Today, I received an "OFFICIAL WARNING" that a visit from an enforcement officer was imminent, because I do not have a TV licence. I am proud to not have a television licence, because I do not have a television, nor do I watch television. I have not regularly watched television broadcasts since I left home in 2003, preferring to live my own life rather than watching others live their fake ones. I buy DVDs and watch them on my laptop if I want to have entertainment, or I go to the cinema.
Anyway, my point is that I despise being treated as a criminal for simply not conforming to how most people live their lives. It does not seem to cross the minds of TV Licensing people that some people simply choose not to have a TV, and that everyone who does not have a licence is trying to rip them out of their £131.50.
My other gripe is that it is a criminal sanction. The BBC, which granted is a public body, is not the government, thus I object to being subjected to possible criminal sanctions for not paying them their fee for me watching their programmes. Surely this is a contract: I agree to pay the fees for receiving their television signals, pure and simple. If I receive their programmes without paying, they should sue me. They should not prosecute me.
Finally, and this is probably a stupid point but it annoys me nonetheless: what if I have a television, but actively do not watch the BBC? TV Licensing, which is a subsidiary company of the BBC, say that if I watch ANY television as it is being broadcast, then I need a licence. Well actually, the licence fee pays for the BBC, so why should I pay it if I am not receiving anything back from the BBC? Granted I have the possibility of watching the BBC, but since when has having the means of breaking the law been sanctioned? I am not fined for driving my car, that conceivably is capable of breaking the speed limit. I choose not to, and so I do not have to pay the fine. Surely that analogy should apply to television signals?
Anyway, that's just some food for thought. As for food for my stomach, well the smell coming from the kitchen is telling me that it is ready...
Anyway, my point is that I despise being treated as a criminal for simply not conforming to how most people live their lives. It does not seem to cross the minds of TV Licensing people that some people simply choose not to have a TV, and that everyone who does not have a licence is trying to rip them out of their £131.50.
My other gripe is that it is a criminal sanction. The BBC, which granted is a public body, is not the government, thus I object to being subjected to possible criminal sanctions for not paying them their fee for me watching their programmes. Surely this is a contract: I agree to pay the fees for receiving their television signals, pure and simple. If I receive their programmes without paying, they should sue me. They should not prosecute me.
Finally, and this is probably a stupid point but it annoys me nonetheless: what if I have a television, but actively do not watch the BBC? TV Licensing, which is a subsidiary company of the BBC, say that if I watch ANY television as it is being broadcast, then I need a licence. Well actually, the licence fee pays for the BBC, so why should I pay it if I am not receiving anything back from the BBC? Granted I have the possibility of watching the BBC, but since when has having the means of breaking the law been sanctioned? I am not fined for driving my car, that conceivably is capable of breaking the speed limit. I choose not to, and so I do not have to pay the fine. Surely that analogy should apply to television signals?
Anyway, that's just some food for thought. As for food for my stomach, well the smell coming from the kitchen is telling me that it is ready...