Television Licensing

dannny_2

I was harrassed by TVL for years when I had a TV that needed a licence.

The licence was in my partners name, I bought a TV in my name, and the system couldn't cope.

Buzby

What you all forget is the pursuit is lawful, enshrined within the Communications Act and approved by Parliament. If you don't like it, then speak to your MP. S/He has the power to get rid of the restriction(s) and change the system.

Bleating about it in a Forum will achieve precisely nothing. But explaining to your MP it is a vote loser might just help move things long.

Cornucopia

RichardD1970 wrote: »

Or... just maybe, the anti BBC propaganda is overblown and alarmist.

It depends on where it comes from, obviously. I do my best to be fair to the BBC/TVL, but as I say, I have looked at their processes in some detail, and find issue with virtually every aspect of them, including both overall policy and the unsupervised conduct of specific individuals within the organisation.

It is the same with everything, you only ever hear from the people who have had an issue, whether justifiably or not. Those who have no issue don't come onto forums to complain.

There is some truth in that. However, why would we expect those that are affected to be silent on the matter?

99% of people have never had a problem, so you don't have them posting on the internet.

Reference for this? Also - what do you mean by "never having a problem"? If you mean ignored by BBC/TVL, then that doesn't get the enforcement job done, and if you mean that they complied with the BBC/TVL's whims, then that's not great, either.

Whilst I don't dispute that there are genuine cases for concern, to brand the whole organisation as corrupt (as some people do) is unjustified.

If you had access to the vast amount of research material that I have, you would probably not say that.

I have not and probably would not use the word "corrupt". My personal choice of adjectives includes: unlawful, unfair, pointless, unjust, vindictive, and in excess of lawful authority.

Cornucopia

Buzby wrote: »

What you all forget is the pursuit is lawful, enshrined within the Communications Act and approved by Parliament.

Unfortunately not, or at least not as clear-cut as that. The legislation only requires enforcement of evasion. There is no mention whatsoever of tracking every address and physically verifying no-licence households for compliance. There is no mention of threatening letters, either. Without that, the system is arguably in breach of HRA Section 8.2.

In addition, some of the threatening letters arguably breach the Malicious Communications Act, and there are questions regarding compliance with the Data Protection Act and the Protection from Harassment Act.

If you get as far as being visited, then issues with PACE arise.

IANAL, and only a lawyer or a judge can decide if the BBC is in breach of the letter of the law. However, I am quite convinced that they have disregard for the spirit of the law in most aspects of their TVL operation.

If you don't like it, then speak to your MP. S/He has the power to get rid of the restriction(s) and change the system.

I have done that, as have many others. The end result is a terse note from DCMS which precludes any examination of TVL on the basis that to do so would undermine BBC editorial independence. Faced with undemocratic nonsense like that, you can understand people's anger and frustration on the subject.

Bleating about it in a Forum will achieve precisely nothing. But explaining to your MP it is a vote loser might just help move things long.

Not in the real world. In the real world, MPs are wary of the BBC.

My letter to my MP is now with the BBC Trust. They have taken several months to examine it, but hopefully they will reach a conclusion next month.

In the meantime, and against the background of the topic, I am more than happy to explain the situation to those that are interested, and to help individual posters with their TVL issues. There does not seem to be any let-up in the number of people who have these issues.

System

RichardD1970 wrote: »

My in-laws get rid of their TV about 5 years ago, informed whoever (can't remember if it was by phone or post, definitely not email as they don't do technology) and have never had any hassle.

That is what the BBC wish people to think, the truth is the BBC themselves admit they will keep checking.

You have to wonder why people keep coming to the BBCs defence like this.....Oh and look how they "Thank" each others comments

RichardD1970 wrote: »

Or... just maybe, the anti BBC propaganda is overblown and alarmist.

propaganda hey, like I said people if you stp giving the BBC money these people will soon vanish

Buzby wrote: »

What you all forget is the pursuit is lawful, enshrined within the Communications Act and approved by Parliament. If you don't like it, then speak to your MP. S/He has the power to get rid of the restriction(s) and change the system.

And it was created to fund your beloved BBC, funny how you forget that important fact.

Do you want a Newspaper Tax next to fund your debt laden Guardian newspaper?

Buzby wrote: »

Bleating about it in a Forum will achieve precisely nothing. But explaining to your MP it is a vote loser might just help move things long.

