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.
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.
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've seen videos in which UK barristers explain that BBC licenseSure you can. You just have to cough up staggering sums of money to take
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.
You cannot stand up for your rights in the UK, what few remain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XowfxO_-eYA
On 2025-05-31 5:02 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Americans who complain about the inconsequentially small subsidy givenAnd I thought our CBC got an obscene amount of money ($1.5 billion a
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.
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. AThe video was educational for me. I knew about the license fee but not
man chose not to watch tv and informed BBC that he was not subject to
the licensing fee.
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.I'm not so sure about that. I was under the impression that they have
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.
trucks with direction finders or something similar to tell if you are receiving a TV signal.
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.
May 31, 2025 at 4:52:31 PM PDT, Rhino <[email protected]>: >>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.
BTR1701 <[email protected]> wrote:
May 31, 2025 at 4:52:31 PM PDT, Rhino <[email protected]>:
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.
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.
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.
May 31, 2025 at 7:35:29 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote: >>BTR1701 <[email protected]> wrote:
May 31, 2025 at 4:52:31 PM PDT, Rhino <[email protected]>: >>>>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.
BTR1701 <[email protected]> wrote:
May 31, 2025 at 4:52:31 PM PDT, Rhino <[email protected]>:
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.
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. 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.
. . .
I'm not clear to me how the TV signal is delivered in the UK. Is it over
the air, via cable, via satellite, via cell towers or some other method?
In any case, it seems to me that they need to take the same approach
they take to other utilities: if you fail to pay for what you use, they
cut off the supply of the service. If you don't pay your water bill,
they can turn off the water. Therefore, if you don't pay your license
fee, cut off the supply of TV to your house or apartment.
By analogy with water, you can still use your sink or bathtub if your
water is cut off, you just have to come up with your own water, via
jugs, a backyard well or whatever. By the same token, you're not getting
live TV in the house any more if you've had your TV feed shut off but
you can still watch DVDs or other pre-recorded media.
That approach should solve the problem nicely WITHOUT the police needing
to be involved at all unless perhaps you somehow interfere with the guy >turning off the TV feed to your house or you pirate the feed somehow by >tapping into the neighbour's feed.
On 2025-05-31 10:35 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <[email protected]> wrote:
May 31, 2025 at 4:52:31 PM PDT, Rhino <[email protected]>: >>>> 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.
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.
Seems like simply posting a sign saying "All implied rights of access to >>> thisThe 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. >>
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. 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.
I'm not clear to me how the TV signal is delivered in the UK. Is it over
the air, via cable, via satellite, via cell towers or some other method?
In any case, it seems to me that they need to take the same approach
they take to other utilities: if you fail to pay for what you use, they
cut off the supply of the service. If you don't pay your water bill,
they can turn off the water. Therefore, if you don't pay your license
fee, cut off the supply of TV to your house or apartment.
By analogy with water, you can still use your sink or bathtub if your
water is cut off, you just have to come up with your own water, via
jugs, a backyard well or whatever. By the same token, you're not getting
live TV in the house any more if you've had your TV feed shut off but
you can still watch DVDs or other pre-recorded media.
That approach should solve the problem nicely WITHOUT the police needing
to be involved at all unless perhaps you somehow interfere with the guy turning off the TV feed to your house or you pirate the feed somehow by tapping into the neighbour's feed.
On 2025-05-31 5:02 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Americans who complain about the inconsequentially small subsidy givenAnd I thought our CBC got an obscene amount of money ($1.5 billion a
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.
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. AThe video was educational for me. I knew about the license fee but not
man chose not to watch tv and informed BBC that he was not subject to
the licensing fee.
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.I'm not so sure about that. I was under the impression that they have
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.
trucks with direction finders or something similar to tell if you are receiving a TV signal.
May 31, 2025 at 4:52:31 PM PDT, Rhino <[email protected]>: >>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.
BTR1701 <[email protected]> wrote:
May 31, 2025 at 4:52:31 PM PDT, Rhino <[email protected]>:
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
BTR1701 <[email protected]> wrote:
May 31, 2025 at 4:52:31 PM PDT, Rhino <[email protected]>:
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?ft
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
On 2025-07-11 12:02 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <[email protected]> wrote:
May 31, 2025 at 4:52:31 PM PDT, Rhino <[email protected]>: >>>> 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.
Seems like simply posting a sign saying "All implied rights of access to thisThe 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. >>
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
Unfortunately, the lawyer doesn't mention any reaction from the
licensing people to the trap that was sprung on them by the homeowner.
It would be very interesting to see how the authorities responded if,
say, the homeowner sued the licensing body for trespass or interference
with the mail. Ultimately, this might force the entire license fee to be revisited and some other way devised to fund TV production.
2025-07-11 12:02 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <[email protected]> wrote:
May 31, 2025 at 4:52:31 PM PDT, Rhino <[email protected]>: >>>>2025-05-31 5:02 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
. . .
After I sent my first reply to this, I noticed that another video on
this topic was visible in my YouTube recommendations so I just watched
it. I think you'll find this interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C58OR8XBAPs [11 minutes]
The presenter argues that revoking permission for the licensing people
to come to your door is NOT effective and can even be
counter-productive.
He also points to a case of someone who won a case
around his refusal to pay the licence fee.
. . .
Rhino <[email protected]> wrote:
. . .
After I sent my first reply to this, I noticed that another video on
this topic was visible in my YouTube recommendations so I just watched
it. I think you'll find this interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C58OR8XBAPs [11 minutes]
The presenter argues that revoking permission for the licensing people
to come to your door is NOT effective and can even be
counter-productive.
You misunderstood. He's talking about sending the form to tv licensing >stating "no license required" merely confirms the name of the resident
at that residence. He made no comment about revoking the common law
implied right of access.
He also points to a case of someone who won a case
around his refusal to pay the licence fee.
Those single justice procedures are simply kangaroo court, that the
accused is actively discouraged from defending himself because he's
subject to a higher fine if he seeks a hearing, plus attorney's fees. In
the United States, paying the other side's attorney's fees in a civil >procedure is rare and I've never heard of it for an administrative
hearing.
But the problem was that the inspector filed a false statement to drag
the resident into court. There were no penalties for the false
statement.
. . .
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 14:48:55 |
| Calls: | 12,102 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 15,004 |
| Messages: | 6,518,040 |