Is a regressive tax really the best way for us to pay for TV?

[Scottish_Republican]

Originally Posted by NovaBritannia

Equally I think there should be a more obvious distinction between walking across someone's mountain range and walking across someone's back garden.

This is fair enough. No (sane) person wants to walk over someone's back garden (i.e. within a few feet of their windows), but closing off miles of land which aren't been used to grow crops, or raise animals (which I have seen) is something else.

Equally, to use your term (sorry!), I think there is such a thing as "fair access". In one place we used to live, there was a very narrow driveway, that could have easily been closed by a small landslide. In such a scenario, I think we should have been able to get access across someone else's field - within reason. In doing so, we should have applied respect, i.e. close the gates and do as little damage as possible.

[NaRvIcK DeViL]

Database at TV Licensing 'relies on us Brits moaning..............

People who are wrongly asked to pay up for a tv licence even though they already have, must get in touch to say they’ve already paid - so the e-database at the heart of their operation can be updated, TV Licensing has declared.

Despite the majority of its administration being run by Capita, the group’s database relies on your protestations for the accuracy of its 28 million records.

Its central machine also churns out demand for payment if someone other than licence-holder buys a TV, or recordable DVD player - regardless of whether the address is already licensed.

Buying a set top box on Monday, a PVR on Tuesday; a recordable DVD player on Wednesday, a Video Recorder on Thursday and a TV card on Friday would, generate five mailings in under a week.

Writing the Mudlark column in The Financial Times, Clay Harris reflected, “The [authority’s] system does not seem to have progressed beyond the ancient situation when retailers had to report each sale of receiving apparatus.”

Responding to the criticism, a TV Licensing spokeswoman said “Any retailer selling or renting out TV equipment is legally obliged to notify TV Licensing of customers' names and the address where the equipment is to be installed.”

Under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1967, vendors of TV equipment are bound to inform the authority, irrelevant of how the device was bought, or where the device was sold, she added.

The group did however concede that some demands for payment often end up at addresses that are already in compliance – though the ‘false communication’ allows e-records to be updated.

“We appreciate that in some instances this may result in mailings to licensed addresses and this is reflected in the wording of the mailings,” the spokeswoman said.

“However, because there may be more than one flat or bed-sit at each address, we do need to confirm if the individual is covered by a valid licence. We therefore ask those who receive a letter to co-operate with our enquiries, enabling us to update our database.”

In line with its Big-Brother-style , TV Licensing implied a tough approach often yields better results for its business aims – to administer the collection of fees and enforce the TV licensing system.

Its website states, “We also use technology to identify and visit people who we believe are using a TV without a valid licence.”

The spokeswoman elaborated, “Unfortunately, if a licence is required, some people will only buy one once they have been warned of the consequences of being unlicensed. Some of our letters, therefore, contain messages that are designed to deter a possible evader.

After finishing reading this ,you should stand up straight and to attention, click your heels , raise your right arm and say " yes mein fuhrer "

[NaRvIcK DeViL]

There's currently a Petition at Number10.gov.uk website ....

Petition Creator- David Cormack – Deadline to sign up by: 26 October 2008 – so far as of 2nd September 2008 there's 1,076 - Signatures

Independent economic research analysis and investigations by consumer protection organisations such as the National Consumers Council have consistently concluded, for many years, that the UK TV licence is a levy which is regressive in its financial impact on the poor. This gross iniquity is perpetuated in essence by the UK Government upon its most vulnerable citizens. This situation is even more outrageous in an age when the poor may receive only 5 terrestial TV channels, for which the TV licence contributes to the cost of only BBC output, yet the more wealthy within the UK tend to enjoy dozens, or even hundreds of digital or satellite TV channels at comparatively little extra cost to them per channel. This petition accordingly urges the Government to abolish the UK TV licence and allow the BBC to make use of all lawful, reasonable, modern means of capital and revenue generation including share issues, property equity stakes and loans and advertising on BBC TV, radio and internet broadcasts.


Petition to: Abolish the UK TV licence and permit advertising and other means of finance generation to the BBC. | Number10.gov.uk