Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Canopus

A victimless crime?

Recommended Posts

I have never bought a television licence in my life but is it morally wrong to be a TV licence evader if all you watch is satellite channels and do not watch BBC channels? Officially it is illegal but technically is it a victimless crime?

 

BTW. Detector vans no longer have working detection equipment following the analogue switch off and enquiries officers must PROVE that a TV licence evader is watching a live broadcast before invoking a prosecution. This can be difficult in the case of unfamiliar satellite channels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hum. I used to watch television, yet not no longer, I gave up a few years ago.

It irritated me to such an amount that I could not watch it without being drunk. I am not without drinking alcohol yet I do not watch television. I would rather read a book, or just watch the outside, the sky.

There is so little viewable TV, that I would think the TV licence is a simple attempt at fraud, an organisation relying on this fraudulent income should perhaps produce something of merit rather than the fake commercial rubbish that they now put out! Or at least the last time I saw it, daytime TV, dentists etc show it, if there is no one about I switch it off.

Edited by Waterboatman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't get me going about this!! :gather:

 

No, it's not morally wrong. It's an outdated law not applicable to the 21st century. There are many victimless crimes - all the result of bad laws. Many countries don't have TV licensing.

I could write a book on the grossly immoral behaviour of the various TV licensing outfits that have operated in this country over the past few decades, but I'll restrain myself. Don't believe their propaganda. They are professional state-sanctioned liars and bullies. Read about them on the web - there's lots out there. For many years they've been sending me monthly threats of court action, impending visits, etc. but they all get binned. I told them years ago that I don't watch TV (it stresses and depresses me), but they persist and treat me like a criminal. It's almost as if it's becomes a crime not to watch TV. I hate receiving unsolicited mail and I get stressed every time the postman arrives, worse still since the council started harassing me. I now open nothing. I have a pile of unopened mail lying in my porch awaiting others to open it. I can't afford the stress of even sorting through it.

 

By the way, another irritation for me is the recent decision for the BBC External Services to move out of Bush House and for the domestic licence fee to pay for them (including the English-language World Service), which always had previously been funded by a Foreign Office 'grant in aid'. The FCO still have the last say on content and transmission hours per language. The BBC has always been the quasi-official voice of the state and traditionally had close links with MI5 (who had a permanent liaison officer - 'Special Advisor to Personnel Dept' - and three staff based in Room 105 at Broadcasting House). Staff were secretly vetted for decades despite official denials - and they still are. Our licence fees pay for the lies and secrecy, just as our taxes do. When we look at the bigger picture, we find it's the state that behaves with a criminal mentality. TV licence dodgers, benefit fraudsters, etc. are very small fry compared to the crimes of governments, and the tax fiddling of the wealthy and of big business.

Edited by Mihaela

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something that also needs to be scrutinised is exactly what material is deemed appropriate for a public broadcaster and what is not. Is it really sensible for a public broadcaster to output popular entertainment like Eastenders and Radio 1 that could quite easily survive under a commercial broadcaster then expect the public to pay for it through their TV licence? Given the current state of technology, I do not consider the something for everybody argument to hold any credibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A very good point. Eastenders, the BBC's proud 'flagship' exported worldwide, can hardly be seen as an edifying 'public service'. I detest the 'soaps' and so-called reality shows. They exert a sinister attraction to millions, dragging them into a semi-conscious state of dumbed-down addiction. They may well, as they claim, reflect normal everyday life but if so, it's a highly dysfunctional and toxic life. In reality, daily life isn't quite as sordid and sensationalised as that portrayed in these popular TV programmes; instead it is mindnumbingly humdrum and uneventful. That's why so many people watch them - their own lives are so lacklustre and boring that they find a voyeuristic need to watch the lives of others unfolding - be it Royals, 'celebs' or soap stars. The fact that it's pure fiction doesn't seen to bother them. I have a friend who's been addicted to this trash for decades, and she looks forward to each episode with an enthusiasm lacking in the rest of her life . I tell her it's pathetic, and she agrees, yet she can't break the habit. Most of the licence fee is paying for us to be spoon-fed this pap, thus ensuring that we don't think for ourselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion non payment of a TV licence is 100% a victimless crime. The BBC claims that they are doing people a service by not broadcasting adverts but is it really worth it for the £145.50 a year a TV licence costs? Plus, it's not even relevant in 2014 - traditional TV is dying in favour of streaming. You already have to pay to use the internet, plus (without Adblock) we are constantly bombarded with internet ads so what exact purpose does a TV licence hold in this day and age? Let's just make the BBC ad-funded like all the other channels and abolish TV licences.

 

I would comment on the state of television these days but I fear it would take up too much space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What gets on my nerves are people who go round saying that the BBC is part of Britain's heritage when in fact the BBC has destroyed it's own heritage. The number of classic BBC programmes from the 1950s 60s and 70s that have been destroyed or recorded over is unbelievable, including entire series. It's disgusting that the BBC didn't even have an official policy of archiving programmes until 1978 and was still wiping programmes as recently as 1993.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiping

 

I'm strongly in favour of the copyright law being changed so that if a broadcaster destroys a programme then the copyright is destroyed along with it. If a copy of the programme happens to turn up in an attic many years later then it will be out of copyright so can freely be disseminated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...