• thearch@sh.itjust.works
    1·
    20 minutes ago

    honestly, the sleeping licence and tv licence are one thing, but an unregistered butterknife? that’s just asking for trouble. where’s the respect for law and order?

  • daggermoon@lemmy.world
    3·
    8 hours ago

    Do y’all brits actually pay for the license? Can you be arrested for not paying it? How does it work exactly?

    • Flax@feddit.ukEnglish
      6·
      5 hours ago

      If you don’t pay for it, you get a harassing letter every month. You can find them documented here.. Occasionally, someone from TV licencing may visit. You have no obligation to let them in.

      Most people who do get convicted are the ones who engage with TV licensing. For example, they admit to using the iPlayer. They miss a payment on a weekly payment plan for it and then say something like “My mum was in hospital and I wanted to keep the kids entertained”. Someone I know almost got caught out because they tried to do the “right thing” and sent them an email saying they didn’t need a tv licence (they were doing it on behalf of their elderly father. They personally owned a licence) and TV Licensing detected their email was attached to the BBC iPlayer. Or they were let into the house and set up the TV for them.

      If you just ignore the letters, and shut the door as soon as they show up, basically nothing can happen. There is very little way they can prove you were watching TV. Someone else mentioned “detector vans” but these were most likely fake (The BBC claimed they did that but didn’t let anyone see how they work, even the Ministry of Defence who was very interested in such a technology), and definitely wasn’t admissible in court.

      Personally I pay for the licence. I like the BBC. It’s high quality. I think it’s the right thing to do. You get a free streaming service along with it (bbc iplayer) which is far better than the likes of Netflix.

      • uid0gid0@lemmy.world
        1·
        4 hours ago

        This greentext put me in mind of Monty Python’s Cat Fish License skit and you just come in here and casually drop the fact that there actually were detector vans (real or fake doesn’t matter). You learn something every day.

        • Flax@feddit.ukEnglish
          1·
          3 hours ago

          Read the letters they sent in the link. They actually are threatening.

          My favourite line they often use is to the tune of “We have scheduled a visit to inspect this address. It could be the 7th of July. It could be next week. Or it even could be tomorrow!”

          Which is literally a contradiction

      • ulterno@programming.devEnglish
        0·
        5 hours ago

        You get a free streaming service along with it (bbc iplayer) which is far better than the likes of Netflix.

        Nice. Hope that stays for long

    • Log in | Sign up@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      7 hours ago

      Do y’all brits actually pay for the license?

      Licence. (Lisense is a verb in British English.)

      Yes. It funds the BBC which is public service broadcasting, usually very high quality and has no advertisements. You aren’t allowed to watch BBC or any live television whatsoever in the UK without a TV licence.

      Can you be arrested for not paying it?

      Not any more. It’s now a civil rather than criminal offence. The conservatives didn’t like that they even today tend to report facts alongside opinions, so they threatened to remove the licence fee. Instead they made of civil rather than criminal, so non payment is only punishable by a fine, which of course means it’s only illegal for poor people who can’t gamble the fine.

      They used to send detector vans round to addresses that don’t have a licence for enforcement. The ads said they could tell if you were watching telly. I suspect they detected aerials, but that was in the days of Cathode Ray Tubes, and maybe you can detect them being on, I don’t know.

      How does it work exactly?

      They just send a bill to everyone in the post, warning of the consequences of non payment. You can pay by direct debit for less paperwork. Compliance is pretty high. It used to be higher before the conservatives started meddling.

      The conservatives would love to get rid of the BBC and the NHS but they know it would be an absolute disaster for them politically because the people love them, flawed as they are, so they just underfund them badly and then complain about how bad they are.

      +++

      That strategy initially worked with the trains, which the conservatives privatised in the 1980s on the grounds that the reliability was poor and the rolling stock was badly out of date, but after a few decades of privatised rail, the promise of competition driving up quality and driving down prices has proven very hollow indeed, and now nationalisation is popular in every demographic group including conservative voters.

