Big Brother Tightens His Grip

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

In the post today was a letter accusing me of failure to own a TV licence. My non-ownership is to be formally investigated.

The story…

…………a letter arrived from TV Licencing. It was addressed to The Occupier (i.e. not to me personally). It informed me that my household is one of only 5% in the UK that does not own a TV licence. They therefore feel compelled to write to me to inform me of this and to enquire whether or not their information is correct and if it is, why I do not possess said licence. Further, they informed me that this compulsion to write with these requests is an obsession for which the only cure is a communication from myself assuring them that their suspicions are groundless. In other words, it seems that unless I perform certain actions as prescribed by them, I can expect to continue to receive letters. This situation is reminiscent of Harry Potter: when the Dursleys refused to allow Harry to read his letter from Hogwarts, further letters were delivered, and the more the Dursleys refused to respond, the greater the number of letters that poured through their letter box, down their chimney etc. So it appears I can expect something similar from the TV Licencing people. Fortunately, having seen Harry Potter, I have been shown the method by which such invasive tactics should be dealt: I will relocate to a remote rock somewhere off the coast of the UK. (I am assuming, of course, that the TV licencing people do not have access to flying motorbikes or other magical transportation that would allow them to foil my attempted evasion.)

As a matter of interest, the reason I do not possess a TV licence is because my digital TV packed in and I was not sufficiently inspired by what was on offer from the TV broadcasting companies to feel that I wished to buy a new TV. I did write to the TV licencing people explaining the situation and informing them that I would no longer require a TV licence. This occurred several years ago and seems to have no bearing, in the minds of the TV licencing people, on the current situation.

The serious side of this is that I am currently being hounded for the crime of failing to possess a TV licence for no better reason than that I do not possess a TV licence……………guilty until proven innocent.

The bizarre side of this is that it is getting very close to the kind of handling of the law as is portrayed in Kafka’s The Trial.

2

Where I am if you own a TV, a cellphone, or a computer, you have to pay the licence. I lie when they Contact me. I should say we lie. I don’t have a cellphone. I do have a computer, but I have no internet hook up. I do have a TV, but I do not have the digital box, so I cannot Watch state channels, or any channels for that matter.

I rent and Watch videos.

Now under the collective punishment law, if I have a TV, I Owe the government Money, even though I lack the capablity to Watch state programming.

You Think your government is BB-like…?

Mine has called pretending to be offering me some kind of free Product for my computer. I did not admit to having a computer and said I was not interested. they have spoken to my wife, and I cannot remember the sneaky way they tried to get her to admit she had one of the, now, many devices that can lead to paying a fee, but she managed to not admit anything.

In the last year or so they seem to have forgotten us, but will no doubt try again. so we have to be on guard, I mean, who knows, will it be the toaster or the fridge next. I have to read the Tech sections of the newspaper more carefully, in case I slip up somehow, and admit to having a device.

It’s not a big deal, some couple hundred bucks US per year, but I dislike the 1) the presumption of norms 2) the collective punishment aspect. It is simply beyond possibility that we have a TV and would only use it to Watch Movies. That is just so weird, we should probably pay anyway for being strange.

I see this as part of a generalized hyper-addiction to technology. I mean, not owning a cellphone, neither of us, gets the weirdest reactions. Further, there are some things we simply cannot do. Get this. I cannot use the public toilets in the park near my house, because you pay through your phone the five cents to get to use it. Humans managed without cellphones for quite some time, but now people react like I am taking mylife in my hands and I joined the Moonies if I do not have one. How many times in the last decade did I need to get the message right at that moment? Not once.

Other people had desires, but I can’t Think of one time.

But I don’t want to tangent your rant which I agree with.

3

A licence to own a T.V.? Seriously? Why don’t you just write “Go fuck yourself” on the letters in magic marker and send them back? Will you get shot for doing that where you people live or something? That’s what I’m going to do when I start getting letters about why I haven’t signed up for Obamacare.

