TV Licensing - Do I Need to Remove Antenna Cables from room?

Cornucopia

House_Martin wrote: »

180000 !! wow..assuming that this is only the tip of the iceberg it just shows you how many are getting away scot free. Capita will only catch a fraction, possibly those who don t visit advice websites on how to deal with TV licence enforcers.

According to BBC figures (which have some caveats) they estimate "evasion" to be as high as 7%, or around 1.9m households. Unfortunately, they seem to be perpetually unable to distinguish LLF households in these stats, so that figure could include them. Even so, I expect that Capita is "catching" around 10-15% of all evaders each year. Whether that's good, bad or indifferent I don't know.

Having said that, if BBC/Capita wanted to prosecute 1.9m defendants, then the system would collapse, so it's probably best that they don't.

Funny how you highlight women being the greater number facing prosecutions.Thats good then !.Capita are doing a great job. Whats the problem with that ? They are more likely to be at home in the daytime on childcare duties.Nothing sexist or sinister in that is there

The other statistic is that the female:male ratio has increased 29% over the past 6 or 7 years. That suggests that other factors are in play - other than who is at home looking after children.

A criminal is a criminal male or female...

Bringing in the "sexism " card is a bit of a low blow Cornucopia, I think you should drop that line personally

Yes... and no. All law enforcement should be free of discrimination. The official BBC line is that they do not know why the gender disparity is as it is. Which suggests that they cannot prove that there is no discrimination.

I'm just reporting the facts. If there is an innocent explanation, then that is for the BBC to provide. The only problem being that they are unable or unwilling to do so. In that context, I'm certainly not going to suppress the facts just because the BBC is unable to explain them.

She obviously was watching normal scheduled TV or BBC or she would nt have been nabbed...

That isn't how TVL work (generally speaking). They work by bluster and bullying, and by undermining people's rights in interview under caution (which is usually their sole evidence). They do not use physical evidence of evasion, and none is captured as evidence.

Some rogue staff have also been known to fabricate or exaggerate to make people appear guilty when there is no proof, and TVL systems do not seem to be very well designed to prevent that.

In that context, you can (possibly) see how women and men might end up being treated differently, and responding differently. Hence discrimination. More generally, the TVL system has as many as 60-70 flaws (some major, some minor, some legal, some practical), and there's a sense in which a system that was properly constituted could justify an apparently discriminatory outcome, but an improperly constituted one cannot justify the same outcome. Presumably, that lack of coherence in the system is one of the reasons why the BBC is unable to explain the gender disparity.

silverwhistle

House_Martin wrote: »

And what does your family think of your odd decision to abandon TV ? ( was that coherent enough ) or are you a selfish person who is nt bothered what they think.

I'll just pick on this and ignore the rest of your rather unpleasant post. Your thinking is riddled with assumptions, coloured no doubt by your experiences.

I didn't abandon TV, I had a black and white when I first bought my house 30+ years ago and I didn't immediately replace it when it went pop. I found I didn't miss it and never replaced it. Family have no issue, they can use their tablets if visiting overnight and I have told my GF that I'll get a telly if she moves in.

My choice is not an economic one, can you please try and understand that. I paid for solar panels and wood-burner from savings. I'm not unaware of the content available on television, gosh, friends have them and so does ancient parent. Even the local pub where I go to watch the football games that interest me, mainly away games for the top division side for which I have a decent season ticket.

But I really struggle to understand how people find the time for TV when there are so many other things to do. Occasionally you have to explain to people when you're met with blank incomprehension, but I'll let you make your own list.

So we're all different, and it would be nice if you just accepted that.

Apologies to Cornucopia, by the way. I occasionally get a little irritated. :-)

House_Martin

Cornucopia wrote: »

According to BBC figures (which have some caveats) they estimate "evasion" to be as high as 7%, or around 1.9m households. Unfortunately, they seem to be perpetually unable to distinguish LLF households in these stats, so that figure could include them. Even so, I expect that Capita is "catching" around 10-15% of all evaders each year. Whether that's good, bad or indifferent I don't know.

Having said that, if BBC/Capita wanted to prosecute 1.9m defendants, then the system would collapse, so it's probably best that they don't.


The other statistic is that the female:male ratio has increased 29% over the past 6 or 7 years. That suggests that other factors are in play - other than who is at home looking after children.


