Who in their right mind would want law enforcement privatised?
Privatisation as mental illness... Vote Conservative.
There is something very strange about this generation of Conservatives, they are crazy the way that old Labour types were crazy.
How do you privatise law enforcment? Take what should always be a criminal matter and turn into a civil matter.
Then place private firms in charge of non-compliance...
Kerching! Lot's of easy money.
If you are in favour of this you need your head examining.
Who in their right mind would want law enforcement privatised?
Privatisation as mental illness... Vote Conservative.
There is something very strange about this generation of Conservatives, they are crazy the way that old Labour types were crazy.
How do you privatise law enforcment? Take what should always be a criminal matter and turn into a civil matter.
Then place private firms in charge of non-compliance...
Kerching! Lot's of easy money.
If you are in favour of this you need your head examining.
Yes because jailing people who should never in a million years be in jail is okay.
The right-on types at the BBC would never advocate jailing people for non-payment of fines in any other circumstance.
Yes because jailing people who should never in a million years be in jail is okay.
The right-on types at the BBC would never advocate jailing people for non-payment of fines in any other circumstance.
So, ignoring the fact that the BBC has no say in sentencing guidelines, nor does it hold any sway over magistrates, how would you deal with people who steadfastly (and some might say, stubbornly) refused to pay a fine properly imposed by a court, especially when that court will have given them every opportunity to pay, even by taking into account their income and circumstances, and allowing weekly payments?
It's going to happen one day (unless we think 100 years from now we'll still be clinging to the current system), the technology exists,
I'm not so sure.
Sky have managed it in 10 million homes.
I was not aware that at one time Sky was available unencrypted and could be viewed without a viewing card, and then adopted an encryption mechanism which immediately affected their current (March 2014) customer base.
Obviously there is a lot of opposition to the 180,000 court cases every year. I don't see the change in the law (if it happens) changing the number of people who don't pay. Might as well get on with it.
Despite the issues that I have pointed out, and despite a total lack of costings from yourself (making it seem to be the easiest changeover in the world, albeit spread over five years and paid for out of some yet to be seen savings on collection cost, which itself would seem to be a cost saving phased in over that same five-year period).
Here are a few starting figures, relating to 2010/11**:
Total cost of collection - £124.4m
Collection cost per licence - £4.95
Licence fee revenue - £3,678.6m, giving roughly 25.1 million licences (so roughly that's the number of households)
So the collection cost per household is £4.95
Now you reckon that this cost per household would pay for what in that household exactly?
Because I don't think that it's going to go far, do you?
Or the extra revenue from erstwhile evaders is going to have to be pretty substantial.
Not that I am saying that your idea lacks merit, but it certainly seems to have a pretty big black hole on the financial side, a hole that is hoped will be filled (perhaps partially) by an as yet unknown number of new subscribers enticed (or encouraged) to pay for what they previously had for free.
Now that size of black hole, and the hoped for way of filling it does worry me, as it would no doubt worry many business execs.
Can I just point out that at £ 13 a month plus vat ...
Sky charges 3p access card charge 13p CA charge and 55p platform contribution
( and the subscription BBC could not avoid that)
So 71p a month or £8.52 a year to one platform provider ...
And you still need to collect the subscriptions etc ,,,,
Figures from annex 3 http://corporate.sky.com/file.axd?pointerid=11e7626abbe046b288d2f4fadef20f64
If there was a move towards a digital media fee added to all internet/broadband accounts in order to fund the BBC, the collection costs would be vastly reduced, evasion would be almost completely eliminated and this would mean that the BBC could be funded without the interference of government, and also without filling up the courts. It isn't a perfect system, but then neither is the licence fee and its collection. The additional bonus with this is that older people, who are less likely to have an internet connection are also those who would not have been liable for the licence fee. I also think that rather than increase the fee in line with inflation in future years, the actual income of the BBC should be index linked. This would probably mean that the licence fee would remain fairly static over the next 5 or so years because the number of individual households is increasing and therefore so would the BBC's income without increasing the fee from each household. There should also be special provisions put into place for halls of residences, hotels etc as they will often have single internet connections, but with multiple occupants. Such a model could work very well if it wasn't for political posturing and a minority with loud voices who don't believe in public service broadcasting full stop. However, I remain confident that the vast majority of the UK population believe in an arms-length funding of the BBC mostly free from commercial influence.
