“Sao Paolo - I watch pre recorded programmes on You Tube. You're not paying for my viewing habits. I am! With my internet subscription and my electricity bill....”

“Even months after having declared that I do not have a TV and do not watch live broadcasts I am still being harassed by them with letters promising visits, 2 a month and one exceptionally nasty one this morning threatening enforcement officers and courts. I DO NOT WATCH LIVE TV!!! Yet they continue to harass!! What gives them the right to do this?
The BBC are not an essential service like the prisons, they do not save us from criminals, poor health, animal cruelty or even bad programming. They do not hold the monopoly on satellites so what are we paying them for? The BBC and its TV license is nothing more than a propaganda exercise to attempt to maintain the British imperial presence throughout the world long after the empire has collapsed and it guilts the people into paying or else appear 'unpatriotic' and 'unBritish'. It is extremely sinister and it is a political department, very little to to do with TV. It came into being just as the British Empire was collapsing...coincidence much?!! Fast forward to today with modern technology, and providers like Virgin, and Sky and we must ask ourselves what are we paying Aunty for? Really think about it and be honest with yourselves! The true answer is NOTHING! Money for nothing!
We Brits are known for meekly paying dubious taxes, feeling 'less than' or 'criminal' if we don't.
They harass people more than council tax bailiffs do, more than utility companies do when they need to get in. They are saddos who need to get a life. They are no longer needed in our society and it is doubtful that they ever were. Times are a changing - it;s time to wake up, stand up and ask WHAT ARE WE PAYING FOR. In concrete terms please!”

“"£ 142.00 ish a year. That's 39p a day. About the cost of a daily paper. Ralph King, Immingham"


I love the I'm alright Jack attitude. You are happy to see millions of people being forced to fund your viewing habits under threat of fines and then prison. Should we have people forced to subsidise your left wing newspaper that begins with G next?”

“"This shows clearly that there is a lot more than one person who want the TV licence and proves that the original writer of the letter was wrong to state that nobody wanted it."

On that issue, you're absolutely correct. It's been brilliant talking with you Ralph. Let's do it again soon!”

“My final thoughts on this letter-- otherwise we'll be going around in circles.

I¿m not a staunch supporter of all of the BBC¿s output. In fact I watch very little of it. Their news coverage is so dumbed down it¿s unbearable most of the time.

There was a trailer on the BBC a couple of years ago self-praising their Look North, Programme. It featured Peter Levy and Paul Hudson apparently at home in the evening preparing a meal whilst watching Look North on the television. The voice-over announced that, ¿If we weren¿t on Look North, we¿d be watching it.¿ That summed up my wish too.

From the Daily Telegraph 2002.

¿Almost two out of three - 58 per cent - of those who took part in the Telegraph/YouGov poll said the licence fee was no longer justifiable in an era when as many as 300 television channels were available.

However, a third said that it was "as necessary as ever", and vital to maintaining standards on television.

A BBC spokesman said the results did not tally with its own long-term research which showed "the vast majority of people think the licence fee, at 31p a day, offers tremendous value for money."

This shows clearly that there is a lot more than one person who want the TV licence and proves that the original writer of the letter was wrong to state that nobody wanted it.”

“"Ok I know the BBC is good but it should be self sufficient and not a tax ." ~ Yes, exactly Ray. Why can't I be as succinct as you?”

“Hey Ralph, this is great, you're really making me think hard about my beliefs and the way I communicate them, that's NEVER a bad thing!

I think that I see from your perspective why you think that I am subtly misusing the term 'choice', but I really, really, have to absolutely insist that it is not a free choice that we are being corralled into. Yes, 'technically' it involves choosing, you got me on that one, I concede! but it's not what I mean when I say 'free choice'. Our Mafia are creating the options and asking us to choose between the two. The two options are;

Option 1, Jump through our bureaucratic hoops and then we will 'allow' you to live the life that is inherently yours anyway, or...

Option 2, (the "Hard Choice") Live an unnecessarily inferior life to the rest of your peers who have the good sense not to question us.

These 'options' are enforced - no deviations allowed - with an iron fist wrapped in a velvet glove and I say yet again, that this does NOT equate to free choice. It's a great big lie.
________________________

Minis! Not Russian Trebants, "Great British" Minis! Yay! Analogous to the "Great British Broadcasting Company", of course I see! Fantastico!

"What! You don¿t want to use it?" -- maybe I don't? Maybe I would like to have a truly free choice to own only one car and it not be a Mini, maybe I want to own two completely different vehicles that are both not Minis, maybe I want to make my own car, I have my reasons, who's business is it if I need a truck, a 4x4, a bike or a skateboard?

It should be mine and mine alone.

Why such resistance against people who want to be able to be free to choose their own combinations of car or television stations, and purchase the product or service direct from source? What business is it of ours?

Yes Minis are artificially cheap and the competition is artificially more expensive because of it, and because the government enforce the same silly rules on the other car manufacturers (and 'competing' television station broadcasters). Governments interfere in the free market and thus they spoil it for us all. If it were all a level playing field, - no interference by force - there would be a plethora of choice of vehicles and TV stations that were better that the BBC, even, maybe, than Minis.

