TV Licence article Discussion

Cornucopia

I'm not defending them (it would be easy to make the Licence start on a day and run for 1 year from that day)....

However, the reason they don't make it clear is because you either need a Licence or you don't. And if you do, it's a legal requirement to have one. So whilst they could say: "only 2 days left in the month - have you considered not watching or recording TV broadcasts and renewing next month?" in reality, it would just encourage people to evade for those few days.

sniggings

netztiger wrote: »

I understand that cw18 but think that it is a total ripoff. We were returning from overseas and had they made that clear on the website, I would have waited 3 more days to purchase it. I feel that I have paid the same as everyone else but got 48 weeks instead of 52. They should make that clear on the website when purchasing.

:mad:

cancel, get a refund for any unused months, watch catchup tv for a month, then if you really want to watch live tv, repurchase a licence, that way you sort of get you month back.

sniggings

Cornucopia wrote: »

I'm not defending them (it would be easy to make the Licence start on a day and run for 1 year from that day)....

However, the reason they don't make it clear is because you either need a Licence or you don't. And if you do, it's a legal requirement to have one. So whilst they could say: "only 2 days left in the month - have you considered not watching or recording TV broadcasts and renewing next month?" in reality, it would just encourage people to evade for those few days.

Not sure what you mean saying "you either need a licence or not" that seems to e implying just having a TV requires a licence, when you don't, so yes it's factualy correct you either need one or you don't, tho if they were to tell people, they could then make a decision not to watch live TV, therefore going from needing one to not needing one.

People could only watch catchup for the few days till the start off the month, not telling people is unfair, it's treating people as dodgers from the very start.

Cornucopia

allule wrote: »

the subscription system needs rethinking, now that people watch programmes in so many different ways, but it needs to be independent of government to limit political pressure.

By "subscription", I assume you mean Licence Fee, because full subscription is, for me, the simplest way to achieve what you suggest. It would be easy for the public to understand, it would remove the need for the hated TVL doorsteppers, and if the BBC is as popular as it says it is, it should raise more than enough money to maintain the existing services, independently of Government.

TBH, I'm always a little sceptical when people talk about independence of the BBC. What is it, exactly that they fear? The BBC is already duty-bound to impartiality, and I cannot believe that the gap between "impartial" and "Government mouth-piece" is vast, even if the Government did begin to micro-manage the BBC, which seems unlikely.

I wonder if what people fear is that the BBC truly is a bit Left-wing, and that would be lost if they had to toe the Government line?

One factor which came up a couple of years ago, is that the BBC pays Sky to show BBC programmes, where in other countries it is the reverse. This caused indignation at the time, but I don't think anything has been done about this?

I don't know the exact figures, but I would be surprised if this is anything more than a drop in the ocean for the BBC. What I can't believe is that the BBC never leveraged these payments to get access to a list of new Pay TV installations under the old Dealer Notification rules.

Cornucopia

sniggings wrote: »

Not sure what you mean saying "you either need a licence or not" that seems to e implying just having a TV requires a licence....

I suggest you re-read it. I actually used the phrase "watching or recording TV broadcasts", so I'm not sure what the source of your confusion is.

People could only watch catchup for the few days till the start off the month, not telling people is unfair, it's treating people as dodgers from the very start.

Yes - that's what they do.

I imagine that the BBC/TVL look at the figures and see that 90%+ of households need a Licence, and consider that few people would forego the delights of TV broadcasting for a few days just to save £12. They may be wrong on that, and I totally agree that they should tell the truth about it....

But there are many, many other things that they should also tell the truth about, but don't. It is their thing - the lies, half-truths and improper omissions they make that are intrinsic to the way they run their business.

I wonder whether they have some kind of exclusion zone around the Watchdog office for all matters pertaining to the TV Licence? If messrs Robinson, Allwright and Hollins ever got sight of the misdeamenours of TV Licensing they would implode in a puff of camp, self-righteous, eyebrow-raising.

sniggings

Cornucopia wrote: »

I'm not defending them (it would be easy to make the Licence start on a day and run for 1 year from that day)....

However, the reason they don't make it clear is because you either need a Licence or you don't.

I got it from your post here

Cornucopia wrote: »

I suggest you re-read it. I actually used the phrase "watching or recording TV broadcasts", so I'm not sure what the source of your confusion is.

when going from needing a licence to not needing one, is only a matter of flicking a switch or unplugging a cable, saying you either need one or you don't is to simplistic.

Cornucopia

sniggings wrote: »

I got it from your post here

when going from needing a licence to not needing one, is only a matter of flicking a switch or unplugging a cable, saying you either need one or you don't is to simplistic.

Not really sure what your issue is, here. You clearly know what I mean, and my response was couched in terms of "what they probably think", anyway.

When your household is 1 or 2 adults, then yes, flicking an option or removing a lead is what is required. When you have to appease the kids, or a soap/sport-addict, there can be complications.

If your issue is: "what side is he on?", I can give you a 14-page analysis of the flaws in TV Licensing's approach, which was part of an official submission to the Perry Review, however I'm not sure how MSE would feel about that.

These are the opening bullet-points...

These are the issues:-

• Communication with the public that is abusive, misleading and disrespectful.

• A Doorstepping operation that is of questionable legality and dubious effectiveness in the apprehension of committed Licence Fee evaders.

• An interview methodology that fails to meet basic standards of evidence and process.

• An unduly close relationship with the Courts,

• A Search Warrant mechanism that is cloaked in secrecy and appears to be an abuse of process in its entirety.

• Filtering of cases that is not in the public interest, including socio-economic discrimination.

• Too many opportunities for fraud by rogue employees in an environment with a woefully poor level of scrutiny and supervision, “mixed messages” and confused objectives.

• A prosecution process in which all of the authorities are aware of the flaws in the processes, but proceed anyway – failing to meet the basic requirements of justice.

ScoobyZ

Just on the news they are closing the live TV loophole. You will have to pay again soon. I'm pleased to see that, too many people expecting something for nothing these days.

silverwhistle

ScoobyZ wrote: »

Just on the news they are closing the live TV loophole.

Can you explain that please as I don't understand what you are talking about? Not having a TV you see.

Cornucopia

ScoobyZ wrote: »

Just on the news they are closing the live TV loophole. You will have to pay again soon. I'm pleased to see that, too many people expecting something for nothing these days.

Err... no.

This is what they've announced today:-

- BBC to take on Over-75s licences - being phased-in over a period of time between 2018/9 & 2020/1.

- The Licence Fee will be extended to cover "catch-up services for public service broadcasters". I take this to mean BBC1 & 2, ITV1, C4 and Five. Although this makes a certain amount of sense from a regulatory viewpoint, in practice it is a hugely messy compromise which could see C4 programs requiring a Licence and E4 programs not (who knows what will happen to programs that appear on the main channel and are repeated on a non-PSB offshoot channel).

- The government "could" allow the BBC to charge for iPlayer services

- Decriminalising non-payment of the licence fee will be "carefully considered" by the government

- Subject to charter renewal, the Licence Fee to rise in line with CPI inflation over the next charter period.