Minister of Culture Doesn't Pay for TV license for 16 Years and Quits

SteveGrenard · 16th October 2006, 02:04 PM

That'll show 'em! What culture is this?

Quote:

STOCKHOLM, Oct. 16 (Xinhua) -- Swedish Culture Minister Cecilia Stego Chilo resigned on Monday over her failure to pay her TV license and declare the wages she paid to nannies, the government said.

"Cecilia Stego Chilo has today tendered her resignation from her post as cabinet member to Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt," a statement from the government said.

Facing mounting pressure from the media, Stego admitted that she had not paid her TV licence for 16 years, and that she failed to declare wages she paid to nannies.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20...nt_5210098.htm

Beerina · 16th October 2006, 02:12 PM

Is funding the government TV company(s) under the Ministry of Culture?

Dave1001 · 16th October 2006, 02:32 PM

Interesting reporting from Xinhuanet. I imagine the Chinese consider a Swedish Minister of Culture to be a lightweight.

Dark Jaguar · 16th October 2006, 09:37 PM

Aside from the part about wages of the serventry, none of that made any sense. You don't drive or shoot TVs, why do you need a liscense? I mean the signal is beamed into it against your will, as opposed to a cable which has to be brought into the home. What could be considered "theft" about that?

Silly Green Monkey · 16th October 2006, 09:47 PM

The UK (and possibly Europe) charges for airtime. One licence per television --------- and no commercials!

gtc · 17th October 2006, 12:35 AM

Originally Posted by Dark Jaguar

Aside from the part about wages of the serventry, none of that made any sense. You don't drive or shoot TVs, why do you need a liscense? I mean the signal is beamed into it against your will, as opposed to a cable which has to be brought into the home. What could be considered "theft" about that?

Australia has a TV network (and series of radio networks) that are government run and government funded. The money for running these services come from government revenue (and also from sales of DVDs in shops and sales of tv series to other countries).

The UK also has government run TV and radio networks but these are funded by a licence fee that every home with a TV must pay. In effect it is like everyone having to pay for basic cable.

Some might think that government run TV channels is a bizarre form of government propaganda. The reality in Australia is different. Our government broadcaster is actually the least sympathetic network towards the government and the government is constantly battling the alleged bias of the network.

monoman · 17th October 2006, 03:47 AM

Yes, the bbc license fee is not something I agree in principle with but, to be honest, If ever there was a vote, I'd vote to keep it.

The reason I don't agree with it in principle is because you have to pay for it if you have the means to watch tv, whether you watch the BBC channels or not. It is cheap though, considering all the TV and Radio channels there are now - plus the excellent BBC website (which is also translated into a multitude of languages).

With a bit of twisted logic, it's possible to get peeved at the way commercial channels are funded as well. Let's say you always buy a particular brand - say "Persil". Now if Persil is constantly advertised on TV, your programs are continually interupted by said adverts and you have to pay more for a product that you would have bought anyway.

Just to add, I'm not peeved in any way! It was just a thought experiment.

Skeptic · 17th October 2006, 03:52 AM

Essentially, it's a form of taxation. What's weird about this is that it is a very odd form of corruption. Cheating on one's income tax I can undestand, as it's serious money. But usually the TV fee is, if not trivial exactly, not a large amount.

By the way, if you don't have a TV in Britian, you can declare that you don't and not pay the license, but they send around cops on surprise visits to check that you're not lying.

The idea seems to be that anybody in the modern world who does not have a television must be some sort of total weirdo.

monoman · 17th October 2006, 03:56 AM

That's true, but it's not cops they send round, it's some other employees of the government and you can refuse to permit them entry into your home.

To this day, I still don't know if those vans going round with the rotors on top are actually detector vans or just dummys. I've heard ex-employees on the radio say they are dummys and other ex-employees say they're not.

Mojo · 17th October 2006, 03:58 AM

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

The UK (and possibly Europe) charges for airtime. One licence per television --------- and no commercials!

