EO. Good, so how do they establish someone's breaking the law?

Have done some reading and found
1) the BBC only assumed responsibility for TV licencing from the Home Office in 1991. Haven't been able to estabish if the BBC were forced to accept this bitter chalice.
2) although part of the organization, it treats the licencing agency at arm's length, contracting it out as far as posibble. Clearly it wants to keep sufficient distance.
3) the licence is no longer a service but a tax. I thought only elected bodies can tax. But the change was of the government's making.
4) there is an estimated 5-6% rate of licence fee avoidance.

A former magistrate once told me that even if you are summoned for licence fee avoidance, if you don't turn up, nothing further happens. But perhaps only in Norfolk.

I suspect that successive governments have shafted the BBC, transferring responsibility for tax collection to it, and in so doing transferring the public's opposition to paying any charges. Now the BBC has been shafted once again by being forced to assume the burden of licences for the elderly.

To expect any sympathy for BBCs plight here is, I realize, totally insanity.

Everyone is breaking the law Alan, they just havn't been caught yet.

I seem to remember the labour govt bringing in restrospective legislation. So even if you are clean today, they might get you tomorrow

EO. Perhaps rephrase "everyone is breaking the law". I pay for my license, have my dog microchipped, and even drive within the speed limits. It may be possible, however, that I break laws unconsciously. Heh ho.

Sympathy for the BBC being made to be responsible for it's own tax collection? Yes, it would be absurd to expect that. They were much happier just spending it and letting the government take the flack. It must be very painful for them to decide between making pensioners pay for their licence or having less cash. It might make them look bad.

Alan, it was worse than that so far as 'proof' was concerned. Several times their inspectors came to the door. Each time I answered, politely and truthfully, all their questions, despite the facial expressions, the body language, and the curt and somewhat threatening replies making it very clear they did not believe what I had said and that there would be subsequent events.

After another threatening letter, I wrote in detail, repeating what I had told them and asking to be left in peace and they said they would stop pestering me. Then, some weeks later, the gorillas arrived with the copper.

I think all they have to do is to go before a magistrate, state that they have reason to believe the TV licence law is being broken and a search warrant is issued automatically. The person suspected is not represented and has no knowledge of the application.

Afterwards they told me that my experience was completely unprecedented (I can't remember the exact words and I don't have time to dig out the actual correspondence). However, from postings on the internet, it seems that my experience was not much different from many other cases - to the extent that I think I may have been the recipient of a standard procedure.

Eternal Optimist
10,125 Hz for the line scan frequency on 405 lines: 25 frames/s × 405 lines. I think in 625 line days, they detected radiation from the receiver's local oscillator.

Alan Kendall
Not sure which of my comments you are referring to with regard to anger? The posts regarding no experience meaning no comment were humour, perhaps you apply your reactions to others as you cannot see a light-hearted comment in what you regard as a serious topic?

As I don't listen to phone-ins, Any Questions/Answers or watch any of the TV politics/reality/talent shows I live in hope of something more to my taste replacing them. Angry about the number of these shows - no, Frustrated - a little bit. Disappointed - quite a lot. Expecting a change any time soon - no.

I spend quite a lot of time neither watching TV nor listening to the radio these days. As far as radio is concerned I think we've both changed and drifted apart over the last 40 years.

We get it Tiny, any sign of support for BBC's position must be ruthlessly trampled upon as soon as possible.

All BBC staff are evil, with Roger Harrabin being the devil incarnate, all programmes (even the CBBC?) are irretrievably biased, spreading their corrupting CAGW messages wherever possible, and anyone stupid enough to offer a modicum of support can safely be branded (preferably literally) cretinous. Their views are not worth the electrons used to send them. The BBC and all its activities are worthless; or rather anything valuable should be sold off to the highest bidder. Viewers or listeners of the BBC can be ignored because they are also worthless, as are their opinions.

That's how you come across.

It's getting to be ludicrous. Give it a rest.

SandyS. Sorry if I misunderstood humour I thought your argument was reasonable, although I disagreed. Difficult to be objective in that I feel under attack from many sides. My response (anger and hate) was also, in small part, in jest.

Alan, we're just giving you a taste of what the BBC does. It's not very nice to be outnumbered by people who keep expressing their opinion while ignoring yours. Makes you cross doesn't it. Perhaps if those who thought the BBC is worth saving admitted that other people genuinely didn't like it and were entitled to their opinion, that would be a good start?

Alan, I was being both whimsical and kind.

I was being kind because you had your bum handed to you, and I guessed you might be a bit down.

Stewgreen

Rant Index. 3.9

Stewgreen

Logic index 3.8

Stewgreen. At 6.47am you wrote "I don't anyone should ever feel intimidated about expressing any honest opinion"

So live by it.

My assessments are my honest opinions of your writings. They have the advantage (to me) of not giving you much to spin or distort. Consider them to be shorthand for what I might have written if this had been a less hostile environment.

S**k it up.

Alan Kendall
OK no major damage done. I hope.
I was thinking that if the BBC was pay per view and I was still in the UK it would cost me less than the licence fee assuming the cost were spread evenly across all channels and all programmes, or spread by viewing figures as I seem to watch minority interest stuff by avoiding the list in my previous list. Whether the BBC should broadcast a lot of the stuff it does is a different question.

Alan the person being most hostile here is you. Of course it's easy to say that as one of those in the majority on this particular issue. It's very intimidating to be the voice that's out of step and you're reacting to what feels very much like an attack. You haven't indicated that you understand that that's how we feel about the BBC output. You started this by expressing anger how we shoehorn dislike of the BBC into discussions you might otherwise be interested in - isn't that exactly what the BBC does? Do you understand the irony of your anger?

Stewgreen, when you are the lone voice on an issue, it's hard not to be intimidated.

I have worked in the pharmaceutical industry, oil, big retail organisations, service industry, banking and the BBC.

The BBC is grotesque. The culture is grotesque. Organisations are pyramid shaped with a lot of workers at the bottom and a smaller number of leaders at the top. The BBC is an upside down pyramid and I would see it off tomorrow, if I could.

Overwhelmed by lack of logic and empathy.

I,ll not be your plaything and have my contributions twisted and distorted.

For the lot of you

Logic Index -5
Rant index -5

Little hope for improvement.

Alan Kendall

Passive aggressive evasion of difficult questions 10