to keep up mortgage repayments due to loss of income. There's also potential loss of future earnings as being a convicted criminal can affect employability.

I do not see any of this as a loss.

If you think this country is so bad you are free to deport yourself, it's not like you are locked up in prison or anything. If you prefer to be a criminal and enjoy all the things prison has to offer, go for it.

When driving:

- do you stop at red traffic lights;
- do you put your headlights on during lighting-up hours;
- do you (more or less) drive within the speed limits;
- if you own a car, do you pay vehicle tax and insure it for third party risks;
?

Why do you pay income tax?

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

When driving:

- do you stop at red traffic lights;
- do you put your headlights on during lighting-up hours;
- do you (more or less) drive within the speed limits;
- if you own a car, do you pay vehicle tax and insure it for third party risks;
?

Yes to all of the above Rob, but the reason is not because of law. It's because it's "common sense" to do all of these things.

Why do you pay income tax?

Because it's deducted from my salary at source, because... that's how things are done around here.

It isn't common sense to stop at a red light if there is no traffic around - and yet the vast majority of people do so because it is law.

Insuring a car for 3rd party risks is also not common sense to the individual - it is only common sense if it is agreed that everyone does it because that way you get a benefit from it - if you have 3rd party insurance but the person that hits you doesn't then common sense would say you shouldn't have bothered either.

By living in a country and modern society we implicitly agree to live by those laws. The fact you say you've never been in prison suggests you do live by those laws (more or less) - and some of those laws are ones we may not naturally follow if they weren't ingrained in us.

If you don't like the laws then you either leave the country, work to change the laws or you choose which laws you will abide by and try and fight your case in court if you do something you shouldn't and get caught.

Your argument of "I didn't sign a contract" is irrelevant as if that was enough to stand up in court then no-one would ever be punished.

At no point have I ever said its bad. But it is becoming more and more draconian.

I'm also not sure where I would go if I did leave, as the grass is very rarely any greener in other pastures.

In reply to a post by mixt:

I'm also not sure where I would go if I did leave, as the grass is very rarely any greener in other pastures.

Probably because your vision of utopia is unrealistic and unworkable.

Probably because your vision of utopia is unrealistic and unworkable.

Given the way the world currently works, and the way society currently is, yes, I would agree with your analysis.

Where's the common sense in driving within the 70mph speed limit on a near-deserted motorway or dual carriageway? I frequently drive on such roads, and not just at night. Similarly there are many times that 40mph limits are needless, though needed at busy times.

Where's the common sense in paying vehicle tax if you don't believe in it?

Just for laughs, old bbc propaganda

Also Although it may be a criminal offence it isn't a recordable one, so it does not go on the PNC data base More about it here

They also contract a private company to enforce , (Cold calling to sell licences) CAPITA who think they are above the laws too

Well FREE broadcast TV gets worse each year, there maybe more channels broadcasting ,but none are broadcasting anything that i would want to watch or haven't already seen before ,repeat city, imported tv from USA usually sitcoms, I hate sitcoms, Until they actually start broadcasting some quality programs/films then I'm out

I can just about accumulate 2 evenings of viewing from 7+ days of tv it is that bad £145 it's not worth 45pence And the bbc needs to drop it's bias , talking of which i see that dimbleby now makes reference to the bbc being accused of being bias, BBC are still not talking any notice though

Can't really fault your response here. Good job, and I agree with you.

But the TV license "tax" bugs me. Not being insured can cause loss of life and property when things go wrong. Not paying the TV license "tax" causes neither of these things, if not paid. Like I said, it is more seen as fraud, in my opinion.

Yet people should have the right to live in a property and not be harassed by them sending threatening letters. This is intimidation and an attempt to force people to contract with the system, either by paying, or agreeing/declaring they have no TV, thus no TV license required, thus not paying.