One licence per household: you can have as many televisions as you like.

Mojo · 17th October 2006, 04:07 AM

Originally Posted by gtc

Australia has a TV network (and series of radio networks) that are government run and government funded. The money for running these services come from government revenue (and also from sales of DVDs in shops and sales of tv series to other countries).

The UK also has government run TV and radio networks but these are funded by a licence fee that every home with a TV must pay. In effect it is like everyone having to pay for basic cable.

Some might think that government run TV channels is a bizarre form of government propaganda. The reality in Australia is different. Our government broadcaster is actually the least sympathetic network towards the government and the government is constantly battling the alleged bias of the network.

I don't know about Australia, but the BBC is not government run. It has a board of governers who, although appointed on the advice of ministers, do not answer to the government.

karl · 17th October 2006, 04:57 AM

Originally Posted by Beerina

Is funding the government TV company(s) under the Ministry of Culture?

Not exactly. The TV and radio networks under contract with the government to produce public service TV and radio programs jointly own a company that collects license fees.

The Ministry of Culture decides the terms of the contract.

geni · 17th October 2006, 05:05 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic

Essentially, it's a form of taxation. What's weird about this is that it is a very odd form of corruption. Cheating on one's income tax I can undestand, as it's serious money. But usually the TV fee is, if not trivial exactly, not a large amount.

On the other hand hit is a trivial one not to pay

Quote:

By the way, if you don't have a TV in Britian, you can declare that you don't and not pay the license, but they send around cops on surprise visits to check that you're not lying.

Never happened at uni despite the threatening letters that get sent to everyone.

16th October 2006, 02:04 PM	#1
SteveGrenard Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Wherever the airline sends my luggage Posts: 5,528	Minister of Culture Doesn't Pay for TV license for 16 Years and Quits That'll show 'em! What culture is this? Quote: STOCKHOLM, Oct. 16 (Xinhua) -- Swedish Culture Minister Cecilia Stego Chilo resigned on Monday over her failure to pay her TV license and declare the wages she paid to nannies, the government said. "Cecilia Stego Chilo has today tendered her resignation from her post as cabinet member to Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt," a statement from the government said. Facing mounting pressure from the media, Stego admitted that she had not paid her TV licence for 16 years, and that she failed to declare wages she paid to nannies. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20...nt_5210098.htm
	__________________ "We are facing a neurosis at the level of an entire civilization” Pierre Rehov

16th October 2006, 02:12 PM	#2
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Is funding the government TV company(s) under the Ministry of Culture?
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

16th October 2006, 02:32 PM	#3
Dave1001 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 3,717	Interesting reporting from Xinhuanet. I imagine the Chinese consider a Swedish Minister of Culture to be a lightweight.
Dave1001 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 3,717	__________________ I'm here to discuss ideas, not to get personal. I won't criticize you personally, please don't criticize me personally. I won't direct ad hominems at you, please don't direct ad hominems at me. I won't attack you or put you down, please don't attack me or put me down. Thanks.

17th October 2006, 03:58 AM	#10
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,092	Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey The UK (and possibly Europe) charges for airtime. One licence per television --------- and no commercials! One licence per household: you can have as many televisions as you like.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

17th October 2006, 04:07 AM	#11
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,092	Originally Posted by gtc Australia has a TV network (and series of radio networks) that are government run and government funded. The money for running these services come from government revenue (and also from sales of DVDs in shops and sales of tv series to other countries). The UK also has government run TV and radio networks but these are funded by a licence fee that every home with a TV must pay. In effect it is like everyone having to pay for basic cable. Some might think that government run TV channels is a bizarre form of government propaganda. The reality in Australia is different. Our government broadcaster is actually the least sympathetic network towards the government and the government is constantly battling the alleged bias of the network. I don't know about Australia, but the BBC is not government run. It has a board of governers who, although appointed on the advice of ministers, do not answer to the government.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

16th October 2006, 09:37 PM	#4
Dark Jaguar Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 1,666	Aside from the part about wages of the serventry, none of that made any sense. You don't drive or shoot TVs, why do you need a liscense? I mean the signal is beamed into it against your will, as opposed to a cable which has to be brought into the home. What could be considered "theft" about that?

