TV Licence article Discussion

Cornucopia

Being a bit more constructive, these are the questions I would be asking the BBC if I were an investigative/consumer affairs journalist with a reputable institution supporting me...

- What is the overall process that TV Licensing uses to engage with people who don't need Licences?   What is the legal authority for that process, if any?   Who designed the process, when, how and why?

- Who writes the TV Licensing enforcement letters, and what is their purpose?   Why do they contain claims that are variously (a) not true, (b) not transparent, and (c) little more than theatrical devices that risk exploiting vulnerable people?

- Why did TV Licensing send 52 million of these letters last year, and 36 million the year before?   How many unlicensed addresses are being targeted with that quantity of letters, and what is the thinking behind that?  Is it fundamentally irresponsible?

- What does a TV Licensing "investigation" actually entail, and what is the legal framework for it?   In what way is an "investigation" different from a "visit", and why are both terms in use if they mean the same thing?

- What does a TV Licensing "visit" actually entail, and what is the legal framework for it?  What does "consent" mean in that context?

- If/when TV Licensing interviews householders, what is the legal framework for that, and how is compliance with the law addressed in policy, training, monitoring and the design of paperwork?    Again, what is the role of "informed consent", and other key features of the law like "Right to Counsel"?

- What steps has BBC/TV Licensing taken to investigate the gender imbalance in prosecutions in which the proportion of female defendants has steadily grown over a period of years to 74%.   Is there a level of gender imbalance that the BBC would deem inappropriate?

- How does the BBC see Licence Fee enforcement and engagement going forwards?   What are the major challenges?

wild666

When I had Prime I used to watch the live sport, football, and I watch live women's football on the FA player. No website should release data about when a person logs in to view content, if they did it would be a breach of the DPA. The FA Player content I watch only attracts a few thousand people per game as far as I'm aware so not exactly viewed by the masses. YouTube live streams that don't require a TV licence to watch can get more than some of the FA Player matches streamed live.

IMHO, the rules regarding needing a TV licence are outdated and should only be required for Freeview channels and not Sky, Now or Virgin TV. These services, Sky & Virgin,  shouldn't shouldn't have to carry the Freeview channels if they don't want too and should be outside the remit for requiring a TV licence. 

Nick_C

wild666 said:

When I had Prime I used to watch the live sport, football, and I watch live women's football on the FA player. No website should release data about when a person logs in to view content, if they did it would be a breach of the DPA. The FA Player content I watch only attracts a few thousand people per game as far as I'm aware so not exactly viewed by the masses. YouTube live streams that don't require a TV licence to watch can get more than some of the FA Player matches streamed live.

IMHO, the rules regarding needing a TV licence are outdated and should only be required for Freeview channels and not Sky, Now or Virgin TV. These services, Sky & Virgin,  shouldn't shouldn't have to carry the Freeview channels if they don't want too and should be outside the remit for requiring a TV licence. 

I agree that the "rules" are outdated, but one must obey the law.

Anyone watching live TV must have a licence. 

One of the problems with the  Licensing system is that while some of us without licenses are law abiding citizens who stick to the rules, others are clearly criminals who use their knowledge of the system to break the law without penalty. 

Those criminals are the reason us law abiding citizens get hassled by the BBC.

The BBC should go subscription only.  All other Broadcast TV should be available for anyone to watch (if they can tolerate the endless adverts).

And the people who work for Capita should find proper jobs. 

km1500

"Anyone watching live TV must have a licence. "

Incorrect. I don't have a TV licence and regularly watch live TV (legally).

Nick_C

km1500 said:

"Anyone watching live TV must have a licence. "

Incorrect. I don't have a TV licence and regularly watch live TV (legally).

Shorthand.  Most people reading this thread will understand what I mean, without writing an essay on exactly what the rules are, as these are already well documented up thread. 

oldagetraveller1

I haven't bought a T.V. Licence for over four years now. Why would I?!

Whether it's because of where I live or submitting a bi-annual no licence needed declaration, I have never received any threatening letters from Capita or the threat of being "investgated" or visited.

All I receive from them is a letter confirming the declaration. I wonder if those receiving the threats and goon visits have just cancelled their DD, not paid etc. without making the declaration.

Most non BBC content can be watched anyway without forking out £160.

Also it is possible and legal to watch live depending on the source.

Any organisation that find it difficult to exist on a guaranteed almost £4bn/annum don't deserve to in my opinion!

Cornucopia

oldagetraveller1 said:

I haven't bought a T.V. Licence for over four years now. Why would I?!

Whether it's because of where I live or submitting a bi-annual no licence needed declaration, I have never received any threatening letters from Capita or the threat of being "investgated" or visited.

All I receive from them is a letter confirming the declaration. I wonder if those receiving the threats and goon visits have just cancelled their DD, not paid etc. without making the declaration.

It's most likely because of where you live.    I think they probably have a system of rating addresses to determine where best to expend Licence-payers' money in tracking Licence evaders.

I should say in the spirit of clarity that "No Licence Needed" is not a formal legal declaration - it is something that the BBC has invented as part of their administrative process.   It is fundamentally voluntary and any consequences of completing or not completing the form are entirely artificial and created by the BBC.

Personally, I wouldn't complete it as it is presented.   I might complete it with a fake name so as to be able to readily identify approaches by TV Licensing, and to undermine their policy of treating NLN householders more harshly if they are subsequently prosecuted.

km1500

Nick_C said:

km1500 said:

"Anyone watching live TV must have a licence. "

Incorrect. I don't have a TV licence and regularly watch live TV (legally).

Shorthand.  Most people reading this thread will understand what I mean, without writing an essay on exactly what the rules are, as these are already well documented up thread. 

Not trying to be awkward - just pointing out yet another example of licence rules and how obscure they are

In fact, one of the TVL enquiry questions is something along the lines of

'when did you last watch (live) TV'

Yesterday

Oh, and you have no licence, right then .....

Cornucopia

TVL:  "When did you last watch live TV?"

Savvy Householder:  "Do you mean last night in the Pub, on Tuesday at my Mum's house, or last Sunday on Twitch?"

Nick_C

Cornucopia said:

TVL:  "When did you last watch live TV?"

Savvy Householder:  "Do you mean last night in the Pub, on Tuesday at my Mum's house, or last Sunday on Twitch?"

Precisely.

Which is why I won't fill in the on line declaration.  "No one in my household watches or records TV programmes live on any channel - not just the BBC."  I do.  We do.  Just not in our own home.