TV Licence article Discussion

Zapito

victor2 wrote: »

Haven't been following this thread, but that is priceless! :rotfl:

:embarasse:embarasse:embarasse
Hence my previous acknowledgement:

Zapito wrote: »

Whoops. It may because I am currently concerned about the time (15mins is a quarter of an hour!). Nevertheless 17% is still a substantial figure as an offending rate.

=================================================

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

That means that, over four in five of the people they visit, are actually telling the truth.

Wow! Amazing!

The "liars and cheats" I have been on about amount to only one in five of your lot.

Gosh!

=================================================

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

By harassing the much larger group, of Legally Licence Free people?

No. There are laws against harassment. If it happens to you then you can take legal and/or political action. In fact, I would urge you to do so, in order to discourage it generally. However the comparative size of the groups involved is irrelevant.

Of course, if only the genuine licence-free folk would actively condemn the licence cheats that would help us licence payers look more sympathetically upon your cause.

Cornucopia

The problem is that because TVL are aggressive and incompetent, and because the BBC are very coy about the numbers, we simply don't know the true scale of true evasion.

So, in order to get to a true picture, we'd need to know-

- How many TVL cases (even where the defendant pleaded guilty) were not actually "safe" in terms of there being good evidence of evasion?

- How many cases are "casual evasion"? I'm sure you will cry "foul" over this one, but in my experience the vast majority of TVL defendants arrive at this position by accident rather than intention. Whilst that's no defence in Law, I think we have to question the public interest in populating our Courts simply on the basis of a level of churn around bank errors, benefits failures, etc.

- How many evader households are so well prepared and well-versed in the Law as to be able to evade with impunity (which is an inherent weakness in the system the BBC has designed and implemented)?

- What the rate of progress is, by TVL, through the evader population? The reported evader percentage has remained relatively static for some time, which suggests that Capita (or it could even be the BBC) are not interested in "catching them all", for some reason.

I think that would begin to give us a true picture of what is going on.

I'm happy to condemn willful evasion - I just don't know how much of a problem it actually is, or how committed BBC/TVL really are in sorting it out.

Zapito

Cornucopia wrote: »

The problem is that because TVL are aggressive and incompetent, and because the BBC are very coy about the numbers, we simply don't know the true scale of true evasion.

Have you tried a Freedom Of Information request?

https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-information-request/the-freedom-of-information-act

==================================================

How many cases are "casual evasion"? I'm sure you will cry "foul" over this one, but in my experience the vast majority of TVL defendants arrive at this position by accident rather than intention. Whilst that's no defence in Law, I think we have to question the public interest in populating our Courts simply on the basis of a level of churn around bank errors, benefits failures, etc.

I'd have thought those specific examples you give would generally attract a relatively small penalty, if not an admonishment. However. in most such cases would not the TVL have issued a warning first? In that case there should be no need for the case to actually proceed to court, since all the accused would have to do is remedy the situation (perhaps with some repayment of arrears as appropriate).

==================================================

How many evader households are so well prepared and well-versed in the Law as to be able to evade with impunity (which is an inherent weakness in the system the BBC has designed and implemented)?

You could say that about any law. However, in this particular case, it being the conventional wisdom that a household normally needs a TV licence, it is reasonable to expect them to take the trouble to find out. One easy way might be to google "Do I need a TV licence?"

Here's the top link I just got from so doing.

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one

==================================================

I'm happy to condemn willful evasion

Good.

Cornucopia

Zapito wrote: »

Have you tried a Freedom Of Information request?

Not on this specific issue. It's the sort of thing that I think the BBC would want to share with the public, unless they are evil or incompetent, of course.

In FOIs I have seen or submitted, the BBC has become very adept in not giving much away in terms of information that might provide genuine insight. I think they have been burnt once too often by journalists using FOI responses to embarrass them.

I'd have thought those specific examples you give would generally attract a relatively small penalty, if not an admonishment.

By no means universally. Some Magistrates do seem sympathetic, and others not. To an extent, their hands are tied. There is a formula for converting income and the basic circumstances of the offence into a fine, and if they find the defendant guilty, then the fine has to be in a certain range - IIUC.

As an aside, the BBC disclosed to Perry a previously unpublished policy of not prosecuting first-time offenders. Except that they do prosecute first-time offenders. Somehow this policy seems not to be proactive on their part, which is a bit Kafkaesque - requiring defendants to ask for their cases to be withdrawn without knowing that it is possible.

However. in most such cases would not the TVL have issued a warning first? In that case there should be no need for the case to actually proceed to court, since all the accused would have to do is remedy the situation (perhaps with some repayment of arrears as appropriate).

A warning? In some cases, I think they do - although it's not clear what their criteria are. The problem is that by that stage, the householder will have received so many misleading and threatening letters from BBC/TVL that when one turns up that they probably do need to take notice of, they tend to ignore it.

It's one of the downsides to the BBC/TVL communication style - the more ludicrous official communications becomes, the less likely the public is to believe it, take note of it, or take action on the strength of it. (And the issue can easily spread from agency to agency, too). BBC/TVL are doing no one any favours with their approach.

You could say that about any law. However, in this particular case, it being the conventional wisdom that a household normally needs a TV licence, it is reasonable to expect them to take the trouble to find out. One easy way might be to google "Do I need a TV licence?"

You've misread my post, which was in the opposite sense entirely. There is undoubtedly a group of evaders, that for a variety of reasons are never likely to appear in any Court, or any statistics. I have no idea how big this group is.

That number for "invisible households" needs to be added to any figures we might have that are based on "visible households".

Really? Happy or not, you have seemed pretty reluctant to actually say so. But I am pleased that at last you have done so.

I think you just imagined a reluctance based on our discussion being about other things, and certain preconceptions you may have had about the subject and your fellow forum members.