"Even thought there is no more running costs? You get free petrol, free servicing --" But it is not free is it? The costs are hidden from plain view, the petrol and the servicing are paid for by we slaves, and its price is our freedom.”

“We dont pay any licence fee here in NZ but have 4 national channels that are not too bad for free,there is freeview also or sky also so if they can do it here then why a fee in the UK .Ok I know the BBC is good but it should be self sufficient and not a tax .We see enough tv to satisfy our needs and we do get british probrammes also all for free.;-)”

“The trouble with analogies is that they rarely exactly fit the situation they are meant to be illustrating.

There¿s a subtle distinction you keep misusing: if there were a wheel licence, you would be forced to purchase it if you wanted to use any wheeled transport device. But (and here¿s the distinction) you are not forced to have any wheeled transport. As I¿ve said, it might not be possible for you to live the life YOU WANT without wheels underneath you, but the choice is still there.

If you want wheels you have to pay for it = FORCE.

Can still live without any wheels = CHOICE.

Now to the unused cheap Mini you¿ve got standing in the drive. Nice isn¿t it? Gleaming chrome, purring engine and that great new car smell. What! You don¿t want to use it? Even thought there is no more running costs? You get free petrol, free servicing, you can even get from A to B no matter how distant without having to take a break (just like the BBC, see?).

And what if driving minis helped the environment? What if they were the best cars for the planet? You¿d be pretty anti-social by always driving a big gas guzzling 4x4 when the Government has provided you with a super little car that¿s dead cheap?

It¿s only sinister and evil if you don¿t share the same need to save the planet, which most of the free-thinking Mini drivers say they do.”

“Hey Ralf,

A great conversation we're having here. It would be better of a few jars of Tizer in a late-opening pub somewhere, but hey ho, this'll have to do!

1) Regarding Point 1, I have to insist that my assertion is true because although I do have the (hard) choice to throw away any device capable of receiving a television signal (this would include my laptops, mobile phones, PCs, old portable TVs as well as my main TV) I deem that it is not the business of government to expect this of me. I'm a free Metal Giant (weather they like it or not) and I am free to purchase or create my own property and do with it what I will providing I do not interfere with another person(s) right to do the same.

2) Good, I was beginning to worry a bit that you thought that maybe robbing for 'good causes' might be acceptable, I'm glad you can see that it is, let's face it, obviously wrong.

However, I am indeed applying this as an analogy for the government robbing us - with force - and thus, as we have established is morally wrong. But I have to admit I have been erroneous with my analogy (as you correctly point out) and will revise it! The inaccuracy comes from me 'going off on one', forgetting that I'm actually constricting my argument to just the Television License fee and instead referring to Taxation in general. You're correct, it is not as if the robber takes 50% of your money, it's much, much less that that in regards to the TV Licence fee. I'll say, for the sake of argument, it is only 1%. Indeed, if I were refering to Taxation in general then, depending on who you were, it would be a lot more than 50%! (the robbing swines!) So, my apologies for that. Moving on..

Regarding my use of the terms "force & violence", seemingly it is laughable, because nobody gets guns pulled on them for not paying their TV Licence or for evading Taxes. This is true, or very rare I'll concede. But make no mistake, the threat is there, it exists, and if we were to dare to defy our benevolent Masters I can guarantee that force and violence will be used.

You see, it starts out with "Oopsie, silly, you forgot to pay", then if you were to ignore it, it turns to, "Better pay soon or you'll be sorry", then, "You haven't paid - get to court" (where we will find you guilty), if you would dare not to show, it's knock knock, "Sir, you're under arrest", no answer? It's kick down your door and try to drag you to jail. Dare to resist? It's a quick quiet kicking, then if you are still so deluded to think you are a free person you'd better look out - it's Tazer-Time!

Who would dare to push it beyond "Better pay soon or you'll be sorry"? Not you or I. But let's not pretend that government does not equate to force and violence, because the reality is, it really does.

3) Your Wikipedia reference is top-notch, and proves that the BBC provides an excellent service. Certainly no disagreement from me. I would indeed (if given the option) choose to voluntarily pay for their excellent range of services. In fact, if those Ofcom polls are accurate, (and who am I to doubt the self-diagnostic results of a governmental regulatory board? ;-) then surely there is no reason to need to enforce a TV Licence fee anyway because everyone, myself included, would chip in of their own free will?

I wonder if, when you bought a car, you were forc- sorry, "required" to purchase a ¿WL¿ (Wheel Licence) which also provided you with a trusty British Mini to own and maintain. Not one of those good old-fashioned antique ones, but a really great modern and trendy one with all the latest bells and whistles. Not only that, your WL is the fraction of the cost of buying a Mini outright, a real pittance! It's a win-win! - brilliant, right?

But wait, I like Minis as much as the next guy, but I really need something bigger for whatever reason. Maybe I don't want a Mini as my first or second car? Is that just my tough luck? Must I be required to buy both just so that just t”