Features - QOTW: Do you pay the TV Licence fee?

[McEwin]

Excellent Q. No TV License. No "live" TV. "Catch-up" on programs I actually want to watch which are few and far between. Pub for live sports

[Willzzz]

And one last word on TV license searches - if you have nothing to hide let the buggers in. They stick their heads in a couple of rooms then leave you alone, and if you let them in at first time of asking they'll also make their own note that you don't need a license and you'll never get bothered again. Seriously, this worked like a charm for me last time someone knocked on the door. I think if I started getting letters again I'd actually invite an inspector round to check for themselves.

Actually you get a letter every 2 years regardless. Just to check!

It's not one of their super aggressive letters though, but the tone is still "we can't believe you don't have a TV".

"We know you told us two years ago that you didn't have a TV, but two years have passed, surely you must have one by now?"

[scaryjim]

Actually you get a letter every 2 years regardless. Just to check!

Huh! mine must've got lost in the post

[kingpotnoodle]

If you don't need a licence and your TVs are demonstrably NOT connected to an aerial (or better still you don't have an aerial) then there is no reason to be an obstructive arse if they come to do an inspection, the easy way out is to let them have a quick look, show them the disconnected back of your TV. I really don't see why you would make everyone's life (including your own) harder by refusing a simple look around, it just makes it appear as if you have something to hide.

BBC covers up, and indeed participates in organised paedophilia. They refuse to be held accountable too.

From what I've heard it sounds like the personal failings of a few people who turned a blind eye IN THE PAST and a sad lack of communication about incidents and a subsequent general embarrassment of people who just didn't know what to say when it all exploded. I certainly don't think there was a top-down organisational policy to allow and encourage perverts and I think suggesting that is greatly unfair on the vast majority of BBC employees who believe it or not are regular people with good morals. You cannot blindly hold all people responsible and slander them because of the repugnant actions of a few individuals in their midst.

BBC news lies. It announced World Trade Center Building 7 collapsed - 20 minutes before the people in New York were surprised by it happening. State sponsored propaganda, to put it generously.

Because rolling news channels otherwise never get things a bit wrong or jump the gun at all do they? I must have seen a dozen such examples during the recent Boston conflagration, things suggested and later modified, rumours, guesses etc. It's all too easy on the chinese whisper of a high pressure news story to go from "it's going to collapse soon" to "it collapsed" when mixing up with buildings that actually had collapsed. Conspiracy nuts always use these silly errors as some proof of giant conspiracy and then when the content is pulled take this as confirmation. A news organisation *should* pull or amend erroneous content where possible!


The vast majority of the work the BBC do is of a higher than average quality and their journalists are better than many other outlets. I think it is of benefit to have a media company not totally at the whim of commerce and advertisers. I would be sad to see the licence fee scrapped, it could probably do with modernisation but it should definitely stay in some form.

[KrisWragg]

I haven't had a TV licence for a couple of years now. I had an inspector round some time last year, let him in he looked at the back of my TV said everything was fine and said I'd be off their checklist for 2 years but the might inspect again after that.

With the ability to watch stuff about 15mins later on iPlayer, or stream other programs on Netflix etc I just don't see a need to pay £150ish a year to watch things live.

The only thing I REALLY miss is Formula One, but seen as thats not even on BBC anymore exclusively it's not that big of a hardship and I certainly am not paying for a TV licence and a Sky subscription AND sports package, just to watch 20 races per year when they are obtainable a few hours later for free.

[Spud1]

Let me ask a question back. If I only ever listened to the radio, should I still be paying a TV license? What if I only own a DAB radio, and have no TV, computer or internet connection? At what point do you draw the line?

This is a good question and as I think I've said before, I am all for a "pay for what you use" type licence..i'd probably say that morally yes you should have a TV licence if you listen to non commercial radio, however it's much more grey even on a moral basis than with TV since the requirement was purposely removed a few years ago.

Personally, I draw it where the law already draws it. That's up for the lawmakers to decide. And in response to Saracen, I find it perfectly acceptable for companies to reduce their tax burden as far as legally allowable, and again I put it up for the lawmakers to then restructure the tax laws if they feel companies are getting away with too much (although I should point out I'm a little biased on that one having run a limited company for a couple of years). Similarly, I am quite vehemently in favour of everyone claiming exactly as much benefit as they are entitled to, to the point of going out of my way to point out to friends where they can be legally maximising their benefit income (and as a former HB assessor I'm reasonably good at that).

