TV Licence article Discussion

enfield_freddy

unless it is made public and advertised , it would be a private vid link




or are we now saying ,, (lets expand this) that viewing a live motorway camera is classed as TV , or even watching your own webcam via a android phone?


things need clarifying a lot

Cornucopia

enfield_freddy wrote: »

however it is not LIVE TV , think about it , its not supplied by cable , ariel or dish it is just a live video that can be viewed by selected people.


if you are saying a licence is needed then every vid conference call , or even skype would req a licence.


in the case of the football , no TV company is distributing it , youtube is acting as a host to forward it

I agree with this analysis. If you want the technical jargon, then the Football streaming is not a "programme service" (in effect a linear TV channel) and therefore doesn't require a Licence to watch it.

And, yes, I'd like to see BBC/TVL being a lot clearer about all of this.

BTW, having had another quick look at the legislation, I am having second thoughts about the issue of live streaming of foreign TV channels. The TVL advice remains contradictory.

enfield_freddy

so we have a poster above that does not understand the law? just like about 99% of the population , as it has been written badly

Zapito

OK, here's a suggestion. A vast number of people in this country are avid BBC supporters. Although very few BBC licence payers would support anyone who deliberately avoided buying a licence when they should (ie because they are watching live TV), if not a majority then at least an extremely large proportion would be horrified to think that honest folk who choose not to receive TV were being hounded and harassed by the TV licensing people.

I can I think virtually guarantee this with most Radio 4 listeners. They would be among the first to assert the right of someone not to buy a licence if that was not required by their lifestyle. Perhaps many, like me, would not assert the moral right to view catchup without a licence but nevertheless would object most strongly to the kind of underhand and strong-arm tactics that have been described in some of the posts on this forum, not least because it brings our beloved BBC into disrepute.

On the other hand they (we) remain staunch supporters of the continuing existence of the BBC. These people could all be your friends and as a matter of principle support your genuine efforts to protect a peaceful life without TV, but as long as you persist in attacking the existence of the BBC we are unable to actively support you.

I therefore suggest that you start a campaign group specifically designed to gain the support of BBC viewers and listeners who are sympathetic to the cause that those who genuinely do not want TV in their lives not to be harassed to buy a TV licence. I would suggest such a campaign group would organise itself around the following general aims:

============================================
To robustly protect the lawful interests of those who genuinely do not legally require a BBC licence.

In pursuance of which, we shall:

(i) actively support any person or household against any undue force or persuation to purchase a licence when to do so is not deemed necessary under law;

(ii) acknowledge and defend the right of the BBC to exist fully and freely as defined by law for the enjoyment of all licence holders;

(iii) condemn, abjure and repudiate any false claims made by anyone in order to avoid purchasing a licence when required by law to do so, and take full and appropriate steps to remedy any such behaviour which comes to our notice.
============================================

IMHO such political action would attract a lot of support from within the BBC-licenced community itself, and could ultimately result in a much improved quality of life for those who genuinely wish for a TV-free lifestyle.

enfield_freddy

Zapito wrote: »

OK, here's a suggestion. A vast number of people in this country are avid BBC supporters. Although very few BBC licence payers would support anyone who deliberately avoided buying a licence when they should (ie because they are watching live TV), if not a majority then at least an extremely large proportion would be horrified to think that honest folk who choose not to receive TV were being hounded and harassed by the TV licensing people.

I can I think virtually guarantee this with most Radio 4 listeners. They would be among the first to assert the right of someone not to buy a licence if that was not required by their lifestyle. Perhaps many, like me, would not assert the moral right to view catchup without a licence but nevertheless would object most strongly to the kind of underhand and strong-arm tactics that have been described in some of the posts on this forum, not least because it brings our beloved BBC into disrepute.

On the other hand they (we) remain staunch supporters of the continuing existence of the BBC. These people could all be your friends and as a matter of principle support your genuine efforts to protect a peaceful life without TV, but as long as you persist in attacking the existence of the BBC we are unable to actively support you.

I therefore suggest that you start a campaign group specifically designed to gain the support of BBC viewers and listeners who are sympathetic to the cause that those who genuinely do not want TV in their lives not to be harassed to buy a TV licence. I would suggest such a campaign group would organise itself around the following general aims:

============================================
To robustly protect the lawful interests of those who genuinely do not legally require a BBC licence.

