TV Licence article Discussion

[Deleted User]

cw18 wrote: »

Now we no longer need a paper disc to put in the windscreen I do my road fund licence on the last day of the month for the same reason

So long as you renew after the 5th of the month, in which it expires, you will be fine, because the new one will run from the 1st of the following month.

cw18

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

So long as you renew after the 5th of the month, in which it expires, you will be fine, because the new one will run from the 1st of the following month.

I've no intention of letting them have my money almost a month before I have to. Pay on-line on last day, and they don't see it until early the next month

[Deleted User]

I've just received my 115th letter from TVL, and you've got to admire their optimism, after I've ignored the previous 114 letters. :laugh:

As you have not responded to our letters yet

Cornucopia

It's been a while since I've seen one of their letters. So dishonest.

Jackmydad

I wonder how often they do actually get a warrant?

Seems to be mostly threats.

I don't see why if you don't pay a licence it's automatically assumed you are in the wrong.
Surely there's an assumption of innocence until proved guilty in this country?

I pay my licence because I use the service, but I do not like their collection tactics.

Cornucopia

Jackmydad wrote: »

I wonder how often they do actually get a warrant?

Some figures leaked out a couple of years ago. They were obtaining and executing around 100 warrants for England & Wales per year. None in Scotland.

I don't see why if you don't pay a licence it's automatically assumed you are in the wrong. Surely there's an assumption of innocence until proved guilty in this country?

I think the numbers (90%+ TV reception usage) are probably on their side, but as you say, that needs to be balanced with the legal principles by which a civil society operates. Since their process starts from a presumption of guilt, and their communications are fundamentally dishonest, I have nothing to do with them. I'm fortunate in that they prefer to have nothing to do with me, too.

...I do not like their collection tactics.

I think most reasonable people share that view, once they understand the tactics BBC-TVL use. It's sad, though, that our society still gives rise to these abuses of authority. Perhaps there is something fundamental in human nature that causes it? Nevertheless I regard it as a breakdown in governance that these things can arise and persist, often for decades.

[Deleted User]

Jackmydad wrote: »

I don't see why if you don't pay a licence it's automatically assumed you are in the wrong.

Especially given the following.

TVL_Website wrote:

when we visit and make contact, we find almost one in six people that tell us they don't need a TV Licence actually do need one.

Jackmydad

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

Especially given the following.

It does make you wonder if their present approach does them any favours.
If it's one in six, I wonder what the return versus the cost of fee chasing is.

[Deleted User]

Jackmydad wrote: »

If it's one in six, I wonder what the return versus the cost of fee chasing is.

Actually, I was referring to the fact that more than five in six don't require a licence, so the default presumption should be one of innocence, since that is, by far, the majority state.

Cornucopia

The "nearly one in six" figure from TVL is interesting for the reasons above, and because it's slightly strange that this very secretive pseudo-organisation chooses to publish it. It's not a particularly compelling statistic for their cause, and amongst all of their stats which barely move from year to year, this one and the gender-bias one have moved considerably over the years, showing their search for evaders becoming less and less effective (and more and more gender-biased).

"1 in 6" also comes with an important caveat - that is it based upon numbers of households that have previously claimed not to need a Licence. We can speculate about what that actually means (in the absence of more detail from TVL), but the most likely explanation is that it relates to people who have completed the "No Licence Needed" online form or told TVL's customer services in some other way. That's a somewhat odd group to highlight in this way, not least because it is a self-selecting group who choose to abide by TVL's process even though they do not have to. Perhaps the value to TVL is the implication that even though that group has volunteered information, they have still been "visited" and 1 in 6 of those visits have enabled the procurement of a viable evasion case by "whatever means necessary". Even so, we do not know what it is 1 in 6 of.

The bigger, more statistically valid numbers look like this:

- c. 4 million attempted "visits".
- Around 20% access rate (fairly typical) = 800,000 contacts
- Of which around half procure "evidence" = 400,000 cases
- Of which half are dropped = 200,000 cases remaining
- 200,000 cases to Court, of which around a third are subsequently withdrawn.

Or in other words an effectiveness measure of around 4% (subject to a caveat about whether the dropping of more than half of all cases is a win or a fail, and subject to not accounting fully for Scotland, where the process is different).