Re: BBC sends cops to arrest nonviewer for refusing to pay the licensing fee

On May 31, 2025 at 7:35:29 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

May 31, 2025 at 4:52:31 PM PDT, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>:

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?

 
If it's live streaming, then the license fee applies. Recorded videos, I
wouldn't think so.

So if you're watching Mizzy break into people's homes and terrorize them live,
you need a license, but if you wait ten minutes until the stream ends and
watch it back, you don't?

What a fucked up way to run a country.

 
 

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.

 
If they have a suspicion -- whether reasonable or not -- that a receiver
subject to licensing is on the premisis, then implied consent cannot be
revoked.

Then it's not consent at all. If it can't be revoked, then by definition, it's
not consent, implied or otherwise.

That's why the guy wrote the letter. They continued to harass
him. They desperately need an equivalent of the Bill of Rights in a
written constitution.