TV Licence article Discussion

Cornucopia

Zapito wrote: »

Well for me what is wrong here is simply that some people choose to fiddle their way around in order to consume BBC output without contributing towards its cost, to the disadvantage of all honest and straightforward licence fee payers.

I'm assuming by "fiddling" you're still referring to lawful conduct, in which case you need to lobby Government to change the Law. Or simply wait patiently until it happens.

We're probably going to get at least another 5-10 years of the present system, and I for one will be quite happy to save £727-£1455 by staying legally Licence-free during that period.

If people didn't cheat and lie in that way then there would be no need for enforcement activity, and none of this verbose claptrap would arise.

What you are saying is nothing but convoluted slippery rhetoric. My term for it is Squirmology.

I think you've now moved on to playing the man rather than the ball. And also objecting to the language rather than the substance. These are not good signs, and tend to detract from such argument as you may wish to make.

Your argument, such as it is, is problematic (even without your protestations regarding man or verbiage). The existence of Evaders is justification for the existence of TV Licensing - I have no issue with that. The existence of Evaders is not justification for the abuses and excesses of TV Licensing. It's a simple argument and a simple principle.

You also seem to be still conflating Evaders and LLF users of iPlayer. This is your prerogative, but your issue needs to be directed at Government, not me, because I am not interested in condemning lawful behaviour in this context.

Zapito

Cornucopia wrote: »

Then you need to lobby Government to change the Law. Or simply wait patiently until it happens.

I am; for example I lobby the government to change the law to catch those who squirm their way out of the licence fee by (claiming they are) only watching catchup online.

IMHO what you need to do is to use the law (eg FoI which you don't seem keen to do) to fight your own battles, such as making TVL revise its codes of behaviour that you deem to be inappropriate.

I think you've now moved on to playing the man rather than the ball. And also objecting to the language rather than the substance. These are not good signs, and tend to detract from such argument as you may wish to make.

Squirmology etc, I presume you mean. As I say, you wouldn't need to do it if people didn't, well, squirm their way out of coughing up.

The existence of Evaders is not justification for the abuses and excesses of TV Licensing. It's a simple argument and a simple principle.

The means to put any such wrongs to right are available, see above. For example, if people prefer to plead guilty in absentia without defending themselves, that is their choice, but it cannot then be argued that for them to do so somehow proves the system is at fault.

You also seem to be still conflating Evaders and LLF users of iPlayer. This is your prerogative, but your issue needs to be directed at Government, not me, because I am not interested.

I think it is you who is conflating the two, as you appear to support the position of the evaders. I have repeatedly stressed that my objection to the use of the catchup loophole to avoid the licence fee is moral rather than legal. It is that practice (and its defence) which I regard as squirmology.

Cornucopia

Zapito wrote: »

IMHO what you need to do is to use the law (eg FoI which you don't seem keen to do) to fight your own battles, such as making TVL revise its codes of behaviour that you deem to be inappropriate.

I am.

Squirmology etc, I presume you mean. As I say, you wouldn't need to do it if people didn't, well, squirm their way out of coughing up.

There is no need for them (those acting lawfully) to do so.

There is no squirming involved - it is a simple matter of not paying. Or at least it would be if TV Licensing did not make their presence known prior to having evidence of evasion.

The means to put any such wrongs to right are available, see above. For example, if people prefer to plead guilty in absentia without defending themselves, that is their choice, but it cannot then be argued that for them to do so somehow proves the system is at fault.

I tend to agree. However, our State moves more and more from sound principles of justice, certainly at the misdemeanour end of the scale. I think that is to be deplored.

One of the weaknesses it exhibits is incentivising guilty pleas to such an extent that innocent people consider a guilty plea for economy of penalty and expedient disposition. It's not right, but the direction and momentum of travel seem to be well established now.

I think it is you who is conflating the two, as you appear to support the position of the evaders.

I've said several times that I do not support Licence fee evasion.

[Deleted User]

Cornucopia wrote: »

BBC/TVL letters are an exercise in immorality - making threats to innocent people, spreading misinformation and trying to coerce citizens into actions that are not legally required.

I agree.

The letters are an object lesson in misinformation and subterfuge.

Zapito

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

Cornucopia wrote: »

BBC/TVL letters are an exercise in immorality - making threats to innocent people, spreading misinformation and trying to coerce citizens into actions that are not legally required.

I agree.

The letters are an object lesson in misinformation and subterfuge.

Well I've looked at a whole set of them online ranging from 2006 through 2014 to someone who was clearly determined to mess around by not actually facing up to them and instead simply ignoring them, and frankly I can see nothing "immoral" about them. Clearly what the person should have done was to respond, preferably right from the start but in any case at some point, in order to explain their position. Without any such explanation what were TVL supposed to think?

See for yourselves at: http://www.bbctvlicence.com/2006%20letters.htm

But if you don't agree with me, then as I keep saying, legal and/or political action is available to you.

