TV Licence article Discussion

jackE17

High quality news and comment unbiased by the influence of political opinion or big business is only provided by one national broadcaster in the world - the BBC.

In any other country you choose a channel for your news based on political bias - as an extreme example Fox News in the USA.
Fox News lies halfway along a spectrum of bias that runs from the objective and intelligent views of the BBC to the publicly broadcast propaganda of North Korea. Where would you rather be on that spectrum?

As the increased amount and frequency of advertising swamps other networks and newspapers the value of the BBC as a national resource is unquantifiable. It is a source of envy around the world and should be the one of the proudest assets of the UK.

Commercial TV by it's very nature has to be able to offer a specific demographic of viewer to it's advertisers. Therefore with news and comment any commercial channel must target a group within the population thus removing all objectivity to satisfy the needs of the advertiser.

Even worse, the basis of the political or business influenced bias often comes from a megalomaniac media mogul such as Murdoch, operating like some sort of unseen dictator.

(I don't work for the BBC by the way!)

On another note, i would love to see some statistics on the demographics of Sky subscribers. It seems to me that Sky is primarily subscribed to by people on very low incomes and often on benefits. I have a theory that a huge part of Sky's funding in fact comes inadvertently from the government through benefits.

Bubbly88

What I don't get is why, if we choose the monthly direct debit option, we are forced to pay for a whole year in 6 months? How is that cheaper? Fair enough it goes down to the proper price after that, but in what instance would that extra 6 months worth of TV licence 'access' come into effect, or when would we get that money back?

It's basically a con to get to pay even MORE! Yearly option is the best.

Cornucopia

mymedi wrote: »

I fully agree with that which is why I did say that this thread was useful.
It is important to know where the boundaries are. But that is also exactly what I said in the end - what TVL can DO. Are they allowed to enter your home? Are they allowed to get a search warrant? What they would need to go to court.

No, yes and we don't know.

So far the only thing that I've seen which addresses these questions is - they are not allowed to enter. Which seems to be the basis for everything else - without it they cannot obtain any reasonable cause for the warrant or anything else. And as such, presumably, if you ignore their letters and don't open the door, there is absolutely nothing they can do about it.

If a person is acting lawfully in their own home, why should the BBC want to "do anything about it"? Seriously - why should I have to answer to the BBC for my (non-)TV viewing habits any more than I (don't) have to show the Police that I am not running an opium den?

However, that statement from me is a speculation since I don't know. Have you heard of any cases where TVL obtained evidence without going into someone's home? Because that is easy to do - if you watch live TV via Internet, all they have to do is check your broadband provider's logs. However, they woud need reasonable cause for that...

The whole search warrant evidence thing is another can of worms. The number of TVL search warrants is tiny (so small that they won't say how few there are for fear that it will encourage evasion).

On that basis, even though we've tracked a few cases, there isn't a consistent pattern, and the warrants seem to often be an abuse of process (ie. there was no evidence).

iancarbarns

Cornucopia wrote: »

Sorry, but you are wrong. The quote is from The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004, which is a statutory instrument that supports the primary legislation.

That bit you've quoted that says: "specified in regulations" is a reference to that SI.

Thanks for that reference - I had not been able to find it.

I do not think I am wrong. The text you mentioned is NOT a quote from that SI that I can find.

However I do find the part making it OK to not have a licence if not 'watching live':

Meaning of “television receiver”

9.—(1) In Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV reception), “television receiver” means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose.

(2) In this regulation, any reference to receiving a television programme service includes a reference to receiving by any means any programme included in that service, where that programme is received at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by members of the public by virtue of its being broadcast or distributed as part of that service.

cw18

Bubbly88 wrote: »

What I don't get is why, if we choose the monthly direct debit option, we are forced to pay for a whole year in 6 months? How is that cheaper? Fair enough it goes down to the proper price after that, but in what instance would that extra 6 months worth of TV licence 'access' come into effect, or when would we get that money back?

It's basically a con to get to pay even MORE! Yearly option is the best.

if your licence started on 1st Jan 2013, then you'd pay for the licence to cover you until 31st Dec 2013 in 6 installments - ie. January to June.

