TV Licence article Discussion

Cornucopia

astroL wrote: »

I'm not sure that you are correct here. The government has been putting financial pressure on the BBC that resulted in the BBC having to decide where they made cuts to deal with the government pressure. Its rather akin to local councils having to cut essential services because government cuts to their own budgets leave them to take the blame for cuts down the line. [Its still a frog!]

I think the exact position is probably lost in the mists of time and the fog of government.

What we know is that Lord Hall welcomed this deal when it was first introduced in 2015. He believed that (a) the BBC would secure good overall benefit based on the other things it received in return for taking on over-75s Licences, and (b) that many/most arts & entertainment organisations covered the costs of concessions.

Now, he seems to have changed his position (by something approaching 180 degrees). What we don't know is why?

Sea_Fossil

MSE recommends not paying by quarterly DD, I used to pay monthly but had trouble getting a refund and the agent at TVL suggest I pay quarterly. I disappear down under in winter and cancel my licence then receive a partial refund with no probs. I may add that while away in Oz the Gestapo visited my property and sent threatening letters etc., it is obvious one department does not communicate with the other..... they could save and reduce the licence fee if they did not waste so much of their resources.

Cornucopia

Sea_Fossil wrote: »

MSE recommends not paying by quarterly DD...

Only because there is an additional fee when you pay by this method.

The mechanics of the Licence and the customer service should be exactly the same.

Britannia12345

I read the information below on an email sent to me from a petition from 38 degrees, and it made me wonder - how are so many people being prosecuted for not having a licence? Did they let the 'officers' in, did they sign anything? Seeing so many people being hauled before the courts worries the hell out of me, especially as I'm about to cancel my licence.


As usual at this time of the year, I compiled FOI results and made a TV licence report. In a nutshell, nearly 140,000 people were prosecuted last year, 72 % of them being women. Over 9,000 people suffered the ordeal needlessly as have been found not guilty. That represent 7% of all cases. 65 people had been jailed for TV licence fine default (of which 40 were women). The five people jailed in England were put behind bars for an average of 19 days. My complete report can be read on my blog here https://endbbclicencefee.wordpress.com/2019/06/13/foi-2018-tv-licence-statistics/ and stats for 2017 are also available for comparison here https://endbbclicencefee.wordpress.com/2019/06/13/foi-2017-tv-licence-stats/

These stats were picked up by Katherine Rushton from the Daily Mail

Cornucopia

Britannia12345 wrote: »

I read the information below on an email sent to me from a petition from 38 degrees, and it made me wonder - how are so many people being prosecuted for not having a licence? Did they let the 'officers' in, did they sign anything? Seeing so many people being hauled before the courts worries the hell out of me, especially as I'm about to cancel my licence.

Most people are prosecuted as a consequence of TVL filling in a form called a TVL178. This is a multi-purpose paper form that combines a PACE record of interview with a questionnaire that documents the TVL person's interpretation of the householder's viewing habits.

Having a multi-purpose form isn't great, neither is using a paper form when all the other main law enforcement organisations moved on from corruptible media decades ago.

There are also some problems with the TVL caution. Sometimes it isn't given at all, and even if it is given in accordance with BBC policy, it is arguably incomplete and doesn't cover all of the relevant rights that a person has.

There is also widespread public confusion about interview under caution (perhaps as a consequence of viewing too much Police drama). Some people evidently talk themselves into prosecution, and TVL staff seeking their financial commission are all too keen to document it.

In England and Wales, when a non-Police law enforcement organisation seeks to interview you under caution, you have the following rights:-

- To decline interview entirely.

- To decline individual questions at your discretion.

- To obtain legal advice before and during interview.

- To have the interview proceedings recorded accurately and impartially on incorruptible media.

Since TV Licence evasion is a minor offence, neither TVL or the Courts are permitted to draw a negative inference from a refusal to answer questions.

In Scotland, similar rules apply, but they are structured slightly differently. Also, it requires 2 TVL staff to document evidence in Scotland, due to the requirement for corroboration.

Britannia12345

How and why do people fill in the form? (sorry for my ignorance - I tried reading through the thread but it's really long and I can't get the search facility to work on my tablet)

cw18

Britannia12345 wrote: »

How and why do people fill in the form?

The form admitting they're "guilty"?


When an 'inspector comes calling'. A lot of people don't seem to realise you don't have to let them and can refuse to answer questions.

[Deleted User]

Cornucopia wrote: »

Some people evidently talk themselves into prosecution

The fundamental error is in talking AT ALL.

Cornucopia

Britannia12345 wrote: »

How and why do people fill in the form? (sorry for my ignorance - I tried reading through the thread but it's really long and I can't get the search facility to work on my tablet)

To be honest, I've asked quite a few people over the years that I've been interested in the TV Licence, and never received a coherent answer.

I don't think that the answer is within the thread, either.

I think it just comes down to TVL telling them that it must be filled in and them not knowing otherwise. I can imagine that when they turn up and start making accusations of a crime on one's doorstep it must be quite chastening.

As I mentioned there are some issues with the Caution, too. (I think some people have in mind that somehow the Caution compels you to cooperate, whereas the truth is the complete opposite).

The whole thing is a bit of a stain on our legal system, IMHO. From the choice of the BBC as owner of the process (who have no regulator over this activity) to the sausage factory process in the Magistrates Courts (where cases are processed in bulk, 100-200 in a 2-3 hour court session). Now, with the Single Justice Procedure, these cases are no longer even heard in open court.

andygb

Cornucopia wrote: »

I can imagine that when they turn up and start making accusations of a crime on one's doorstep it must be quite chastening.

I suppose the easy answer to that is to say nothing and shut the door in their face.
Do they have a warrant to search the property?
Do they have an arrest warrant?