TV licencing is a scheme in the UK that has had me half scratching my head, and half in stitches on the floor in laughter ever since I've lived in the UK. Essentially the whole scheme relies on individuals who posses a TV subscribing the 150 pounds per year in order to legally view broadcasts. As a student (clearly not possessing a TV), I came into this fantastic body by means of severally increasingly urgent letters. From what I could deduct their reasoning went something like this:
Clearly no one had sat down and looked at the reasoning - doing nothing vs declaring no TV has essentially the same consequences, aside from calling an expensive 0845 number. I clearly didn't bother calling them. Until the 5th or so letter.
This really does beg the question though - why persist with such an archaic system? Sure you can no subscribe by Internet, but surely financing the many letters, UK call centre, and home visit inspectors takes up a massive wallop of the 150 pound fee?
Surely the most efficient way to deal with this fee - which essentially goes to the BBC - would be to take it out of the income tax purse. No one would notice it, and for the amount that gets spent on administration, I'm sure it would be much less than the 150 pounds or so that they currently charge. So why isn't hits being done? I personally think it's down to a cultural phenomenon that I like to call the 'small change economy' of Britain - where people like to pay for EXACTLY what they use - right down to the small change lent to a colleague for a snack, or the 20 mins parking at 40p per hour.
The irony of the whole system is that TV licencing are currently trying to advertise (in a TV campaign) just how easy it is to maintain a 'mum and 3 kids lifestlye' and still pay the licencing fee.
The further Irony is that in order for an inspector to determine whether a property needs a TV licence, they have to inspect it - something the lawful occupier can remove from them - yes, as I'm learning nearly everything in the UK is up for negotiation if you push hard enough!
But what use is this system anyway, when I can watch whatever I want whenever I want on unlimited Internet.....
- Subscribe - no more letters, and no inspection
- Declare that you have no TV - no more letters for a while, and the threat of an inspection just in case
- Do nothing- the threat of more letters and potentially an inspection
Clearly no one had sat down and looked at the reasoning - doing nothing vs declaring no TV has essentially the same consequences, aside from calling an expensive 0845 number. I clearly didn't bother calling them. Until the 5th or so letter.
This really does beg the question though - why persist with such an archaic system? Sure you can no subscribe by Internet, but surely financing the many letters, UK call centre, and home visit inspectors takes up a massive wallop of the 150 pound fee?
Surely the most efficient way to deal with this fee - which essentially goes to the BBC - would be to take it out of the income tax purse. No one would notice it, and for the amount that gets spent on administration, I'm sure it would be much less than the 150 pounds or so that they currently charge. So why isn't hits being done? I personally think it's down to a cultural phenomenon that I like to call the 'small change economy' of Britain - where people like to pay for EXACTLY what they use - right down to the small change lent to a colleague for a snack, or the 20 mins parking at 40p per hour.
The irony of the whole system is that TV licencing are currently trying to advertise (in a TV campaign) just how easy it is to maintain a 'mum and 3 kids lifestlye' and still pay the licencing fee.
The further Irony is that in order for an inspector to determine whether a property needs a TV licence, they have to inspect it - something the lawful occupier can remove from them - yes, as I'm learning nearly everything in the UK is up for negotiation if you push hard enough!
But what use is this system anyway, when I can watch whatever I want whenever I want on unlimited Internet.....
Same in Finland too (although not as expensive). Monty Python 'tv detector vans' come to mind
ReplyDeletetragic and pathetic
more so that it forms the basis for what our half baked colony uses for its inspiration for laws