One final thought is that despite many Conservatives pushing for this decriminalisation of the licence fee, they have to convince half of the House of Commons to support such a move and that may not be so easy. The DCMS has also indicated that if this were to happen it would be in the context of the licence fee settlement and not before.
So, ignoring the fact that the BBC has no say in sentencing guidelines, nor does it hold any sway over magistrates, how would you deal with people who steadfastly (and some might say, stubbornly) refused to pay a fine properly imposed by a court, especially when that court will have given them every opportunity to pay, even by taking into account their income and circumstances, and allowing weekly payments?
The BBC are providing training to magistrates, and furthermore any requests for disclosure about what the content of this training is gets turned down by the BBC.
So litigants are allowed to train up the magistrates who will hear cases put in front of them, and not allow anyone else to know what this training was - whether it was biased or even correct. If that happened elsewhere the liberal brigade at BBC would be having fits.
The BBC are providing training to magistrates, and furthermore any requests for disclosure about what the content of this training is gets turned down by the BBC.
So litigants are allowed to train up the magistrates who will hear cases put in front of them, and not allow anyone else to know what this training was - whether it was biased or even correct. If that happened elsewhere the liberal brigade at BBC would be having fits.
No, they are providing useful background information regarding the TV Licensing & enforcement process, giving the magistrate a fuller picture upon which to base his/her judgements. Which has to be a good thing, yes?
Nowhere does it impinge upon sentencing guidelines (which would be most improper anyway)
So that still leave the unanswered question:
how would you deal with people who steadfastly (and some might say, stubbornly) refused to pay a fine properly imposed by a court, especially when that court will have given them every opportunity to pay, even by taking into account their income and circumstances, and allowing weekly payments?
I just have a tv, an xbox a laptop and a smart phone. I don't watch live tv therefore i do not need a license. Doesn't stop them sending me letters though.
They lied to me on a letter the other day though, it said WHATEVER YOU'RE WATCHING, HOWEVER YOU'RE WATCHING IT, YOU NEED A LICENSE.
no not true haha
I have not heard from them for a while now, I been expecting a letter as it is over two years since i told them i don't need a licence.
I have got the odd visit, but again not since early, mid last year as far as i know.
Maybe they forgot about me.
Saying that i know someone who had sky for 10 years or more without a TV licence and did not get any hassle, maybe it was because he lives so far out in the sticks.
He don't watch Sky now, but I presume he still don't have a Tv licence.
It's going to happen one day (unless we think 100 years from now we'll still be clinging to the current system), the technology exists, Sky have managed it in 10 million homes. Obviously there is a lot of opposition to the 180,000 court cases every year. I don't see the change in the law (if it happens) changing the number of people who don't pay. Might as well get on with it.
All subscription would do is increase costs, increase profits, take more money away from programming, "bundle" services (which means spending more on things you don't want in order to get what you do want) and cut diversity and risk making.
If the LF is unfair, so is subscription, but to a more expensive degree.
All subscription would do is increase costs, increase profits, take more money away from programming, "bundle" services (which means spending more on things you don't want in order to get what you do want) and cut diversity and risk making.
If the LF is unfair, so is subscription, but to a more expensive degree.
Possibly true (some of it, anyway), but what I was proposing in that post wasn't subscription, just a different way of collecting the licence fee, and not tempting people into breaking the law.
Possibly true (some of it, anyway), but what I was proposing in that post wasn't subscription, just a different way of collecting the licence fee, and not tempting people into breaking the law.
It's a better idea then subscription i'll give you that.
Sub-funded Beeb would go down like a lead balloon with the exisitng pay tv providers too. It's a non-starter.
With your suggestion, how would you deal with those who pay no Tvl but watch online?
Please correct me if I am wrong on the facts but ..
I believe the non payment of council tax is technically a civil matter but it currently done through the magistrates' court in much the same way as the TV license. I would suggest the argument the MP makes for the TV license also applies to council tax.
I also don't believe making it a civil matter would reduce the jail sentence. Once the court determines you have to pay a fine the non payment of the court fine would be a criminal offence which you can go to jail for.
Again please do correct me if I have this understanding wrong.
It just totally ***** your credit rating for the next 7 years when it goes to a CCJ.
