I like the nonsense argument of some who suggest the £3.5billion TV Licence income cannot be lowered because that would affect the BBCs ability to make money...
...making money so the amount of the TV Licence is lower than it would otherwise be, is what they are talking about.
Just lowering the amount of the TV Licence has the instant effect of lowering the amount of the TV Licence. A very effective method.
It may say that on paper, but the real world is different.
Look at the role of ATOS in the Work Capaibility assessments. Apparently it's the DWP who "have the final say", which although true on paper, is different from the real world, because ATOS supply all the information to them.
Now, the Government is beginning to wake up and is allowing more providers to administer the work.
So, althought the DWP "makes the descision", the reality is that they are are going on what ATOS tells them.
So, to equate this to the topic on hand, CAPITA due all the processing of TVL work. So the problems are with them, not the BBC.
I think the BBC does have a duty to monitor people acting in its name.
But it always amuses me that critics say "the BBC I'd responsible because it contracts Capita to do the job" but ignore the fact that it is actually the government who contract, and legally oblige, the BBC to enforce the licence.
So some people are very quick to send blame up the chain, but only until it gets to the BBC, never any higher to the people actually in charge.
I think the BBC does have a duty to monitor people acting in its name.
I agree.
But it always amuses me that critics say "the BBC I'd responsible because it contracts Capita to do the job" but ignore the fact that it is actually the government who contract, and legally oblige, the BBC to enforce the licence.
Do they say that? I've seen allegations of bullying by "TV Licesning". If that's true, then something's going wrong somewhere along the line. Where does the buck stop? And what are they doing about it?
So some people are very quick to send blame up the chain, but only until it gets to the BBC, never any higher to the people actually in charge.
Does the BBC actually report to the Government, though?
I think the BBC does have a duty to monitor people acting in its name.
But it always amuses me that critics say "the BBC I'd responsible because it contracts Capita to do the job" but ignore the fact that it is actually the government who contract, and legally oblige, the BBC to enforce the licence.
So some people are very quick to send blame up the chain, but only until it gets to the BBC, never any higher to the people actually in charge.
Agreed. And it's not BBC staff who actually collect the LF - it's Capita.
Do they say that? I've seen allegations of bullying by "TV Licesning". If that's true, then something's going wrong somewhere along the line.
Frequently. Many comments say "TV Licencing is only a trademark, it's actually the BBC" and holding the BBC responsible for everything done by capita staff.
Where does the buck stop? And what are they doing about it?
At the top? Which would be the government who write the legislation and order the BBC to administer the licence and collect the money.
Does the BBC actually report to the Government, though?
mh
On such matters the BBC is answerable to the DCMS, and scrutinised by the DCMS Select Committee. The BBC is editorially independent, in terms of policy it has to follow the charter and many government edicts, the 25%+ indie quota and the regions quota for example.
The government also wrote the legislation that sets the laws regarding the TV licence, who needs one etc.
Who makes the rules, though? And if the BBC is responsible, isn't it passing the buck a bit by getting Capita to do it?
mh
The government make the laws. And aren't the government passing the buck by getting the BBC to do it? The money does all go to the government after all, before they keep a cut and pass it back to the BBC.
This is exactly what I meant in #129. You want to pass the buck up the chain, but only until it gets to the BBC, and no further.
Comments
Who has said that?
It may say that on paper, but the real world is different.
Look at the role of ATOS in the Work Capaibility assessments. Apparently it's the DWP who "have the final say", which although true on paper, is different from the real world, because ATOS supply all the information to them.
Now, the Government is beginning to wake up and is allowing more providers to administer the work.
So, althought the DWP "makes the descision", the reality is that they are are going on what ATOS tells them.
So, to equate this to the topic on hand, CAPITA due all the processing of TVL work. So the problems are with them, not the BBC.
But it always amuses me that critics say "the BBC I'd responsible because it contracts Capita to do the job" but ignore the fact that it is actually the government who contract, and legally oblige, the BBC to enforce the licence.
So some people are very quick to send blame up the chain, but only until it gets to the BBC, never any higher to the people actually in charge.
Do they say that? I've seen allegations of bullying by "TV Licesning". If that's true, then something's going wrong somewhere along the line. Where does the buck stop? And what are they doing about it?
Does the BBC actually report to the Government, though?
mh
Agreed. And it's not BBC staff who actually collect the LF - it's Capita.
Who makes the rules, though? And if the BBC is responsible, isn't it passing the buck a bit by getting Capita to do it?
mh
The government also wrote the legislation that sets the laws regarding the TV licence, who needs one etc.
The government make the laws. And aren't the government passing the buck by getting the BBC to do it? The money does all go to the government after all, before they keep a cut and pass it back to the BBC.
This is exactly what I meant in #129. You want to pass the buck up the chain, but only until it gets to the BBC, and no further.