The BBC is quick to jump on this proposal:
TV licence fee non-payment ‘could be decriminalised’
Amazing how fast the BBC can report a story they have an interest in….they’ve already rounded up a load of viewers and listeners on 5Live (at death O’clock this morning) for their comments….guess what…most support the license…the BBC providing a wonderful service at a reasonable price.
It is more than a license to print money , that is just a bonus for them, the real purpose is an instrument of control, to remind us just who is the boss .
The idiot viewers on 5 live if they are not actually paid BBC stooges, or the families of BBC employees, are the result of years of statist propaganda churned out by the very organisation they are so eager to defend.
Therefore BLOODY IDIOTS !
Maybe the Tories are at last waking up to the fact , that the BBC is systemically pro-Labour and anti-conservative.
I hope this is just the first stage.
Just woke up to this. Looks like Radio 4 weighing in too. It’s only twitter I know, but the BBC does seem to feel it is crucial, so the fact that they are getting slammed across the board so far may be cause for concern. The calibre of official ‘views my own’ defences from some early morning Beeboids is utterly laughable. It’s like they’ve come into the breakfast room and found the hoi polloi eating their cornflakes. Guessing a few damage control texts going out now to get the rebuttal teams up earlier than they’re used to to nip this little insurrection in the bud.
This one seems serious enough for them to be clearing the decks. And, possibly schedules.
It is about them after all, and not in a watertight oversight, moving on kind of way.
I pity any poor souls more deserving of news coverage as they rally around.
The *Borg* only knows that it has to protect itself. Nothing else matters. The collective will even destroy itself to protect itself. That is how the *Borg* works.
Curious, isn’t it, how the BBC agitates at every possible opportunity for the decriminalisation of proscribed drugs…
But decriminalise owning a telly plugged in to an aerial? Oh, THE HORROR!!!!! THE INHUMANITY!!!!!!!!!
Excellent latest example of the BBC’s variable ‘reporting’ response to facts that often appears these days generously coated with agenda-dripping ‘analysis’, ‘commentary’ or curiously pre-selected vox-poppery pro, or con, depending…
Actually, in terms of being a trojan horse, this might be a big one.
When it comes to a criminal prosecution, certain levels of proof have to be assured, and the procedure is somewhat expensive if the defendant pushes the point. Many who don’t play the game and cough up at the first sign of pressure, simply won’t pay at all and it isn’t worth chasing them all the way to the criminal court.
However, under the civil law, the burden of proof is much lower, and a finding against you easier and cheaper to achieve. Once that is done, the powers to financial redress are equally strong and in principle I believe, money can be obtained at source.
So I would be concerned that it’s not the change that we would like to see, or a first step towards a subscription level BBC.
Absolutely agree. It will lead to mass processing of cases at magistrates courts like they do with Council Tax non-payers. It effectively switches the burden of proof. As it is now, without your admission that you do so, they have to prove that you watch live TV. Very difficult. With the change, they will only have to assert that on the balance of probabilities you do watch live TV. It will then be up to you to prove that you don’t.
And you will get a County Court Judgement on your credit record as well.
This move is designed to get thousands of such prosecutions OUT of Magistrates’ courts and onto a fixed-penalty system (see my post below).
As for a “Burden of Proof”, most convictions for TV Licence evasion rely on self-incrimination on the doorstep. The BBC and its agent Capita don’t need to prove that evasion is occurring – most people convicted simply ‘fess up on the doorstep because they believe the propaganda about TVL enforcement and that TV Licensing goons have legal powers that they don’t actually have.
If any body is under the illusion that it is any less unpleasant to be persecuted through the civil courts by an organisation with unlimited resources think again.
In many ways it is probably worse, they can sue homeowners in particular to bankruptcy causing destitution to themselves and their families.
The criminal courts on the other hand can only impose limited fines with a much more stringent burden of proof.
This is why I love t’intynet.
Because before a punt would be through the system before anyone had a clue it happened.
And our crooked, thick or thick & crooked politico-media estate try it on all the time.
Nowadays, you very quickly get brought up to speed from places outside their control on a few realities in an informed manner.
I confess to being initially gung-ho on this concept, but the several cautions I now learn about are making me think if not again, but more deeply on causes and effects.
This has all the hallmarks of a stitch-up, in complement to the worrying manner the ‘Future of the BBC’ so-called inquiry is being steered.
Namely in the direction of pretending to be looking at abuses when in fact doing nothing and in guise of addressing them making things even more bent. Funny when on ‘Yes, Minister’. Less so in real life.
On matters legal, it does however appall me that burdens of proof can be so open to variation, up to the point of guilty until affording enough to show innocence.
Because that is where the BBC/TVL/Capita bottomless pockets will truly get deployed with no loss to anything other than justice.
A lot of this surrounds being ‘caught’ for not having a licence but still watching live broadcast. That is a unique anachronism in this day and age already, to be sure, but it is the law.
