TV Licence article Discussion

stevemcol

Nilrem wrote: »

It's alright, apparently I'm one of the BBC 13 or something (makes it sound like an Enid Blyton book, or a comic book)

Although the number may have gone up, as it seems to be anyone who is able to point out factual inaccuracies in the statements of some people, and who happens to be fairly (but not fully) happy with the BBC (although the funniest thing is, that apparently I spend I day "defending the BBC", yet I post far less about it than some of those who are unhappy)

It's almost like it's impossible to like (or even just, not mind) the BBC in some minds, unless you're paid for it.

It's an interesting discussion and far from black and white (sorry!). I've no doubt that if there was something the government forced me to pay for, in which I had absolutely no intention of partaking, I'd be the first to protest loudly. I've got a fishing rod stuffed away in the back of my garage for example but would resist any attempts at forcing me to buy a fishing licence. Not being anti-establishinment though, I would certainly invite the licencing authority round to show them the rod was out of use as many times as they felt the need, providing I'm at home.
Unlike other posters I would not be delibertaly awkward or ambigous, since the cost burden of my non cooperation is likely to fall on other willing licence payers.
I've grown up on BBC output from watching Play School as a kid through the era of TOTP, Tomorrows World, F1. Question Time, News Night etc. World Service on HF/SW, Radio 1 (not any more granted), Radio 4 (excellent apart from the Archers). The programming is generally high quality and the lack of adverts to me is worth a lot. If I could pay an addtional £2 odd a week to have adverts removed from all other channels I would willingly.
Globally it does seem an anomaly that we are compelled to pay the licence fee just to intercept and watch any airtime programming, but in my view, that guaranteed revenue stream does enable the BBC to concentrate more on general quality and worry less about lowest common denominator ratings (though how The Voice slipped through the net is beyond me).
We all hold a view though. I just think there are more important issues to be militant about; the £5.8M taxpayer subsidy of the bars in the Palace of Westminster, or on a larger scale the billions wasted on the failed NHS IT system or Fire Service Regional Control Centres. We talk about a billion as if it isn't much but just 1 billion represents £20 for every adult. Government waste massively outstrips the £145 per household cost of the licence fee so shouldn't we re-direct our protests and energy?

Cornucopia

stevemcol wrote: »

Not being anti-establishinment though, I would certainly invite the licencing authority round to show them the rod was out of use as many times as they felt the need, providing I'm at home.

People's motivations for non-cooperation with TVL are quite varied, and only a small proportion of them, I think are directly "anti-establishment". For my part, I object to TVL misrepresenting themselves as having authority that they do not have - this has always been the basis of my issue.

More broadly, we don't (in this country) have a history of going door-to-door and requiring innocent people to demonstrate their innocence of offences. Long may it remain generally part of our freedoms that TVL is an isolated infraction of this principle.

In the course of pursuing my own issues, I've come across many accounts of misdemeanours (and worse) by TVL and its staff. Those add to people's reasons for denying TVL access to themselves and their homes. Indeed, if TVL wanted to encourage cooperation with a regime that has no statutory basis, they are approaching the task in a very strange and convoluted way indeed.

Unlike other posters I would not be delibertaly awkward or ambigous, since the cost burden of my non cooperation is likely to fall on other willing licence payers.

This is a somewhat unfair argument. I haven't invited the BBC to investigate me. They've made that decision themselves, and as far as I can tell, they've done so without it being a requirement of the Law or of their Charter. For me, that makes them responsible for any and all losses incurred, not me.

In making that decision, they also render themselves vulnerable to the laws that are there to protect me from them. And why would anyone be reticent to use them?

We could ask, further, why the BBC of all organisations chooses to rail against basic legal protections in the way that it does, but I fear that would just open a massive can of worms.

... that guaranteed revenue stream does enable the BBC to concentrate more on general quality and worry less about lowest common denominator ratings (though how The Voice slipped through the net is beyond me).

It's pretty clear that the funding method does not protect the BBC from certain commercial realities. Indeed, it is pretty much obliged to seek a popular/populist audience in order to defend the universality of the Licence Fee, and BBC1 seems largely there to serve that purpose.

We all hold a view though. I just think there are more important issues to be militant about....

In another forum, I always used to describe this as "a little local difficulty". I have a history of complaining/campaigning about small but important issues of public policy, and I genuinely (naively) expected that like previous issues, I would point out to the organisation and/or its regulator the error of its ways, and the matter would be (slowly) resolved.

However, the intractability of this issue has genuinely shocked and surprised me. The ultimate sanction of writing to my elected representative has failed. Not because the arguments are without merit, but because the Government will not countenance any scrutiny of the BBC's affairs. This is just the latest twist in a long running saga of trying to hold the BBC to account for the way it has tried to treat me.