The way I view this is as follows - if a company is dumb enough to broadcast media which is publicly accessible and viewable, which is what terrestrial TV is, but then turn around and say "oh, you're viewing that, so you need to pay for it", and has no qualms what so ever about banging people away for breaking this "law", then that, at the most fundamental level, is backward, authoritarian, and completely stupid. It's no different from you playing loud music next door, music you've created and produced, noticing I'm recording it, then saying I need a license/need to pay you to record/listen to it, when it's your fault that you left your windows open, and you intentionally broadcasted it anyone within the vicinity of your house.

EDIT: and then having the power to lock me away for years because I never paid you and never obtained a license to listen to/record your music.

Edited by deleted (Fri 04-Mar-16 15:29:54)

I agree that enforcement of the license has always been a thorny issue. The old assumption was the only reason to have a TV was to watch broadcast channels that had a license attached - and for many years that was the case. The introduction of home gaming consoles changed that a bit but even then the vast majority would still be watching TV.

These days it is not clear cut and also you don't need a TV to watch licensed channels. That makes it far more difficult to "police". The problem is it has never been worked out how to police it in the modern age. That has led to an "assumption of guilt" with TV licensing and having to prove you don't watch the licensed channels.

I guess at some point they will catch up but at present I'm not holding my breath.

Don't forget the mission creep.

Mr Whittingdale also launched a new drive to tackle ad-blocking, saying it poses a similar threat to websites that illegal file-sharing did to music and film a decade ago.

What on earth has this to do with government. They'll be dictating which browser to use next!

Your post has made me realise that I watch more YouTube video footage in recent years than terrrestrial TV. There's actually nothing on TV that interests me anymore. YouTube content, specifically from science and educational channels, is often times more interesting, better produced, more specialised and easier to view than any BBC iPlayer programme.

Edited by deleted (Fri 04-Mar-16 16:25:47)

I got done years ago for doing 102mph on a motorway, which was clear, but weather was slightly rainy. It was an overhead bridge camera that got me (I saw it but could not slow down in time).

Law is law, so I got a NIP through, pleaded guilty via post, wrote a nice letter, returned all the paper work, and landed up with 6 points and £100 fine.

Yet the law states that anything over 100mph is an instant ban.

So, is the law the law then? Only when it suits them. I have noticed it tends to be more vigoursly applied if you try and squirm out of what you have done wrong, rather than just admitting you're guilty. Yet some people haven't sussed that out yet.

But to answer your question, there is common sense in driving within the speed limit, even on an empty motorway. What if you have a tire blow out, or just some act of God? You'll have more chance of surviving the slower you are travelling.

As for vehicle tax, I don't pay any on mine at the moment as it is exempt. But remind me about this please. It is now called vehicle tax, not road tax, right? Because none of the previous road tax went on road infrastructure, did it? Thus they renamed it. Which I find a bit odd considering roads are what your vehicle will spend 99% of its life travelling on.

So yeah, maybe you can answer why vehicle tax exists. I know it's partially to do with emissions etc but I don't really understand where that tax money would be ending up, if it isn't benefiting the roads. And I never said I don't believe in it.

I think vehicle tax exists because it is a way of government getting money in to spend on other stuff (some of which will be roads). In the end all taxes go into a big pot to then get shared out.

I think the law about doing over 100mph being an instant ban is not strictly a law but a guide for prosecutors. You can expect to get an instant ban but it is at the discretion of the prosecutor?

In reply to a post by mixt:

As for vehicle tax, I don't pay any on mine at the moment as it is exempt. But remind me about this please. It is now called vehicle tax, not road tax, right? Because none of the previous road tax went on road infrastructure, did it? Thus they renamed it. Which I find a bit odd considering roads are what your vehicle will spend 99% of its life travelling on.

So yeah, maybe you can answer why vehicle tax exists. I know it's partially to do with emissions etc but I don't really understand where that tax money would be ending up, if it isn't benefiting the roads. And I never said I don't believe in it.

It's called Vehicle Excise Duty. It's a tax on owning and operating a motor vehicle on public roads. The road fund was abolished some time in the 1940's. Roads are built and maintained from general taxation. Some local some national.

