Why we're here:
This blog is to highlight the unjust persecution of legitimate non-TV users at the hands of TV Licensing. These people do not require a licence and are entitled to live without the unnecessary stress and inconvenience caused by TV Licensing's correspondence and employees.

If you use equipment to receive live broadcast TV programmes, or to watch or download on-demand programmes via the BBC iPlayer, then the law requires you to have a licence and we encourage you to buy one.

If you've just arrived here from a search engine, then you might find our Quick Guide helpful.

Saturday, 7 November 2015

German Salamander Receives TV Licence Bill


A German salamander has received an unexpected TV licence bill.

The amphibian's owner, Wener Kojat, has refused to pay his TV licence for years, because he does not own a TV set.

The fire salamander attracted the attention of the authorities when Mr Kojat, a 54-year-old painter, named his pet as the occupier of the adjoining apartment.

Speaking to the Bild newspaper, Mr Kojat said: "I've fought against the licence fee for years because I don't have a television or a radio, but now my fire salamander has to pay? That’s just absurd."

In Germany, unlike the UK, every household must be covered by a TV licence, irrespective of whether they receive TV programmes. Many Germans refuse to pay the licence fee on principle and some spend years fighting the authorities.

The German TV licensing authority has agreed to remove "Herr Hans Werner Feuer salamander" from its mailing list.

Get our latest posts straight to your inbox: Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner

9 comments:

Ulysses said...

Every household must be covered? And I thought *we* live in a wonky country.

Chris said...

Wait until 2016, the BBC has that same model in its sights...

Anonymous said...

Notice how it says a lot of Germans don't give a toss and ignore said licence.

Anonymous said...

Why is this even here, it just looks desperate

Anonymous said...

If we are to have a state funded broadcaster, the choices seem to be funding from general taxation or a household levy. Of the two, I would favour the household levy, so that the BBC's funding would be transparent, and the burden would be shared by everybody, rather than just taxpayers. People who have to pay for the BBC are more likely to take an interest in its output, inefficiency and corruption.

There is already a household levy collected by local authorities - Council Tax, so there would be no additional cost of collection and no need for capita's goons and all their unpleasantness.

Of course, there is no reason for the state funded broadcaster to be the monolith it is now.

Bernard said...

An interesting bit in the Spectator -
http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/ive-come-up-with-the-perfect-way-to-deal-with-tv-licensing-officers/
.
Thought you might like a read. I got my 'Calendar Threat' today.
"We're giving you ten days to pay up!" :-O
Cheers Bernard

Admin said...

Thank you very much Bernard.
The "ten days" letter was the focus of one of our previous posts.
We don't like it one bit. It's pretty low, even by TV Licensing's gutter standard.

Fred Bear said...

I've had one of those '10 days' jobs as well. It's in the recycling bin.

Bernard said...

Isn't about time someone started officially complaining about Capita threats?
These '10 days to pay up' jobs must srely cause 'distress and anxiety' to many elderly people. This should be used against them -
.
"Malicious Communications Act 1988 (“Offence of sending letters etc. with intent to cause distress or anxiety”). The offence states:

(1) Any person who sends to another person—

(a) a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys—

(i) a message which is indecent or grossly offensive;

(ii) a threat; or

(iii) information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or

(b) any article or electronic communication which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature,

is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated."
.
Cheers Bernard