Re: Licensing authorities not doing their job
- From: "Arfur Million" <arfur_million@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 17:56:17 +0100
<middlelight@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:p8uda4hhueus3clh2cc2tlh983vriu3osj@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 14:42:22 +0100, "Arfur Million"
<arfur_million@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<middlelight@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:8ljda41ld0om400en2j0ld01crvl3a9j66@xxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 23:28:02 +0100, "Arfur Million"
<arfur_million@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I don't have a licence for any of the following: owning a shotgun;
driving
an HGV; running a brewery; piloting a jumbo jet; fishing with a rod;
running
a public house or running a moneylending business.
How come those responsible for licensing these activities, some of which
have serious consequences if not done properly, have never contacted me
about them?
Because the vast majority of people have have a television (and should
therefore have a licence) whereas the activities you've described are
undertaken by a minority of people.
The vast majority of people drive a car but, as far as I know, DVLA do not
employ the same tactics as the TVL towards those who don't.
True, and maybe they should just take people who say they don't watch
TV at their word.
And maybe they should just accept that people may not want to give their
word, and that there is no reason why they should.
But I can see why they don't. There are very few
people who genuinely don't watch TV, and it's far more unusual a claim
than that of not driving.
I do not have the comparative figures, but ISTM that people driving when
unlicensed (banned, or not passed test, or on provisional when full is
required etc) is not at all uncommon and the police have a number of
initiatives to combat it. These initiatives rarely impinge on properly
licensed drivers or anyone in a non-driving situation - which is completely
opposite to the way the BBC/TVL operate.
In fact, I've only ever met a handful of
people who've said they don't watch TV, and a couple of those admitted
later that they did sometimes connect the set up, usually for football
matches. So, as I say, I can quite understand why the TVL people
would be suspicious of people who claim they don't watch TV and don't
need a licence.
I was surprised to discover how many people do not bother with television
when I brought the subject up. According to the BBC (see
http://tinyurl.com/69tg7j) around 93% of households are unlicensed. They use
estimates that 2% of households don't have a television at all, and seem to
conclude (that document isn't quite clear on how they come to that
conclusion) that the remaining 5% are evading the fee. Perhaps they are
concluding that people with TV sets in the house are using them to watch
broadcast TV, despite the multiple other uses that they can be put to
nowadays.
How can someone refuse to discontinue a conversation with you? It
takes two people to have a conversation. Have you ever considered
simply putting down the telephone receiver or closing the front door?
That (hanging up) is exactly what I was obliged to do on Wednesday night.
Problem solved.
Except that I had written to them on a previous occasion telling them not to
contact me at all. It made no difference, doubtless they will do it again.
I would have far preferred it if the caller had shown some manners and
politely said "goodbye" when I (politely, of course) said that I did not
want to continue the conversation.
If you feel that strongly about it, write a letter of complaint.
I did before, telling them not to contact me and it made no difference
whatsoever. I have written to the Information Commissioner's Office, more
out of interest to see what their position is rather than anny expectation
of them doing anything about it.
I could be completely out of control with regards to any or all of the
above activities, and as far as I know I probably am.
No, you're probably not. Which is precisely the point.
Nor am I with TV usage either, and *that* is the real point.
But you are more likely to be, which was my point.
That does not give them the right to harass me. There is, or should be, a
presumption of innocence until they have definite grounds that any specific
person is breaking the law.
If 99% of people have a TV licence, it makes sense to check up on the
1% that don't. If the figures were the other way around, it wouldn't
be a viable option.
The fact that the percentages make it practicable do not make it right
No but, as you say, it does make it practicable, which is why they do
it.
Indeed. Also, for some reason their activities appear to be socially
acceptable for some reason. But whenever the police, or social services,
suggest any remotely analogous tactics (random breath tests, stop & search
targeted at those ethnic minorities where crime is more prevalent, a recent
suggestion to allow councils to search households claiming single-occupancy
etc) then there is uproar, and the tactic is often withdrawn (and quite
right too, IMHO). And those areas are in areas which have real and important
social consequences, not just some TV broadcaster losing a few quid.
I repeat that the same is not done for car driving. In the case of car
driving the authorities intervene only when there is an obvious scenario
where the law looks like it is being broken. If that is how it is with
unlicensed car driving, which can have very serious consequences, then
that's how it should be with TV watching as well.
But they don't have to do it that way, so they don't. They have a
list of people who don't have a TV licence, and that list is short
enough for them to be able to harass the people on it. They do this
because they presumably believe (and my guess is that they're probably
right) that a lot of the people on that list really do watch TV, and
are simply trying to get away with not paying for a licence. This
will inevitably mean that those who genuinely don't watch TV and don't
have a licence get some hassle too, but as the TVL clearly believe
that those people are a small percentage of an already small
percentage they're obviously happy to live with that.
Exactly so. IMO (leaving aside the question of whether public funding of TV
is a good thing) the existing TV Licence cannot be effectively enforced
without an unacceptable level of intrusion into the lives of law-abiding
people.
In my particular case, I have already written to them telling them to stop
contacting me, I they have just ignored it. Also, I am on the TPS. During a
previous stint of non-telly watching I did answer their question of why I
didn't have a licence (a decision I later regretted) and I got a few months
respite from them, but that's all. Hence I now just ignore them. Their
letters are easy enough to ignore, but a phone call is a phone call and I
don't like to be rude. When a double-glazing salesman calls and I tell them
I'm on the TPS they normally politely slink away, but this person from TVL
was aggressive to the point of rudeness. It would be a bit like answering
the door to a policeman (or a security guy from the local shop) who asks if
it's OK to have a look round the house to see if you've nicked anything - of
course you can just shut the door on him, but you shouldn't have to put up
with it in the first place.
Regards,
Arfur
Regards,
Arfur
.
- References:
- Licensing authorities not doing their job
- From: Arfur Million
- Re: Licensing authorities not doing their job
- From: middlelight
- Re: Licensing authorities not doing their job
- From: Arfur Million
- Re: Licensing authorities not doing their job
- From: middlelight
- Licensing authorities not doing their job
- Prev by Date: Re: Michael Johnson
- Next by Date: Re: the film - coma
- Previous by thread: Re: Licensing authorities not doing their job
- Next by thread: Re: Licensing authorities not doing their job
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
