TV Licence article Discussion

Cornucopia

As a general principle, the idea of giving free Licences to everyone on benefits and all pensioners (not just over-75s) is a good one.

Like the present over-75s system, there will be problems - the over-75s scheme works such that any household with an over-75-yo in it qualifies. So an over-75 living with millionaires still qualifies. This would be an issue if covering other groups' Licences, too.

However, the image of the wealthy, glitzy BBC roaming the country looking for the poor and the disorganised to prosecute for Licence evasion is highly unseemly.

The bigger issue is: if the poor aren't paying, who is? Or will the BBC simply be cut down to half its size? If not, I can't see the rest of the country willingly agreeing to pay double. You rapidly get back to BBC being a "nice to have" for most people, as long as it doesn't cost too much.

The most straightforward way to proceed is to make the Licence a licence to receive BBC only. Extend it also to iPlayer. Begin the process of locking-in the services to the Licence, and then after the technology has rolled-out far enough, move to subscription. Let people choose for themselves. Let the BBC set up subs packages that will appeal. Let the BBC sell their services overseas. Let Government underwrite each year's subscription income so there are no nasty surprises. Sorted.

The only people who would disagree with that are those who think the BBC is essential AND don't believe that the majority of the public agree with them.

[Deleted User]

Cornucopia wrote: »

As a general principle, the idea of giving free Licences to everyone on benefits and all pensioners (not just over-75s) is a good one.

The only question being, Who pays for them?

If it's to come out of general taxation, it leaves the non-watchers, paying for others to watch. :mad:

The most straightforward way to proceed is to make the Licence a licence to receive BBC only. Extend it also to iPlayer.

Agreed.

DavidP24

I used to be against the BBC having to fund itself but a lot has changed, we now have a model where ad free TV can be delivered by subscription and encrypted.

All the BBC has to do is pay for the encryption technology at the centre and have it use existing technology in the living room.

It means we do not need the admin paid on TVL, those that want it pay for it just as they do Netflix or Sky

Freeview can make the BBC channels pay per view

Other channels can sydicate BBC content for free on their channels with ads

The simple fact is that the BBC needs to get with it and stop making us pay for something we do not use under threat from the TVL Thugs.

DavidP24

I do not see the rest paying double, not in one go, the DWP argue that benefits are enough to live on including a TV License, when people used to use it as an excuse for non payment they said it was factored in.

If you add up the cost of collection, the £550m paid to TVL and the cost of prosecuting it is not worth it.

For years we have had examples of the BBC overspending, it is a disease of spending OPM (other people's money). We had reports of 30 different BBC reporters being send to cover a foreign news event, each with flight, hotel and expenses. It was worse for sport where they sent 95 staff

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2550048/BBC-fire-sending-95-staff-Winter-Olympics-TWICE-number-competing-Team-GB.html

They were supposed to move their operations up north to save money, then they spent a BILLION on a new London office, then to rub salt in the wound they spend a fortune revamping it within 18 months

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10713334/BBCs-1bn-HQ-needs-makeover-18-months-after-opening.html

WHY?

"BBC chiefs said the makeover was needed because creative staff complained that the two floors were not “inspiring”"

Are you bullie kidding me? How about if you are not creative you get fired as you would if you worked for anyone else!

I WOULD like to see the BBC cut down, starting with top heavy management, contractors paid over the top rates.

It also needs to be in two parts, the commercial bit that makes and sells programmes supplied by subscription with no TV License and a smaller part that does things like Radio that is funded by the whole TV iudustry as well as BBC enterprises, the fact is that BBC programming is sold for way under market rates around the world.

There would be no more license so no comparing the rich and the poor or the rich paying for the poor, we have a model called Freeview that delivers free TV for anyone who wants it.

I think the move to subscription has to be made quickly, BBC block some iplayer content around the world but they do not bother to offer a subscription, it would be easy to sell it to cable TV providers in the US, Canada, Australia and the rest of the world. They don't even try.

I remember testing the live election coverage back in May to the USA, it was shown free but if you watched it live online you were told you needed a TV License. So we give it away to 330m people in the US but charge our own citizens!

I think the BBC is essential but I no longer believe it is run effectively, I do not agree with the TV License, I want it scrapped and it moved to a subscription model. They have different packages to suit different markets, if they do not pay then they can be scrapped. Hell if Sky can persuade people to pay for the kwap on Sky Arts that I hear advertised on the radio then the BBC could sell their sheeeet.

As I said earlier, Turkey do not vote for Christmas so we have to send all those high powered execs who love to waste our money to the Job Centre and they can take the idiots that wanted a more creative carpet with them.

Cornucopia wrote: »

As a general principle, the idea of giving free Licences to everyone on benefits and all pensioners (not just over-75s) is a good one.

Like the present over-75s system, there will be problems - the over-75s scheme works such that any household with an over-75-yo in it qualifies. So an over-75 living with millionaires still qualifies. This would be an issue if covering other groups' Licences, too.

However, the image of the wealthy, glitzy BBC roaming the country looking for the poor and the disorganised to prosecute for Licence evasion is highly unseemly.

The bigger issue is: if the poor aren't paying, who is? Or will the BBC simply be cut down to half its size? If not, I can't see the rest of the country willingly agreeing to pay double. You rapidly get back to BBC being a "nice to have" for most people, as long as it doesn't cost too much.