This however is something we'll likely disagree on for evermore.. I personally cannot stand the attitude of being "entitled" to any form of benefit (be that a tax rebate/housing/cash)..I am of the opinion of you should take what you need when you have no other choice, rather than playing the system. It "grinds my gears" so to speak and in some ways Is no different to avoiding the TV licence because the letter of the law allows you to.

Anyway non of it will change in the short term, but I will be interested to see how TV licensing adapts to the future as IPTV becomes more prevalent - it opens up a whole host of options!

[McEwin]

Because rolling news channels otherwise never get things a bit wrong or jump the gun at all do they? I must have seen a dozen such examples during the recent Boston conflagration, things suggested and later modified, rumours, guesses etc. It's all too easy on the chinese whisper of a high pressure news story to go from "it's going to collapse soon" to "it collapsed" when mixing up with buildings that actually had collapsed. Conspiracy nuts always use these silly errors as some proof of giant conspiracy and then when the content is pulled take this as confirmation. A news organisation *should* pull or amend erroneous content where possible!


The vast majority of the work the BBC do is of a higher than average quality and their journalists are better than many other outlets. I think it is of benefit to have a media company not totally at the whim of commerce and advertisers. I would be sad to see the licence fee scrapped, it could probably do with modernisation but it should definitely stay in some form.

BBC News is sensationalist and bias and lies by distorting facts and misrepresenting information in order to "create" a story. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's an observation! And what makes it worse is that they hide behind this mantra of impartiality which people believe!

If they don't know what they're saying is true, why are they saying it!?!?

Watch Charlie Brooker's Newswipe to give you a flavour of why our media is so awful.

[Swedger]

The TV licence is for receiving colour signals (see the small print) ie if you have a PVR but no telly you still have to pay the licence. The BBC is funded by this licence but that is a government decision - they could use this money for anything they want as they are the enforcers. In that vein should that not mean that I should not have to pay for any digital transmission ie Sky etc as I am already paying for this via my licence or are the exorbitant fees these companies charge just for decryption purposes only? I myself never watch live telly (don't have the time) but record everything in advance.

[kingpotnoodle]

BBC News is sensationalist and bias and lies by distorting facts and misrepresenting information in order to "create" a story. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's an observation! And what makes it worse is that they hide behind this mantra of impartiality which people believe!

If they don't know what they're saying is true, why are they saying it!?!?

Watch Charlie Brooker's Newswipe to give you a flavour of why our media is so awful.

Charlie's keen observation is hilarious and he of course quite fairly aims wider than just the BBC.

Name a news reporting organisation that doesn't stoop to some degree of sensationalism or selective reporting of facts (and don't say 911 'truthers' or any other conspiracy nuts they're the absolute worst for selective use). The BBC is a lot better than most and is respected as such across the world, why do you think people in countries with a restricted press turn to the World Service? All media have some form of bias or agenda, it originates from the inescapable cultural discourse, nobody is truly 100% objective as all humans are influenced daily by our culture and personal history to see the same things in subtly different ways.

[Smudger]

Try watching Sky News, or Fox News in the US, then come back and say the BBC is biased.

When you say biased, you mean it doesn't colour the news just exactly as you think it should, according to your beliefs?

[MonkeyL]

Yep, for the price, the value from the BBC is outstanding.

Long may it continue.

[Agent]

If you don't need a licence and your TVs are demonstrably NOT connected to an aerial (or better still you don't have an aerial) then there is no reason to be an obstructive arse if they come to do an inspection, the easy way out is to let them have a quick look, show them the disconnected back of your TV. I really don't see why you would make everyone's life (including your own) harder by refusing a simple look around, it just makes it appear as if you have something to hide.

That would be great, if it worked like that. In the past I've let them in, only to accused of plugging it in when they leave, having them threaten to come back and check on me "in secret", and be told "I don't know how long you think you can get away with this, but we'll get you and our £1000 payout".

There are some truly vile people that work for TV Licensing. Given that they work on commission, it's in their best interests to try and get people to pay. Some of the stories against the elderly and mentally handicapped are horrible.

I take a very different approach now - I'm not breaking the law, so I'm not 'proving' myself to anyone else. Innocent until proven guilty, and the latter can't happen. It's not about being an "arse", it's about not putting up with the abuse they often give when I've done nothing wrong.

I'm perfectly polite with them. I just don't let them in.

If I ever start watching live TV, I'll pay. Until then they can shove off.