I don’t have a licence. I don’t therefore watch live TV.
Anything that makes the forces of the BBC, TVL and the police’s jobs easier to mess with me without good cause therefore seems retrograde. Because if they have the power to abuse, they will.
And if the current production line justice, with magistrates assigning guilt en bloc is already dire, one imagines with great volume will come greater incentive to err on the side of the system without silly stuff like proof.
What a despicable set-up, funding a despicable, overpaid, unaccountable collection of low-lives.
Good comment.
Is this the start of the computer I player license ?
That’s something I hadm’t thought about. The BBC will delight in prosecuting more innocent people as the burden of proof is lower in civil cases.
The reason for the switch is clearly to stop clogging up the criminal courts with grannies. Far better in the civil courts so that those refusing to pay find their credit rating is totally f*&^ed as well as heavy civil fines on those who can easily afford it.
BTW Vance always pays and will continue to do so.
Hypocrite
toooootlepip for today.
A couple of CCJs for not paying a TV licence alone will make sod all impact on credit ratings. Dream on.
But do come back you’re frightfully amusing….
Everywhere now one sees oversized satellite dishes on the outside of houses. These are of course ‘new arrivals’ who want to view programs from their home countries and in their own language. As it is law to need a licence to view ‘live’ TV programs, are such types in need of a licence as one doubts that they’re viewing the bBC, and if so are they so vigorously pursued as the indigenous?
I bet they don’t have planning permission either:
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/permission/commonprojects/antenna/
(Doesn’t apply to Sky, Sky dishes are deliberately designed to be too small to need planning permission.)
I posted this on the open thread before I saw this one:
I see the BBC continues to lie in pursuit of its TV Licence enforcement:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26492684
“Not paying the TV licence fee could become a civil offence, rather than a criminal one, under plans being considered by ministers.”
“Not paying the licence fee” is NOT an offence – watching LIVE broadcasts without a licence is an offence.
I do not pay the licence fee, because I do not receive live broadcasts in my home. I am not committing an offence.
Yet again, the BBC (aka TV Licensing Authority) classifies householders as either paying customers or evaders. They do not acknowledge those like me who are Legally Licence Free.
Licence fee enforcement has always been a litany of lies, false propaganda and disgraceful doorstep tactics which would be the object of a Watchdog-style investigation if conducted by any other organisation.
This article is maintaining the lies of BBC/TV Licensing.
http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/forum/index.php
I still think it is ironic for the anti-Thatcher BBC to be charging what is effectively a regressive poll tax.
But then you have to have double standards to qualify as a Leftard, so no real surprise I suppose.
TV Licence “enforcers” won’t be able to come into your home about a civil case ( not that they really can anyway ) , so what happens ?
Knock knock
Hello
Have you got a TV ?
No
May I come in and see
No
The balance of probability is that you have a TV
Are you saying absolutely everyone has a TV ?
It will be interesting
Cripes. The arguments and counter arguments pro and con are a real juggle.
One thing that really has concerned me are the number of YouTubes with usually a paired couple of shaven-headed knuckle draggers spouting ‘I am duh Lor’ homages to Judge Dredd, waving usually poorly assessed warrants from less than thorough magistrates, backed by a team of hapless and legally clueless Plod apparently keener to be supervising non-payment of a £145.50 invoice for a service not desired than any actual crime around the area.
Removing the bizarre fudged ‘right’ of entry to Capita goons and moonlighting police security back-up has a certain attraction.
Especially if the inevitable coverage of such a change would bring the actual legalities front and centre and make further nonsense of BBC misinformation to lead folk to self-incriminate needlessly.
It’s simple, just don’t answer the door to them.
Forgive me, but it was not, is and may never be as simple as you say.
When we ditched the TVL DD, we also cancelled SKY and unplugged the satellite connection for good measure.
However, there is an old dish out there, and this would appear to be deemed ‘just cause’, to get a magistrate to sign off on the full SWAT assault with police running interference if it’s a choice between that or running the gauntlet of some human rights lawyers for a drug bust or dog fight up the road.
And I know my rights and would have me trusty Mobly cam running ready to hit YouTube, but I may not always be home, when the missus and kids are.
Also, we do open the door to all sorts of nice folk we are happy to greet on the doorstep, and last I looked the TVL enforcers seem very, very casual in attire, and not averse to creative interpretations of good practice in announcing their intent, accepting the extent of their powers or even being honest in their pursuit of ‘sales’ commission.
No wonder the BBC tries all in its power to distance itself from how it is uniquely funded in reality.
Guest Who, I still have a dish attached to my house – its presence is not evidence of TVL evasion. You make a good point about useless magistrates being conned by so-called “evidence” of TVL evasion, when seeking search warrants, warrants are still very rare. My phone cams remain fully charged at all times for any Goon encounter – I am not worried by these proposed measures
Like others here I was initially delighted with this announcement. Now I’m not so sure. Some excellent thoughts and comments above.
