>>>>>http://www.betanews.com/article/Latest-move-by-broadcasters-to-mandate-implanting-radios-into-cell-phones/1288110047
>>>>>
>>>>>How can there be any legislation forcing a manufacturer to include a part in one of their products? Geeze what's happening to my country?
>>>>
>>>>My take on the article is it's horse trading between lobbyists for broadcasters vs. those for musicians, over royalties. Neither gives a damn about the consumer. No doubt it's all tied into the music-industry equivalent of Hollywood accounting.
>>>
>>>Over here you have to pay a subsidy/misnamed tax for government created radio and tv if you own a receiving device. Under certain circumstances you have to pay twice for portable devices, for instance car radio or laptops as they are considered TV's and radios...
>>>
>>>Horse trading is honest compared to that...
>>
>>No kidding. I have relatives in the UK, years ago I was surprised to learn you have to purchase a "license" for receiving devices: currently 145.50GBP per year.
>>
>>http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/detection-and-penalties-top5/
>>
>>"If you inform us that you do not watch television, enforcement officers may still visit you to confirm this." Oh joy - I don't watch TV, don't even own one (never have). I would call the cops on any such "enforcement officers" who tried to "visit" me.
>>
>>If any jurisdiction in North America tried that stunt, there would be riots - literally. But I suppose Euro-sheeple are long accustomed to being drained through that vein, and Eurobureaucra-parasites are addicted to that source of easy funds.
>
>The 'rights' of 'enforcement officers' are, in practice, non-existent. A friend of mine who lives a hermit-like existence did not own a TV set. They wrote to him a few times and, eventually, someone (presumably an 'enforcement officer') turned up at his door and asked to be allowed into the premises to ascertain that he did not indeed possess a TV receiver. My friend refused admission. The 'enforcement officer' came back a couple of times and got the same response. Eventually my friend received a court summons for non-payment of the license fee. Turned up in court and asked that the prosecution provide proof that he owned a TV set. None was forthcoming so the case was dismissed with costs in his favour......

Government in action (perhaps more accurately, bureaucracy). It probably cost more than 145 quid for an "enforcement officer" to visit 3 times, and almost certainly more than that to process and issue a court summons. Then several times that amount to hold the trial.

As for your friend, I hope the awarded costs included reasonable amounts for his time, travel expenses etc.