TV Licence article Discussion

Mickey666

cw18 said:

veganpanda said:

 I'm not sure about your gun analogy though?! 😲☮️

In the slightly dim and distant past, I'd have suggested dog licence as a better one to use.   Never had a dog growing up, so my parents didn't need one.   I got a dog shortly after getting my first home, and had to pay for one for a couple of years (before they were abolished).   But I've had years without a dog since then, then some years with one (then two), and back to none for the last 9+ years.    I'd have been annoyed if they'd chased me on a regular basis to see if I'd got another dog and now needed a licence again.

Perhaps the old dog licence would have been a better analogy in the sense of numbers, ie far more people have dogs than guns, but the principle is exactly the same.  TV/gun/dog (as was) licences are not mandatory.  Fine.  If you want one of those things you get a licence.  Fine. 

But which of those things has(had) a dedicated army of people constantly pestering every homeowner in the land by sending them threatening letters telling them that having a TV/gun/dog(as was) WITHOUT a licence is illegal and that they are going to send someone to your home to verify you don't need a TV/gun/dog(as was) licence, or requiring you to tell them every two years that you don't need a TV/gun/dog(as was) licence?

TV Licencing really just state bullying by another name.  If government really wants everyone to pay for the BBC then be honest about it and add an appropriate amount to council tax or something, but don't pretend we have a choice and then hound and bully everyone who exercises that choice!

The BBC funding model is outdated.  It will have to eventually change to some form of subscription model.

Cornucopia

The actual choice of the enforcement detail is down to the BBC.   The Government does not specify how the TV Licence should be enforced (in legislation or otherwise).  In fact it doesn't specify that the TV Licence should be enforced at all, as far as I can work out.   

But successive governments have been negligent in not properly supervising the BBC's enforcement efforts (there should be no law enforcement without proper accountability).  

Given the huge number of complaints about TV Licensing to MPs across the country, there's no excuse of plausible deniability there - they should do something about it.

cw18

4justice2 said:
I too feel that subscription is the model to go for. After all, if the BBC genuinely believes that everyone loves it's output, surely they would lose only those hardcore "defund the BBC" activists and everyone else would happily cough up?

Totally agree.    My fella is hoping it would be like Netflix, NowTV, Disney+ etc where you can just dip in and out when there's something you want to watch.    He pays his licence purely so that he can watch Children In Need and Dr Who !!!!!

4justice2 said:

Yet BBC claim that a subscription could be £400 a year, so more than double the current licence fee, so they must be expecting a hell of a lot of people to stop paying! 

I hadn't heard that figure before.    That's frightening - especially for my parents generation, many of whom don't understand (or have any interest in) the current subscription services.  My parents would probably carry on paying without having to worry too much about where the extra comes from, but I know other family members have tight budgets that probably wouldn't stretch to that (but just miss out on qualifying for Pension Credit, so have lost their free licence and have already had to find the current licence fee).

The only thing that worries me about it moving behind a subscription wall is whether people would need an internet connection to be able to access it (I suspect it's likely, as all the other subscription services need one).   At least one older member of the family doesn't have internet, and certainly wouldn't be able to afford a connection as well as an even more expensive licence.

veganpanda

4justice2 said:

Indeed, one of the problems with the BBC's guaranteed funding through the licence fee is that it remains hideously bloated. Were it to change to advertising or voluntary subscriptions it would have to slim down a lot. I don't know whether there is sufficient advertising revenue to support both BBC as well as the existing commercial networks. I too feel that subscription is the model to go for. After all, if the BBC genuinely believes that everyone loves it's output, surely they would lose only those hardcore "defund the BBC" activists and everyone else would happily cough up? Yet BBC claim that a subscription could be £400 a year, so more than double the current licence fee, so they must be expecting a hell of a lot of people to stop paying! 

But I never suggested a subscription to the bbc, no once! What I did suggest was a tv advert subscription for the bbc, so they could place an ad immediately before each tv show instead of the usual ITV adverts breaking up the tv shows!

Cornucopia

Mickey666 said:

Interesting point, but does government EVER specify how laws are to be enforced or does it just assume that the police and the courts will enforce the law?  Which raises the interesting possibility that the TV Licencing is acting as a sort of private police force working on behalf of the BBC.  Hmm.  I wonder if there are any other organisations that work like this?  I can't think of any off the top of my head.

It depends what you mean by "specify".   Usually, where there is a requirement for Members of the Public to do something then the legislation will set out what must be done, the consequences for not doing it and (usually) the agency responsible.    There are many offences and other pieces of legislation that are not enforced by the Police (the TV Licence being one) so presumably it is set out to Officers in training which legislation is relevant?

The day-to-day enforcement activities of TV Licensing are not specified in legislation, and that means that members of the Public are not required to co-operate by responding to letters or allowing TVL staff into their homes without a warrant.   That doesn't seem to stop BBC/TVL from making demands in a very similar way to other agencies that do have legal powers, and I think a non-lawyer would be hard-pressed to determine from the language used whether it was necessary to co-operate or not.

So, yes, TVL does seem to be behaving very much like a private police force employed by the BBC.   There are some similar organisations that have prosecution powers without being especially accountable to government, the two main ones being HSE and RSPCA.   (RSPCA have been criticised in the past for their behaviour and prosecution decison-making).

edit: To complicate things even further, there is a requirement that anything within the scope of the Human Rights Act (like entering people's homes) should be specified in legislation.   

val_parry

I am 73 and in receipt of Pension Credit guarantee can I get any reduction?

Nick_C

val_parry said:

I am 73 and in receipt of Pension Credit guarantee can I get any reduction?

Not until you are 75

https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/for-your-home/aged-74-and-over-aud3

But if you simply decide not to not watch live TV and not use iPlayer, you do not need a licence.  You can watch Netflix, Now TV Boxsets, ITV and Channel 4 on demand without paying the BBC.

2010

Nick-C,
I read your very useful post from last Sept. about cancelling the licence.
You ended your post saying that they sent you a letter "to the occupier"
I just wondered if you have heard anymore from them?

nickcc

Just read that anyone over 75 not owning a TV licence will not be prosecuted even if they need a licence.

Nick_C

2010 said:

Nick-C,
I read your very useful post from last Sept. about cancelling the licence.
You ended your post saying that they sent you a letter "to the occupier"
I just wondered if you have heard anymore from them?

I did try to reply to your PM but it didn't seem to work!

Got a letter addressed to The Occupier confirming that they had been told a licence was not needed. Have heard nothing since. Think they might have said they will check back with me after three years.