TV Licence article Discussion
Options
Comments
-
I found out recently that a Romanian friend of mine has been charged by her Landlady for the full TV Licence fee.
She was told she needed to pay because she has a TV in her bedroom, it turns out the Landlady is charging all of the occupants the same (the full amount).
To me this is fraud,
However, she is reluctant to do anything because she worries about being kicked out, she said that the only area she can afford to live in has a "community" connected by religion, so if she gets kicked out of one then none of them will rent to her.
If she did want to report this, is this something that the Police would be interested in?0 -
I found out recently that a Romanian friend of mine has been charged by her Landlady for the full TV Licence fee.
She was told she needed to pay because she has a TV in her bedroom, it turns out the Landlady is charging all of the occupants the same (the full amount).
To me this is fraud,
However, she is reluctant to do anything because she worries about being kicked out, she said that the only area she can afford to live in has a "community" connected by religion, so if she gets kicked out of one then none of them will rent to her.
If she did want to report this, is this something that the Police would be interested in?
More info required:-
1. Is the Landlady actually buying TV Licences for each of the residents from whom she is taking payment? If not, then there are two potential problems, one in the taking of money under false pretences and the other in potential liability for TV Licence evasion.
2. Are you sure that your friend does not require a TV Licence, as you seem to be implying? TV Licensing say that both Tenants and Lodgers are potentially liable to pay IF they receive TV broadcasts in their own room(s) under certain circumstances. This is complicated, and the requirement for a Licence depends on various seemingly arbitrary considerations.
I'd suggest you find out whether your friend needs a Licence or not (if necessary ask TV Licensing the general question). Then, suggest that (because of the potential criminal liability) she asks her Landlady to produce evidence of the Licence that has been purchased for your Friend.
As usual, the TV Licensing info on this is not very clear, but here it is, anyway:-
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/for-your-home/tenants-and-lodgers-aud20 -
What a long thread. It certainly seems to be stirring up the emotions and causing lots of posting activity.
Don't think I have contributed to it for some but here goes....
The BBC is a public service broadcaster you either believe in having one or not.
If you do then somehow it needs to be funded from public funds.
Taxation leaves it's income unstable and very subject to the colour of government at the time. Like privately owned media it would then be less impartial. Overall I think it is impartial getting equal praise from left, right, centre, government, opposition, leave, remain etc.
It's charter includes entertainment (it covers a wide spectrum) and education and it certainly does that. Sometimes broadcasting new ideas that we are not comfortable with such as global warming, the science behind it and plastic debris in the oceans.
Hence it fulfills it's most basic charter need.
Now you might argue that the licence fee method is a bit out of date (I would agree) but cannot see a better alternative apart from a tax.
The argument that it is not used (by an individual) is fallacious because it is there for the public good like many other services. Latterly VED has been brought into the discussion. Again that roads should be entirely funded from central taxation is a fallacy. Those who use them most pay. Nobody gets no benefit and everybody pays something through purchases or deliveries and general taxation. It could be argued that general taxation tops up the BBC too but then we fall into the political interference problem!
To argue that it is not used by certain individuals goes against the provision of a public service. Really very few individuals have never had a benefit. Even if I chose to pay through the nose and watch programmes etc on my screen and excluded the BBC I recognise I contribute to the general good even though it might not be too obvious.
Channel 4 is paid for by everyone, indirectly, whether you watch or not, have a TV or not, can afford to or not via advertising which costs us all through our purchases and, even though it has good programmes, falls well short of what is produced by the BBC.
Now you may not believe in public services, think you do not benefit in some way or other or be mean enough to expect to pick just a selection of services and not pay for the rest. So be it but then you must think that will opt out of paying for any social benefit and be purely capitalist. So you are then left with privately owned media, that competes only to serve the lucrative mass market, subject to the whims of it's owners, those with most assets sucking up any talent, more impartiality, greater reliance on entertainment to the detriment of inform and educate........and pay through the nose as well!
Then maybe you believe in public service with state controls spouting lies and untruths thus controlling the populations opinion and banning any TV, radio and other services that does not suit.
The BBC is far from perfect (we should aim to improve it!) but is better than most if not the actual best and does not give support to extremists but does give a good balance. It's charter aims in general are met even though there has been running down over recent years.0 -
I "believe" in having Public Service Broadcasting, but don't necessarily think that the BBC is the only possible model. Indeed, we have other PSBs in the UK, none of which follow the BBC model (C4, ITV, C5, S4C), as well as channels like Dave that are BBC-half-owned, but not PSBs. It's complicated.Heedtheadvice wrote: »The BBC is a public service broadcaster you either believe in having one or not.
There are lots of Publicly-owned, Publicly-run things that are not funded collectively or centrally. The one does not follow from the other.If you do then somehow it needs to be funded from public funds.
I don't think anyone witnessing the Licence Fee freeze could really argue that Licence Fee funding was any form of protection from Government intervention.Taxation leaves it's income unstable and very subject to the colour of government at the time.
An oft-made comment, seldom accompanied by any credible references or evidence. In the critical area of consumer journalism, C4, ITV and C5 all have their own contributions, and I see no evidence of partiality to advertisers.Like privately owned media it would then be less impartial.