It might simply reverse the burden of proof. If the BBC can present evidence that is accepted by the courts that most households without a TV licence do indeed use a TV [which is probably correct], then that might be accepted as setting a precedent. From then on, anyone without a licence will need to provide evidence that they do not have a TV. Fail to do so and you will be found guilty.
No further need for TV licence goons, or the mythical detector vans. And no more embarrassing youtube videos of heavy handed enforcement officers or search warrants. The system will find you guilty without it ever lifting a finger.
Far from being a victory for us and a disaster for the BBC, it could be the exact opposite.
The devil will be an the detail. It will all depend on the sort of evidence that the courts require.
The Beeb is already very frightened. Enough said for me. Millions of people pay the licence fee, not because they want to but because they do not want a criminal record and also because they can afford it. The one hundred and fifty thousand (mostly women) who go to court each year can’t afford to pay and probably don’t pay the fines but the BBC is vindictive and nervous if it failed to enforce it would be spotted.
It has also farmed the while nasty business out to a sub-contractor to avoid bleeding hearts being tugged within the organisation.
If lack of a licence becomes a civil offence many more would take the risk of not paying and might think disputing the matter in a small claims court worth pursuing.
Remember you must have a TV licence to receive live broadcasts NOT FOR HAVING A TV .
You CAN have a TV and not have a licence .
Having a television in your home is not proof you are receiving live broadcasts .
Supplementary.
“BBC fear increase in TV licence fee dodging amid Government plans to decriminalise offence”
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/463771/BBC-fear-increase-in-TV-licence-fee-dodging-amid-Government-plans-to-decriminalise-offence
‘Sunday Times’ (£), Page One, headline story –
“BBC report says scrap licence fee.
“Secret plan for subscriptions.”
“Even the BBC accepts the Licence Fee must go”
By Harry Phibbs.
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2014/03/even-the-bbc-accepts-the-licence-fee-must-go.html?
“The end of BBC 3 means the end of the old BBC”
By Peter Preston.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/mar/09/end-of-three-old-bbc?
Not many comments yet.
One picked up on one of the ‘heads they win, tails you lose’ ironies promoted all the time by media who only need conflict to see content void nicely filled:
“There’s a tart cross-media irony to the death of BBC3 by digital transition. Here – outraged, protesting – stands a crowd of cool comedians, producers, dynamic executives, cutting-edge analysts: just the kind of people who tell you that print newspapers are dying because today’s youth is swarming online. But when Tony Hall (63) takes the advice of David Dimbleby (75) and boots the young audience of Three into cyberspace, all we hear is a wail of woe. Visions of the future arrive stuck in the past.”
‘Telegraph’ (£)-
“BBC report ‘proposes scrapping licence fee.’
“A BBC report being considered by the corporation’s executive board is said to have proposed replacing the licence fee with a subscription scheme.”
By Edward Malnick.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10685761/BBC-report-proposes-scrapping-licence-fee.html
FYI Israel Broadcasting Authority to be shut down and replaced
Public money ‘disappeared in a black hole’ of overtime, unrealistic labor agreements and a disintegrating archive, says communications minister.
When Andrew Neil was CEO of Sky and the original small Sky Channel was being grown into a much bigger organisation, the recruitment pattern eg for news teams was that each team would have one-third of the staff of the equivalent BBC team. Overmanning was rife at the BBC. And likely it still is.
The BBC moved to a pattern of commissioning ewxternal production. Much of its output now is not made in-house. But the total BBC staffing is still much the same – over 20,000.
It’s called “Other People’s Money”
According to today’s Sunday Times…’Research published last month by Tony Hall suggests viewers would be willing to pay as much as £20 per month for the service (£240 a year) against the current £145.50 licence fee’…………discuss.
Bring it on.
‘Research published last month by Tony Hall’
Was this the result of a few whispered conversations in corridors?
If so, as a BBC DG, it’s a wonder he remembered any of them happening.
The day of the BBC telling folk how they feel about the BBC and being taken seriously have gone the way of a Monty Python parrot.
Sometimes, help comes from expected quarters, and the BBC probably wishes it didn’t.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/03/08/nick-clegg-tv-licence_n_4926333.html?utm_hp_ref=uk
The comments… in the HuffPo… make interesting reading. The BBC seems less universally loved than they (in the form of limitless ‘spokesmen’ again) keep claiming.
‘Telegraph View’ (£)-
“The BBC licence fee cannot be sustained”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10686812/The-BBC-licence-fee-cannot-be-sustained.html
“BBC should abolish licence fee and run as a subscription service, claims secret report”
By Owen Bennett.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/463917/BBC-should-abolish-licence-fee-and-run-as-a-subscription-service-claims-secret-report
The bBC addiction to the licence fee to feed its expensive and fixed cost model should not be under estimated.
Expect to see and hear the ” appearance” of change from it.
These various committees’ stuffed full of their own would be an example of the appearance of change.