      The East Coast Main Line went bust so many times that no commercial operators would touch it and the government was forced to step in. The civil servants were told to look for efficiency savings and make it more commercially viable, but when they did that it became the most reliable and punctual line in the UK with the best customer satisfaction, and cost far less in subsidies than the privatised lines. Who knew that extracting the most money possible for shareholders would drive down quality whilst driving up prices and government costs?

      The current labour government is nationalising rail on the cheap by simply not renewing the franchises when they expire. Manchester’s buses have come back under local authority regulatory control. Some things are getting better under labour, but some things are not and the prime minister seems to think that Biden is the best example to follow in many ways.

      • Ricaz@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        2·
        5 hours ago

        It works more or less the same in Denmark, except we now switched to paying it over our taxes automatically

      • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
        4·
        6 hours ago

        The ads said they could tell if you were watching telly. I suspect they detected aerials, but that was in the days of Cathode Ray Tubes, and maybe you can detect them being on, I don’t know.

        You can absolutely detect a CRT from outside. A CRT is basically a small particle accelerator with a magnetic deflection system, inside an unshielded plastic (or wooden, if you go back far enough) box. Of course, it will need to be turned on, just the presence of a TV doesn’t show up. It’s probably a fair bit harder to actually detect which house the signal comes from, but you can solve that with a big enough directional antenna. With analog TV, you might even be able to detect which channel they’re watching, based on the exact frequency, which makes it easy to tell a TV from a computer monitor too.

        Basically, if you’re converting an analogue radio signal into a picture, you’re using that frequency. And any leaks would be detectable by another antenna. From that point, it’s “only” a matter a building the right antenna, aiming it correctly and filtering out the stuff that comes from other directions.

        Spotting a flatscreen/LCD/TFT or really, any non-analog TV is probably a LOT harder, and distinguishing between a TV recieving a signal and computer monitor seems (to my lay skills) pretty much impossible.

        • ulterno@programming.devEnglish
          2·
          4 hours ago

          Yeah, considering that the TV has enough noise to be heard by the human ear, it doesn’t seem far fetched that specialised equipment can tell much more about it.

          heard by the human ear

          I mean the screen, not the audio output from the speakers

  • markovs_gun@lemmy.world
    421·
    1 day ago

    I’m really glad I didn’t have to see the word cunt here that would have really ruined my day

  • gmtom@lemmy.world
    15·
    1 day ago

    One of 3 jokes.

    Its either either :

    “loicence”

    Haha no spices

    Or “bad teeth”

    • GeneralEmergency@lemmy.world
      11·
      1 hour ago

      Haha no spices

      That joke comes from yanks who are used to drowning their food in sugar syrup to mask the taste of underage mexican day labourer blood.

    • squaresinger@lemmy.world
      12·
      9 hours ago

      Or “bad teeth”

      I lived in the UK for a while and what shocked me most was the ads for tooth care products.

      Where I’m from they are like “Fresh breath all day long” or “Keeps your teeth white”. In the UK they were like “Mouth wash can prevent tooth loss”.

    • Zron@lemmy.world
      122·
      21 hours ago

      My favorite to poke at is treating anything with a blade on it like it’s a deadly weapon with no other purpose.

      Can’t have a locking pocket knife.

      There was a group that wanted to ban pointed kitchen knives.

      Had a dude tell me he doesn’t carry an axe or saw when camping because it “might scare passersby”

      Photos of police “hauls” that show screw drivers and hammers as “deadly weapons that don’t belong on the streets”

      So it’s at least 4 jokes.

    • HugeNerd@lemmy.ca
      42·
      1 day ago

      Don’t forget the bizarre “r” into everything like drawring, the lawr, etc.

      • LotrOrc@lemmy.world
        62·
        1 day ago

        Thats more American in my experience That and completely dropping entire parts of words for absolutely no reason I can understand

        Ex. Comfortable somehow becomes comftable. Drawer becomes drawr. Wednesday becomes wensday

        • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
          2·
          24 hours ago

          People (I’m in the US) are pretty much always astonished to realize, when I ask them to say the word “important”, that they more often than not will pronounce zero of the T’s in the word, when I point out that they didn’t.

