TV Licence article Discussion

[Deleted User]

davidlizard wrote: »

1. They have no right of access - they can only enter if they have obtained a warrant from court and executed in the presence of a uniformed police officer.

Not strictly correct.

They don't legally require an accompanying police officer, although they usually have one.

[Deleted User]

paddy's_mum wrote: »

as I understand it they must attend with a police officer in tow in order to prevent a breach of the peace.

They don't legally require an accompanying police officer, but they invariably bring one.

Can they use the search warrant as justification to force entry in my absence?

Yes they can force entry, but it's their policy not to.

Zapito

cw18 wrote: »

But I don't see why I should be forced to pay towards the making of programmes I don't watch - either live or on catch-up.

Every time I buy a product that is advertised on TV automatically included in its price is a contribution towards the cost of that advert, which I have to pay regardless of whether I ever watched it or the TV station it was shown on.

But it would no doubt be offered to those on income based benefits only, in line with the current help for medical costs. Those of us who earn just above benefits level and have to pay for medical would no doubt be unable to get any help with this either.

That is a matter which needs to be decided politically. You are free to make representations through your MP, etc.

[Deleted User]

Zapito wrote: »

Every time I buy a product that is advertised on TV automatically included in its price is a contribution towards the cost of that advert, which I have to pay regardless of whether I ever watched it or the TV station it was shown on.

But, in the case of the BBC, you're not buying a product.

Try thinking of it as a supermarket insisting you pay them (even though you never shop with them), before you are allowed to shop with one of their rivals.

Or, if you prefer, it's like having to buy a copy of one newspaper (even though you never read it), before you are allowed to buy any other newspapers.

enfield_freddy

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

They don't legally require an accompanying police officer, but they invariably bring one.



Yes they can force entry, but it's their policy not to.

has a civilian (not a court appointed official) got the authority to serve a search warrant?




http://www.lime-marmalade.net/philip_dean.html




"Question: As to the fear of doors being 'kicked in' by the police because of a person being on holiday or at work, could you confirm that such would not be the case for possible TV licence evasion?

Reply: It is not our policy, when administering a search warrant (which we always do in the presence of police officers) to force entry to an address if the occupier is not at home. The officers would simply return at another time. I asked the same question of Gwent Police, who also confirmed that their police officers only accompany a TVL visiting officer to prevent a breach of the peace. They weren't there to force entry into a property"

[Deleted User]

enfield_freddy wrote: »

has a civilian (not a court appointed official) got the authority to serve a search warrant?

Yes.

From the Communications Act 2003:-

366_Powers_to_enforce_TV_licensing wrote:

(2) A warrant under this section is a warrant authorising any one or more persons authorised for the purpose by the BBC or by OFCOM—

(a) to enter the premises or vehicle at any time (either alone or in the company of one or more constables); and

(b) to search the premises or vehicle and examine and test any television receiver found there.

Zapito

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

Zapito wrote: »

Every time I buy a product that is advertised on TV automatically included in its price is a contribution towards the cost of that advert, which I have to pay regardless of whether I ever watched it or the TV station it was shown on.

But, in the case of the BBC, you're not buying a product.

No, when you pay the licence fee you are not buying a product, I agree. What you are doing is paying a fee in order to gain the right to receive broadcasts. You are not compelled to receive broadcasts, but if you do then you are required to pay the licence fee. In return, the proceeds of that fee (unlike in most countries where a TV licence is also required) are used entirely to fund what is undoubtedly the best broadcasting service in the world.

And, moreover, once you have paid that small fee, you are entitled to enjoy as much (or as little) of that fabulous output as you wish. And remember, that's not just "you", but everyone in your household, plus any guests who happen to be there at the time.

Try thinking of it as a supermarket insisting you pay them (even though you never shop with them), before you are allowed to shop with one of their rivals.

Or, if you prefer, it's like having to buy a copy of one newspaper (even though you never read it), before you are allowed to buy any other newspapers.

It is nothing like either of those fanciful ideas. What it could be said it is more like, perhaps, could be the road system, which we are all obliged to pay for through taxes, regardless of how much we use them, whether we even have a car, or even if we live in a tent in the middle of a forest miles from a motorway. Or, it could perhaps be said, it is like the charge that in Scotland all have to make to provide the water supply so that every citizen has access to as much water as they need (unlike England, where privatisation has made water incredibly more costly for most households).

