in britain, you have to have a license if you own a tv. it costs 133 pounds per year, and they are VERY strict about enforcing it. one of my russian friends last year tried to not pay his (thinking with russian logic that he could get away with that) and endde up getting a letter informing him that "advanced military detection equipment" had noticed that he did in fact have a tv, and thus was required to pay. he finnally got nervous enough that he paid up.
fine, as he DID have a tv. i, however, do not. the license people cannot seem to get this through their heads (or computer systems). so they keep sending bills. the latest one stated it required "immediate action" and threatened a 1000 pound fine should we not come up with the money. so i called the stated number to try to sort the thing out. this got me a automated system with 7 options, i had to go for the last "for all other queries press 7" as the automated system did not understand the concept of no tv. neither did the woman who finnally answered the phone, and asked "what is your license number?" to which i answered "i havent got a tv."
i spent the next few minutes informing the woman, that no, i havent got a tv, and no, no one in my flat has got a tv, and no, we dont watch tv. from the womans reaction, you would think i had anounced i had two heads and three arms. and the result? we will be inspected every 3 months to confirm this improbable situation! dont these people have better things to do?
12 commentaires:
I wonder what happens if you have a TV set just to watch dvd?..
i think you have to pay the full amount...if the inspectors came round, they would still see a tv, wouldnt they?
my computer has a big screen, i watch dvds there....not that i have much time to watch anything at the moment!
No, I've been through all the same crap- they're shameless in how it virtually amounts to intimidation. You DON'T need a licence if you only have a TV just to watch DVDs or play computer games. Look at the FAQs on the TV Licensing website to see the numerous exceptions that exist, even though when they write to you, it's always a stern letter which makes no reference to said exceptions, and includes a Direct Debit form for you to fill in "before it's too late". In my case it's a box which connects my computer monitor to a DVD player, but also qualifies as "TV receiving equipment", as it has an aerial input (they knew I had it, as electrical goods shops are obliged to report the sale of all such equipment). But you can have ANY such stuff- provided you tell them it's not connected to an aerial/digital TV cable, and it still is not if/when they then do a spot check, there's nothing they can so. The threatening letters will come automatically for ages until you get your situation into their thick heads. Tedious but necessary- phone calls, letters etc....
"Tedious but necessary"
The BBC is one of the few remaining things in Britain of which British people can be totally and justifiably proud. And it's all paid for by the Licence Fee.
So too right that the fee is fully enforced.
Getting bills and all the rest is a pain if you don't own a TV, but, as Tom clearly demonstrates, you never have to part with any money if that's the case.
(But then, how do you watch Eastenders???!!)
And BBC radio is totally free - no fee at all.
ok i have no problem with the bbc, i am sure it is great, and i dont object to people being expected to pay for it.
i do however, object to being made to feel like a criminel for telling the truth: i dont have a tv and i dont have a radio. i dont see why i should receive threatening letters and be talked to on the phone like i am a martian.i dont see why inspectors want to waste their time and someones money by coming to my house every three months to verify that i continue not to have a tv, even after i told them so several times.
i have lived without a tv my whole life, and i have never developped the habit of watching it. i dont enjoy television shows, but that doesnt mean i have want to stop other people from doing so, i just dont want to be forced to pay for other peoples entertainment!
How came your every observation is couched in terms of British culture and institutions being under attack, Marcus ? Did I make any reference to the BBC ? It was TV Licensing, a different body, who DO operate virtually by intimidation. If a friend hadn't pointed me to their website FAQs I would probably have coughed up without reason, like 100s, possibly 1000s of others. And do you think I would have got a refund ??
And Eastenders is abysmal, the single biggest waste of money in the BBC budget.
"How came your every observation is couched in terms of British culture and institutions being under attack, Marcus ?"
Far from it, I was saying what a good thing the BBC is and saying how it's something to be proud of.
Of course the BBC is a major part of British culture, and it takes its role as such very seriously.
Now that you mention it, it's worth remembering that the BBC has been under some considerable attack, from both this and previous governments - but has retained its independance and high standards and quality.
The TV programmes, the radio stations, the Internet site (the most visited in the country), all the various branches of the BBC are paid for by the license fee, and whilst you might not use a TV and might not like being asked to show that you don't, I'm afraid that if the fee wasn't rigorously enforced there would be many people getting away with not paying.
Which would increase the cost for those that do pay.
Naneh, have you been forced to pay anything?
Tom, you might not like Eastenders, yet it remains the country's most popular soap if not the most popular programme - most would say it's (license fee) money well spent!
again i dont despute the value of the bbc....i just dont like getting threats in the post and being told that i have to pay up "or else." i have not paid and i will not pay, but i dont like being threatened and being treated like some kind of freak simply for not owning a flipping television. given their attitude, you would think i was asking permission to do something extraordinary, not simply claiming my right not to own something.
in any case, happy valentine's day all!
Once again Marcus has completely missed my point. I'm not talking about the existence of the licence fee or the justification for it. I support its existence and the BBC.
Imagine receiving a letter which went, "Dear Sir, We have reason to believe you have alcohol in your house. In the event of you selling said alcohol to the public, you are henceforth required to apply for a licence. SELLING ALCOHOL WITHOUT A LICENCE IS A SERIOUS OFFENCE, PUNISHABLE BY PRISON OR A £X,0000 FINE. Enclosed is a direct debit form. Relax with the peace of mind that you are within the law and return it completed now."
Of course it's an absurd example. Everyone knows you don't need a licence to keep booze. Very few people, however, know about the grey area of owning but not using a TV. Of course 1000s of people evade the licence, but 1000s also know nothing of that grey area, and are needlessly intimidated by those letters. A simple FOOTNOTE is all that's required, or even their website address. It would cause outrage from any private concern, but because it has state sanction it's excused. That's my last word.
yeah it is the threatening language that gets me the most....but, well, it seems i will just have to get used to it, these letters show no signs of abateing!
Ok, Tom, thanks so much for the explanation! I'm fed up with watching DVDs on my laptop, and I'd probably buy a tv :))
Enregistrer un commentaire