Bystander, the people to whom you refer do not care.
One might have thought that the BBC would, by now, have been made to raise its own money and not rely on taxation.
Another argument is whether these matters ought to be criminal at all. [There is a parallel with non payment of Council Tax]. In Council Tax cases, many local authorities are now preferring to take civil enforcement proceedings rather than use the magistrates' courts route. This can be very effective, though very nasty, against those elderly non-payers who own a home but do not have large incomes.
"Victim" surcharge is a total misnomer. The legislation merely calls it a surcharge. If a defendant does not have means to pay both a fine and surcharge then the fine can be reduced - see CJA 2003 s164(4A). Not heard of it happening much though.
However, watching the BBC is not a human right, and those who are prosecuted for not paying the licence fee can survive just fine without watching television.
John F,
I am always saddened at the callous lack of understanding that so many people show to those at the bottom of the heap. I was in a run down council property the other day, where the sole occupier, who has recurrent mental health problems, has a few scraps of furniture and a big TV, all obtained cheaply from Age Concern. For him and millions of others the TV is a lifeline, literally the only thing that brings the outside world into their homes.
I can do without a TV, but I have the intellectual resources to stay in touch with the world in oter ways. Many people do not.
From the BBC press office website:
"Q: Recent press reports have alleged that mostly impoverished non-payers are prosecuted every year. Is this true?
A: As far as we aware there is no official breakdown available of the socio-economic breakdown of those prosecuted for TV licence evasion. So we are unsure on what information this assertion is based on."
Well, there bloody well should be one.
Your dismissal of John F's point works just fine, as long as you assume that people who have insufficient income to live a decent life also shouldn't be prosecuted for shoplifting, petty fraud, begging, drug-dealing etc.
Or perhaps we should change employment & benefit policy so that people can afford to pay for things, rather than condoning stealing...?
Bystander
Whatever you may have heard or may think, the television licence fee does not exist primarily to provide funds for the BBC; it exists to assist the government in social control, particularly in ascertaining the number of households in the country.
The fact that the fee does generate money for the BBC is a secondary, and very lucrative, matter. Why else would a company exist (separate from the BBC) just to collect the loot?
The licence fee should be abolished, and the BBC should learn (like other "sovereign" broadcasters) how to survive without it.
As it is, the Corporation executives have learned how to get those in power to maintain their expenses, to the detriment of those you mention, who are lower down the social ladder.
The licence fee was intended mainly as a form of social control. That is why nuLabour love it.
Michael
john b. "...shouldn't be prosecuted for shoplifting, petty fraud, begging, drug-dealing etc." - maybe in the long run this is the way to go. It's probably far cheaper to let stuff like this go than to prosecute it - obv they'd have to prove they were poor (i.e. don't make it too easy to get away with somehow), but otherwise unless the crime involved violence (physical or psychological) then maybe... then again maybe the current system does actually work - the fines may be useless but it makes people jump through enough hoops that it's worth paying for the licence to avoid the hassle. In the end the cost of the courts etc are irrelevant as they pay peoples wages (directly & indirectly) & so benefit the economy/society etc.
"For him and millions of others the TV is a lifeline, literally the only thing that brings the outside world into their homes."
If they get a computer instead, not only will they be able to interact with the outside world, instead of merely being a passive receiver of pap, but they'll be able to get a lot of the tv too.
All without paying the telly tax!
Well said Bystander. What really brings it into perspective is that it takes the licence fees of a town of over 40,000 households just to pay Jonathan Ross's fee.
I totally agree with the comments about the senior people at the BBC. Very often the TV is the only comfort young, single mothers have to occupy their kids. BUT - how many times have you heard evidence that when the Licensing people called they found a large TV hooked up to a Sky Plus box? Very often, it seems that some people are happy to pay for Sky, but don't think the TV Licence applies to them.
"Your dismissal of John F's point works just fine, as long as you assume that people who have insufficient income to live a decent life also shouldn't be prosecuted for shoplifting, petty fraud, begging, drug-dealing etc."
And you are assuming that those who don't pay their licence fee are watching BBC channels and therefore should be prosecuted for theft.
