TV Licence article Discussion

Zapito

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

Zapito. I believe you asked earlier, how muchh the BBC spends on enforcement.

Not sure I did. Can't think why I should. Are you sure it wasn't one of the questions put by Cornucopia, that prompted me to suggest a FoI request?

It wouldn't mean much on it's own, without an accompanying figure of how much additional licence fee money was raised as a result.

---

Cornucopia wrote: »

Interestingly, it is this question of their intentions that also brings in various questions of law.

This seems to summarise their view on that:

https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ93

Cornucopia

Zapito wrote: »

This seems to summarise their view on that:

https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ93

No it doesn't.

That's a good example of their half-truths and lack of appreciation for how a throw-away phrase (presumably carefully chosen) like "If the Enforcement Officer can confirm..." can obfuscate a wealth of legal questions, and undermine basic, historic legal rights.

If I get time later, I will dissect that statement of theirs and illustrate the various lies and manipulation it contains.

Cornucopia

Zapito wrote: »

Are you sure it wasn't one of the questions put by Cornucopia...

No, it wasn't one of those.

HappyMJ

Zapito wrote: »

Not sure I did. Can't think why I should. Are you sure it wasn't one of the questions put by Cornucopia, that prompted me to suggest a FoI request?

It wouldn't mean much on it's own, without an accompanying figure of how much additional licence fee money was raised as a result.

There was something about this on another thread a long time ago. Enforcement brings nothing extra to the BBC but without enforcement many more would not pay so just having the threat there brings in an amount that cannot be calculated.

Zapito

Cornucopia wrote: »

No, it wasn't one of those.

No, those questions were all about procedure.

No idea then BB, sorry. But as I say, the figure (£100m) is meaningless without knowing how much it resulted in collecting.

Cornucopia

If you base it on the number of people prosecuted, c. 200,000, then the lost revenue is £29m, so the enforcement costs more than it produces.

Even if you took the higher figure of all the people that BBC/TVL could have prosecuted, c.400,000, we're still some way short at £58m.

But perhaps that's too simple a model?

It would certainly explain why they don't seem to be able to "catch them all". It would presumably cost a similar amount to catch each batch of 400,000 (probably even more as they tackle progressively more "difficult" cases). The overall estimate of 1,375,000 must look like a distant dream.

Zapito

HappyMJ wrote: »

Enforcement brings nothing extra to the BBC but without enforcement many more would not pay so just having the threat there brings in an amount that cannot be calculated.

Probably not as true now though (if it was then) as now people can easily argue they only watch catchup. Plus people are getting more savvy, with the information that there's not really anything TVL can do about it if you are determined not to pay. So many more now are simply not paying.

[Deleted User]

They do seem to contradict themselves.

What happens if I tell you I don't need a TV Licence?

We will send you confirmation of your No Licence Needed Declaration.

Please note that it's TV Licensing's policy to visit some addresses to check that the occupants don't need a TV Licence.

I don't have a TV, why do I keep getting letters sent to me?

If we are told that there is no television used at an address, we will stop standard letters being sent and an Enforcement Officer will be scheduled to visit.

Also, note the statement "If we are told that there is no television used at an address".

It's perfectly possible to use a television, without requiring a licence.

cw18

Zapito wrote: »

So can I take it therefore that none of you guys would have any objection to the licence being extended to cover catchup?

I wouldn't. Can't remember the last time I used it for anything that I fancied taking a peek at.

My younger son used it to watch a Dr Who special last year when he came to stay for a few days. He used my Smart TV to watch it, but he could have watched it on a laptop that wasn't connected to the mains and been covered by his home licence

DavidP24

Zapito wrote: »

There you go - problem solved. No need to dismantle the whole system, simply tackle injustice wherever it occurs.

Except injustice is their policy, it occurs everywhere, everyday, from the poor woman a few posts back forced to buy a TV licence through Fear even though she did not need one, to all the awipes on YouTube.


They were only able to tackle the injustice because they have a building security company.

On YouTube you can even see them bothering neighbours asking "do you know the name of the person that lives there" that is against the harassment act, which prevents you damaging someone's reputation by calling things through the door or involving neighbours.

I am just waiting for the next one and I will be uploading my own video after filming it.

Capita are complete scum as far as I am concerned, if they were not employed by the BBC Panorama would have sent in an undercover reporter to record their training to see that people are told to mislead and create FUD.