16th October 2006, 09:47 PM	#5
Silly Green Monkey Cowardly Lurking in the Shadows of Greatness Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Colorado Posts: 3,047	The UK (and possibly Europe) charges for airtime. One licence per television --------- and no commercials!

17th October 2006, 12:35 AM	#6
gtc Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: the downunderverse Posts: 7,114	Originally Posted by Dark Jaguar Aside from the part about wages of the serventry, none of that made any sense. You don't drive or shoot TVs, why do you need a liscense? I mean the signal is beamed into it against your will, as opposed to a cable which has to be brought into the home. What could be considered "theft" about that? Australia has a TV network (and series of radio networks) that are government run and government funded. The money for running these services come from government revenue (and also from sales of DVDs in shops and sales of tv series to other countries). The UK also has government run TV and radio networks but these are funded by a licence fee that every home with a TV must pay. In effect it is like everyone having to pay for basic cable. Some might think that government run TV channels is a bizarre form of government propaganda. The reality in Australia is different. Our government broadcaster is actually the least sympathetic network towards the government and the government is constantly battling the alleged bias of the network.

17th October 2006, 03:47 AM	#7
monoman Master baiter - I fish! Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Bulgaria Posts: 967	Yes, the bbc license fee is not something I agree in principle with but, to be honest, If ever there was a vote, I'd vote to keep it. The reason I don't agree with it in principle is because you have to pay for it if you have the means to watch tv, whether you watch the BBC channels or not. It is cheap though, considering all the TV and Radio channels there are now - plus the excellent BBC website (which is also translated into a multitude of languages). With a bit of twisted logic, it's possible to get peeved at the way commercial channels are funded as well. Let's say you always buy a particular brand - say "Persil". Now if Persil is constantly advertised on TV, your programs are continually interupted by said adverts and you have to pay more for a product that you would have bought anyway. Just to add, I'm not peeved in any way! It was just a thought experiment.

17th October 2006, 03:52 AM	#8
Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Behind the chessboard Posts: 18,361	Essentially, it's a form of taxation. What's weird about this is that it is a very odd form of corruption. Cheating on one's income tax I can undestand, as it's serious money. But usually the TV fee is, if not trivial exactly, not a large amount. By the way, if you don't have a TV in Britian, you can declare that you don't and not pay the license, but they send around cops on surprise visits to check that you're not lying. The idea seems to be that anybody in the modern world who does not have a television must be some sort of total weirdo.

17th October 2006, 03:56 AM	#9
monoman Master baiter - I fish! Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Bulgaria Posts: 967	That's true, but it's not cops they send round, it's some other employees of the government and you can refuse to permit them entry into your home. To this day, I still don't know if those vans going round with the rotors on top are actually detector vans or just dummys. I've heard ex-employees on the radio say they are dummys and other ex-employees say they're not.

17th October 2006, 04:57 AM	#12
karl Thinker Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Uppsala Posts: 231	Originally Posted by Beerina Is funding the government TV company(s) under the Ministry of Culture? Not exactly. The TV and radio networks under contract with the government to produce public service TV and radio programs jointly own a company that collects license fees. The Ministry of Culture decides the terms of the contract.

17th October 2006, 05:05 AM	#13
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,565	Originally Posted by Skeptic Essentially, it's a form of taxation. What's weird about this is that it is a very odd form of corruption. Cheating on one's income tax I can undestand, as it's serious money. But usually the TV fee is, if not trivial exactly, not a large amount. On the other hand hit is a trivial one not to pay Quote: By the way, if you don't have a TV in Britian, you can declare that you don't and not pay the license, but they send around cops on surprise visits to check that you're not lying. Never happened at uni despite the threatening letters that get sent to everyone.