TV Licence article Discussion

[Deleted User]

Zapito wrote: »

I am concerned that much of the trouble you perceive with the TVL people may a product of your refusal to recognise the humanity (and the fallibility which that implies) of those with whom you are dealing.

Maybe it's the fact BBC/TVL, and their employees, are out to (and indeed incentivised to) sell you a licence and/or get you a criminal conviction.

If I needed a TV Licence, I would buy one, and I don't need (or appreciate) a monthly letter, threatening me with a court appearance, and a fine of "up to £1,000", for not having one.

Having had first hand experience of TVL doorsteppers, I wouldn't attribute much of their behaviour to fallibility, so much as intentionally underhand tactics.

Cornucopia

Zapito wrote: »

It appears to me that you apply different standards to people according to how they are grouped, with individuals at one end of the scale (with whom you are willing to compromise to some degree) and corporations at the other (no compromise permitted whatsoever). Well, I am interested to know how this works, what the gradations are and so on.

For me, these are all simply different styles of collections of people, with a "collection" of one person at one end of the spectrum and a collection of an indefinite quantity of people at the other. No matter how large the collective, however, it is still a collection of people, and requires and can be expected to respond to human interaction. At least, that is my perspective. However, it appears that for you it is different, that somehow by involving in a collection the individual people who comprise that collective are to be regarded, in some way, as less than (or at least different from) human, and that concept makes my spine prickle slightly.

What I would like to know is the details of graduation that you apply. You say you are willing to go "more than half way" with regard to an individual, but imply that you are willing to go no distance at all with regard to a corporation. So what I would be interested to know is, how would you treat other human collectives? Would you, for example, be prepared to meet a club or association less or more than halfway? What about a Limited Company? An ethnic group? A nation? Etc. And, moreover, what is the overall rule that you apply?

I am concerned that much of the trouble you perceive with the TVL people may a product of your refusal to recognise the humanity (and the fallibility which that implies) of those with whom you are dealing.

Okay. I have to say I don't think my position is at all strange, although I accept that some people may not have given it as much thought as I have.

The issue is that I do not accept your proposition that these are all "just" groups of people, and that there is no differentiation between the different types of groups. Clearly they have different styles of organisation (some more benign than others), and different purposes (some more benign than others). In the most basic sense, they probably wish to engage with me in different ways from each other, so I should take note of that, and tailor my response accordingly.

In order to help you, think about how you would respond to an Army. That's just a group of people. What would be the difference in your response between the Army of your country, and an enemy Army at a time of war?

I'm happy to run down your list as a bit of fun, but we are way off-topic, and I don't think my answers are anything but common sense, anyway. I think the issue with your proposition is that you are conflating how one might respond to an individual in an organisation with how one might respond to the organisation itself i.e. when writing to them as an entity, rather than to a named individual. I'm also aware that an organisation like BBC/TVL will try to exploit this.

- Corporation/Company - I require the highest standards of ethics, and I will tailor my response and/or complain if this is not what I receive. My very first encounter with TVL when I had my first LLF enquiry resulted in them lying to me, and I did not accept that then, and I continue to be opposed to it now.

- An ethnic group - I do not see an ethnic group as anything other than a group of individuals, indeed, I do not think it is appropriate to regard them in any other way... or as "them".

- A nation as an entity - I do not see any basis for me as an individual to engage with an entire nation. Nation shall speak unto nation. Cornucopia shall not speak unto nation.

- An individual from another nation - is just an individual, albeit with language and cultural differences that need extra respect.

- Small informal groups (clubs etc.) - Treat as a group of individuals unless/until they do something unpleasant.

And, moreover, what is the overall rule that you apply?

That individual people deserve respect, and that large organisations (especially those that do not respect individuals) need to be treated with caution, disdain and/or censure, as I deem appropriate in the circumstances. The reason is that organisations rarely have human desires at heart, therefore there is never a like-for-like basis for dealing with them. What they do have is power and/or profit as a motivation, which are things that it is not necessarily in my interest to grant them, in the context of the relationship between us.