The most straightforward way to proceed is to make the Licence a licence to receive BBC only. Extend it also to iPlayer. Begin the process of locking-in the services to the Licence, and then after the technology has rolled-out far enough, move to subscription. Let people choose for themselves. Let the BBC set up subs packages that will appeal. Let the BBC sell their services overseas. Let Government underwrite each year's subscription income so there are no nasty surprises. Sorted.

The only people who would disagree with that are those who think the BBC is essential AND don't believe that the majority of the public agree with them.

[Deleted User]

DavidP24 wrote: »

I think the BBC is essential

I don't.

Very little of what the BBC does, is unique to them.

If we really must have a BBC (and I don't believe we do), make it just one TV channel, producing content which nobody else does, and charge a subscription.

If it's wanted (as the BBC claim), people will pay.

Cornucopia

I'm a little wary of those typical Daily Mail arguments where the "BBC sends X people to cover Y". The problem is that they are too subjective. If the BBC says: "Okay, we sent twice as many people to make coverage that was twice as long and twice as good", who am I to say differently?

The issues with the BBC run deeper than that, anyway. It is not about waste or profligacy so much as waste, profligacy, mission, scope, technical approach and overall purpose that is unaccountable to anyone in any meaningful way. This model of spending for the "good" of society without accountability belongs in the 1950s. The BBC wants to pass comment on the governance of China? It needs to fix its own governance first... and then some.

More to the point all of that bad governance is sat upon an edifice of funding through BBC/TV Licensing that plainly has "issues". Again, it persists with those issues despite being woefully unaccountable. No law enforcement operation can ever be permitted to be democratically unaccountable - it is completely unacceptable. The BBC lost any possible credibility it could have had to manage such a situation the moment TVL's David Clarke struck pensioner Ron Sinclair a decade ago (and was convicted for it).

I have a formal complaint outstanding with the BBC Trust. It covers most of the issues I stated above in #2144. If that complaint fails to gain any traction, it, together with previous Ministerial statements from both major parties denying Parliamentary accountability for TV Licensing indicates a complete and comprehensive failure of governance. And if that happens, I think we simply ignore TV Licensing en masse, with the expectation that it will eventually go away.

Whether this is a day-to-day ignoring, as suggested by Bob, or whether it is more proactive and set into a legal framework, I am unsure about (each has its pros and cons).

In the interests of balance and disclosure, I should say that the BBC has previously indicated that its approach (particularly its searches of unlicensed premises without warrants) is driven by the principle of consent, which it believes gives it a level of exemption from the HRA.

My view is that the HRA would be meaningless if consent were held to be a general exemption (in particular in the policing operations of more roguish states than ours). "Sign here to be tortured, and you will be beaten if you don't", really doesn't work for me as a general principle of basic rights.

Even if we accept a narrow focus of consent specifically on Article 8.2 (and they have presented no case law to suggest this), it's not clear what TVL are doing to attain such consent. They have confirmed that no strict, mandated, legally-approved form of words is used, and no monitoring or supervision of their field staff is undertaken in this area.

But consent is neat, though, from the viewpoint of someone who wishes to defend or protest about the TVL debacle. Withdraw or withhold your consent, and there is nothing they can do.

pineapple

I can't believe we have got this far in the debate and some still think that the noun licence is spelt license.(the American spelling). I know it is picky of me but I think it detracts from the credibility of an argument, if you can't spell the subject under discussion. :huh:
Plus, being sad, I can't concentrate on what is being said when the urge to take a red marker to a post is so strong :rotfl:

Cornucopia

FMs may be aware that I raised a formal complaint with the BBC regarding some of the issues discussed in this thread.

I have now finally received an initial response from the BBC Trust. This is not quite the final step, but is a broad indication of the BBC's thinking.

Some aspects of the response, I think, are so outrageous that I want to share them as widely as possible.

- The BBC has refused to tell me the legal basis of the TVL enforcement activities. They say that they hold legal advice that says it is okay, but cannot tell me what that is because of "legal privilege' (i.e. the confidentiality of solicitors' advice). This flies in the face of case law which suggests that any use of legislation to interfere with citizens' privacy must be clear and accessible (amongst other things).

- The BBC has refused to accept that it should not demand a response from unlicensed people unless it has a legal basis to do so. The Trust propose to uphold this on the basis that responding is not particularly onerous. The principles involved seem to be beyond their grasp.

- Overall The Trust claims that the question of the legality of Licence Fee enforcement is not "a matter of substance" and is therefore outside its scope.

- The BBC has failed to accept or address various issues that I have presented regarding its process for search warrants. The Trust propose to uphold this, citing that ultimately, it is a matter for the Courts (which is not true).

ScoobyZ

I buy a licence.

I like the BBC no bloody adverts!

I like BBC radio and BBC website. Also like one player so don't mind contributing.

Trouble is too many free-loaders out there want something for nothing.

Cornucopia

Not me, I want nothing for nothing, and am entirely happy if you want something for something.

Unfortunately, the BBC doesn't seem to like that very basic state of affairs, and ultimately would be happy for me to pay something and get nothing i.e. to buy a Licence I don't need.

Irrespective of the merits of the Licence Fee itself, I still think that its enforcement should be lawful, fair, proportionate, based on legislation, etc. etc.