Tv Licencing Court Charge

One of the more difficult challenges in terms of explaining TV Licensing is the degree of rogue activity vs. what is within the Law.

Although there have been documented cases of rogue employees at TVL, they are probably small in number. Arguably they should have been managed and supervised better to prevent their rogue behaviour, but practiced plausible deniability here is an important factor.

For the rest, their working practices sit within a body of law. This raises the fundamental question of how what they do works, legally, in practice. The letters, for example, may be full of misinformation, but they aren't illegal at present (though I suspect that's only because legislators never dreamt that a public authority could possibly conduct themselves in such a way).

The "home visits" are arguably within scope of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act - the BBC accepts this. They say that there is exemption because the "visits" are conducted only with consent. Only three problems with that: (a) it's not clear where consent comes into the law (it's never mentioned), (b) BBC/TVL never mention in communications to householders that their consent is required, (c) I have asked the BBC for information about how consent works in practice, and they are dragging their feet. I conclude that "consent" is not the panacea they believe it to be, and even if it were, that their implementation of it does not amount to the informed consent it would have to be to provide exemption from the law in the case of a protected right.

There are issues with the interview process, too, even though PACE ought to be fairly definitive in how such things should be handled. Specifically: the caution should inform people of their right to seek legal advice, and it doesn't; people's homes and doorsteps are not a suitable location for formal interview; the interview form is not an impartial, verbatim record of interview; etc. etc.

VisionMan wrote: »

These are clearly very deep Capita problems of which I have no knowledge.

I'm not convinced that they are "Capita problems" as such. As I said above, there is a mix of issues - yes, rogue staff, but also mixed messages to staff and poor supervision, and badly interpreted law.

Ultimately, it is solely the BBC's responsibility to make the regime work, and to work within the letter and spirit of the law. They are failing in that, and they have been told as much many times and in a variety of different ways.

But I'll tell you now, the BBC iPlayer enforcement will be digital, and digital only.

You mean logins and passwords tied to TV Licences? Sounds good to me.

I shall be blocking iPlayer on my Router on 1 Sep, anyway.

VisionMan wrote: »

Really? Don't you find the iPlayer a valuable resource?

It's okay. All 4 and Demand 5 are where I get most of my content from, with an amount from UKTV. I got out of the habit of watching ITV some while ago, although I watched the Ray Mears in France program tonight, and that was good.

Unfortunately, though, it's not really about content or practicalities - I simply know too much about the unpleasantness of TV Licensing to even consider buying a Licence now.

If I find I want more content, I will get Now TV, Netflix or Amazon - all about half the cost of the Licence.

VisionMan wrote: »

Ultimately, they aren't...

How so?

... And your comment that "Its okay", isn't ok at all.

The BBC iPlayer is regarded the world over as the number 1 application on any platform anywhere and is regarded as being the benchmark of any and all IPTV services out there. And they're not wrong either.

I'm not really interested in its technical excellence, which I'm sure adequately reflects the budget that the Licence Fee provides.

When you asked me whether I found it a valuable resource, did you mean something other than did I find it a valuable resource?

I'm not sure I buy that it is the "Number 1" application anywhere. Do you mean #1 amongst video streaming apps/sites, because I suspect that Youtube is vastly more popular, worldwide.