"Equal praise"? I must have missed that.Overall I think it is impartial getting equal praise from left, right, centre, government, opposition, leave, remain etc.
I can think of several better methods: subscription, central tax funding, local tax funding, industry levy, advertising. (In fact, anything would be better than the present system, whose enforcement is highly questionable from a legal, moral and practical perspective).Now you might argue that the licence fee method is a bit out of date (I would agree) but cannot see a better alternative apart from a tax.
And yet, we allow certain individuals (myself included) not to pay. Is that another reason why it is not a true public service?The argument that it is not used (by an individual) is fallacious because it is there for the public good like many other services.
Well, yes, the Licence Fee has been augmented by Government in recent years (through the Free Over-75s Licence, being funded by a Grant from the DWP). Is there any evidence of political interference as a consequence of that?It could be argued that general taxation tops up the BBC too but then we fall into the political interference problem!
Paid through the nose for what?Even if I chose to pay through the nose and watch programmes etc on my screen and excluded the BBC...
In another forum I sometimes post on, this has been discussed to death, and then some. No credible evidence has ever been found or supplied to support the argument. The best that can be said is that certain products that are heavily advertised could be a net cost to consumers of those products. Such products can be avoided, but doing so may not save consumers any money. Overall, there is no evidence that advertising represents a bottom-line cost to individual consumers or to society that is unavoidable.Channel 4 is paid for by everyone, indirectly, whether you watch or not, have a TV or not, can afford to or not via advertising which costs us all through our purchases...
And that's a good thing, too, because the BBC profits from the ad-funded channels that it half-owns (Dave, Gold, Yesterday, Really, Drama, W, etc. etc.)
It has a different remit.[C4]... even though it has good programmes, falls well short of what is produced by the BBC.
Or you could just think that mere TV does not fulfil the requirements of being a fully-funded public service.Now you may not believe in public services, think you do not benefit in some way or other or be mean enough to expect to pick just a selection of services and not pay for the rest.
You think that supporting life-saving emergency medicine on the NHS automatically commits us to Strictly Come Dancing?So be it but then you must think that will opt out of paying for any social benefit and be purely capitalist.
That seems like a rather negative reading of the situation. I don't think that examining the output of Sky or ITV (or C4) really supports those allegations. What I see is huge diversity across commercial TV - probably more diversity overall than is provided by the BBC.So you are then left with privately owned media, that competes only to serve the lucrative mass market, subject to the whims of it's owners, those with most assets sucking up any talent, more impartiality, greater reliance on entertainment to the detriment of inform and educate........and pay through the nose as well!
You mean State-controlled Media in a non-democratic society? I don't see us having that within the foreseeable future.Then maybe you believe in public service with state controls spouting lies and untruths thus controlling the populations opinion and banning any TV, radio and other services that does not suit.
How do you propose that we do that with such a famously secretive and unaccountable organisation? (Arguably the BBC is its own worst enemy in this respect).The BBC is far from perfect (we should aim to improve it!)...
You mean that BBC airtime is never given to people with extreme views? I don't think that's true or that it would be healthy if it was.... but is better than most if not the actual best and does not give support to extremists but does give a good balance.0 -
Cornucopia has already said much of what I'd say, so I won't repeat that, but would add some additional points of my own.
I don't agree with this premise - Channel 4 provides a very good PSB service without having to be funded from public funds.Heedtheadvice wrote: »The BBC is a public service broadcaster you either believe in having one or not.
If you do then somehow it needs to be funded from public funds.
This is not unique to the BBC. Other channels produce similarly challenging material - in my opinion Sky News is often better in this respect than the BBC.Heedtheadvice wrote: »It's charter includes entertainment (it covers a wide spectrum) and education and it certainly does that. Sometimes broadcasting new ideas that we are not comfortable with such as global warming, the science behind it and plastic debris in the oceans.
That is a subjective personal opinion though.Heedtheadvice wrote: »Channel 4 is paid for by everyone, indirectly, whether you watch or not, have a TV or not, can afford to or not via advertising which costs us all through our purchases and, even though it has good programmes, falls well short of what is produced by the BBC.
In my (subjective) opinion, Channel 4 produces original programming that knocks the spots off the BBC, they also buy-in programming which far more frequently becomes classic 'must-see' TV compared to the BBC. Sky News is far superior to BBC News. And although I don't watch them, I understand the Saturday night TV talent programmes produced by ITV are pure gold compared to the BBC's efforts to mimic them.
It isn't a question of being "mean". The question is whether TV is a service which should rank alongside healthcare, having the bins emptied, education, and social services where there is good reason for the costs to be shared amongst us all regardless of actual use. When BBC (One) was the only channel there was some justification for public funding (via a licence fee) of its educational and informative output, but that was a very long time ago.Heedtheadvice wrote: »Now you may not believe in public services, think you do not benefit in some way or other or be mean enough to expect to pick just a selection of services and not pay for the rest."In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"0 -
Cornucopia wrote: »How do you propose that we do that with such a famously secretive and unaccountable organisation? (Arguably the BBC is its own worst enemy in this respect).