The government taxes all sorts of things, sometimes to influence behaviour, mostly just to raise money for public services. You pay Council Tax for owning a residential property. You pay Capital Gains Tax when you sell certain classes of assets. You pay Value Added Tax when you buy certain classes of goods. You pay Income Tax on income. And you pay the TV licence for owning and operating television receiving equipment.

Of the list, only the TV Licence is hypothecated which means it's a tax reserved for a specific purpose. All the rest go into the government's spending pot. The point of keeping the TV Licence separate is to try to maintain the independence of the state broadcaster from the political influence of the government of the time.

The tax that became the TV Licence used to be a tax on Radio receiving equipment, then it moved to television receiving equipment. Now it'll probably change again. What gets taxed and how it's assessed and collected varies over time, depending on what is politically acceptable.

In reply to a post by essdee:

...You pay Council Tax for owning a residential property.

I think even if you rent a property you have to pay

In reply to a post by essdee:

The government taxes all sorts of things, sometimes to influence behaviour, mostly just to raise money for public services.
You pay Council Tax for owning a residential property.

No, you have to pay this unfair tax on where you live even when you don't own it, rented property is the same rip off, even in converted houses known as flats, all because they have their own wc and bathrooms , if those are shared then the council only collect council tax for the property as a whole, instead of getting 2 or 3 times the amount from the same divided property , and in most cases it's those who aren't well off that are affected by this tax the most,they councils are even charging those on benefits 20%+ and they cannot afford to pay , thanks to Dave and his killer cuts, thatchers /majors legacy that should of been scrapped by now, typical of the tories only look after the wealthiest people, shame the last labour government did the same (tory lite)

In reply to a post by essdee:

You pay Value Added Tax when you buy certain classes of goods. You pay Income Tax on income.

We also pay tax on top of a tax Vat on Fuel duty, and have to pay Vat of 5% on domestic fuel to keep warm and cook , as well as other everyday things, that aren't regarded as luxuries any-more, It's surprising what is subject to VAT on the supermarket shelves we are taxed to the hilt in this country,

In reply to a post by essdee:

And you pay the TV licence for owning and operating television receiving equipment.

Ahh that old myth too , wrong it has zero to do with the owning or operating equipment capable of receiving live tv as it is broadcast ,

You can legally own and use any said equipment as long as you do not watch or record broadcast tv without paying the BBC TV tax

In reply to a post by essdee:

Of the list, only the TV Licence is hypothecated which means it's a tax reserved for a specific purpose. All the rest go into the government's spending pot. The point of keeping the TV Licence separate is to try to maintain the independence of the state broadcaster from the political influence of the government of the time.

The tax that became the TV Licence used to be a tax on Radio receiving equipment, then it moved to television receiving equipment. Now it'll probably change again. What gets taxed and how it's assessed and collected varies over time, depending on what is politically acceptable.

Everyone knows that the BBC is an anything but independent media source It's pro EU

Why probably got a lot to do with this that the BBC tried to hide from us bbc eu funding

and of course they are also pro migration as that goes hand in glove with what her merkel wants , and sod what the people want The bbc has always been bias in some shape of form, If they ever decided to go the subscription route they wouldn't survive from that alone, in their present form at least,

Edited by tommy45 (Fri 04-Mar-16 19:38:33)

You make good points, but my point was meant to be a more general one.

The TV License is just a tax and there are many others. The activities that are taxed and the ways the taxes are collected vary.

The bias that having a hypothecated tax to support the state broadcaster is supposed to prevent is to stop an incumbent government from using it to influence the outcome of UK elections (or the political discourse generally). An outcome that generally considered undesirable (at least in parliament).

Railing against the TV licence is, in my view, mis-directed. The more accurately directed question would be whether it is appropriate to have a state broadcaster at all.

There are many that believe the BBC should be privatised, but there are sufficient people who actually vote (or at least lobby their MPs) who believe otherwise that it hasn't happened yet. While that remains the case, the TV License, or a tax like it will probably remain.