Quoting Brian (a...@cityscape.co.uk): > On Wed 12 Aug 2015 at 16:57:33 +0100, Martin Smith wrote: > > On 12/08/2015 14:56, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > >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. This may well be true. I'm not a lawyer: I don't know. However, the public perception is that you *can* be imprisoned and so it colours discussion of the licence fee. For example, here is a quotation by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, someone involved at the highest level with the licence fee problem: “It's actually worse than a poll tax because under the poll tax, if you were on a very low income you would get a considerable subsidy,” he said. “The BBC licence fee, there is no means-tested element whatsoever; it doesn't matter how poor you are, you pay £145.50 and go to prison if you don't pay it.” Cheers, David.
