I don’t buy that they can do that for tower blocks, at the very least. It would be unreliable for any flats at all. For my flat, you might be able to tell if a TV were being used in my living room, perhaps, but you wouldn’t be able to tell if a TV were in use in my bedroom or in my neighbour’s living room.
Well then test it out. Don’t buy a TV licence and see what happens
I lived in a flat and didn’t have a license for several years (yes I know it was naughty of me).
I got many letters telling me to pay up, but none of them said anything about being ‘detected’, and no-one ever called round.
So it’s buggers like you that keep forcing the price of my licence up.
Bastid;)
BTW. Its licenCe in the UK not licenSe
But, rather confusingly, it’s licenSing.
I did it because I was young and angry.
Having to buy a license is like being forced to buy a copy of the Radio Times before being allowed to read a book.
No it’s not. It’s to provide finance for the best TV programming, unencumbered by advertising, in the UK, and arguably, in the world.
That’s not really the point.
The point is that if you want programming unencumbered by advertising then fine, you pay for it. But why should I subsidise this when I don’t want it. How about licence payers contributing towards my Sky subscription hmmm?
Nonsense.
I was young and angry once but that didn’t stop me from buying a TV Licence.
I was also piss poor broke, married with a small child, I had obligations and there was no way on earth I was going to end up with a criminal record.
You didn’t buy one because you took a gamble on getting away with it, I wasn’t prepared to do that
Actually, that’s a good point. If you only watch Sky, why *should *you subsidise something you don’t use? There should be a way to disable the capability of seeing anything else, thereby exempting you.
I think a lot of people here already know that. But why bring it up. Do you expect that those of us who spell it the American way should switch to the British spelling just because we happen to be talking about Britain?
I brought it up because the poster who made the initial misspelling is from the UK and should have known better.
OK?
I live in the UK now but I’ve spent a lot of time living in the US. Also, this is a US-based website.
And, with over a million words in the English language, do you really expect me to be able to spell every single one correctly?
What the hell does the fact that this is a US based site have to do with it.
Let’s face it, licenCe is hardly difficult is it?
If it’s correct in some standard of English, then it’s correct. I alternate between American and British spellings in these forums on my own whim.
When we were living in NZ, we had neighbours who, for some strange religious reason, absolutely would not have a TV in the house. Well, more specifically, the father was of the view that it was corrupting and immoral and would not have it in the house, so the rest of the family would just go to friend’s houses to watch TV instead.
Anyway, the way the Broadcasting Fee worked was fairly simple: The Government assumed that everyone owned a telly, and just sent a bill to every address on the electoral role. Anyone who didn’t own a telly then had to prove they didn’t own one, and the fee would be waived or reduced significantly (it was supposed to cover radio as well, IIRC).
People like my parents strongly objected to the Broadcasting Fee because TV was full of ads anyway, and they didn’t want to be funding minority language or “special interest” radio programmes etc, and lots of people didn’t pay (my parents did, however).
In the end, a combination of the whole thing costing more to administer than it was making, the confusing advent of computers with TV tuners in them, people owning TVs purely to watch DVDs/VHS tapes, and and the sensible argument that the country’s two State-Owned TV stations were making a healthy profit and didn’t need Public Subscription to fund them finally convinced the Government to discontinue the Broadcasting Fee in 1999, much to everyone’s relief.
Also, the Detector Vans in NZ were, I believe, revealed to be completely for show- they had fancy antennae and radar-type dishes on them, but apparently just used to employ simple tricks like driving around at night and seeing if houses not on the List had flickering TV lights in the living room. There wasn’t any James Bond-style gadgetry involved, it turned out.
What with the availability of videos and such on teh innarwebs these days, I see little point in paying for a television licence. But then, I don’t watch much tv at all, at all. 
Do sort of regret missing that Derren Brown special, though. Oh well.
I agree, it’s better for the protection of the fish and their environment if the people doing the fishing are required to be aware of the relevant issues before being granted the licence. Enforcement takes time and resources which might better be spent elsewhere, and it doesn’t really do the unlawful fish in question any good if the fisher is caught after the fact. I suppose they consider the income from fines to be compensation for all of the above.