I am a left-Libertarian, and my view of this is undoubtedly coloured by that political perspective.

I am concerned that much of the trouble you perceive with the TVL people may a product of your refusal to recognise the humanity (and the fallibility which that implies) of those with whom you are dealing.

This is weak argument for me. A human being is fallible, but an organisation is negligent. In fact, the woes of BBC/TVL are so great and so wide-ranging, that they go beyond mere negligence into wilful misconduct. One of the reasons to have a corporation is to have structures and rules that prevent and mitigate human fallibility from impacting the public and damaging the reputation of the organisation. There is a slightly pernicious culture in some of our public and private organisations, but BBC/TVL has that in spades.

Going slightly deeper into the philosophy and the legal position, I am happy to engage with Aldi (I am an MSE-er), to have a relationship with them that extends to a mutually-agreed exchange of money for groceries. There is some basic contract and consumer law that governs that relationship for the protection of both parties (and the development of orderly trade in a consumer society). One essential part to the relationship, is that we both know our limits. I don't go poking around their stock-room looking for the best produce, and they don't want to inspect my home for Tesco's groceries before deciding whether to do business with me or not. The relationship is orderly, respectful, constrained, rational and transparent enough for its purpose.

On the other hand, I might also have a "relationship" with the Police, which is much more authoritarian in nature, and may well result in my errant behaviour being forcibly corrected in various ways. With such a huge responsibility, the Police are governed by an extensive set of rules, and there are rigourous governance structures in place. Possibly, those things aren't perfect, but the intention is to serve and protect the public, whilst employing some form of overriding ethics and accountability.

Between those examples, we can get to a model description of the relationship between people and organisations: orderly, respectful, constrained, rational, transparent enough for its purpose, ethical and accountable. I suggest that BBC/TVL is none of those things.

Unfortunately, BBC/TVL seems to have fallen through the gaps - they are neither a company with whom I can have a mutually agreeable contractual relationship (I am not a customer), nor do they have the authority, ethics, governance or accountability to be a law enforcement organisation.

What are they exactly, other than a monstrous self-inflicted carbuncle on the face of Auntie Beeb?

And if they are, as I suggest, a non-organisation who act with proven malice, why would we give them (and by extension anyone working for them) the time of day?

Zapito

Sheer prejudice on your part then Cornucopia (as well as on theirs, it would seem). Fair enough. But don't expect much of a helpful response or to make any significant progress.

But I know, you won't. So you'll have to just keep on with that bashing I guess.

:wall:
:wall:
:wall:

Enjoy

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

Zapito wrote: »

we are way off-topic

Well, are we? You are saving money by avoiding the licence fee, and I am addressing what I regard as the potential immorality of doing so. This apparently leads into a degree of philosophical complexity, but I don't agree that is necessarily off-topic.

Zapito

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

Maybe it's the fact BBC/TVL, and their employees, are out to (and indeed incentivised to) sell you a licence and/or get you a criminal conviction.

If I needed a TV Licence, I would buy one, and I don't need (or appreciate) a monthly letter, threatening me with a court appearance, and a fine of "up to £1,000", for not having one.

Having had first hand experience of TVL doorsteppers, I wouldn't attribute much of their behaviour to fallibility, so much as intentionally underhand tactics.

Oh Bobby Bobby Bobby, what are we going to do about you? :sad:

Cornucopia

Zapito wrote: »

Sheer prejudice...

Not really. It's not prejudice against Corporations & Companies, because it is clearly rational to deal with them with a degree of caution, and it's not prejudice against BBC/TVL, since I was ambivalent to them until they lied to me. Reacting to being lied to is a rational response.

Well, are we? You are saving money by avoiding the licence fee, and I am addressing what I regard as the potential immorality of doing so. This apparently leads into a degree of philosophical complexity, but I don't agree that is necessarily off-topic.

Okay, I can see that. What I meant was off-topic as to the purpose of the thread - which is discussion of the MSE article.

In the context of that, I'd like to see campaigning organisations like MSE, asking basic questions of BBC/TVL...

- Who are you and what are you?

- Under what authority do you come to exist, and what is your remit under that authority?