Yes... and no. All law enforcement should be free of discrimination. The official BBC line is that they do not know why the gender disparity is as it is. Which suggests that they cannot prove that there is no discrimination.

I'm just reporting the facts. If there is an innocent explanation, then that is for the BBC to provide. The only problem being that they are unable or unwilling to do so. In that context, I'm certainly not going to suppress the facts just because the BBC is unable to explain them.


That isn't how TVL work (generally speaking). They work by bluster and bullying, and by undermining people's rights in interview under caution (which is usually their sole evidence). They do not use physical evidence of evasion, and none is captured as evidence.

Some rogue staff have also been known to fabricate or exaggerate to make people appear guilty when there is no proof, and TVL systems do not seem to be very well designed to prevent that.

In that context, you can (possibly) see how women and men might end up being treated differently, and responding differently. Hence discrimination. More generally, the TVL system has as many as 60-70 flaws (some major, some minor, some legal, some practical), and there's a sense in which a system that was properly constituted could justify an apparently discriminatory outcome, but an improperly constituted one cannot justify the same outcome. Presumably, that lack of coherence in the system is one of the reasons why the BBC is unable to explain the gender disparity.

Can you point to any Youtube clips of all this "bluster and bullying " you claim by TVL
I have`nt seen any. Surely someone would have videod one by now and got it on Youtube.
.All I see is aggressive distasteful and very threatening "bluster and bullying " from licence evaders who do not want to be caught and well mannered Capita employees trying to get away without getting attacked
So the BBC themselves estimate as many as 1.9 million households, who are fiddling the licence fee. That shocked me there were so many.
I hope the general public don`t hear of this because there will be another 1.9 million next year saying "if they can get away with it , so can I ".Then another million the year after that'
If I remember correctly that is exactly what happened in Australia leading to a collapse in their TV licensing system so maybe you and your mates are doing the BBC (and all the honest people who pay their way ) a big favour and it leads to a complete collapse of the TV licence and the BBC go to a Sky type set-top box..I hope so.That would suit me fine so long as they keep out the damn adverts
Its no good saying that "some " rogue Capita staff have cooked the books, thats like saying some Westminster Tory and Shadow Cabinet ministers have roving hands. Theres always a rotten apple in the barrel in every job

HWW

Capita/BBC PR rides again......Mikw & ASH_M1 rolled into one......

Cornucopia

House_Martin wrote: »

Can you point to any Youtube clips of all this "bluster and bullying " you claim by TVL
I have`nt seen any. Surely someone would have videod one by now and got it on Youtube.

We probably need to discuss Observer Bias - or perhaps you could look it up?

Also "Bluster" means something quite specific - which is essentially glossing over legal details to obtain an unfair advantage using misleading, overbearing or ambiguous language and you wouldn't necessarily see that on a video if you didn't know what you were looking for.

More generally, TVL had a standard policy for a long while of retreating whenever they were filmed. This policy was changed a couple of years ago although the TVL Field staff are still instructed to leave if they feel that their "safety" is threatened by filming, although I'm not entirely clear on what they mean by "safety" in this context. Certainly when a householder films them, it takes away their control of the situation, and it's unlikely that they will get as far as conducting an interview under caution (I don't think I have ever seen that happen except in the handful of TVL warrant videos - and you can definitely see PACE issues in those videos).

All I see is aggressive distasteful and very threatening "bluster and bullying " from licence evaders who do not want to be caught and well mannered Capita employees trying to get away without getting attacked

This is another reason why I'm not sure that there is much point in discussing individual videos - you appear to have an "unconventional" view about what you are seeing. You are presumably viewing it in the context of meter reading, which is an entirely lawful and uncontroversial activity in which you would expect all parties to remain calm and cooperative.

But TVL "visits" are not that.

So you need to view householders' reactions in the context of the unlawful and controversial nature of TVL's approach. Even then, there are 4 million attempted visits by TVL each year, so the few hundred YT videos are a tiny fraction of that.

You also need to bear in mind that in terms of applicable law, there is a fair amount of scope for a householder to harangue a visitor - if the visitor doesn't like it, the law presumes that they will take the easiest option, which is to leave. As I mentioned previously, householders have an absolute right to film on their premises (and also in public). There are some issues around publication of those videos, but making them is unrestricted.

