Story in a Sunday paper. Alastair Donald has refused to pay a BBC licence for 15 years. He can receive stereo broadcasting for other stations but not BBC. The local  BBC transmitter is only broadcasting in mono. "Why should i pay for a licence which funds the BBC when they refuse to upgrade the TV signal? TV Licensing has approached the courts about him on a number of occasions, but this is the first time a fine has been issued. The judge was sympathetic and fined him £75, as he had to uphold the law. Alastair has said he won't pay the licence till the stereo switchover in 2010!

Result! £75 for 15 years veiwing. Or 17 if he continues till 2010.

Good on him... but if the honest truth be told... the '£1,000' fine that the BBC keeps crowing from the rooftops is a complete fiction anyway. Those few cases that ever get to court result in a fine that's pretty much the same as the TV Licence fee... so what's the point paying it in the first place? The BBC will never tell you this, but dodging the fee carries the same 'criminal' weight as parking on double-yellow lines while nipping into the newsagents for a paper. Anyone who wants to avoid paying the fee should simply ignore all requests by the BBC and their agents for money. If anyone calls to the door, take their photograph, as they'd been instructed to run away when that happens. You might also shout after them - "I demand a lawyer" - to which they've all been instructed to run even faster, and for those with tails, with their tails between their legs. The ONLY people who EVER get to court are those who are daft enough to sign a 'confession' on their own doorsteps when one of those BBC creeps calls. Even if they use their legendary 'detector' equipment, it can't be used as evidence in court. It's only used to scare you into signing a 'confession'. They can't get a search warrant without your 'confession' either... so at the end of the day, what can they do? Nothing! You can work out the maths for yourself if you want to watch TV without a licence... just multiply the fee by however many years you intend watching TV, up to the age of 75, when it's free anyway. That's the money you could be spending on your round-the-world trip!

Alternatively, just chuck the TV in the bin and get outdoors! 

Oh... and for the record... not only do I have no TV... but the BBC have never had a penny off me for anything. On the contrary... the BBC has paid ME money for breaking the law on my doorstep. That's something else they don't like to be reminded of... but I have to say I DO rub their face in it whenever they start whining about me not having a licence.

C'mon BBC... it's an open forum... do you have a point of view or are you all cowards? 

I have been fined by the BBC (or the TV licensing authority, I think there is separation between the 2 bodies). Like Paddy say's it was about 150 pounds, which isn't bad value for money for about 20 years viewing. Unlike Paddy I do have a TV but don't see that I should fund the eastenders channel. It certainly doesn't provide value for money, and despite all its crowing and boasting provides an absolutely awful news service.

The way they catch most people is when purchasing a TV, the shop sends your details to the licensing authority.

Now Paddy,

 There is a massive difference in you not having a TV and therefore not requiring a licence and campaigning against persecution and I respect your position.

Having said that, the unfortunate thing is that in order to watch TV in this country a person needs one and commits a criminal offence by avoiding the payment.

Regardless of the perceived "gravity" of the offence, we should not condone lawbreaking and should adhere to current law and campaign to change it.

Where would we be if all car drivers used a similar "excuse" to avoid paying road tax and refused to pay because the roads are not up to standard?

That is the "road" to anarchy!

Having said that, it does seem good value for money if you don't mind having a criminal record!

I would have to disagree with you there, some laws are just morally wrong and should be opposed. Some quite obviously so, blind obedience to the law no matter what will (and many say already does) lead to disastrous removals of freedoms and liberty's.

In the case of funding the BBC, a law was brought in a few years ago which prevents companies and organisations from charging and invoicing people for services that they did not request or want. An exemption to this law had to be made for the BBC.

Now either the law is morally right or wrong, if it is right then there should be no exemptions.

So, you would condone someone withholding their car tax and flouting the law on the grounds that the services they are receiving are in thier opinion substandard?

Paddy is in a unique position of being one of those who does not want the BBC but the man in this case can hardly be described to be in the same league, since he freely admitted to using that service but failing to do what his law abiding fellow citizens have done, and complied with the law.

If people want to get themselves a criminal record whilst campaigning to repeal "immoral" law, then god luck to them, but such anarchy often leads to ruin! 

Full commercial TV?

Hmmmmmmmmm, I aint so sure that would be a good move!

the licence is worth it just NOT to have adverts.

i like the idea of ignoring laws if you don't like them so i may strike a blow for the emancipation of my perceived freedoms and liberties.

The road fund license it completely different, there is no connection between that and the money actually spent on the road network.

The BBC is directly funded from the television license. So as an example that really doesn't work.

As for choosing not to pay taxes, it works for the rich, I wish I had that opportunity.

To those who pay for theirTV Licence...

What percentage of your money do you think should be used to persecute ME for not having a TV?

For your information (and the BBC are well aware of it) it takes several TV Licences to persecute me, and the cost is still escalating even though the BBC are banned from pestering me!

So... if you have a figure in mind... and don't mind subsidising the BBC to persecute innocent people... bear in mind that the figure is rising and won't stop rising any time soon.

As for the 'separation' between the BBC and TV Licensing... there isn't any. They're the same body. The BBC is the Licensing Authority, but they don't like you to know that. By the way, this has been confirmed to me by Tessa Jowell, when she was head of the appropriate government ministry, and by the BBC's own policy staff. 

Oh... by the way... don't imagine that the BBC aren't reading these comments. They subscribe to an 'alert' system according to keywords and someone has already been designated to read this thread, so if there's anything you'd like to say to the BBC, please feel free!

Unfortunately, the BBC are craven cowards and they won't designate anyone to take a stance in this forum on their behalf. If anyone pops in claiming to be from the BBC, then there are three 'security questions' I'll put to them so that they can prove who they are. 

As for choosing not to pay taxes, it works for the rich, I wish I had that opportunity.

Lmao .

Paddy,

I think you have been watchig too much TV!

Tony... if you wanted to... you could subscribe to an 'alert' system with keywords such as 'Welsh' and 'rugby'!

Anyway Tony... the BBC's 'dirty tricks' henchmen at Capita were logged having a sneaky peak at my website, and when I demanded that the BBC explain what Capita expected to find there, they were very red-faced. Of course, I asked for an investigation, and do you know how many TV Licences that cost??? 

Paddy Dillon wrote (see)

Tony... if you wanted to... you could subscribe to an 'alert' system with keywords such as 'Welsh' and 'rugby'!

Tiredandweary...

I think the C in BBC now stands for Capita! 

Well Paddy,

As one of those "who pay their TV license" (can't afford the slight risk of losing my job and pension for suddenly obtaining a CR) I am faced with the choice of:-

1. Financing the "persecution" of Paddy OR

2. Funding that useless twat Johnathon Woss.

Hmmm sorry Paddy, but it has to be you, you represent better value for money and are far more entertaining than that "Ranker!"