On Wed 12 Aug 2015 at 16:57:33 +0100, Martin Smith wrote: > On 12/08/2015 14:56, Lisi Reisz wrote: > >On Wednesday 12 August 2015 14:04:37 marti...@suddenlink.net wrote: > >> Now think, for a second how much money it costs to outfit > >>a van with high-quality broad-spectrum radio receivers, a person to > >>drive and another to tune and evaluate what he/she is receiving > >>and whether or not it is from a TV tuner or Heaven knows what > >>else. > >They have a much simpler solution. They barely bother with the vans (they > >exist, I believe, though I have never seen one). They see a house. They see > >an electoral register. They assume a television. They check for a licence. > >No licence? They assume criminality. And start bullying. > > I suffer from them, I haven't had a tv since 1971, and they can't let go,
Unless you have typed and sent your mail from a friend's computer, you do. [Snip] > >The care alone, even were there no societal cost, costs several orders of > >magnitude more money than the £145.50 cost of a TV licence. The trial alone, > >too, will have cost more than that! Then there is the cost of keeping her in > >prison. > > that is the problem, we have to punish sinners, we are after all obsessed > opinion. > I am led to believe it demonstrates our righteousness, but that is not my > > opinion. It's called upholding and enforcing the law of the country, not trangressing the will of some other entity. Incidentally. The tale you quoted and replied to is based on "When she goes to prison for non-payment of her licence....". This cannot happen. The maximum penalty is a fine.