In pursuance of which, we shall:

(i) actively support any person or household against any undue force or persuation to purchase a licence when to do so is not deemed necessary under law;

(ii) acknowledge and defend the right of the BBC to exist fully and freely as defined by law for the enjoyment of all licence holders;

(iii) condemn, abjure and repudiate any false claims made by anyone in order to avoid purchasing a licence when required by law to do so, and take full and appropriate steps to remedy any such behaviour which comes to our notice.
============================================

IMHO such political action would attract a lot of support from within the BBC-licenced community itself, and could ultimately result in a much improved quality of life for those who genuinely wish for a TV-free lifestyle.

and take full and appropriate steps to remedy any such behaviour which comes to our notice.




define appropriate? , define "comes to our attention ?


do you mean send out rakes and rakes of threatening letters often to people ho do not need a licence?


"comes too our attention ," , when , when a licence expires , or a new house owner?


1: the BBC are not allowed to presume you are guilty umtill you prove your innocence
2: NO householder in the UK is empowered BY LAW to tell the BBC there full name.

Cornucopia

I'm not convinced about the good-will of BBC supporters. I think the analysis is correct regarding R4-types, and TVL antics do get short shrift on programmes I have heard on R4.

But I'm not convinced about the mass of BBC support.

There are also some issues of detail...

1. The BBC denies any wrong-doing. It has the broad support of the BBC Trust in this, so far, although that could change. I don't see BBC supporters getting worked up to the extent that they would dismiss the BBC's version of TVL lore and accept ours.

2. Legally Licence-free people fall into several broad groups, and there isn't a universal political position. But one large group is on the right-wing, and those people do want to see significant change to the BBC.

3. The possible changes around the BBC Charter Renewal may well make all of this completely academic.

4. The LLF community (or at least the bit where I am) has only recently begun to address the political and Government mainstream (although we've been building up to it for a while). It's too early days on that to justify making a huge and potentially divisive change to how we see ourselves.

5. There are other issues with the BBC aside from TVL. There are significant governance problems, for example, and issues like the non-publication of the Dame Janet Smith report and the actions of Alan Yentob regarding Kids Company are just the latest issues for the BBC (not all of which can be dismissed as Daily Mail muck-raking).

6. As I previously said, I'm not convinced that there is a fair, proportionate and legally-compliant way to run TV Licensing (certainly not one that is also efficient and cost-effective). I would hope that if there were, the BBC would already be doing it. There are two possibilities - the BBC is evil and/or incompetent OR it is not possible. Both of those options suggest to me that enforcement needs root & branch reform and/or taking away from the BBC. I can't see BBC supporters being keen on that analysis.


For those reasons, my support for the idea is limited. But I have no objection to there being a parallel group who have that remit of defending the BBC whilst objecting to the worst excesses of TVL. I think it's a worthy idea, and I think the premise that TVL is a source of significant reputational damage to the BBC is correct (indeed, I have said this to them on several occasions).

Zapito

enfield_freddy wrote: »

and take full and appropriate steps to remedy any such behaviour which comes to our notice.




define appropriate? , define "comes to our attention ?


do you mean send out rakes and rakes of threatening letters often to people ho do not need a licence?


"comes too our attention ," , when , when a licence expires , or a new house owner?


1: the BBC are not allowed to presume you are guilty umtill you prove your innocence
2: NO householder in the UK is empowered BY LAW to tell the BBC there full name.

It's a suggestion. You sort it out - tinker as you think appropriate. Only remember the more people you alienate the less likely you are to get your way.

Cornucopia

Zapito wrote: »

It's a suggestion. You sort it out - tinker as you think appropriate. Only remember the more people you alienate the less likely you are to get your way.

You have that nearly right. It is for the BBC to sort it out, and they need to remember that the more they alienate people, and the more people they alienate, the less likely they are to get their way.

The problems with BBC/TVL are so wide-ranging that virtually every aspect of the regime needs to change to address fairness, practicality or legal-compliance.

Thus-

- Overall, the BBC needs to come clean about TV detection equipment not being in routine use. Admitting the truth on that is the key to moving forward.

- Overall, the BBC needs to accept that there is no requirement in law (either generally or specifically) whereby the residents of unlicensed premises should have to prove their innocence or have their innocence challenged without prior evidence. Being unlicensed is not evidence.

- Overall, the BBC needs to be clear about what aspects (if any) of its process are law, and which are merely its own administrative approach (which is not legally binding on citizens).

- No aspect of the process should be set up as a coercive gambit - neither communicated as such, or being such in reality. Care should be taken to ensure that any choices a householder can make within the process are accurately represented, and offered genuinely without prejudice.

- The BBC has previously claimed that its process is exempt from Article 8 of the Human Rights Act because it relies on consent. If this is true, then that consent should be formally sought from citizens prior to any enforcement action, and should be true, informed consent without prejudice.

- The full process as it applies to LLF households needs to be clearly documented and published, with information about citizens' rights at each stage clearly noted.

- The letters need to be non-confrontational.
- The letters need to be of a rational frequency (we talked about annual).
- The letters need not talk in detail about citizens' rights, but they should also not undermine citizens' rights, either.
- The letters should not use any form of subterfuge or deceit, and should avoid misleading terms like "investigation" and avoid making demands for action unless those demands are accurately set into their legal context.

- TVL staff can approach citizens' homes with the objective of selling Licences to those who need them, but the boundaries between sales and enforcement need to be clear, as there are extensive rights to be observed in enforcement that do not apply to sales. I would consider making them two separate brands (perhaps sell Licences as the BBC, and retain TVL for enforcement?).
- Observing rights includes seeking informed consent to enter someone's home.
- Informed consent means informing the householder of the true legal nature of the situation and of all their rights before giving them a free choice whether to permit TVL on the premises or not.
- The "178" form needs substantial redesign or replacement to minimise the potential for abuse. The nature of the form needs to be clarified - if it is to be treated as a confession statement, then it needs to be a verbatim account, given voluntarily by the interviewee and not subject to constraint by multiple choice answers (or similar).
- If the "178" form is not a confession statement, but merely an administrative tool of BBC/TVL's creation, then it should not form the sole evidence of evasion in Court.
- For a variety of reasons, BBC/TVL should ideally be presenting physical evidence of evasion in Court.
- The overall Interview under Caution process needs to reflect all the principles of PACE, and there needs to be true, good faith, commitment to Right to Silence and Right to Counsel.
- The process whereby half of cases are not prosecuted needs to be properly examined to ensure it is fair, non-discriminatory and operating in the public interest.

Zapito

Cornucopia wrote: »

Thus-

- The letters need to be non-confrontational.
- The letters need to be of a rational frequency (we talked about annual).
- The letters need not talk about citizens' rights, but they should also not undermine citizens' rights,

either.
:
:
:

- The process whereby half of cases are not prosecuted needs to be properly examined to ensure it is fair,

non-discriminatory and operating in the public interest.

That sorts out clause (i) of my suggestion. Now what about the "goodwill" clauses (ii) and (iii)?

To robustly protect the lawful interests of those who genuinely do not legally require a BBC licence.

In pursuance of which, we shall:

(i) actively support any person or household against any undue force or persuasion to purchase a licence when to do so is not deemed necessary under law;

(ii) acknowledge and defend the right of the BBC to exist fully and freely as defined by law for the enjoyment of all licence holders;

(iii) condemn, abjure and repudiate any false claims made by anyone in order to avoid purchasing a licence when required by law to do so, and take full and appropriate steps to remedy any such behaviour which comes to our notice.

One clause I would suggest you would make in your rules is about qualification for membership of your political organisation, along the following lines:

Full Membership would be available to anyone who has a bona fide reason not to purchase a TV licence. Associate Membership would be restricted to TV licence holders who are sympathetic to the cause. Any Member discovered to be cheating the system in order to indulge in free reception shall be expelled and may be reported to the authorities.

JimmyTheWig

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

Some people fish without a licence, but the NRA don't randomly knock at the door of people who don't hold rod licenses, on the off chance they are fishing without a licence.

Likewise, some people drive without a licence, but the DVLA don't randomly knock at the door of people who don't hold driving licenses, on the off chance they are driving without a licence.

Most people who don't have a fishing licence don't need one.
Most people who don't have a driving licence don't drive.
So the random knocking on doors would be pointless.

The assumption (I've never seen the figures) is that most people who don't have a TV licence _do_ need one. In which case knocking on the doors of those without a licence would be a reasonable way of catching an offender.

[As someone who doesn't have or need a licence I'd be happy with the once-a-year correspondence previously mentioned on this post. Other than what could be seen as an honest administration mix-up (though I'd veer to saying that it was deliberately confruntational on their part) they've left us in peace. I'd be happy for someone to come to the door to ask me about our viewing. Whether I'd let them in would depend on their behaviour and attitude on the doorstep.]