I mean, most of those make sense - a 'car licence' (I assume you mean road tax?) pays for roads (in theory). A TV licence pays for the BBC. A radio licence presumably paid for the BBC before there were TVs. Passport fees pay for embassies and other foreign services.
It is hard to see how an expensive drone licence would be justified though.
TV licence is a big nuisance, and to me it's just old media clinging on to the power it holds. I go home and accidentally start streaming through the BBC iPlayer (I wanted to watch a catch up program but my finger slipped), am I breaking the law? Am I considered a criminal by the state?
If they want to enforce this properly they need to do it at the device level. If I'm not supposed to watch TV then make it impossible for me not to do so, put a login behind it or something.
Not to mention the ABSURD methods they go to intimidate you into paying, even when you don't watch live television (in my case, I don't even own an aerial cable), every month I get a threatening, amateur looking, in red writing, letter telling me about my crimes and that I will just end up in court.... If I kept these letters I'd have to rent a garage just to store them, have these people ever heard about saving trees? :)
It's a silly tax, with silly regulations and silly enforcement that needs to go.
We have a national TV network which is an absolute national treasure and produces some awesome TV. The TV license just ensures that the government doesn't hold the purse strings and therefore effectively controls it. I'm happy to pay for a TV license for this reason. Also, lots of channels with no adverts on is pretty good.
As for the letters, just tell them you aren't eligible to pay. How do they know if you don't tell them?
For iPlayer, they are bringing in a BBC account which will be tied to your license fee, so you can't accidentally stream it.
National Treasure? It is literally state media, you only had to watch the BBC during the Scottish Indy Ref to show how far it will go to tow the government line. I think it is a disgrace so no longer have a licence. When Trump branded it FakeNews, people in the UK were outraged but it is one of the few things I agree with.
Is there any specific criticisms of the indy ref coverage you can give? None of the major broadcasters where particularly unbiased, because nobody wanted to see the union break up.
Trump brands a lot of things fake news. They rarely are.
>As for the letters, just tell them you aren't eligible to pay. How do they know if you don't tell them? //
Or they could stop accusing people of being criminals without any evidence.
I've had one of these letters and they start from a position of extreme prejudice against the recipient; it's not a pleasant reminder that you may need a license it's an accusation that you're a criminal and will get a big fine.
You have to pay to tell them you don't own a TV too, there's no freepost envelope and no freephone number. It's a small thing but given the aggressive nature of their accusation I refuse to pay even 40p to let them know we had no TV on the premises.
You can do it online.. no need to spend anything. Why not do that and stop the tree wasting yourself, as they aren't going to. You only need do it every 2 years or so.
The TV license just ensures that the government doesn't hold the purse strings and therefore effectively controls it
Like they hold the purse strings and control every other channel?
The recent revelations of BBC presenters salaries reveals that they don't want to compete with other stations on a level playing field, but they do want to pay themselves competitive salaries. Well you can't have it both ways...
The whole point of the TV tax is that the BBC can take on projects that are "worthy" but not commercially viable. Why does it have big-name stars at all? Why is it competing for ratings at all? They want to have their cake and eat it is why.
Working for the BBC is a privilege; one of the few cases where people really should be doing it "for the exposure" and not paid at all.
> am I breaking the law? Am I considered a criminal by the state?
I imagine the case law on this issue is very well understood by now. I don't know the answer but I doubt there are any legal uncertainties.
> the ABSURD methods they go to intimidate you into paying, even when you don't watch live television
I'm not sure what it's like for those like you who have device but no aerial. I have no device. Once every two years I get a letter asking me to fill in a web form to confirm I still have no device. It's annoying, sure, but your reaction seems massively over the top.
Oh great, the rules have changed. Guess I should just uninstall the piece of software that came with the TV.
As for "over the top" - http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one?wt.mc_id=... clearly states a device could be pretty much any electronic device at this stage, not just TVs - So how does this work? How is it proven you don't actually benefit from a TV programs? Not having a TV doesn't seem to be enough in the eyes of the law. I don't necessarily want my details attached to a private company I have no business with, as I understand it they are just outsourced enforcement and there is no legal obligation to provide them with any of my details (the letters aren't even addressed to "me" as a person, but simply the "occupier"). I'd rather keep getting the letters than give them information they have no right to.
It's all ambiguous and nonsensical to me. If there is anything I actually enjoyed in my southern European origins is that governmental funded extortion was at least direct.
I have devices, I have an aerial, and there's a dish bolted to the wall. I don't have the devices connected to the aerial or the dish. I fill out the form, and I get a letter once every two years.
> but your reaction seems massively over the top.
Yes. There are a bunch of youtube videos of people saying the best thing to do is to never respond to the letters, but those channels also have people complaining about multiple letters and visits from TVL.
