Plans to decriminalise non-payment of TVL?
hendero
Posts: 11,773 Forum Member
✭✭
It will be interesting to see what happens with this proposal.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/sep/09/decriminalise-non-payment-bbc-tv-licence-fee-mps-sajid-javid
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/sep/09/decriminalise-non-payment-bbc-tv-licence-fee-mps-sajid-javid
0
Comments
What next from the government, EastEnders to be made a criminal offence?
Wimbledon to carry a six year prison term? Community service for Queens Club.
TV licence law change plan considered by ministers (19 pages, 472 posts)
and
Report: Non payment of TV Licence to become civil rather than criminal matter (a lowly 4 pages, 87 posts)
The only change is that the review has been brought forward.
Its not a criminal offence, its a civil one.
If you don't pay for a licence and have evidence of watching a TV, Capita will take you to court as a civil matter.
If you then decide not to pay fines imposed on you by the court, only then does it become a criminal matter.
If it's a civil offence, would this potentially see Capita salespeople issuing fixed notice penalties on suspicion of licence evasion with the offer of cancelling the charge if they were allowed in to verify the status of the household ?
As it is, householders are under no legal obligation to talk to the sales staff if they come to the door, so could this potentially open up a rather dangerous avenue, considering the approach of some of the salespeople in their "enforcement" duties in the past ?
Just posing some questions that sprang to mind - not looking for the boilerplate "avoid the hassle and let them in" reply of course
So if you don't have a TV licence because you legally don't need one... Things might all change, for the worse.
It would presumably need to be linked to council tax, and I don't see why anyone should have to may more or less for the right to watch TV based on the value of one's residence. At that point we might as well start charging people different prices for cinema tickets based on how much they earn.
If it was made a flat rate and tacked onto to council tax that might work, although there are still going to be issues with people who don't, or claim not to, watch live TV in their homes.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/sep/09/bbc-trust-chair-rona-fairhead
People need to take note of that warning.
She also gave her backing to the licence fee as the best way of funding the corporation.
The surprise of the century.
In Germany you pay a TV licence regardless of whether you own a TV or not. So would not be unprecedented that it was made a universal flat rate tax everyone pays regardless of use.
Though seems some people are not happy with that arrangement in Germany
http://www.thelocal.de/20140414/330000-sign-up-against-new-licence-fee
Hardly, considering that she is the Government's preferred candidate, and that she has been picked by a Government that has already raised questions in some parts about the way that the BBC is funded in the future, for example:
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/tv-licence-fee-threatened-as-bbc-faces-review-of-everything-1-6647445
But that is going more off-topic, as this thread is not about abolition or replacement of the LF, or how the BBC should be funded in the future.
I wouldn't say every other country. There are some that do it via general tax action but there's also plenty more that still have a specific licence.
And the reason why its not part of tax will be political. What party is really going to suggets a tax increase, it would be killer for any party. Its easier to hide behind the status quo that gives people an opt out still rather than something new that we couldn't out out of (and as I would be surprised if they added a new fixed rate tax, more likely an increase in income tax to cover it you could see those in a multi person household who all work so are able to watch less TV paying much more than they currently do while those who are unemployed and most likely watch more TV as they have more time to do so pay nothing so its not really going to change the complaints about the whole system, more likely increase it)
For one: I don't think it's fair that not watching live tv disqualifies you from paying anything towards the BBC despite the fact that it also includes radio, internet and catch up services.
Secondary: I don't think it's fair that a family of multiple adults under one roof pays the same total as a uni student who spends 30 weeks a year in dorms (yes, ok he/she can technically claim any unused months).
I personally like the solution involving adding a variable licence fee to council tax so that everyone pays regardless of whether they have 'the ability to receive live tv' or not. It almost eliminates collection costs and stops all of the issues involving evasion (well, apart form people evading council tax of course!). I agree with the poster that linking the fee to income isn't ideal, however at least the council bands give some indication of how many people live in the property. If that isn't politically possible then at least allow the single person discount to include the fee as well.
It would fairly astonishing for the incoming head of the BBC Trust to go before Parliament and say she disagreed with the long-standing method of funding the BBC. Which also pays her salary.
I suggest you write to your MP and share your concerns that the issue is on the Parliamentary agenda.
The BBC, through agents operating under its TV Licensing trademark, act as the prosecuting authority, as do some other organisations (eg the RSPCA) for certain other crimes.
As the post office did when it was the (inefficient) collection authority,
Btw the money dues nit gi to the BBC directly ..it goes inti the consolidated fund ..and the government ladle it out in 12 equal payments a year
On the other hand, being a civil matter would, presumably, mean that falsely accused members of the public could claim their legal fees from the BBC/TVL, which might act as a brake on their behaviour.
This proposal has advantages and disadvantages, which need to be weighed carefully by all sides in the debate.
You raise another interesting point. For "balance of probabilities", I imagine Capita, under civil law, could possibly legally argue that if a household doesn't have a registered and active licence and someone is living there then there is a definite balance of probability that they're evading.
The problem is that a search warrant cannot be issued in a civil case, so they'd still need the householder's permission to enter to confirm that.
Another good point. Making licence evasion a civil offence could certainly, on the face of it, render the whole procedure utterly toothless.