As to your silly example of a newspaper, most newspapers I understand cost a great deal more each per day than the measly 40p for the whole vast range and variety of BBC output.

It is an illusion, also, to think that commercial TV is "free". We all pay for it, and vastly greater sums than the BBC pittance, through the advertising charges incorporated within the pricing of daily products. The principal difference is simply that those charges are invisible to us, whereas that for the BBC is completely transparent. Another vital difference however, with commercial broadcasters, is that the audience has little or no direct input into the management, which is entirely the responsibility of their shareholders; whereas, with the BBC, the shareholders are the audience and everyone is able to have input, both directly by direct communication with the BBC, and indirectly via political channels.

[Deleted User]

Zapito wrote: »

No, when you pay the licence fee you are not buying a product, I agree. What you are doing is paying a fee in order to gain the right to receive broadcasts.

But the fee you pay only goes to one broadcaster, which you are paying, even if you don't consume their product.

what is undoubtedly the best broadcasting service in the world.

It's not undoubtedly at all. That's just your opinion.

It is nothing like either of those fanciful ideas.

It's only your opinion, that they're fanciful.

As to your silly example of a newspaper

And again, it's only your opinion that my examples are silly.

most newspapers I understand cost a great deal more each per day than the measly 40p for the whole vast range and variety of BBC output.

The price is irrelevant. You're paying for a product you aren't consuming.

Would you be happy buying a newspaper you're not interested in, in order to be permitted to read the ones that do interest you?

Cornucopia

Zapito wrote: »

Every time I buy a product that is advertised on TV automatically included in its price is a contribution towards the cost of that advert, which I have to pay regardless of whether I ever watched it or the TV station it was shown on.

Do you have any research that supports this statement? I would say that it clearly isn't true in the way you've stated it. At the very least it is so susceptible to personal shopping choices as to be meaningless in terms of "having" to pay anything.

Zapito

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

But the fee you pay only goes to one broadcaster, which you are paying, even if you don't consume their product.

Actually not so. At least some of the licence fee goes to Channel 4 TV, some also I believe to Alba TV and The World Service (radio), and possibly others too. But yes, I agree, it is mainly used for BBC. But that is what the licence fee was set up for.

The airwaves are controlled by the government (that's what government does - it controls things). Originally only the BBC was allowed to broadcast. Eventually ITV was allowed use of the airwaves, one provision (of many) being that the licence fee would apply to it and continue to fund BBC. That is the deal in this country, and always has been.

If you don't like it, and prefer to have a shoddier service as in most other countries, then you are of course perfectly free to conduct a political campaign for it. Just as in the 1960's people were free to campaign to end the monopoly of BBC radio (only in their case their wish was justified, as the BBC radio monopoly had become a tool for repression).

It's not undoubtedly at all. That's just your opinion.

I agree it is my opinion, but not that it is just my opinion. I have absolutely no hesitation whatsoever is asserting that "the BBC is undoubtedly the best broadcasting service in the world".

It's only your opinion, that they're fanciful.

Your two ideas, regarding the supermarket and regarding the newspaper, were both your own ideas and have no basis to or connection with any arrangements which actually exist and, therefore, they indisputably are fanciful.

And again, it's only your opinion that my examples are silly.

Agreed. As yet I have not consulted anyone else about them. Would you like me to?

The price is irrelevant. You're paying for a product you aren't consuming.

People pay towards loads of stuff they don't directly consume, or in some cases actually object to. We all pay toward the education system, even when not currently being educated or having kids being educated. The defence forces. Royalty. Opera. Nuclear power subsidies. Wind farm subsidies. The roads. rail, power, green energy... the list goes on and on. Why pick on the BBC, with its pittance of 40p per day? It's plain daft, and loss of the BBC because of some ill-conceived point of principle would be true folly.

Would you be happy buying a newspaper you're not interested in, in order to be permitted to read the ones that do interest you?

It's nothing like the same thing at all. The comparison is plain stupid.

By your philosophy of absolutely everything must be paid for on a per-use basis, the World Wide Web would cost a fortune and be, for most, prohibitively expensive. Fortunately some people have a bit of insight and can see that strict adherence to market forces is not always the best way forward. So with the BBC, which is a precious jewel not only in the eyes of the UK but all over the world. Only a fool would seek to wreck it.