Must say the website is highly amusing though. Almost enough to make me give up watching live TV myself just so I can join in the fun. But I have enough silly-wotsitting to be going on with dealing with cold calls on the phone

Cornucopia

Zapito wrote: »

....frankly I can see nothing "immoral" about them.

I don't think that's particularly surprising since we've already shown that your morality seems to be all wailing and no, well, people-focused morality.

Well I've looked at a whole set of them online ranging from 2006 through 2014 to someone who was clearly determined to mess around...

I can't comment on how he responded - because I don't know - and neither do you, I suspect. I certainly am ambivalent to TV Licensing (not doing anything to mess them around) and I get the same letters every month.

... by not actually facing up to them and instead simply ignoring them... ...Clearly what the person should have done was to respond, preferably right from the start but in any case at some point, in order to explain their position. Without any such explanation what were TVL supposed to think?

They could think "we won't bother this person unless and until we have some evidence of an offence in accordance with one of the great historic principles of UK law".

What would your response to them consist of, anyway? If you think that they take people's word for it that they don't need a Licence, then you're very much mistaken. I'm not prepared to co-operate with an organisation whose very first reaction to my response will be to call me a liar.

But if you don't agree with me, then as I keep saying, legal and/or political action is available to you.

I'm not sure why you keep saying it. If you think that posting here and political action are somehow mutually exclusive, then you are wrong. I am involved in both.

Zapito

Cornucopia wrote: »

What would your response to them consist of, anyway?

Assuming I was LLF, probably something like this:

Suggested draft letters to be sent in response to TV licensing (only for use by a Legally Licence Free household)

Initial Letter (sent with certificate of posting - free from PO)

Your own address (include no phone or email)

TV Licensing
Freepost BS6689
Bristol
BS1 3YJ

(Date)

Your ref: (whatever ref TV Licensing gave on their letter - omit this line if none)

Dear TV Licensing,

We acknowledge receipt of your recent letter and any enclosures.

We regret that we are not willing to complete your form (if provided) because it is our understanding that in the past such forms have been doctored. This letter will therefore have to suffice.

We hereby inform you that a TV licence is not required for this household for the following reasons:

1) We do not watch or record programmes as they're being shown on TV via an aerial, satellite dish or cable.

2) We do not watch or record programmes online as they're being shown on TV, whether on a smart TV, computer, tablet, mobile phone, games console, digital box or any other device.

3) We do not watch or record sports, music or other events shown live on TV, on any device.

4) We do not watch or record programmes as they're being shown on TV that originate from outside the UK

It is anticipated this same situation will continue for the foreseeable future, and we hereby notify you that otherwise we shall purchase a licence as and when the circumstances change as required to make a licence necessary.

If you provide a postage-free notification card or letter, we will undertake to use it in order to notify you if this household ceases to reside at this address, in order that you may commence enquiries regarding any subsequent occupant.

Any future correspondence from you will be answered only if it includes a postage-paid or Freepost envelope or address, in which case (with the exception of any notification card or letter as described above) that answer is likely to consist simply of a reference to this letter.

Notwithstanding the previous paragraph, in the event of a change in the law that may be relevant to our circumstances, you would provide us with notification, clearly stating on the outside of the envelope that the contents refer to a change in TV licensing law.

No communication with your department will be entered into via the internet or telephone.

Any repeated and persistent communication from you is not welcome and will be regarded as harassment.

("signature")

The Household

Follow-up Letter (if they write again)

Your own address (include no phone or email)

TV Licensing
Freepost BS6689
Bristol
BS1 3YJ

(Date)

Your ref: (whatever ref TV Licensing gave on their letter - omit this line if none)

Dear TV Licensing,

We acknowledge receipt of your recent letter and any enclosures.

Please refer to our previous letter dated (date as of initial letter).

If you no longer have that letter or are unable to locate it we will be happy to provide a duplicate copy following receipt of a fee of £(insert figure, eg: 25), to be paid in cash in person or by registered post (a receipt will be provided).

("signature")

The Household

Harassment Letter (if they persist in writing to you to the extent you become annoyed)

Your own address (include no phone or email)

TV Licensing
Freepost BS6689
Bristol
BS1 3YJ

(Date)

Your ref: (whatever ref TV Licensing gave on their letter - omit this line if none)

TO: TV Licensing,

NOTICE OF HARASSMENT

We acknowledge receipt of your recent letter and any enclosures.

With reference to our previous letter dated (date as of initial letter).

YOU ARE STARTING TO ANNOY US

We have already explained our situation and the reasons why we do not require a licence.

As was clearly stated in that letter any repeated and persistent communication from you is not welcome and will be regarded as harassment.

IF YOU DO NOT CEASE AND DESIST FORTHWITH WE MAY BE OBLIGED TO TAKE LEGITIMATE STEPS IN ORDER TO ENSURE CONFORMITY WITH OUR CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS

In connection with the above WE HEREBY GIVE NOTICE that we shall seek from you compensation in full in respect of all and any expenses that may be incurred by us in pursuit of that objective.

