Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Adam H. Kerman" Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: BBC sends cops to arrest nonviewer for refusing to pay the licensing fee Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2025 04:02:28 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 69 Message-ID: <104q2ck$1am0i$1@dont-email.me> References: <101fqpt$1evk0$1@dont-email.me> <101g4o0$1911r$7@dont-email.me> <101gc9r$1ndoa$1@dont-email.me> Injection-Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2025 06:02:29 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7bcbd574f32c3f344cee8bed99c15c74"; logging-data="1398802"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19JkIsD6uqWMSKC8MNWW+jotMnx2Vk4D0c=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:1QghmAa37jxYqnQPG/EqWxI9Gx8= X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010) BTR1701 wrote: >May 31, 2025 at 4:52:31 PM PDT, Rhino : >>2025-05-31 5:02 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote: >>>Americans who complain about the inconsequentially small subsidy given >>>to public television and radio licensees have no idea how good we have >>>it in this country. In the UK, there's been a mandatory licensing fee >>>for receiving radio and television via the natural electromagnetic >>>spectrum and expanded to receiving a signal via other methods. The BBC >>>receives a phenomenal public subsidy of close to lb 4 billion. >>And I thought our CBC got an obscene amount of money ($1.5 billion a >>year under Trudeau, increased by $150 million under Carney, probably to >>thank them for their enthusiastic coverage of his recent election >>campaign.) >>>It's very difficult to avoid being not subject to the licensing fee. A >>>man chose not to watch tv and informed BBC that he was not subject to >>>the licensing fee. >>The video was educational for me. I knew about the license fee but not >>the precise terms. I always thought it was only for BBC channels but >>apparently it's for the commercial channels like ITV and Channel 4 as >>well. BUT you don't have to pay it if you don't watch live TV and you >>don't use any services like iPlayer to view programming on a delay. >>That means if you use your TV simply to watch DVDs, BluRays, VHS, etc. >>you don't need to pay the license fee. But it's not clear how they know >>that you're not watching live TV or if you have to notify them to be >>exempt from the fee. >>>BBC sent the police to arrest him. Not watching tv is criminal behavior. >>>They had videod him looking at a video with a still taken from a BBC >>>program that the man found on the Internet. They obviously couldn't >>>prove this was live tv (in fact they knew that it wasn't being >>>broadcast) and the judge threw the criminal case out. >>>But that meant they had to peep through his windows, trespassing. >>I'm not so sure about that. I was under the impression that they have >>trucks with direction finders or something similar to tell if you are >>receiving a TV signal. >That wouldn't work for people with smart phones or tablets using cellular data >or wifi to watch Netflix or the Prime. >And is YouTube considered something you need a license for? >>Something along the lines of the vans they used >>during WWII to see if someone was operating a radio transmitter and was >>presumably a foreign spy. >>>I've seen videos in which UK barristers explain that BBC license >>>enforcement has an implied right of access to enter the premisis to look >>>for contraband unlicensed radio and tv receivers. >>>The man was sick of the nasty letters and pounding on the door to be let >>>in, so he wrote to BBC in order to withdraw the implied right of access. >Seems like simply posting a sign saying "All implied rights of access to this >property are expressly revoked and trespassers will be prosecuted" would do >the trick. Hey! Someone took your advice! They set a trap for tv licensing! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6o46BHr19Dw