> the best thing to do is to never respond to the letters
Yeah I tried that strategy for a while and got pissed off with how many letters I was getting. Then I filled in the web form and it's a once-in-two-year thing for me now. Much better!
Watching anything on BBC iPlayer, even catch up programs, no requires a licence.
The BBC iPlayer service will warn you about content that needs a licence - it will ask before playing "do you have a licence?".
> every month I get a threatening, amateur looking, in red writing
Have you told them that you do not watch tv as it's broadcast or anything on iPlayer? Once you tell them they should stop writing to you for two years.
Why don't you take five minutes to type your post code into the TV Licensing web site? You won't hear a peep from them for three years. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, unless you enjoy being offended by their letters.
Agreed. I didn't have a tv in the UK for years and I registered as such. I never had a single letter or knock on my door. I wasn't avoiding the license, I really did not have a TV. It worked.
What many don't realise is that the TV license is collected and administered by a private entity, serco, who make a substantial profit in operating it.
Last I checked the BBC receive something like 40% of the collected revenues.
So, while it ostensibly pays for the BBC, it's really just another arm of the octopus like serco, who run everything from prisons to call centres (in prisons!) to the dvla to the inland revenue.
They're the biggest company nobody has ever heard of.
The "car licence" connection to paying for roads was ended in 1937 [1], and the Road Fund itself in 1956 [1]. The Vehicle Excise Duty since 1936 has just been taxation, not earmarked for anything in particular.
The US has public radio and television without advertising as well, but instead of licensing it is funded through personal and corporate donations, together with government grants coming out of the general budget.
On a few programs you might get the host of the showing saying at the end mentioning one of the sponsors, but that's the worst it gets. The website (for radio, I don't see any on the TV website)) does have a few non-awful display ads, but streaming everything is free.
In my personal opinion this is a more progressive model - poor people don't have to pay money for public television access.
It's more progressive, yes, but when you look at the quality of output that the BBC produces the two really aren't comparable.
In the UK, I think we take the BBC for granted. With a fairly-limited budget they produce extremely high-quality and varied ad-free programming, news and have an excellent web presence. So many shows are exported and shown across the world, it can only be a benefit for the country to have our culture, and values projected in such a way.
Additionally, my two favourite stations are BBC4 and Radio 4. BBC4 shows a large number of niche documentaries that simply wouldn't ever be considered, let alone funded, shot and aired for other channels, and Radio 4 is simply unparalleled in quality.
Other (mostly European) countries rely on a tax to fund or partially fund state TV/radio so that the government doesn't broadcast government propaganda over state TV or control it by cutting their budget. It's also easier for them to make cultural shows as opposed to Oprah style reality TV that's the equivalent of clickbait and sells ads. In some of these countries state run TV is the most propaganda/advertising free TV. BBC is one example.
NPR and PBS neither air reality TV type content, or are outlets for government propaganda.
I understand that's one stated reason for the license tax, but the American model pretty well proves that it isn't necessary to get independent content that's not ad-driven.
I believe it is that case that the UK government does not insist you have a passport to travel. Practical considerations may make it difficult without one (many private companies, for example, won't let you onto their conveyance without one because they don't want to be lumbered with taking you back again when the destination country refuses to let you in for lack of passport) and the destination country might not let you in without one, but that's not the UK government insisting you be licenced to travel. It's not illegal under UK law, I understand (or it certainly didn't used to be; the maybot did seem to run an awfully authoritarian Home Office so maybe that's changed), to simply wander down to the sea, get on a yacht, and sail across to another country.
I have myself gone to France without a passport (which may have been illegal under French law; I certainly have the right to travel there freely, but I don't know what they insist people carry), gone shopping, and come back again, and I know someone coming back through border control who simply gave his name and address.
IIRC the United Kingdom has no national ID cards, but generally if your country has one they are an acceptable way for EU citizens to travel within the Union (and they were even when the EU was the EEC).
Getting your ID in Italy is about one Euro (printing photos is more expensive than that) and it's valid for ten years. All that's required for an Italian is a means of being identified by an officer; the national ID card is just a convenient one. A driving license is enough of you prefer.
Personal radios need a license? I'm guessing you mean two-way walkie-talkies?
That's only if they use part of the spectrum regulated by Ofcom. If you use some of the unregulated spectrum then it's fine.
The rest of the licenses make sense. The TV license is particularly important as it pays for the BBC, keeping it relatively free from government interference whilst still creating top-notch content.
Not walkie-talkies. Personal radios needed a licence. Back when the TV licence was the TV and radio licence, and there was also a separate radio licence. Radio licences were withdrawn back in February 1971.
The UK Government is currently in a chokehold of the authoritarians. See also the prime minister's plans about crypto and the (opt-out) porn block and planned required identification to access porn.
We can only hope they don't get much done and are busy with Brexit.
It is hard to see how an expensive drone licence would be justified though.