If you no longer have our original letter or are unable to locate it we will be happy to provide a duplicate copy following receipt of a fee of £(insert figure, eg: 25), to be paid in cash in person or by registered post (a receipt will be provided).

("signature")

The Household

JimmyTheWig

Zapito wrote: »

Well I've looked at a whole set of them online ranging from 2006 through 2014 to someone who was clearly determined to mess around by not actually facing up to them and instead simply ignoring them

Not necessarily.
We stopped needing a licence in February 2014. We informed TVL on the phone and cancelled our DD.
They said about sending a form for us to claim back money for unused quarters of our licence.
I don't believe that this form ever came, but there is a chance that it did and we ignored it. In any event because I temporarily forgot how TVL DDs worked I didn't think we had any unused quarters so wasn't particularly fussed.

Then in October 2014 we started getting letters saying that our licence was due to expire. We then got letters saying that the licence had expired and they started to get threatening.
We didn't ignore them. We phoned on a number of occaisions.
Each person I spoke to gave a different story of what was happening.
Eventually it turned out that because we didn't return this form (that we may or may not have received) the licence wasn't cancelled in February.

So it turned out that we were due a refund.
They (re-?)sent the form, which we completed.
They wrote back to say that as we had no evidence that we hadn't watched TV in the last 6 months they couldn't give a refund.
I phoned back to query this and was told I was due a refund.
I received another letter to say that I wasn't due a refund!
A few emails later and they agreed to the refund.

They'll be back in contact in two years time to confirm nothing has changed.


The point of this post is to demonstrate that I wasn't being difficult with them. I wasn't ignoring them. But they still sent agressive letters.
When it came to them owing us money, they were the ones who were trying to get out of paying it. You could say they were using Squirmology.

They've left us in peace since. Never had a house visit.
So certainly not as bad as some stories you hear, but far from ideal.
There's a reasonable chance that the problems I faced were due to administrative errors, but it did seem that they were being deliberately difficult and were definitely unnecessarily agressive.
When I tie my story up with what I read on the web then it does make me wonder...

Zapito

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Not necessarily....When I tie my story up with what I read on the web then it does make me wonder...

If I ever decide to go LLF (which is not likely because personally I think the licence is a fabulous bargain) then I think I would try and be pro-active. I would probably start by writing to them once I had decided not to renew my licence, shortly before my existing one was due to expire.

Something like this:

Initial Letter (sent with certificate of posting - free from PO)

Your own address (include no phone or email)

TV Licensing
Freepost BS6689
Bristol
BS1 3YJ

(Date)

Licence Number (my licence number)

Dear TV Licensing,

This is to inform you that the licence covering this household is due to expire on (date) and will not be renewed. The direct debit order has been stopped.

A TV licence is no longer required for this household for the following reasons:

1) We do not watch or record programmes as they're being shown on TV via an aerial, satellite dish or cable.

2) We do not watch or record programmes online as they're being shown on TV, whether on a smart TV, computer, tablet, mobile phone, games console, digital box or any other device.

3) We do not watch or record sports, music or other events shown live on TV, on any device.

4) We do not watch or record programmes as they're being shown on TV that originate from outside the UK

It is anticipated this same situation will continue for the foreseeable future, and we hereby notify you that otherwise we shall purchase a licence as and when the circumstances change as required to make a licence necessary.

If you provide a postage-free notification card or letter, we will undertake to use it in order to notify you if this household ceases to reside at this address, in order that you may commence enquiries regarding any subsequent occupant.

Any future correspondence from you will be answered only if it includes a postage-paid or Freepost envelope or address, in which case (with the exception of any notification card or letter as described above) that answer is likely to consist simply of a reference to this letter.

Notwithstanding the previous paragraph, in the event of a change in the law that may be relevant to our circumstances, you would provide us with notification, clearly stating on the outside of the envelope that the contents refer to a change in TV licensing law.

Please note that we are not willing to complete a standard form (if provided) because it is our understanding that in the past such forms have been doctored. This letter will therefore have to suffice.

Please note also that in order to ensure accurate records no communication with your department will be entered into via the internet or telephone.

Please note in addition that any repeated and persistent communication from you is not welcome and will be regarded as harassment.

("signature")

The Household

Subsequent letters (if required) would be along the lines of those in my previous post.

I do realise by the way that one result of using this method would be at the theoretical cost of a few months' worth of fees, because of the way the direct debits work, but I doubt I'd be much concerned about that. However I appreciate that some people would not feel able to be dismissive of the 70-odd quid involved. What I would probably do is suggest to TVL that they contribute any surplus to the BBC's favourite charity "Children in Need".

[Deleted User]

Zapito wrote: »

Clearly what the person should have done was to respond, preferably right from the start but in any case at some point

They're not obliged to respond.

in order to explain their position.

Why should they explain anything?

Without any such explanation what were TVL supposed to think?

How about "innocent until proven guilty"?