In a perfectly timed move the BBC has provided a great example to prove the truth in this statement.
Radio 1 is set to "start the weekend" on Friday (so rad man) which means the weekday daytime presenters will only do four days a week.
In the real world, if you only work four days a week you only get paid for four days. So will the (already overpaid) Radio 1 presenters be taking a pay cut and only getting 4/5ths of their current pay? I'll leave it to the BBC news website to explain this important point:-
So that's a 'no' then. :rotfl:It's unclear how the schedule changes might affect the daytime hosts' current salaries, but a BBC spokesman said all presenters on the station are paid fairly. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-43712467"In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"0 -
In a perfectly timed move the BBC has provided a great example to prove the truth in this statement.
I suppose it's because other broadcasters are fully accountable to shareholders and regulators that makes people somewhat ambivalent about the BBC's (lack of) accountability (because the end result on screen is very similar). But its secrecy really is endemic, as your example illustrates.
Another example is pivotal to the discussion on the TV Licence. In the course of a formal complaint, I asked the BBC to publish the legal framework by which TV Licence enforcement operates. I absolutely think that in a democratic society ALL agencies should be completely open about which laws they use and how they use them (and there are legal principles in that direction). The BBC refused that request, citing legal privilege. In other words, they didn't want to disclose the legal framework in case some hypothetical future court case challenged it - hardly a ringing endorsement of its legal standing or legal accuracy. I asked my MP to ask them again, and the response was the same.
So, in this instance, their notorious secrecy has taken them down a sinister path in which they are engaged in a massive law enforcement operation whose legal framework is obscured from the Public, and which was at the time completely unaccountable.
A new Ombudsman has recently been appointed and it'll be interesting to see how that process handles relatively complex issues like this.0 -
I don't see what you're saying here.Cornucopia wrote: »In another forum I sometimes post on, this has been discussed to death, and then some. No credible evidence has ever been found or supplied to support the argument. The best that can be said is that certain products that are heavily advertised could be a net cost to consumers of those products. Such products can be avoided, but doing so may not save consumers any money. Overall, there is no evidence that advertising represents a bottom-line cost to individual consumers or to society that is unavoidable.
If an episode of Bake Off costs Channel 4 £2.5m, someone has to pay for that.
Obviously the companies who are advertising are paying for it.
But if companies are paying £2.5m in advertising, someone has to pay for that.
There's no-one other than consumers who can pay for it, surely?0 -
JimmyTheWig wrote: »I don't see what you're saying here.
If an episode of Bake Off costs Channel 4 £2.5m, someone has to pay for that.
Obviously the companies who are advertising are paying for it.
But if companies are paying £2.5m in advertising, someone has to pay for that.
There's no-one other than consumers who can pay for it, surely?
The issue is that that is not how advertising works. For most brands, if the advertising was cost-neutral (i.e. its entire cost was levied upon the existing sales to existing customers) then they would surely cancel their advertising and use the resulting savings to reduce the price and improve their competitiveness in the marketplace.
The reality is that manufacturers have a variety of costs to cover, and advertising is simply another. The overall profitabilty of their business has to cover those costs, but it can be achieved in a variety of ways.
Let's say that a (simplified) company owns a Baked Bean factory. That factory is currently running at 50% capacity (because that is all they can sell), has fixed costs of £500k, and volume-related costs of £20k per 1% of production.
So their 50% capacity operation costs £1.5m, with sales of £2m for a profit of £500k.
Using advertising, they can potentially increase production to 75%, in which case their costs become £2m, with sales of £3m for a profit of £1m. If their advertising has cost them less than £500k then it has produced an improvement in the efficiency and profitability of the business at no cost to consumers.0 -
I will not get into a long discussion about the pros and cons just to point out as you rightly wrote, Cornucopia, that sure is complex!
Where I compared the output of the BBC and others I was not expressing personal opinion regarding quality or attractiveness of the programs. C4 certainly broadcasts some good output that I watch. Rather that the output (and indeed the work of the BBC) cannot be directly compared. Where C4 makes, contracts for and buys TV programmes the BBC activities are more diverse, two full time national TV channels, regional output, other channels and digital output including CBBC and C Beebies, several radio channels,local radio, The World service (the world's largest international broadcaster, mixed funding model including from the licence fee), BBC Academy for broadcast training (available to the whole industry), BBC Engineering covering research and development (over the years has been responsible for or played a leading part in much development and progress in the broadcast world such as FM transmission, Nicam, DAB, Freeview and much more), orchestras throughout the UK.......
...so the outputs cannot be compared solely by what one can viewed on another much less complex and complete TV channel.
I do note however that within the debate for the 'funding model' there is plenty on negative sentiment and wonder if some comments are just anti-BBC rather than about the licence fee itself!
As a passing comment I note that a recent survey "Moneywise users brand TV licence unfair" actually 51% are supportive of a licence fee but perversely 6% thought it should not apply to catch-up services and another lot thought TV should be free. They should know there is 'no such thing as a free lunch'
So ends my contribution for the moment as things with a greater impact than the licence fee call!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 248K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards