Agreed. But imagine how much more money institutions and individuals could save if we made the license fee voluntary for all!

Also, while I appreciate women fleeing abusive relationships are particularly vulnerable, it would be nice to extend the right not be harrassed by officials (who aren’t carrying court warrants) to all.

I hope you don’t find the paucity of response to this article as a sign of disagreement: I can’t imagine anyone having issues with this.

Why should women’s refuges get a special deal on the TV license?

Let’s broaden that question to: why should X get a special deal on Y?

It’s very common that complex legislation is seen as dealing unfairly towards some group in society. And the usual remedy is to make a special exemption for that group, which makes the legislation even more complex, which of course leads to even more anomalies.

Eventually you end up with something like Britain’s benefits system, with its 100% marginal tax rates and other disincentives to do temporary jobs.

So while it may be tempting in the short term for women’s refuges to get a special deal, in the long term the best solution is to simplify the system, to remove anomalies and remove the need for special cases.

The problem with the TV license is that it isn’t payable per TV or per TV watcher, it’s payable per household. And certain institutions don’t fall into the category of “household” very easily.

So maybe the TV license whould be payable per TV. Or a TV license could be per building for up to 5 TVs in that building; if you have more than five TVs, you need another license.

Or better still, make it payable whenever anyone buys a new TV, with no recurring yearly license.

In the long term, of course, TV will simply be another application accessible on the internet, standalone TVs won’t exist, and TV programmes may well be funded by something like a broadband tax.

And certain institutions don’t fall into the category of “household” very easily.

Why couldn’t a refuge be defined as a ‘household’ like hotels etc are?

@4, so what exactly does count as a hotel, and what exemption do they get?

Watch online TVs

http://internet-world.110mb.com/index.php?p=1_24_ONLINE-TV-WORLD

The problem is the TV license itself. The idea of a per-household tax for owning a TV is totally anachrosnistic in the pay-as-you-go age.

I just don’t get this campaign. The TV licence is charged to a household generally, with an allowance to hotels and guest houses on the admittedly vague assumption that the majority of viewers there will already be licence holders or temporary overseas visitors.

A family refuge place is provided as a temporary home (ie household in a multiple occupation residence). The providers do their best to make the environment as normal as possible (eg provision of private facilities) as a stepping stone for the family occupying a more permanent home. Accepting that refuges wish to create an environment that resembles a conventional household, each household is effectively a bedsit and the TV licensing laws for bedsits apply. Remember that when a family leave refuge for a new home, they’re going to have to buy a TV licence, and there are no discounts for that.

Who’s next for a free TV licence campaign? Students in residential accommodation? Bedsit dwellers?

As others have written, the TV licensing system is a joke. But adding this exemption would make it even jokier.