License Fee

  • Thread starter Thread starter marbler
  • Start date Start date
M

marbler

Guest
I thought I'd start a thread on this, and have pasted in something I've written elsewhere.

I do not agree with all of MP's John Whittingdale's views, but in these times those on low incomes need to be able to make choices about where their money goes, and decriminalising non-payment of the license fee seems fair.

It is a shame our media don't seem to be getting the views of the public on this, via opinion polls or even vox pops, and would rather talk about the views of Britain's talented millionaires club, such as Daniel Craig, Dame Judi Dench etc, who I doubt have ever struggled to pay the fee.
 
Last edited:
I think it's bloody daft myself. I have been in the position of struggling to pay it in the past and the deterrent was the main reason I did pay it. Given that I am fairly well-disposed towards paying my dues, I shudder to think what those who would rather blag food from food banks and save their jobseekers for something less freely available instead will make of it. Open season on non-payment I'd think.
 
Well prescription would do the trick. Pay for it...get it...don't pay....don't receive a signal...and don't waste tax payers money through the expensive deterrent of prison, which I understand cost £350 a week to keep someone in!
 
Last edited:
marble said:
Well prescription would do the trick. Pay for it...get it...don't pay....don't receive a signal...and don't waste tax payers money through the expensive deterrent of prison, which I understand cost £350 a week to keep someone in!
Click to expand...

Aside from the question of increased levels of non-payment which would result - 50 people (roughly) are stuck in the big house for non-payment of the fine which results from non-payment of the licence, for something like 90 days max. Cost to the tax-payer - £1.5m p/a

Cost of putting in a prescription service at say, £20 a box for each of the 21.5m licence fee payers (cost of box, delivery, setting it up, over-manned call centre to deal with fuckwits incapable of setting it up, advertising, blah blah blah blah - probably a fairly conservative estimate) - cost to the tax-payer - £430m.

They'd be better instituting the method used in Scotland whereby non-payment eventually results in a letter from the Procurator Fiscal (CPS) which will basically give you the option of paying a fine or going to court, which 99.5% of people then pay (much the same as the success rate of court in England). Only instead of having court costs incurred, potentially by the tax-payer, you've just sent a letter out. Job done.
 
Is it still feasible to police? With so many different streaming services being made available for mobile these days it'll surely become about as obsolete as betting tax? OK I say that with a slight qualification because we haven't fully caught on in the UK, but you only need to take a cursory spin around some American sports boards to see how they're consuming their viewing these days. It's a standard question for someone to ask "has anyone got a stream for this" and within about 30 minutes people have posted about 6 different links. So far as I can gather television is increasingly obsolete over there as people choose to watch streaming on mobile devices
 
Theres no way a subscription service will happen in the near future. Look how long the switchover to digital took, and that was simple in comparison.
It's not technically possible on freeview therefore new hardware would have to be rolled out to every household in the country.
Also, the BBC will lose a lot of money, unless they set the prices really high, and that would create even more people not paying. At the minute its £12 a month, add onto that the extra costs involved, encryption costs, extra call centre staff, an extra amount to cover the loss in subscribers I would be surprised if you got it for a penny under £15, probably closer to £18/£20 a month.
With so much programming choice out there how many would pay that for the limited output the BBC have, look at the channels you can get from Sky for the same sort of price.
Although its £12 at the moment per month, you require it to watch live TV, not just BBC, if it goes to subscription you will be paying more just for a few channels, personally I think its a long long way off, if it ever comes in.

Personally I think the BBC output has declined massively over the past 10 years or so and can count on one hand how many programmes over a year I would miss if I couldn't get it any more. In fact thinking about it, theres one programme I would miss. Thats not to say I never watch anything on there, but I would just have another channel on instead, I certainly don't think I get £20 a month value from it!
 
I used to find it a bit shabby the way they targetted student areas at the start of term with many students not realising that if they were in halls of residence they still needed an individual licence [same with shared houses I think].
 
I watch BBC4 pretty much all the time in the evening and in the daytime have R6 on [hardly buy cd's any more because of that].
 
