TV Licence article Discussion

cw18

slow_saver said:

Otherwise what is the alternative? No BBC or no Ad free BBC at all?

Given I dislike the BBC enough to give up the right to watch ANY live TV channel rather than give them a penny of my money, I'd be quite happy with either of those options.......

wymondham

I think the BBC will try to come up with some half baked scenario whereby it can keep the licence fee albeit at a reduced rate with bits bolted on. This wont be acceptable to anyone under 50 (maybe older as I'm over that and am fed up with this archaic tax) and the BBC will suffer from people who review their viewing habits, discover they are in fact able to live very easily licence free and do so. 

Cornucopia

The smart money commentators are now openly predicting decriminalisation as of 2022, and a multi-tier approach to payment.

FreeBear

Cornucopia said:The smart money commentators are now openly predicting decriminalisation as of 2022,

It will make it easier for TVL to issue "fines", but if they don't have a name for the victim, enforcement is still going to be a problem for them. So, I for one, will not be answering any of their questions if they are foolish enough to come banging on my door.

Watchkeeper

FreeBear said:

... if they don't have a name for the victim, enforcement is still going to be a problem for them.

Le silence est l’arme ultime du pouvoir.
Charles de Gaulle

wymondham

Cornucopia said:

The smart money commentators are now openly predicting decriminalisation as of 2022, and a multi-tier approach to payment.

I'm not sure what actual good this will do. Rather than going to court now if you fail to pay your fine you get a fine and bailiffs if you fail to pay. This doesn't really resolve any issues?

Cornucopia

wymondham said:

Cornucopia said:

The smart money commentators are now openly predicting decriminalisation as of 2022, and a multi-tier approach to payment.

I'm not sure what actual good this will do. Rather than going to court now if you fail to pay your fine you get a fine and bailiffs if you fail to pay. This doesn't really resolve any issues?

In itself, I'm not sure it will be much of an improvement (though it may bring the various shortcomings in the present system into scrutiny).   If the new model is debt-based, then there is an important question as to how that debt is evidenced, as the situation with the TV Licence is more complicated than utilities debt for several reasons.   

For me, though, it's the direction of travel that's more important.   The "iPlayer change" in 2016 was the first time that BBC content became regulated separately and differently from the same type of content provided by other broadcasters.   Taking the logical next step, the same thing will apply to, say, live streamed content.  Then to broadcasts.  And then it becomes a relatively short step to BBC Subscription.  (And it may well be that for political and practical reasons, change has to be made that slowly).  

FreeBear

wymondham said: I'm not sure what actual good this will do. Rather than going to court now if you fail to pay your fine you get a fine and bailiffs if you fail to pay. This doesn't really resolve any issues?

Under the current system, TVL are required to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that the victim was committing an offence. Decriminalisation means TVL only have to prove "on balance of probability" that an offence took place - A much lower barrier, so easier to sway a judge.

Cornucopia

If there is going to be a change in the degree to which the "evidence" will be scrutinised, I don't think it will come from the difference between criminal and civil procedure.    I think there may be a multi-tier BBC service going forward, and only the bottom tier will be compulsory following a decriminalised prosecution process.   There is an issue compared with Scotland in that England/Wales do not have an equivalent role to Procurator Fiscal.   Therefore if a fixed penalty option was provided, the amount would probably be set in legislation, which seems a reasonable approach.   

There's also a real question as to whether "beyond reasonable doubt" actually means very much in TVL cases that are generally evidenced by confession.   Even when a defendant flat-out denies that they confessed willingly, Courts are very, very reluctant to dismiss TVL's evidence, though there have been some cases with compromise verdicts. 

Ego_Shredder

Cornucopia said:

There's also a real question as to whether "beyond reasonable doubt" actually means very much in TVL cases that are generally evidenced by confession.   Even when a defendant flat-out denies that they confessed willingly, Courts are very, very reluctant to dismiss TVL's evidence, though there have been some cases with compromise verdicts. 

So what if the householder really did not confess willingly, and then strenously denies it later?  Can TVL lie and say you confessed, even when you did not?  Do TVL have to provide evidence of a confession, e.g. audio/video recording or a signature?