A funny thing in the UK (quaint old world charm maybe?) is that they still have TV Licenses.
Now I totally understand that channels such as the BBC need to be funded by the public, no qualms there, but the problem that I have is actual licensing model and the way that it is enforced.
We don't have a TV here. When we first moved in we got a letter from the TV Licensing saying the house was unlicensed and we better get a license or they will fine us £1,000. We rang to say that we don't have a TV and were told that someone would come and check. How is that for intrusive - we can expect someone to come to our house at anytime to check - I asked if they will check in our cupboards and under the bed!
So we then got another 3 letters from them - each of them very rude and condescending - I rang another time to say we don't have a TV.
Finally we got the letter shown below which annoyed me greatly. So I figured if they can be rude & condescending, then I can too, and I rang up to complain about. At least the woman I spoke to this time was pleasant enough and told me that she would stop sending out the letters.
My problem is with the TV licensing model - it seems ridiculous that a huge organisation like that should exist to extract money from the public for TV funding when you could have a public funding model to pay for it.
I see massive waste with the TV Licensing board - how much money is spent from their income on sending our rude letters, how much on staff who check if you have a TV, not to mention the detection equipment, software and the bureaucracy managing it all.
Imagine how many more millions of pounds can be funnelled into the BBC if the TV Licensing board didn't exist.
In Australia back as far as 1974 the government abolished TV Licensing because of the universality of TV (just about everyone had one) so it was seen more of a public funding issue.
If you are going to keep the licensing model, then at least be pleasant about it - the aggressive & threatening tone doesn't endear you to the buying public.