[Willzzz]

I didn't let the guy who turned up at mine in, maybe that's why I get a letter every 2 years.

Still it's a lot better than the weekly letters saying "FINAL WARNING" in big red letters.

Just had to fill in a short form here:
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/notv

[peterb]

that's hard to do when you have no money spare due to having my disabled money cut , so tell me how if your that clever when elec and gas prices keep rising etc

In that case, surrender your TV licence for a refund.


https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/update...ForRefund.aspx

[Saracen]

Don't get me wrong - I would rather we have a more modern approach to charging for the content, but my point was more that what lots of people who don't pay for a licence are doing is taking advantage of a loophole that is against the "spirit" of the TV licence. Of course the other point is that just because there isn't a convenient/agreeable alternative, doesn't grant the right to ignore it - just as with piracy. Pretty sure you know that though anyway and of course it's completely legal to not have a licence and watch catch-up TV at the moment (as long as it's not you doing the timeshifting of course).

Saracen - that's why I view it as morally repugnant in exactly the same way as taking advantage of tax loopholes..which is very different to say using an ISA efficiently.

The key is that "spirit of the law" concept - it's very similar to a tax dodge in some ways as it's totally legal, but also is at odds with the reason the law/licence was introduced.

But that presupposes that you are right in what you assume the law intended, what the spirit of it was.

For instance, in the example I gave, that simple bit of legal "avoidance" saved me £80k. You're suggesting you's have stumped up the £80k? Really?

Then, 5 years later, the law changes. Had I faced that exact same situation after that, the £80k would not have been an issue as it wouldn't have been due.

Another example. Governments regularly use tax advantages to encourage behavioural change. So, if they want to encoueage investment, maybe they lower capital gains tax, and provide an incentive for those with the assets to do so to switch to investment classes that are geared to capital growth rather than income generation. So, it isn't breaking the spirit of the law if you adjust your investments accordingly.

They also are inclined to do things to encourage inward investment into the UK and using tax breaks to do it, or just seeking to make the UK attractive to people that can invest anywhere.

People making judgments about others breaking the "spirit" of the law are assuming that they know what the original intent was, and that they understand the business situation of the companies making decisions, and about what is "right" in varied and complex situations.

For instance, suppose I run a search engine company called Coddle Ltd. It's based in the UK, and I employ 10,000 highly paid technical people, in the UK. But I have an sales and marketing operation in the US, employing 100 people, and in the way of search engines, my product is used all over the world.

What proportion of my profits should be taxed in the UK, and what in the US? After all, the US market may be bigger and more profitable, but they'd have nothing to market and sell in the US if it wasn't for the product designed and developed by those 10,000 UK developers.

So .... should I allocate some proportion of the cost of development in the UK against the profits in the US? Any reasonable argument says yes. So, we have transfer pricing.

And suppose the extremely high cost of those developers means I make little or no net profit after we've set transfer pricing to reflect those costs. I may make next to no profit, and therefore pay next to no US Corp tax, but I do have a rapidly growing business.

And, after all, those government incentives were trying to encourage investment by making capital gains tax lower, which is why I took no profit, re-invested heavily, incurred heavy development costs, and organised the transfer pricing in the first place, doing exactly what government policy sought to get me to do. Yet, people want to lynch me because I'm not paying "fair" tax and breaking the "spirit" of the law.

Sorry, but no.

I'm not going to second guess what the law, tax or otherwise, meant to say, I'm going to abide by what it actually does say.

When that £80k situation occurred, I could have just paid up. Suppose it had been you .... would you have paid, or spent the £100 on a lawyer? Honestly now, would you?

And if you did, what would you have felt, five years later, when tax law was amended to give exactly the same situation I achieved with that £100 of legal work.

It turns out the spirit of the law wasn't what the basic law said 5 years earlier, but what it was later changed to do. Too late to get the £80k back by then, though.

[Tunnah]

I always thought it was not a matter of the tv being hooked up, but if there is a tuner in there capable of receiving live content, that's when a license is needed. You can actually pay to have the tuners removed so the TV can't be used to receive live content.

Although that's probably outdated now, but that's how it used to be. I personally own a 26" monitor and a 55" LEDTV both solely for PC usage, i don't watch UK TV only american TV so all downloaded, but as I'm at my mum's temp she's got a license so we're covered but I'm thinking of having the tuner removed/disabled when I move as I have no interest in UK TV at all, live or catch up