          It always really stuck out to me as a kid when Shawnee Smith (probably most famous for the Saw movies now), on the old sitcom Becker, would always enunciate the T’s in that word—that’s what made me realize how weird it was that everyone wasn’t saying it that way, lol.

        • HugeNerd@lemmy.ca
          1·
          1 day ago

          I’ve only ever heard that “added r” thing when watching BBC stuff. Can you link me to some Americans saying drawring instead of drawing, for example?

          • LotrOrc@lemmy.world
            4·
            1 day ago

            Huh thats really interesting ive never heard that on BBC

            Its all over the place in New England especially in MA

            • Alaik@lemmy.zip
              2·
              24 hours ago

              I didnt know people from Boston could pronounce Rs at any point, let alone add more. “Pahk the cah.”

            • HugeNerd@lemmy.ca
              1·
              24 hours ago

              Hm, I’ll try and find some examples. It just fascinates me how things like language evolve chaotically, like tiny changes that somehow then become the new equilibrium point.

      • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
        1·
        24 hours ago

        Apparently, there’s some sort of linguistic exchange program within British English where T’s are traded out for R’s, and then a persistent logistics issue causes the R’s to be distributed incorrectly.

        • HugeNerd@lemmy.ca
          2·
          24 hours ago

          I’m glad I’m not the only one thinking about this important issue… I wonder what Susie Dent thinks of it.

        • Jade@programming.dev
          19·
          2 days ago

          Nope. You can just plug your TV into the aerial to get BBC + free channels. Netflix and whatever costs extra tho

          • MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.todayOP
            22·
            2 days ago

            I’m surprised that according to the website, they actually let you get away without a license if you only use commercial streaming services and don’t watch any BBC content. In Germany, that excuse doesn’t fly. As long as your device has the capacity to receive aerial broadcast, you have to pay, whether you watch it or not is irrelevant.

            • Shadowedcross@sh.itjust.works
              3·
              1 day ago

              In theory, but the BBC has been known to harass people into paying, even pressuring you into letting them into your house even though they don’t have the right to do so.

            • Knuschberkeks@leminal.space
              8·
              2 days ago

              afaik in Germany you even have to pay if you have no device that to receive anything. Every household has ro pay wirth a few exeptions.

              • MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.todayOP
                11·
                2 days ago

                Pretty sure not owning ANY broadcast receiving devices is the only way to get around it, but that’s extremely difficult to accomplish. Keep in mind radio counts as well (though you can be eligible for a reduced rate if you only have radio access and no TV), including the one in your car, your stereo, or your alarm clock. Owning a TV with no antenna hooked up does not count either, since it’s trivial to do so, and you could just be hiding an antenna in your attic or your basement.

                Basically, the only way to legally skirt the fee is to live under a bridge or in a forest without any electronic devices besides a flash lamp.

                • ThoGot@feddit.org
                  3·
                  1 day ago

                  Pretty sure not owning ANY broadcast receiving devices is the only way to get around it

                  That was a thing years ago, but nowadays everyone has to pay (except if you have a low income and receive social benefits)

            • Darren@sopuli.xyzEnglish
              3·
              18 hours ago

              Yes, and it’s ad-riddled nonsense.

              The BBC runs no adverts, save for trailers of its own stuff.

              • Bobby Turkalino@lemmy.yachts
                1·
                18 hours ago

                Yeah and even cable/satellite, paid services, are ad-riddled lol. Always kills me how the older generations criticize us for being financially irresponsible when they’re paying to watch a service that’s 20-25% ads

        • Deceptichum@quokk.auEnglish
          3·
          2 days ago

          Do people elsewhere in the world pay for “cable” tv? I know we had a version here in Australia but it was so rare, no one really used it.

          • Bobby Turkalino@lemmy.yachts
            9·
            2 days ago

            It was pretty big over here in the US, and still is with Gen X and older. Nowadays, pretty much the only reasons to get it are if you’re a sports fan or enjoy brainrot 24/7 news networks

    • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
      331·
      2 days ago

      Americans fund public TV and radio infrastructure through taxes, Brits just make it opt-out if you meet certain criteria by labeling it as a license.