Its no good saying that "some " rogue Capita staff have cooked the books, thats like saying some Westminster Tory and Shadow Cabinet ministers have roving hands. Theres always a rotten apple in the barrel in every job

Not really - and again, your comments suggest an "unconventional" view of the context.

I am expected to "voluntarily" admit someone from a particular workforce into my home, and then to allow them to "do their job" in completing a course of questioning leading to interview under caution. If I am aware of individuals from that workforce who have acted inappropriately in exactly that activity previously, then that would seem like another good reason not to volunteer for it (because the random member of staff might be similarly rogue, because it might be indicative of a broader cultural malaise, and because the approach is flawed not just in implementation, but in policy, too).

We know that there have been rogue staff because some of them have been captured on video, and some have been prosecuted for various offences connected to their "duties".

House_Martin

Thank you Cornucopia, especially for that little gem of a set of figures about how many HOUSEHOLDS the BBC estimate are evading the TV licence which they consider to be 1.9 million, a huge number.
There are approx 19 million households in the UK so I make that 10%, not 7.5%, or one in every ten fleecing the other 9.
Bearing in mind that is in the BBCs interests to downplay the figures the true figure is likely to be much higher.
That sends out a message to everyone else to also join the club seeing as how that lot are getting away with it , well so can I.
If I just take the advice I can get online from the experts on TV licence s then I m £147 better off and I could use that to join Amazon Prime, for cheap postage and other rubbish TV and Netflix so I can view more awful Americana.
All I have to do is open the door to Capita now and again and just treat them like any other cold caller and say "no thanks, good day "
Carry on the good work Cornucopia, you are helping the BBC to get to critical Licence evader figure, say 25% when they would have to follow what the Australians did when their population did the same thing and rejected a TV licence.
I want the BBC to start a Sky system and make it subscription only with their quite hard to beat set top box, so carry on the good work advising people to go "legally licence free "
Personally I think you should drop the word "legal " from the moniker and just make it LF, and also depart from this forum altogether because IMO you are aiding and abetting others to break the law.
You may have high standards and stick to your claim to view only catch-up and avoid BBC altogether but others most certainly wont..and that is a fact that already 1.9 million are taking advantage of.

Cornucopia

House_Martin wrote: »

Thank you Cornucopia, especially for that little gem of a set of figures about how many HOUSEHOLDS the BBC estimate are evading the TV licence which they consider to be 1.9 million, a huge number.
There are approx 19 million households in the UK...

According to the ONS (and they should know), there are 27.1 million households in the UK as of 2016. This was the figure that my 1.9 million was based upon.

Bearing in mind that is in the BBCs interests to downplay the figures the true figure is likely to be much higher.

I'm not sure that I follow that logic. There are advantages and disadvantages in both directions, I think. The best policy for all public authorities is honesty and transparency (which isn't something that seems to come easily to the BBC).

All I have to do is open the door to Capita now and again and just treat them like any other cold caller and so "no thanks, good day "

Yes, you can. Or you can leave them standing outside and not open the door. It's not like meter reading. Not at all.

Carry on the good work Cornucopia, you are helping the BBC to get to critical Licence evader figure, say 25% when they would have to follow what the Australians did when their population did the same thing and rejected a TV licence.

Realistically, there is a long way to go on that. My advice to the BBC would be to release the ban on watching commercial TV without a Licence, and to begin controlling access to BBC services using technical means before the Licence becomes too anachronistic to function.

Personally I think you should drop the word "legal " from the moniker and just make it LF...

I like LLF - it captures the truth (like we say "Caffeine-free Coke" and not "Decaffeinated Coke" because there was never any Caffeine in the Coke to begin with).

Given the confusion that still persists in the minds of the Public and the MSM, I think that "legally" is quite an important qualification in distinguishing LLF from evaders. It's now entered the folklore, anyway, and would probably be difficult to change.

I'd quite like to stop using the term "threatograms" and adopt "hollowgrams" as a way of reflecting the true status of the TVL letters, but that ship has sailed.

and also depart from this forum altogether because IMO you are aiding and abetting others to break the law.

I can assure you that that isn't the case (though it isn't beyond the scope of MSE and other public forums to discuss unlawful behaviour in general terms). If you have a problem with anything I've posted, please do raise it with the Forum team using the link in my signature.

