Dont need a TV licence

Cornucopia

Nilrem wrote: »

A nice bit of misinformation.

The BBC don't set the legislation, the government does.

The enforcement processes of TV Licensing have nothing to do with legislation. And if they are not based on legislation, they can only come from one place - the BBC. More fundamentally, if they are not based on legislation, the BBC has no business trying to impose them upon the Public.

The BBC is in a mess with TV Licensing - a mess of its own creation. I've asked them for information about the fundamentals of what it is doing, and it refuses to answer. It won't say what the remit of TV Licensing is, and how it relates to legislation (because it doesn't), and it won't say how it's process is consensual (which it states is required to ensure that it doesn't breach the Human Rights Act).

This all needs sorting out, because otherwise the tipping point (where a sufficiently large people are not only no longer falling for the BBC's misinformation, but are positively disgusted by it) cannot be far off.

The BBC can't decide to encrypt, and doing so would mean they would by definition no longer be a PSB, they'd become like Sky or VM.

We've just seen the BBC lobby Government for what "it" wanted, which was to resolve the so-called iPlayer loophole. There is nothing to stop the BBC lobbying for the lock-down of iPlayer, behind a "Licence wall". The argument that this would cause it to cease to be a universal PSB is ludicrous - the Licence already does that, and will increasingly do so as technology evolves.

Also most TVL related fines are around £100...

£150 average, as I already stated. A typical fine for an employed person is more like £400, so there is some variation there.

TBH, I think arguing over the amount of the fine is somewhat churlish. The fundamental point is that watching TV is not an activity that requires licensing by the State. That's pretty indisputable. The funding of the BBC is another matter entirely, and as I said above, the linkage between them puts the BBC in a fundamentally conflicted position.

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

BBC so called owned [STRIKE]Free[/STRIKE]Payview had technology to encrypt its channels. The BBC refused to do this because it would end their regressive TV Tax,

The BBC funding method is outdated and not viable in this age. It is a tin competitive and a state funded monopoly.

Scrap the TV Tax

Cornucopia

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth wrote: »

BBC so called owned [STRIKE]Free[/STRIKE]Payview had technology to encrypt its channels. The BBC refused to do this because it would end their regressive TV Tax,

I wouldn't worry. Nilrem is trying to put forward a slightly academic argument that doesn't really make sense in the real world, certainly not after 1 September. He is saying that the Licence (Fee) works because anyone can access the BBC whether they have a Licence or not, and therefore it remains a universally-available Public Service Broadcaster. Whereas if it locked-down its services to subscribers only, it would cease to be that. Which overlooks the small matter that the section of society viewing BBC broadcasts without a Licence are breaking the law (and that will extend to all BBC services post-1 Sep).

The other thing it overlooks is that there are 3 other universally-available PSBs: ITV, C4, and C5, which all have different funding methods to the BBC, but they are still PSBs. There's also the practical matter that in these days of universal Freeview access, a channel like Quest or Yesterday arguably has a better claim to be PSB than, say, C5.

But then we find that Yesterday is half-owned by the BBC and funded by advertising. So it's quite a complex environment within which to be making bold claims.

The BBC funding method is outdated and not viable in this age.

I agree.

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

It is the fact that the other services part owned by the BBC get their income through advertising, yet we have to fund the regressive TV Tax to keep the BBC. It is outdated in today's market.

Scrap the TV Tax

Marvqn1

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth wrote: »

It is the fact that the other services part owned by the BBC get their income through advertising, yet we have to fund the regressive TV Tax to keep the BBC. It is outdated in today's market.

Scrap the TV Tax

Imagine though if it was announced this week that the licence fee was going to be scrapped and the BBC would be ad funded. Loads of people across the country would be complaining that they'll have to put up with ads every 15 minutes when watching a programme on the BBC. You can't please everyone.

mcjordi

Retrogamer wrote: »

There are a few people that have been prosecuted in court IIRC when they had a TV aerial connected but weren't actually caught watching live TV.

The judgement was set on the balance of probabilities IIRC however this confuses me somewhat because i think it was a criminal offense and not a civil offense.

they would of signed the "confession" from the salesman aka TVL

Cornucopia

Marvqn1 wrote: »

Imagine though if it was announced this week that the licence fee was going to be scrapped and the BBC would be ad funded. Loads of people across the country would be complaining that they'll have to put up with ads every 15 minutes when watching a programme on the BBC. You can't please everyone.

Yes, I don't disagree. The problem is that the BBC operates its TV Licensing wing with a huge amount of bad faith and dubious legal compliance.

I'm sure it would complain that if it were to clean up its act, it would "catch" fewer evaders and sell fewer Licences. Which is a pathetic argument that few people would tolerate from any other institution.

All I really want is the BBC "tanks" off my lawn, and those of all other people in the UK who legitimately have no need for a Licence in accordance with the law of the land. Is that really too much to demand (and I do demand rather than ask)?

Dave.44

Marvqn1 wrote: »

Imagine though if it was announced this week that the licence fee was going to be scrapped and the BBC would be ad funded. .

As the BBC is a public service why can it not be funded in the same way as other public services, by government funding out of income tax or NI. We nearly all watch TV regularly and virtually all benefit in some way from it. (News, weather etc. etc. by word of mouth) So, no adds, remove the licence and raise income tax a little to compersate. Net result would be the same finanacially but the fees would be more effficiently collected. As with national health, Police protection, armed forces, etc. everyone would benefit, those who can't pay would legitimately not need to and those who currently won't pay would find it much harder to avoid.

Also, it would change the concept to a charge per person regardless of where you are or which TV set you are looking at or even which iPlayer you are using.

KingS6

Dave.44 wrote: »

As the BBC is a public service why can it not be funded in the same way as other public services, by government funding out of income tax or NI. We nearly all watch TV regularly and virtually all benefit in some way from it. (News, weather etc. etc. by word of mouth) So, no adds, remove the licence and raise income tax a little to compersate. Net result would be the same finanacially but the fees would be more effficiently collected. As with national health, Police protection, armed forces, etc. everyone would benefit, those who can't pay would legitimately not need to and those who currently won't pay would find it much harder to avoid.

Also, it would change the concept to a charge per person regardless of where you are or which TV set you are looking at or even which iPlayer you are using.

Poll tax riots anyone?

If the government attempted to that, the general public would tell the government and the BBC to Foxtrot Oscar.

The BBC tried to float something similar by incorporating the payments into Council Tax and they realised it could be the very thing that would end them.

Not worth the negative PR. Why do you think Capita/TV Licensing don't have any BBC logos on their letters or adverts? They don't want to be associated with it

The public are already increasingly weary of the licence fee, the BBC wouldn't want to rock the boat too much.

The idea also penalises those who do not wish to watch television. They will not benefit from the change. A lot of people may watch TV regularly but that doesn't mean the BBC exclusively and I'm licence free anyway so I certainly wouldn't benefit from it. I wouldn't stand to gain anything only lose more money for something I'm not interested in.

I don't wish to purchase any BBC services, whether that is through direct or indirect payment!

Dave.44

A very cynical reply KingS6.
Most of my suggestion is already in place. The BBC is funded by Gov revenues albeit licence fees, shortcomings being made up by the Gov. (That means you and me.)
All the PR would be announcing cancellation of the Licence Fees. Who is going to complain about that. Income Tax levels would not noticeably change.
As you are one of those who won’t pay you would be caught out. I agree with that.
I have 3 licences because I have 3 properties. I would definitely benefit. Bring back Maggie and the Pole Tax I say.