My most complete complaint is presently with the BBC Trust, so we will see what happens there. My guess is further inventive quibbling as to why the BBC must be immune from the strictures of the great British legal system - but I'm prepared to be pleasantly surprised.

...the £5.8M taxpayer subsidy of the bars in the Palace of Westminster, or on a larger scale the billions wasted on the failed NHS IT system or Fire Service Regional Control Centres. We talk about a billion as if it isn't much but just 1 billion represents £20 for every adult. Government waste massively outstrips the £145 per household cost of the licence fee so shouldn't we re-direct our protests and energy?

What's your plan? I'm right behind you.

mymedi

So, just a thought, really...
There seems to be an aweful lot of people unhappy with TVL/BBC. And there are surely lots of potential cases to be brought before court on various charges - from minor to the general question of continous breach of basic laws by the BBC. Why isn't there a trust or account where interested members of the public could contribute money for legal action against the BBC/TVL for any complaints that have a chance of standing up in court? With the only caveat that cases would be prohibited from settling out of court - to establish precedents they would need to be seen through to the ruling. Surely, this would be the most effective means of bringing both the public/press attention to the matter and also getting the BBC/TVL to pay more attention to its policies. Since talking about it obviously doesn't work, perhaps taking action would. If everyone in this thread contributed 50 quid, that would already be enough for a few court cases... no?
Just a thought...;)

Andy_L

stevemcol wrote: »

Globally it does seem an anomaly that we are compelled to pay the licence fee just to intercept and watch any airtime programming,

Not that much of an anomaly


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence#Television_licences_around_the_world


In some countries, eg Germany, you have to pay it even if you don't have a TV

Cornucopia

How much of an anomaly it is depends whether you see us as European in culture - in which case, it's not an anomaly at all.

Or, whether you see us as part of the post-colonial English speaking world, in which case it is an anomaly (since USA, Canada, Australia and NZ are all without it).

Cornucopia

mymedi wrote: »

...And there are surely lots of potential cases to be brought before court on various charges - from minor to the general question of continous breach of basic laws by the BBC.

I suspect that this is the way things are going. Depending on the outcome of the latest complaint to the BBC Trust, there is little else left but to try to bring sample cases for Harassment, and for Malicious Communications amongst other things. The difficulty is that the BBC is a very wealthy organisation, and we'd expect it to put its entire weight behind defending such action.

At the same time, we are waiting to see what the BBC is going to do in the cases of disrupted search warrants - there is a school of thought that says that the last thing they want is a succession of these cases going through the Courts.

Why isn't there a trust or account where interested members of the public could contribute money for legal action against the BBC/TVL for any complaints that have a chance of standing up in court? With the only caveat that cases would be prohibited from settling out of court - to establish precedents they would need to be seen through to the ruling. Surely, this would be the most effective means of bringing both the public/press attention to the matter and also getting the BBC/TVL to pay more attention to its policies. Since talking about it obviously doesn't work, perhaps taking action would. If everyone in this thread contributed 50 quid, that would already be enough for a few court cases... no?
Just a thought...;)

I think this is an excellent idea. Though it's a pity we cannot have free access to justice...

Paul_Varjak

I called TVL today. I told the the TVL representative that the call was being recorded. Astonishingly, he objected to being recorded despite acknowledging that his own employer was recording the call as well!

mymedi

Cornucopia wrote: »

Though it's a pity we cannot have free access to justice...

It would be great if we had something along the same lines as class action suit or no-win-no-pay system as in the US. That would change the whole system and attitude of many people/organizations. However, since there is no concept of penalty payments in the British legal system, I doubt we'll ever see anything along those lines...

So, get together, pool the resources, maybe get some sponsors in the process and go after them! :T

stevemcol

mymedi wrote: »

It would be great if we had something along the same lines as class action suit or no-win-no-pay system as in the US. That would change the whole system and attitude of many people/organizations. However, since there is no concept of penalty payments in the British legal system, I doubt we'll ever see anything along those lines...

So, get together, pool the resources, maybe get some sponsors in the process and go after them! :T

You seriously want a judicial system based on the US model? You must be a lawyer.

mymedi

stevemcol wrote: »

You seriously want a judicial system based on the US model? You must be a lawyer.

No, I'm not.
As for which system is better - it's a big question.
The US is obviously way over-litigious, however this forces certain discipline onto people and companies.
The UK is totally useless - it's effectively based on individual judges interpretation rather than actual laws, there is no concept of punitive damages which means you can screw people over all you want as long as there is no provable actual monetary loss incurred. No discipline required, just say "sorry" when caught out and you'll be fine...