I suspect that could actually prove a lot worse for many people in practical terms than the current system, as a lot of jobs won't care much/at all about if you've not paid your TVL at some point, but (they may even laugh at it when you disclose it at an interview) a lot however will want you to have a clean financial record (of which a CCJ would be a bad thing), as will pretty much every time you try to get a credit card, loan, car finance, insurance, mobile phone contract, and rather amusingly, pay TV (all of which will check your credit records).
IIRC you'll find it really hard to get a job in almost any part of the main financial sector if you've got any problems on your credit file, and in some jobs something like a CCJ can lead to you being moved to a lower paid position or sacked because there may be legal requirements to have a clean record, or it may be part of your employment contract (for example I think a lot of banking type staff are expected/required to have clean records as not having one can be seen as an unacceptable risk if you're handling cash).
Neo seems to think that we all want it and we should pay for it even if we don't use it.
He sees the licence fee as good value and don't understand why some people don't want to pay for it.
subscription is the best way to go in my opinion, the technology is here now and have been for years. It was the BBC when they first started Freeview who wanted to get rid of boxes with card readers so it would be difficult to set up subscription
This is all about killing the BBC and flogging off its corpse to private interests.
Same as they're doing with the NHS - a game of regulation Jenga - pulling out the blocks one by one until the whole thing collapses and Murdoch and his kind get to rule the broadcasting waves unchallenged.
Neo seems to think that we all want it and we should pay for it even if we don't use it.
He sees the licence fee as good value and don't understand why some people don't want to pay for it.
subscription is the best way to go in my opinion, the technology is here now and have been for years. It was the BBC when they first started Freeview who wanted to get rid of boxes with card readers so it would be difficult to set up subscription
Its just wonderful value and can't understand why paying 50p a day is a big deal.
Even if you don't watch TV what the LF funds is really remarkable. You may not watch TV (as you Noise747 so often remind us, again, and again, and again and again) but look upon the LF as you would the NHS, you may not use either everyday but you are in your own very little way helping your fellow man (and woman) make life that tiny bit nicer.
Comments
Privatisation as mental illness... Vote Conservative.
There is something very strange about this generation of Conservatives, they are crazy the way that old Labour types were crazy.
How do you privatise law enforcment? Take what should always be a criminal matter and turn into a civil matter.
Then place private firms in charge of non-compliance...
Kerching! Lot's of easy money.
If you are in favour of this you need your head examining.
Yes because jailing people who should never in a million years be in jail is okay.
The right-on types at the BBC would never advocate jailing people for non-payment of fines in any other circumstance.
being imprisoned for the failure to pay a court imposed fine
and (the fiction of)
being imprisoned for the failure to be licensed to operate a TV receiver in certain circumstances.
Do you feel a little lonely?
do you really think that the BBC in some way plays a role in determining
the sentencing guidelines given to magistrates and judges?
I was not aware that at one time Sky was available unencrypted and could be viewed without a viewing card, and then adopted an encryption mechanism which immediately affected their current (March 2014) customer base.
Despite the issues that I have pointed out, and despite a total lack of costings from yourself (making it seem to be the easiest changeover in the world, albeit spread over five years and paid for out of some yet to be seen savings on collection cost, which itself would seem to be a cost saving phased in over that same five-year period).
Here are a few starting figures, relating to 2010/11**:
Total cost of collection - £124.4m
Collection cost per licence - £4.95
Licence fee revenue - £3,678.6m, giving roughly 25.1 million licences (so roughly that's the number of households)
So the collection cost per household is £4.95
Now you reckon that this cost per household would pay for what in that household exactly?
Because I don't think that it's going to go far, do you?
Or the extra revenue from erstwhile evaders is going to have to be pretty substantial.
Not that I am saying that your idea lacks merit, but it certainly seems to have a pretty big black hole on the financial side, a hole that is hoped will be filled (perhaps partially) by an as yet unknown number of new subscribers enticed (or encouraged) to pay for what they previously had for free.
Now that size of black hole, and the hoped for way of filling it does worry me, as it would no doubt worry many business execs.
**Taken from http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-about-tv-licensing-AB15/
Sky charges 3p access card charge 13p CA charge and 55p platform contribution
( and the subscription BBC could not avoid that)
So 71p a month or £8.52 a year to one platform provider ...