      You tell me which has more “freedom.”

          • lessthanluigi@lemmy.sdf.org
            8·
            2 days ago

            Sometimes I forget how much freedoms we have in Washington State. The only thing is strict gun laws, but it’s mostly background checks and limited magazine sizes

            • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              4·
              1 day ago

              Limited mag sizes are a legit issue, but NICs checks are federal.

              The only thing limited mags are effective against is the possibility to have more rounds in a home defense situation (which is really only a problem if there are multiple invaders, but of course there usually are, that’s not usually a solo activity).

              Their stated objective (to reduce the amount of rnds/mag so mass shooters are less effective) is complete hogwash, magazines can be changed in one literal second, and sometimes the shooters even prefer the 10-20rnd mags because the standard 30s are harder to hide. Changing mags is only a problem when someone is returning fire, if you’re completely unimpeded you might as well have a damn lever action.

              • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                3·
                1 day ago

                And it’s not like mass shooters are law abiding citizens except in the small area of murdering random people… They can easily drive one state over to Idaho and get whatever they want, and if they’re out, continue south to Utah or east to Montana. Nobody is going to check your car on the way back…

                I grew up in WA, and everyone got around whatever law they didn’t like. Want to blow up big fireworks but your town doesn’t allow it? Go to the local res, hide them under a blanket in the car, and be a very law abiding citizen on the way home (and blow them up in a random neighborhood). Before weed was legal, people would just grow it in the forest on public land, which was literally everywhere.

                The mag law just exists to piss off law abiding citizens and is the same “save the children” BS excuse that’d being used to effectively ban porn and other things across the country. Solve the problem another way.

                • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  1·
                  23 hours ago

                  Tbh you don’t even have to drive, you can 3d print standard capacity magazines and then use a spring, which you can buy in any state, or cannibalize one from another mag (certain mags that can be legally bought in restricted states work too, but a man has to keep some secrets).

                  But also yeah driving works too, and plenty people have done it.

                  I grew up elsewhere, but have similar experiences regarding weed, fireworks, and more. Laws don’t stop people from doing anything they’re significantly intent on doing in my experience.

                  Totally agree, and I extend that to all the pointless feature bans. Their true purpose is for politicians to posture for reelection lol, same with the anti-porn bullshit, just different politicians.

    • rtxn@lemmy.world
      25·
      2 days ago

      The early idea was to support the state-owned and state-operated channels through taxes. Then the channels got privatized and now the taxes are going straight into the pockets of The Brexit Bunch. I mean why would they voluntarily cut off a money source that people were already paying.

      • UncleGrandPa@lemmy.worldEnglish
        32·
        2 days ago

        In San Diego they had a toll bridge… once it was paid for they kept the toll. When asked why they were still charging a toll… They said the toll booths still cost money to run. They had to be sued for the toll to stop

        • nialv7@lemmy.world
          12·
          2 days ago

          Having to charge toll because they need money to run the toll booths is the most Kafkaesque thing I have heard in a while.

    • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
      19·
      2 days ago

      This is/was a thing in many other European countries too.

      In Austria it used to be (not long ago, a few years at most) that only people who owned a TV needed to pay it, not anymore, now every household has to pay it, so it is basically a household tax.

      • алсааас [she/they]@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        11·
        2 days ago

        It’s not a tax tho? At least not in Germany. It’s going directly to the state-broadcasting service but unconditionally; the idea being it’s harder to influence the content or threaten them with cutting off their funding.

        • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
          3·
          2 days ago

          This is also the case in Austria according to https://orf.beitrag.at/faq/allgemein so whether to call that a “tax” or not is purely a terminological question. It used to be that this was only required for owning a TV, but this was hard to enforce because there was no automatic legal requirement to let inspectors into one’s home and companies started to produce TVs without a TV tuner (i.e. could only stream from the Internet) to get around this.