My position is entirely about lawful behaviour. Citizens should get a Licence if they need one, or make the relatively small but necessary commitment to go without TV broadcasts. BBC/TVL should seek to operate Licence enforcement fairly, proportionately and in a legally-compliant way.

Zapito

Cornucopia wrote: »

Not on this specific issue. It's the sort of thing that I think the BBC would want to share with the public, unless they are evil or incompetent, of course.

In FOIs I have seen or submitted, the BBC has become very adept in not giving much away in terms of information that might provide genuine insight. I think they have been burnt once too often by journalists using FOI responses to embarrass them.

You should give it a try. See what they actually do say. You'd probably need to tailor the questions a little - make them more specific in some cases.

One point though, the link I gave you turned out to be US. The correct one is: https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-information-request/the-freedom-of-information-act

I'll go back see if I can correct the original as well.

================================================

I think you just imagined a reluctance based on our discussion being about other things, and certain preconceptions you may have had about the subject and your fellow forum members.

My position is entirely about lawful behaviour. Citizens should get a Licence if they need one, or make the relatively small but necessary commitment to go without TV broadcasts. BBC/TVL should seek to operate Licence enforcement fairly, proportionately and in a legally-compliant way.

OK. I've gone back and retracted my comment.

================================================

... or make the relatively small but necessary commitment to go without TV broadcasts.

!!! small !!! ?

For me that would be massive. And it'd be even worse if I get my way and the licence becomes required for catchup.

================================================

Cornucopia wrote: »

Some Magistrates do seem sympathetic, and others not. To an extent, their hands are tied. There is a formula for converting income and the basic circumstances of the offence into a fine, and if they find the defendant guilty, then the fine has to be in a certain range - IIUC.

Are you saying it's a law or something? I wouldn't have thought so. Otherwise that does not conform to my experience of magistrates (which is not inconsiderable as it happens, although not regarding this subject specifically).

Cornucopia

Zapito wrote: »

You should give it a try.

Or you could. I'd be surprised if they hadn't already been asked. There is a major repository of FOI requests here: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/bbc

In 2014, the number of "No Licence declarations" recorded by TVL was 486,833 - this is the basis of the "17%" statistic. i.e. 82,871 were (or would have been) determined by TVL staff to need a Licence and 404,071 were (or would have been) exonerated...

Given the c. 420,000 viable cases TVL believe they have annually, this suggests that c. 337,000 result from households where there has been no "No Licence declaration".

So, there are actually more valid "No Licence declarations" than there are evaders caught without having made a false "declaration", and in fact twice as many valid "declarations" as there are prosecutions.

!!! small !!! ?

For me that would be massive. And it'd be even worse if I get my way and the licence becomes required for catchup.

Well, yes, I suppose TV looms larger in some people's lives than others. Personally, I found it made very little difference to me, and I also value the freedom of watching catch-up on a non-scheduled basis.

I have two bug-bears about it: 1) the small number of programmes that are broadcast but not placed on catch-up, and 2) the relative ease of missing something because there doesn't seem to be a programme guide magazine/website for catch-up.

Are you saying it's a law or something? I wouldn't have thought so. Otherwise that does not conform to my experience of magistrates (which is not inconsiderable as it happens, although not regarding this subject specifically).

I believe there are formal sentencing guidelines. I suspect it's one of those cases where Magistrates nominally have discretion, as long as they don't get carried away with themselves. Clearly, if/when the threat of "a £1000 fine" doesn't mean a fine of £1000, then its value as a threat is diminished. I understand that the average fine in England for Licence evasion is c. £175, although this will rise considerably as the new court fees take effect... unless Magistrates reduce fines to compensate, which they may well do.

Zapito

Cornucopia wrote: »

Or you could.

Well it's your beef, not mine. OK, I'm willing to help a bit, if there's some way I can, on the basis of fairness. But it's up to you to decide the questions you want, so for you to check whether they've already been asked etc. If you would then like me to go over them with you, fair enough, I'll do something like that. But I'm not about to carry out your research for you!

I also value the freedom of watching catch-up on a non-scheduled basis.

The vast majority of what I watch is recorded, which is far more reliable than catchup, and of course not only can I watch it when I like, I can also keep it as long as I like. Couldn't do that without a licence! Also allows the advantage of EPG. All for just 40p per day! Plus Radio Times of course.

there doesn't seem to be a programme guide magazine/website for catch-up

Don't know why I'm telling you this but anyway, you can get the BBC TV schedules online (eg Google "BBC 1 schedule") then get any date you want (not sure how far back it goes) and click on a programme to get to it on the iPlayer. I'm just too nice. Guess I subliminally want to get you in the habit of catchup so that when the law's changed then you'll have to get a licence!

cw18

Zapito wrote: »

The vast majority of what I watch is recorded, which is far more reliable than catchup, and of course I can keep it as long as I like. Couldn't do that without a licence!

I also watch recorded that I can keep as long as I like. The difference being mine are DVDs I've purchased - and the £145 a year you spend on a TV licence buys me a lot of second hand DVDs

[Deleted User]

Zapito wrote: »

The "liars and cheats" I have been on about amount to only one in five of your lot.

What do you mean by "us lot" :huh:

Of course, if only the genuine licence-free folk would actively condemn the licence cheats that would help us licence payers look more sympathetically upon your cause.

We do state, that we do not encourage or condone LF Evasion.

We also state that, if someone legally requires a licence, they should get one, or, preferably, go LLF.

[Deleted User]

Zapito wrote: »

And it'd be even worse if I get my way and the licence becomes required for catchup.

If that happened, you could always obtain a new licence.

Going licence free isn't a case of Crossing the Rubicon.

You can always change your mind.