4

No, hardly. No shot. But if I described the ‘how this would lead to bad credit and how this would affect everything here’ you might have a stroke. I can assure you that the consequences are not Worth it. If my family situation was a Little different, however, I might go rather crankly political on the issue.

5

What’s the reasoning behind a TV licence anyway? Like, if a super non-cynical government-loving person was touting the virtues of needing a licence to watch TV, what would he say?

6

Well, it’s been a while since I lived there, but Public TV in US was similar - though it was taxes (and begging) and not this bill sent to everyone. The idea is that the stations will be freer to do programming without Corporate oversight (essentially). That Commercial controlled (via advertising) stations have to kowtow to Corporations - not just in terms of the dumbing down that profit fixation leads to, but also because the private sector wants to suppress specific and general things and can pressure to do this. And while I Think this is absolutely the case…well, I certainly don’t need to convince a conservative what the confused assumption is in this about government oversight. Of course the idea is the government does not check programming. I Believe an independent non-profit runs the stations. But it takes some naivte to Think it is really independent, and from what I watched in my first couple of years here, nothing that would never have gotten through on private stations of great importance was. I would guess, to the stations credit, that ‘orphan’ news and documentaries do have a better chance. That some issues and some really quite good stuff that would not make it onto a private station because there are no [equivalent to pratfall and sex jokes) in them came through on occasion, maybe. But the whole thing is not Worth it. And we have the internet now to get outside the mainstream news, ideas, documentaries, even if it was Worth it at some Point. I can see the argument for a mix, more or less like I am glad there are state funded libraries and book stores. But I see Control coming through state and coming through Corporations in bad ways. Each have their agendas and, lookie, lookie, they kinda overlap a lot these Days.

7

OK, so it’s like mandatory contribution to our own public broadcasting networks. I can understand that. You definitely want a mix. The thing about corporate media and the thing about Government media is that (even aside from overt agendas) one has to show things that people actually want to watch, and the other doesn’t. That can be both good and bad.
So for example, a common thing that is said is that Public Broadcasting in this country slants quite far to the left. People on the left would say that’s because it’s free of corporate interests, and that’s good because people wouldn’t be exposed to these ideas otherwise. People on the right say that these channels would fail if they competed fairly against corporate channels (i.e., had to pay for themselves with advertising) and amount to a minority opinion getting disproportionate representation, and on the public dime to boot.

8

I agree. And while I would not be thrilled with a tax, since I do not use it, so much Money would be saved trying to find out who uses it and who cheats. They actually go door to door. Or they used to. They are not allowed to come in, but the often ask. I mean, it’s like something from elementary school.

9

Sounds like a giant pain in the ass, doubly so since you can’t get out of it by not actually watching T.V. A tax would certainly be better in this case, less invasive, less expensive, etc.

10

So I lie, which actually is annoying, but Money has been very tight due to illness the last few years, so no way am I paying or being honest and not paying and messing up my potential to rent and a host of other things. They deserve the lie, especially given that paying would be a kind of lie also. I receive no Product or service. In fact I can’t. I might as well just have the Shell of a TV or a painting of one as far as watching TV programs.

11

Thanks for the warning — where the US has gone before, the UK will surely follow! And talking about paying for being strange: that is in effect what’s happened here in that, if you are odd in not watching tv as I am, you have to pay in time and money for phonecalls etc. accounting for your strangeness. I do sympathise with your approach, but nevertheless I think it’s wrong. Not that obstructing the law is what I object to, but that inevitably your health and well-being will be suffering by the stress of maintaining a lie, and swimming against the tide. It really is, healthwise, both physical and mental, to relax and go with the flow. If that creates bad feeling, then there are other ways, less direct ways, of relieving one’s anger. If we leave aside all the varieties of protest etc, and just think in terms of your personal health and well-being, meditation is a great way to relieve bad feeling. Many people, including me, “walk off a bad mood”. But another very effective thing one can do is just what you have done here: talk about it. Talk about it to everyone you know. Talk about it on the internet. Broadcast the injustice. Rant about the injustice.