I know the BBC is much much more than a couple of tv stations, and I'm not saying the service overall isn't worth £12 a month, however, good as the website is, most the content is available free elsewhere, so putting it behind a paywall won't bother most people. Radio can't be encrypted. So the only thing people will see is a charge for the tv channels, as anything else will have to either remain free or possible to get elsewhere free.
 
moehat said:
I used to find it a bit shabby the way they targetted student areas at the start of term with many students not realising that if they were in halls of residence they still needed an individual licence [same with shared houses I think].
Click to expand...

I don't understand why it's shabby to target a group of people who aren't paying it. Seems fairly sensible to me.

I did see an article the other day which indicated that the English government thinks that the BBC website is doing too good a job as it is detracting from pay-newspaper sites. I think we can take it from this that David Cameron is still heavily involved with that crook Murdoch.
 
This has very little to do with BBC output, and what we do or don't collectively like or watch (which is the mistake the liberal-middle classes are making with their observations on this issue), it boils down to whether in this day and age...people should be banged up for not BEING ABLE to pay it.

Its like banging people up for being infertile...its just not right.

This is about people going to prison, not ideological conservative attacks on the beeb or useless drug addicts on the dole who can't be arsed to pay it.
 
Last edited:
marble said:
it boils down to whether in this day and age...people should be banged up for not BEING ABLE to pay it.
Click to expand...
But isn't it possible to pay WEEKLY , thereby nullifying the argument that some people cannot afford to pay?
It's less than the price of two pints of lager.
 
No, It doesn't nullify any argument, Ice.

Two pints of lager might be your bus fare to the job centre and back.

The principle is what concerns me.
This should be one less bill or thing to pay for people who are using food banks.

Middle class liberals who have done so well out of institutions/corporations like the beeb are the people who want the keep the status quo here.

The beeb is no different to facebook as a social entertainment platform, it probably just costs more to run.

This is the BBC'S issue and not the 'license payers'.
 
Last edited:
marble said:
it boils down to whether in this day and age...people should be banged up for not BEING ABLE to pay it.
Click to expand...

In the first place - no one goes to prison for not paying their TV licence. It is not an offence which carries a prison sentence. The miniscule number of people who do go to prison, do so because they have refused to pay a fine related to their non-payment of a TV licence (which is usually reduced to £2 per week). I say refused, rather than being unable to do pay, because they receive a minimum of 3 letters from TV licensing before the issue goes to court. At each of these points (and before) they have the option to remove a TV from their premises and thereby not have to pay a licence fee. This can also be applied at the point of court proceedings.

Far from not BEING ABLE to pay it, those who go to prison for non-payment of the fine are making a quite deliberate decision not to pay it and also making a decision not to take any steps to stop them from being in a position to have to pay it.

I can't afford lots of things. If I can't afford them I don't have them. Access to television is not a basic human right.
 
think TV licence law is under an act from 1949. So pretty dated now, agree that the radio especially local service is second to none
 
We'll clearly have to agree to disagree.

Ultimately, its about freedom of choice, and I suspect there's many people out there who could do without, or would choose not to pay the license fee.............not just your stereotypical druggy on the dole as you mentioned earlier, Simmo.
 
Last edited:
marble said:
We'll clearly have to agree to disagree.

Ultimately, its about freedom of choice, and I suspect there's many people out there who could do without, or would choose not to pay the license fee.............not just your stereotypical druggy on the dole as you mentioned earlier, Simmo.
Click to expand...

I didn't mention a stereotypical druggy on the dole at any point.

I don't believe that the TV licence should be covered by the welfare state, regardless of any other considerations. Interestingly enough - cable TV in Glasgow sold exceptionally well in certain areas and had a near 100% (about 90% IIRC) record of people taking the service for the three months or so it took for it to be switched off due to non-payment. (Which would then be followed by someone else using a different name at the same address taking it up for another 3 months, ad infinitum)

As a result of that experience I'm afraid I have little time for folk who'd like to get something for nothing when everyone else is paying for it.
 
Back
Top