You may have high standards and stick to your claim to view only catch-up and avoid BBC altogether but others most certainly wont..and that is a fact that already 1.9 million are taking advantage of.

Which is part of my issue with what BBC/TVL are doing - they are ineffective at the single thing that they are set up to achieve (tackling evasion).

A prosecution rate of 10-15% is terrible, given that they claim to have technology that can detect Licence evasion using technical means with what they claim is a high degree of accuracy.

Cornucopia

Comments from the Parliamentary Accounts Committee on the gender imbalance in TVL prosecutions:-

... the Department for Culture, Media & Sport and the BBC are currently examining the gender disparity in TV licence fee prosecutions...

Their work is incomplete, but the BBC told us of some early findings: that there are 10% more female households; that women are more likely to be the named licence fee holder; and that they are more likely to answer the door to enforcement officers.

It is unclear when the review will be complete. At that point, the BBC and Capita will need to act quickly to address any systemic unfairness in their approach to enforcing the licence fee with men and women

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmpubacc/1037/1037.pdf

Which sounds promising, although I'm not clear why the name on the Licence Fee account should have any bearing on the gender of the person who is ultimately prosecuted for evasion.

Equally, 10% more "female households" is a small fraction of the 244% more female prosecutions.

The key question of whether it is plausible that women are 2.5 times more likely to offend by TV Licence evasion than men has been glossed-over in the PAC discussions, IMHO.

HWW

House_Martin wrote: »

Thank you Cornucopia, especially for that little gem of a set of figures about how many HOUSEHOLDS the BBC estimate are evading the TV licence which they consider to be 1.9 million, a huge number.
There are approx 19 million households in the UK so I make that 10%, not 7.5%, or one in every ten fleecing the other 9.
Bearing in mind that is in the BBCs interests to downplay the figures the true figure is likely to be much higher.
That sends out a message to everyone else to also join the club seeing as how that lot are getting away with it , well so can I.
If I just take the advice I can get online from the experts on TV licence s then I m £147 better off and I could use that to join Amazon Prime, for cheap postage and other rubbish TV and Netflix so I can view more awful Americana.
All I have to do is open the door to Capita now and again and just treat them like any other cold caller and say "no thanks, good day "
Carry on the good work Cornucopia, you are helping the BBC to get to critical Licence evader figure, say 25% when they would have to follow what the Australians did when their population did the same thing and rejected a TV licence.
I want the BBC to start a Sky system and make it subscription only with their quite hard to beat set top box, so carry on the good work advising people to go "legally licence free "
Personally I think you should drop the word "legal " from the moniker and just make it LF, and also depart from this forum altogether because IMO you are aiding and abetting others to break the law.
You may have high standards and stick to your claim to view only catch-up and avoid BBC altogether but others most certainly wont..and that is a fact that already 1.9 million are taking advantage of.

The truth is, the BBC will never go to subscription - as only a handful will pay when the have true "CHOICE" in their entertainment. Who want to fund a corrupted, biased & !!!!! supporting, over manned mess, that the BBC truly is?
Very few, I would think.
So this is the main reason why the BBC clings to the TVL - self preservation, nothing more, nothing less.


Your defence of the BBC, reeks of Mikw & ASH_M1 rolled into one, heard of them? These BBC sock puppets haunt Digital spy, along with a lot of other BBC/Capita PR employee usernames.

Cornucopia

HWW wrote: »

The truth is, the BBC will never go to subscription - as only a handful will pay when the have true "CHOICE" in their entertainment. Who want to fund a corrupted, biased & !!!!! supporting, over manned mess, that the BBC truly is?
Very few, I would think.
So this is the main reason why the BBC clings to the TVL - self preservation, nothing more, nothing less.

The only issue being that the BBC and the Licence were never designed to be near-universal. Apologies if I posted this before on this thread, but only 17% of households had a TV Licence in 1953. The fact of a near-universal BBC has only occurred in the past 15-20 years, though the BBC has readily adopted and exploited the idea in its own defence.

Your defence of the BBC, reeks of Mikw & ASH_M1 rolled into one, heard of them? These BBC sock puppets haunt Digital spy, along with a lot of other BBC/Capita PR employee usernames.

Although I think there's a genuine question about the apparent implausible passion for the pro-BBC view amongst certain posters on certain forums, I think it has the potential for forum disharmony if assumptions are made about posters' affiliations away from MSE.