- What is the specific process that you wish/require LLF people to follow (and is it "wish" or "require"?)

- If it's only "wish", what are the consequences of declining to take part in the process, and how do those consequences relate to the authority and remit?

- If it's "require", where does that requirement originate in Law?

- How is the overall process related to your authority and your remit?

- Where does the process touch on other legislation (HRA, PACE) and what resolution(s) have you implemented (if any) to address conflicts?

- How do you respond to the suggestion that there is a fundamental conflict of interest in the operation of BBC/TVL?

- What is the governance of BBC/TVL?

- Is it a law enforcement operation, and if so, how can it not be answerable to either Parliament or Local Government?


Like Bob, I don't see the question of me legitimately paying or not paying the Licence fee as a moral one. Nor do I see any moral dimension to me not doing what TVL ask/tell me to, since they have no authority over me.

There are, however, moral aspects to BBC/TVL's behaviour, and legal questions, too.

[Deleted User]

Zapito wrote: »

You are saving money by avoiding the licence fee, and I am addressing what I regard as the potential immorality of doing so.

How is it immoral, not to buy something you don't need :huh:

If you don't fish, is it immoral not to buy a rod licence?

If you don't shoot, is it immoral not to buy a FAC/SGL?

If you don't holiday abroad, is it immoral not to buy a Passport?

If you don't drive, is it immoral not to buy a Driving Licence, and not pay VED?

[Deleted User]

Zapito wrote: »

Oh Bobby Bobby Bobby, what are we going to do about you? :sad:

You don't need to do anything about me.

I'm getting along quite nicely as I am, thank you.

Zapito

Cornucopia wrote: »

What I meant was off-topic as to the purpose of the thread - which is discussion of the MSE article.

MoneySavingExpert_founder_Martin_Lewis wrote:

This is always going to be a contentious guide, as the BBC and its licence fee attracts strong feelings from both lovers and haters. Personally I support the licence fee, but this is a MoneySaving site and our job is to save people cash.

That quote's from the article itself. So, not off-topic at all.

Zapito

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

How is it immoral, not to buy something you don't need :huh:

If you don't fish, is it immoral not to buy a rod licence?

If you don't shoot, is it immoral not to buy a FAC/SGL?

If you don't holiday abroad, is it immoral not to buy a Passport?

If you don't drive, is it immoral not to buy a Driving Licence, and not pay VED?

None of the above. But if you were to regularly use catchup to watch TV without a licence, solely as a means of avoiding the licence fee then, yes, I do regard that as morally dubious. Just as, say, setting up a tax haven (or whatever) to avoid tax may be perfectly legal, yet is thought of as morally dubious by most taxpayers.

Of course, for anyone who genuinely does not watch telly then I have no beef. Although I do still feel that those who listen to BBC Radio should reasonably be expected to make a contribution (for which some way should be provided, which I don't think there is).

---

Cornucopia wrote: »

Like Bob, I don't see the question of me legitimately paying or not paying the Licence fee as a moral one.

See my reply to Bedsit Bob, above (this post)

Zapito

Cornucopia wrote: »

I'd like to see campaigning organisations like MSE, asking basic questions of BBC/TVL...

- Who are you and what are you?

- Under what authority do you come to exist, and what is your remit under that authority?

- What is the specific process that you wish/require LLF people to follow (and is it "wish" or "require"?)

- If it's only "wish", what are the consequences of declining to take part in the process, and how do those consequences relate to the authority and remit?

- If it's "require", where does that requirement originate in Law?

- How is the overall process related to your authority and your remit?

- Where does the process touch on other legislation (HRA, PACE) and what resolution(s) have you implemented (if any) to address conflicts?

- How do you respond to the suggestion that there is a fundamental conflict of interest in the operation of BBC/TVL?

- What is the governance of BBC/TVL?

- Is it a law enforcement operation, and if so, how can it not be answerable to either Parliament or Local Government?

Much of this stuff is already known. With regard to anything that is not, I humbly refer you once again to the Freedom of Information Act, with reference to which I suggest you make an official request.