And you still need to collect the subscriptions etc ,,,,
Figures from annex 3 http://corporate.sky.com/file.axd?pointerid=11e7626abbe046b288d2f4fadef20f64
One final thought is that despite many Conservatives pushing for this decriminalisation of the licence fee, they have to convince half of the House of Commons to support such a move and that may not be so easy. The DCMS has also indicated that if this were to happen it would be in the context of the licence fee settlement and not before.
On the contrary ...
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/information_about_tv_licensings
The BBC are providing training to magistrates, and furthermore any requests for disclosure about what the content of this training is gets turned down by the BBC.
So litigants are allowed to train up the magistrates who will hear cases put in front of them, and not allow anyone else to know what this training was - whether it was biased or even correct. If that happened elsewhere the liberal brigade at BBC would be having fits.
Nowhere does it impinge upon sentencing guidelines (which would be most improper anyway)
So that still leave the unanswered question:
how would you deal with people who steadfastly (and some might say, stubbornly) refused to pay a fine properly imposed by a court, especially when that court will have given them every opportunity to pay, even by taking into account their income and circumstances, and allowing weekly payments?
I have not heard from them for a while now, I been expecting a letter as it is over two years since i told them i don't need a licence.
I have got the odd visit, but again not since early, mid last year as far as i know.
Maybe they forgot about me.
Saying that i know someone who had sky for 10 years or more without a TV licence and did not get any hassle, maybe it was because he lives so far out in the sticks.
He don't watch Sky now, but I presume he still don't have a Tv licence.
All subscription would do is increase costs, increase profits, take more money away from programming, "bundle" services (which means spending more on things you don't want in order to get what you do want) and cut diversity and risk making.
If the LF is unfair, so is subscription, but to a more expensive degree.
Possibly true (some of it, anyway), but what I was proposing in that post wasn't subscription, just a different way of collecting the licence fee, and not tempting people into breaking the law.
It's a better idea then subscription i'll give you that.
Sub-funded Beeb would go down like a lead balloon with the exisitng pay tv providers too. It's a non-starter.
With your suggestion, how would you deal with those who pay no Tvl but watch online?
Have iPlayer function only with the same passcode that makes the TV work.
What about people who don't have/watch TV?
What about people:
With no children to educate
Who don't drive on the road
Who don't frequent libraries
....
I believe the non payment of council tax is technically a civil matter but it currently done through the magistrates' court in much the same way as the TV license. I would suggest the argument the MP makes for the TV license also applies to council tax.
I also don't believe making it a civil matter would reduce the jail sentence. Once the court determines you have to pay a fine the non payment of the court fine would be a criminal offence which you can go to jail for.
Again please do correct me if I have this understanding wrong.
It just totally ***** your credit rating for the next 7 years when it goes to a CCJ.
I suspect that could actually prove a lot worse for many people in practical terms than the current system, as a lot of jobs won't care much/at all about if you've not paid your TVL at some point, but (they may even laugh at it when you disclose it at an interview) a lot however will want you to have a clean financial record (of which a CCJ would be a bad thing), as will pretty much every time you try to get a credit card, loan, car finance, insurance, mobile phone contract, and rather amusingly, pay TV (all of which will check your credit records).
IIRC you'll find it really hard to get a job in almost any part of the main financial sector if you've got any problems on your credit file, and in some jobs something like a CCJ can lead to you being moved to a lower paid position or sacked because there may be legal requirements to have a clean record, or it may be part of your employment contract (for example I think a lot of banking type staff are expected/required to have clean records as not having one can be seen as an unacceptable risk if you're handling cash).
Neo seems to think that we all want it and we should pay for it even if we don't use it.
He sees the licence fee as good value and don't understand why some people don't want to pay for it.
subscription is the best way to go in my opinion, the technology is here now and have been for years. It was the BBC when they first started Freeview who wanted to get rid of boxes with card readers so it would be difficult to set up subscription
Same as they're doing with the NHS - a game of regulation Jenga - pulling out the blocks one by one until the whole thing collapses and Murdoch and his kind get to rule the broadcasting waves unchallenged.
Its just wonderful value and can't understand why paying 50p a day is a big deal.
Even if you don't watch TV what the LF funds is really remarkable. You may not watch TV (as you Noise747 so often remind us, again, and again, and again and again) but look upon the LF as you would the NHS, you may not use either everyday but you are in your own very little way helping your fellow man (and woman) make life that tiny bit nicer.