Well it's upsetting the BBC clique so that in itself is good

Buzby

The minutiae of collection processes has changed markedly over the years, indeed the process of detection moving from physical capture to a postcode based opt-out system being the most innovative, however as licence evaders are still being caught, and when the reasons for having no licence are heard, you realise that for many it is a game/gamble - as the cost of capture and enforcement along with a criminal record simply by-product.

We are past the moral argument stage (if you watch you pay). Many do, and don't - and to prevent public revolt and abandonment, the current processes are tolerated by most right-minded individuals who are in the majority.

The MP argument is the only way forward - for example, if there are already exceptions made excusing those who do not watch in real-time, then it is but a short step from making the licence apply ONLY to BBC broadcasts - rather than any terrestrial channel. This would not make collection any more difficult than at present.

I rarely watch live TV, but I pay for a licence as the time shifted programmes I enjoy still have value to me and I see no reason why I should not contribute.

Whether MPs are 'wary' of the BBC is irrelevant - the BBC Charter is separate from the Comms Act and if your MP or party is unwilling or babble to do anything you like - find a party that IS prepared to take your view.

If this is not possible, then you have to reach the conclusion that if the majority do not share your view (for abandonment or to stop pursing those who do not require a licence) and life is too short to beat yourself up over it.

Buzby

TheWise1 wrote: »

And it was created to fund your beloved BBC, funny how you forget that important fact.

Do you want a Newspaper Tax next to fund your debt laden Guardian newspaper?

Well it's upsetting the BBC clique so that in itself is good

Just as much as you forget it was created to permit the legal reception of broadcast serviced (it was the 'Wireless Telegraphy Act' that was introduced by the Postmaster General). It may have evolved to fund some elements of the BBC, but you still had to pay, even if you only listened to a Radio Luxembourg.

Your two remaining points are perverse and not worthy of comment. Why you didn't suggest they bring back the Window Tax might have been a bit funnier.

The dear residents of Ireland (Republic) have an even worse situation. They have an almost identical licensing regime, but their national broadcaster (RTĖ) not only receives licence income, but litters their output with commercials. Paying a fee for an ad-free bouquet of services here is bonus. I stopped Sky when their Movies channel inflicted adverts on me and refused to reduce my subscription. Since hen I've saved a fortune.

Until the Govt change their Communications Act you'll be stuck with it. Pursue the organ grinder, not the monkey.

Nilrem

Buzby wrote: »

The dear residents of Ireland (Republic) have an even worse situation. They have an almost identical licensing regime, but their national broadcaster (RTĖ) not only receives licence income, but litters their output with commercials. Paying a fee for an ad-free bouquet of services here is bonus. I stopped Sky when their Movies channel inflicted adverts on me and refused to reduce my subscription. Since hen I've saved a fortune.

Aye, I quite object (far more so than any objection I might have to the TVL), to paying subscription fees that cost far more per month and still getting adverts, about the only reason I keep our subscription going is because other members of house like Sports and some of the films etc (that and due to the deal I'm on, I effectively get the sports/movies free).

I think the Irish are about to get it even worse - from memory their government is thinking about making a change to how they collect their licence, which involves losing any opt out (paid as part of council tax or something) as from what I can tell it's per house, not per house which watches TV, or even per house with a TV set.
Obviously taking a pointer from some of the other EU countries where you can't opt out, and as a way to lower the cost of collection (something I've noticed some people criticise the UK's system for), a great idea from that point of view as it'd be collected at the same time as another fee, so no duplication of collection costs.
Although I suspect some of the residents may not be too happy about the loss of any option to opt out.

But hey, they'd be getting rid of the TV licence
Just getting it rebranded and impossible to avoid, something I've been suggesting might happen in the UK for a while if they get their wish (the old saying about being careful about what you wish for, and all that) and generally getting called all sorts of things by some of the people that are very vocally anti TVL or anti BBC

System

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

Buzby wrote: »

Just as much as you forget it was created to permit the legal reception of broadcast serviced .

It was created to fund the BBC as there was nothing else around at the time. Today its just a left-wing mouthpiece which is why people spend so much time defending it.

Lets be honest if the public want the BBC it will be here via a voluntary subscription but if they don't it wont.

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

wiogs

TheWise1 wrote: »

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)



It was created to fund the BBC as there was nothing else around at the time. Today its just a left-wing mouthpiece which is why people spend so much time defending it.

Lets be honest if the public want the BBC it will be here via a voluntary subscription but if they don't it wont.

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

Apparently not https://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-how-biased-is-the-bbc-17028 which must annoy a lot of people and screw up their arguments