In July the payment halves, and you start to pay for your 2014 licence. So by the time they send you your new one in January 2014 you've already paid half - and you carry on paying for it until June 2014.

In July 2014 you start to pay for your 2015 licence.....

so there's no 'extra 6 months access' to claim back. If you cancel your licence at any time then you'd get back anything you'd overpaid, but that's the only time they need to balance the books.


Alternatively you pay the full fee in January of each year and still have to claim back any overpayment when you cancel.

(Not sure of the payment schedule for quarterly as I've never used that one)

iancarbarns

mymedi wrote: »

It is important to know where the boundaries are. But that is also exactly what I said in the end - what TVL can DO. Are they allowed to enter your home? Are they allowed to get a search warrant?

Another part of the Communications Act 2003 makes it quite clear that they cannot enter premises without a warrant, but that they can seek a warrant under appropriate circumstances. Take a read if interested enough!

mymedi

iancarbarns wrote: »

Another part of the Communications Act 2003 makes it quite clear that they cannot enter premises without a warrant, but that they can seek a warrant under appropriate circumstances. Take a read if interested enough!

Do you refer to this:
"Section 366 - Powers to enforce TV licensing
(1)If a justice of the peace, a sheriff in Scotland or a lay magistrate in Northern Ireland is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing..."

This and subsequent text (typical!) doesn't specify anything - what does it mean "on oath" - they can lie about it! And I would bet my pension you would not be able to get them punished for it later on.

madmuppet5

jackE17 wrote: »

High quality news and comment unbiased by the influence of political opinion or big business is only provided by one national broadcaster in the world - the BBC.

In any other country you choose a channel for your news based on political bias - as an extreme example Fox News in the USA.
Fox News lies halfway along a spectrum of bias that runs from the objective and intelligent views of the BBC to the publicly broadcast propaganda of North Korea. Where would you rather be on that spectrum?

As the increased amount and frequency of advertising swamps other networks and newspapers the value of the BBC as a national resource is unquantifiable. It is a source of envy around the world and should be the one of the proudest assets of the UK.


Commercial TV by it's very nature has to be able to offer a specific demographic of viewer to it's advertisers. Therefore with news and comment any commercial channel must target a group within the population thus removing all objectivity to satisfy the needs of the advertiser.

Even worse, the basis of the political or business influenced bias often comes from a megalomaniac media mogul such as Murdoch, operating like some sort of unseen dictator.

(I don't work for the BBC by the way!)

On another note, i would love to see some statistics on the demographics of Sky subscribers. It seems to me that Sky is primarily subscribed to by people on very low incomes and often on benefits. I have a theory that a huge part of Sky's funding in fact comes inadvertently from the government through benefits.

Unbiased reporting, proudest asset? :rotfl:
A lot of it's programming and content is outsourced to private companies.
This includes BBC iplayer.
Regarding commercial TV, I think they are happy with the status quo as they wouldn't want the BBC to be competing over advertising revenue so they keep stum.
If the BBC was made a subscription only service it's funding would drop like a stone.
As for SKY subscribers being predominately those on low incomes and welfare, even if you were correct which I seriously doubt, why would this concern you? It's their money to which they are entitled and can therefore spend as they wish.

I should add though that I agree that the BBC is an absolute bargain. If you're watching on BBC iplayer

Cornucopia

mymedi wrote: »

This and subsequent text (typical!) doesn't specify anything - what does it mean "on oath" - they can lie about it! And I would bet my pension you would not be able to get them punished for it later on.

This is exactly where we appear to be - caught in a vicious circle whereby the BBC remains secretive about what information and methods it uses to provide the substance of the oath to Magistrates, whilst the normal confidence that we might have in such a process is completely undermined by the lack of external controls or supervision on what the BBC is doing.

mymedi

Cornucopia wrote: »

... BBC remains secretive about what information and methods it uses to provide the substance of the oath to Magistrates ...

Isn't court record public? Couldn't you just request all the submitted information and the judges verdict reasoning from the courts if you knew a case where a warrant was granted?