12

Oh, my experience is in Europé. The US is ‘behind’ on this one.

I would lose. This is not the UK. I would lose and either pay a yearly fee or I would get bad credit and have trouble with renting apartments, cars. It might even affect applying for jobs, and it would certainly affect ordering on the internet and a host of other not so big but otherwise annoying things.

paying a couple hundred bucks for a service I do not use and cannot use would affect my Health. The lie is better for my body. And paying would be a kind of lie.

I do that too, though not in any organized way.

13

True, but it is not the act of lying that has consequences for one’s health. Paying would piss you off; that’s about the worst of it. Lying about the technology you have is a whole different matter: it has you living, in effect, under constant surveillance — you are always looking over your shoulder, always wondering if the person on the phone/at the door has ulterior motives and you are always having to calculate any possible consequences that the lie may have in any future actions — “Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.” -(Sir Walter Scott) — yes, this is it. A simple lie turns into such a tangled web and the longer the situation goes on, the more one feels in danger of being found out. This is very damaging to the health.

14

I disagree and we are talking about me. I meant precisely that it would be a lie that would affect me. I would be pissed off each time I had to pay the bill. I would be pissed off everytime the issue came up - via others, via news, whatever. It’s been over a year since anyone has tried some bluff on us. I don’t Think about it much now. We know what to do. I don’t know about you, but I don’t wakl around telling everyone the truth or answering all questions honestly. I am Always choosing what I say to whom when and where. I don’t live in a World where I am honest all the time and frankly honesty with organizations and government branches are not the tricky tests. If paying worked for you, fine. I can only say that my stress levels would go up - not in some Health threatening way, but in any case up - if I were honest with the TV licence people. And it is also the right thing to do.

15

I hate that when rules are easy to break, they have the side effect of making people who follow the rules feel like chumps. I’d break a rule like that too though.

16

Moreno,

What country do you live in? How do you use the internet?

This thread confused the shit out of me. I’m a bit clearer now. A bit. What happens if you have a tv (with cable) without a license?

17

Let’s say I am in northern Europe. If you have a tv with cable (or without cable) you owe the government money each year. They drop by and ask, sometimes they call and ask. When they drop by, they will often ask to come in and check. But you can say no. If you have a tv, but do not have the digital box that allows you to actually see programs, you still owe money. If you have a smart phone, you owe money, since you could watch films on it. LIkewise a computer, even if you do not have internet service.

I use the internet at work.

18

I don’t see why you should owe money for owning a tv, without cable. I get the idea of publicly financing an alternative public broadcast station. Taxes would be easier, and less gestapo-like. Donations would be ideal. Or pay per use. I can’t believe they actually pay someone a day’s work to go door-to-door, or work the phones, trying to find tv owners. Sinister.

19

I agree with everything you say, except perhaps, ‘sinister’. It’s goofy and wrong and very irritating. But the whole thing is run a bit like some selling girl scout cookies coupled with a base team of not very skilled pranksters.
It could be sinister. I mean the same description of what they do could be of something sinister, but in this case it comes off as not sinister.
However…
the credit system here, that is sinister. Man you mess up paying a bill or even a fake bill, and it may take years to get that fixed. Its not like here there are hundreds of credit evaluation companies, you’ve got one state run one. Right now small businesses and even large ones have a problem with fake invoices. they get billed for a service they never received by some bullshit company and enough businesses just pay them because 1) fighting them would cost and 2) the chance that they would get a stain on the credit histories is so overwhelmingly bad here, it is not worth it. So the shitty little con artists, can make a quick kililng and then shut down the company. One reason it is so menacing is that it is so easy for everyone to access you credit through the state run agency, that everyone does it. So suddenly you cannot get suppliers or rent an apartment.

fortunately this is causing problems, now, for people with some significant power…and that may lead to change.