The bottom line is that if you don’t want to watch the BBC you shouldn’t be made to pay a forced subscription for it with the lie that it's because you have to have a licence for a television.
@Mark
It's not a lie, it's the law of the land. Guess how you change the law.
I do not have a telly.
For a long while I received regular threatening letters from the licensing peeps; many of which were obviously designed to scare and threaten people. They were never headed "Please buy a licence if you have a TV", but things like "Final Demand", "Outstanding monies due" or such like. They also contained phrases like "you will be interviewed under caution by our officers", which are out and out lies (in a legal sense) especially word to frighten people. Of course I pointed out in one of my replies that employees of Crapita Media Services cannot issue cautions, and the letters have now stopped.
Disgusting, underhand tactics, from a disgusting underhand bunch.
PS. They're turned up on my doorstep and that's as far as they've been - even though I genuinely do not have a telly.
As far as I am concerned the BBC have no lawful right to demand fees from people who have not consented to enter into a contract with them.
I refuse to pay the BBC extortion fee.
If it was a third of the present cost and good value I may then reconsider - as a gesture of goodwill.
@sarah
The BBC isn't demanding anything. The government, in its wisdom, has decided there is a tax payable per household with a TV. There is no contract.
@JuliaM : Although the 'catch up' services on iPlayer are available without licence, watching live or 'nearly' live broadcasts on your PC, such as some of the sports broadcasts (like Wimbledon at the moment) requires a valid licence.
No idea how that could be policed, but that's the law as it stands.
Unfortunately the only people that get prosecuted for license fee evasion are those not shrewd enough to know how to get away with it. There are quite a number of ways of avoiding getting caught if one so desires (which I am not, for obvious reasons, going to publicise). I buy one, reluctantly, because it's the law and my family want TV.
Apparently there's a not very bright echo in here.
@Jason:
"Although the 'catch up' services on iPlayer are available without licence, watching live or 'nearly' live broadcasts on your PC, such as some of the sports broadcasts (like Wimbledon at the moment) requires a valid licence.
No idea how that could be policed, but that's the law as it stands."
It could be 'policed' very, very easily - to receive the feed on your PC you would have to register, log in and pay money to see it.
You call that a lifeline? It seems more like a brain washing instrument, keeping people in the state they're in. Sure, there can be some sad cases, but that's life and it's certainly not an argument to call it a right.
I wonder how people managed before the TV existed.
Monoi,
It's no more a right than anything else, but for many, particularly old, sick or housebound people, it is extremely important.
@ Hibbo
Interviewing a person under caution is different to issuing a person with a caution. The caution (i.e. "You do not have to say anything... etc") is designed to protect the interviewee from self-incrimination, and it is therefore quite proper (and a legal requirement) for a licensing officer to administer it before asking questions. The same is true of interviews conducted by other non-police investigators, e.g. the DWP.
As for being able to issue cautions: obviously they can't issue police cautions, but I know that the DWP often make use of something they call a "formal caution", which is a signed admission of guilt that can be used as evidence against you in any future prosecution. Don't know if the TV licensing authorities do the same...
This isn't Usenet, it's my blog, and my blog is polite even when it's robust. I have deleted this comment, and I don't want any more like it - ed.
Edited By Siteowner
And take an MP to court to see us hammering down on welfare cheats at the behest of government and parliament.
John F wrote:"However, watching the BBC is not a human right "
Correct it's the right to get information from other than the bbc (ie ITV,Sky ect ) that is the Human Right .
The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights & Fundamental Freedoms,Article 10 states :
"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression .This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive & impart information and ideas without interference of the state regardless of frontiers "
@Tony
Nearly all of the rights in the Convention are qualified, i.e. subject to other competing interests. Freedom of expression is one of the most qualified, in that you can't incite crimes, nor defame people. Likewise, the tax on operating a television is in pursuit of a legitimate objective, which is to fund the national broadcaster.
I would, however, really really like to see all the highly-paid slebs forced to watch how their wages are paid by seeing the pathetic people who can barely afford the licences being "done" in court.
Commenting by HaloScan
