TV Licence article Discussion

Cornucopia

Zapito wrote: »

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

As I explained to you, the LLF community contains a sizeable group who do want to see change at the BBC, and those people would not agree to your clause (II). More to the point, anyone is free to hold and to discuss their personal views about the BBC, and I see no reason to prevent that. I certainly don't think it's helpful to dress up the BBC's existence with words like "morality" or "democracy", when many people will have significant issues with those angles.

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

As it happens, the group is opposed to law-breaking, including Licence evasion. I don't see any need to labour the point.

As a gesture of my goodwill, here is a draft letter I suggest any such organisation might suggest to its members, on receipt of an enquiry from TV Licensing:

Thanks for that. As the author of several such letters, it's always interesting to see other people's versions.

I'm presently challenging the BBC to confirm the very specific principle of being able to exercise Withdrawal of the Implied Right of Access without prejudice. They ought to agree to that, and if they do, that'll be all we need. There are already well over 10000 normal WOIRAs in force...

Zapito

Cornucopia wrote: »

As I explained to you, the LLF community contains a sizeable group who do want to see change at the BBC, and those people would not agree to your clause (II).

No willingness at all to compromise then, at any level.

Well, as a dedicated BBC supporter I've done my very best to reach out to you folks, but apparently to no avail. :sad:

Cornucopia

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

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.

Curiously, the BBC are very coy about this statistic (much more so than you might expect).

They used to talk about "X% of people who said they didn't need a Licence were found to need one, when we checked". When I first started getting involved with this issue, X was "about half", but over the years it has got lower and lower. The last time I saw it published, it was 17%, IIRC. I don't know if that is the clear figure we would all be interested to see, or if the BBC have "weasel-worded" it for some reason, and it means something different.

Certainly an offending rate of 17% (probably less, now) doesn't make a very compelling case for extreme enforcement measures.

Cornucopia

Zapito wrote: »

No willingness at all to compromise then. :sigh:

Why would I compromise on a fundamental issue like freedom of speech?

Well, as a dedicated BBC supporter I've done my very best to reach out to you folks, but apparently to no avail. :sad:

If you've managed to gain an insight into what our issues are, then you will have achieved something.

As I previously said, I have no issue with there being a group for BBC supporters who are against the excesses of TVL, or who fear the resultant reputational damage to the BBC. I completely accept that that group could easily grow to be several times bigger than the one that I belong to.

However, that cause is not my cause.

Zapito

Cornucopia wrote: »

Why would I compromise on a fundamental issue like freedom of speech?

Refusing to acknowledge the right of the BBC to exist fully and freely as defined by law for the enjoyment of all licence holders is not a defence of free speech, it is an attack on free speech.

If you've managed to gain an insight into what our issues are, then you will have achieved something.

Yes. I now fully understand that your underlying cause is to wreck the BBC.

As I previously said, I have no issue with there being a group for BBC supporters who are against the excesses of TVL, or who fear the resultant reputational damage to the BBC. I completely accept that that group could easily grow to be several times bigger than the one that I belong to.

I very much doubt it, now that you have shown your true colours.

Cornucopia

Zapito wrote: »

Refusing to acknowledge the right of the BBC to exist fully and freely as defined by law for the enjoyment of all licence holders is not a defence of free speech, it is an attack on free speech.

Freedom of speech is one of those deceptively simple things that turns out to be quite complicated when you get into it.

For the record, I think preventing or discouraging discussion about any aspect of the BBC would be an infringement of individuals' freedom of speech.

Since I have no control or influence on whether the BBC exists or not, I have no say in any possible effect on the national freedom of speech. My gut reaction to your hyperbole is that it doesn't make much sense, but perhaps I've misunderstood? In what way(s) does the BBC uniquely and in the presence of the entire UK media industry contribute to freedom of speech. And if I've missed its role in doing that, can I have my 15 minutes of airtime to discuss my cause?

Yes. I now fully understand that your underlying cause is to wreck the BBC.

Not sure how you get that from anything I've said.

Once again, I personally think that the BBC will be around in some form for quite a while. The Voice is probably toast, though.

I very much doubt it, now that you have shown your true colours.

Wow! Don't you turn tail quickly?

Zapito

Cornucopia wrote: »

Wow! Don't you turn tail quickly?

You seem to forget where I started out from. I now realise that I was being slowly and skilfully drawn in by your slippery rhetoric.

Cornucopia wrote: »

Certainly an offending rate of 17% (probably less, now) doesn't make a very compelling case for extreme enforcement measures.

I should have thought that for well over a quarter of all claims to not need a licence to be fraudulent to be exceedingly high, costing the BBC many millions of Pounds. They need to crack down extremely hard on all such cheats and liars.

Cornucopia wrote: »

Freedom of speech is one of those deceptively simple things that turns out to be quite complicated when you get into it.

It doesn't include freedom to lie and cheat one's way out of paying for a TV licence.

Cornucopia wrote: »

Zapito wrote: »

Yes. I now fully understand that your underlying cause is to wreck the BBC.

Not sure how you get that from anything I've said.

It's mainly from what you refuse to say.

Cornucopia wrote: »

BBC/TVL cases are scheduled in batches of 80-120 per session. A session is 2-3 hours. The only way that can work is if 90%+ of defendants plead Guilty by post or simply don't turn up.

Yes, it is obviously a real problem having to deal with all those cheats and liars! If only they would stop cheating and lying, all that waste of effort and money, let alone the embarrassment of the guilty, would be entirely avoided.

Cornucopia

Zapito wrote: »

You seem to forget where I started out from. I now realise that I was being slowly and skilfully drawn in by your slippery rhetoric.

"Slippery rhetoric".

That's going in my signature.

I should have thought that for well over a quarter of all claims to not need a licence to be fraudulent to be exceedingly high, costing the BBC many millions of Pounds. They need to crack down extremely hard on all such cheats and liars.

I'm guessing maths is not your forte.

It doesn't include freedom to lie and cheat one's way out of paying for a TV licence.

To be quite clear on this: I never said it did.

It's mainly from what you refuse to say.

Which is what?

Yes, it is obviously a real problem having to deal with all those cheats and liars! If only they would stop cheating and lying, all that waste of effort and money, let alone the embarrassment of the guilty, would be entirely avoided.

I'm happy for you that you have it sewn up as simply as that.... in your own mind.

Unfortunately, the issue in the real world is extremely complicated - certainly well beyond what I ever imagined when I first started looking into it.

Zapito

Cornucopia wrote: »

That's going in my signature.

Happy to be of service .

Personally I would regard slippery rhetoric as shameful. But then it's all a matter of personal moral standards. I perceive plain speaking as rather more enlightened.

Cornucopia wrote: »

I'm guessing maths is not your forte.

What are you on about? You referred to "an offending rate of 17%". 17% is just over a quarter.

Cornucopia wrote: »

To be quite clear on this: I never said it did.

You said that "Freedom of speech is one of those deceptively simple things that turns out to be quite complicated when you get into it." I was simply pointing out that, however "complicated" it may "turn out to be", that does not mean it includes the freedom to cheat and lie one's way out of paying the licence fee.

Cornucopia wrote: »

Which is what?

Your refusal to acknowledge the right of the BBC to exist fully and freely as defined by law for the enjoyment of all licence holders.

Cornucopia wrote: »

I'm happy for you that you have it sewn up as simply as that.

You seem to want to have it all your own way. On the one hand you complain that "only 17%" of non-licence payers (which you seem to think is a small number) actually cheat the system, whilst on the other hand seem to be claiming that these people are clogging up the courts.

So which is it - a number so tiny as to be virtually insignificant or a number so massive that they are clogging up the courts?

Cornucopia wrote: »

Unfortunately, the issue in the real world is extremely complicated - certainly well beyond what I ever imagined when I first started looking into it.

Seems to me that most of the "complication" you perceive regarding the issue is derived from the convolutions of your own rhetoric in a vain attempt to justify the unjustifiable. No wonder we are going around in circles all the time!

Cornucopia

Zapito wrote: »

Happy to be of service .

Personally I would regard slippery rhetoric as shameful. But then it's all a matter of personal moral standards. I perceive plain speaking as rather more enlightened.

The good people of MSE take a light-hearted view on most things.

I don't agree that I am using rhetoric, slippery or otherwise. But it's amusing that you think I am.

What are you on about? You referred to "an offending rate of 17%". 17% is just over a quarter.

Not on my planet. A quarter is 25%. Just over a quarter would be something, say, between 26% and 32%, and after that we would talk about a third.

If you want to get all fractional about it, 17% is just over a sixth.

You said that "Freedom of speech is one of those deceptively simple things that turns out to be quite complicated when you get into it." I was simply pointing out that, however "complicated" it may "turn out to be", that does not mean it includes the freedom to cheat and lie one's way out of paying the licence fee.

Isn't that one of those "fanciful" ideas that you so object to?

Your refusal to acknowledge the right of the BBC to exist fully and freely as defined by law for the enjoyment of all licence holders.

The existence of the BBC is a hugely complex thing....

(a) I am quite happy for there to be a practical, legal mechanism for its existence as an entity. I would be happier if that legal mechanism included effective accountability, particularly in the vexed issue of law enforcement.
(b) I am happy for those people who like and enjoy the BBC to like and enjoy it,
(c) I am happy for all people to exercise their democratic freedoms in respect of the BBC (though the BBC doesn't seem wildly enthusiastic about that, I have to say),

However,
(d) I am uncomfortable with this notion of it "existing fully" - mainly because I don't know what that means, and of it being "defined by Law", in that it seems in my view to be very selective about its attitude to Law, and does not seem to recognise that the "right" to exist comes with responsibilities.
(e) I do not agree with anything that seeks to place the BBC above rational and reasonable debate that is founded in a basic freedom of speech.

As an underlying principle, rights are for people, occasionally for animals. We need to be very careful indeed when attributing rights to organisations.

You seem to want to have it all your own way. On the one hand you complain that "only 17%" of non-licence payers (which you seem to think is a small number) actually cheat the system, whilst on the other hand seem to be claiming that these people are clogging up the courts.

Yes... and? Do you not think that a small proportion of the population could clog up the Courts? I'm not sure that I used that phrase, anyway. I don't think the Courts are clogged, as such, but mainly because most TVL cases only take a couple of minutes. You said they should make TVL defendants attend, and that would have the effect of clogging the Courts, as they dealt with the logistics of that, and started examining mitigation for a greater proportion of cases.

So which is it - a number so tiny as to be virtually insignificant or a number so massive that they are clogging up the courts?

It's both - they are two different scales. I wouldn't get too worked up about the 17% - be aware of the caveats I gave when I posted it.

Seems to me that most of the "complication" you conceive regarding this issue is derived from the convolutions of your own rhetoric in a vain attempt to justify the unjustifiable. No wonder we are going around in circles all the time!

I didn't realise we were going round in circles. And it's certainly not "all the time", since this discussion is only a couple of days old.

I'm not aware of having used any convoluted rhetoric. Perhaps you could point it out? I'm not sure where I've tried to justify the unjustifiable, either. I never connected freedom of speech with Licence evasion - there is no connection, is there?

On that basis, it seems you are falling back on pointless rhetoric yourself. I'm happy to discuss actual facts, and opinions about those facts. Anything else is a bit pointless.