Eh? No you don’t. Where did you get that notion from?
I’ll just leave this here as an example of me knowing fuck-all about something.
Hey ho.
Just in case anyone has been confused by the baron, 
Of course, it’s cheaper if your dog is only black and white. 
To be fair, UDS is right about the microchip, but wrong about the local government register.
Meanwhile, the BBC is going to treat(?) us to a re-creation of the opening night of BBC Television 80 years ago:
http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2016-08-26/bbc4-to-recreate-the-first-ever-night-of-british-television-80-years-to-the-day
In all seriousness, the UK is one of the only places on earth that is free of rabies and various other nasty pathogens, and that is primarily because of its somewhat draconian quarantine and animal registration laws.
Yep, we Brexited rabies first.
It was pretty damn cool. I knew about the Baird scanning camera for presenters seated and talking, but didn’t know about the film-to transmission device (studio action shot on movie film that was then fed directly through a continuous developing process and then scanned and broadcast with a 54 second delay from live. Amazing.
But you have to report to the police if you have run over a dog whlst driving. You are not legally obliged to report hitting a cat with your vehicle.
And yes, the entire licence fee goes to just one lefty, labour party loving, paedophile breeding TV station, the BBC.
Unless the rules have changed in the past couple years, this isn’t quite correct. You need a TV licence if you use equipment capable of receiving live TV broadcasts, not if you merely have such equipment.
No one ever need make such an argument unless they are stupid enough to allow a licence inspector onto their property to examine their television. The burden of proof is on the licensor, not the licensee.
When I lived in Britain, the house I rented had video equipment that none of the tenants ever used to watch live broadcasts. We were pestered by the TV licence inspectors for years, in person and by mail, but we never answered the door and never responded to their letters. Eventually we got sufficiently annoyed that we complained to the head office. We didn’t state whether or not we had a TV or what we used it for; we just said that we felt we were being harassed. They wrote back promising never to contact us again. After that the letters and attempted visits stopped.
Much later we did start watching TV, and promptly bought the licence.
I think you’re right. I believe the wording (quite a while back maybe) used to refer to just having receiver apparatus on the premises, but it doesn’t now.
The licence inspectors of course will argue all kinds of bullshit variations in order to cave in the householder. I knew a guy who put epoxy glue in the antenna inputs on all his TVs so he could show them he wasn’t in possession of any capable apparatus (but he could have just refused them entry).
Moderator Note
Nansbread1, political jabs are not permitted in General Questions. No warning issued, but don’t do this again.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Do the blind get a 50% discount?
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Yes.
And i think the over 75s dont pay a licence fee.