TV Licence bullies (Part 2)
mRebel
Posts: 24,882 Forum Member
✭✭✭
- Admin Edit: This thread is a continuation of TV Licence bullies
salixsorbus wrote: »
Lifestyle changes in previous generations have led to an increase on the percentage of TV households. Are there any reliable statistics on whether this is actually changing?
Unfortunately, anecodotal evidence tells us nothing here, and finding people on online forums who are in non-TV households is a fairly meaningless indicator of the country as a whole.
There was the figures quoted in the Trust report on licence enforcement last year. The Trust observed that the net could lead to a continuing reduction in households needing a tv licence, and the effect on BBC finances would need "legislative change" to correct.
0
Comments
I'd be interested to hear how you think this would work. "TVL"/BBC seem adamant that it is necessary to register and verify non-customers, and this is at the heart of the HR issues.
Again, I'd be interested in your comparators. I'm not convinced that any other minor offences are investigated in this way. There is a particular issue with the idea that being TV-free is somehow suspicious, because unlike other possible enforcement scenarios, those who are TV-free are behaving perfectly lawfully within their own homes.
And even extending this to major offences, it is still exceptional, I think (DNA elimination being the most obvious).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_work/other/licence_fee_collection.shtml
The BBC Trust report indicates average fines in the region of £130. I have also sat in on a "TVL" session in court, and the average fine there was even lower. In addition, the BBC sent me some "stakeholder" info which included a social class breakdown of offenders, where C1DE was in the clear majority. I see it as being protentially broader than that. If the data on legally licence free citizens is being used for an unlawful purpose, then that data processing may also be unlawful. Though I accept the practical issue of distinguishing the various sub-groups in the data.
Clearly, in historic terms, it has always been practical for organisations to hold (just) customer data without reference to "whole population" databases, and theoretically this should satisfy their statutory obligation to administer the LF.
Indeed, this "use of data" issue is another of the fundamental points at the heart of the LF. IF the data were being processed to retrieve a list of unlicensed addresses for the purposes of simple sales and marketing efforts, that is clearly different to using the same data for the purpose of an unlawful attempt at law enforcement. Obviously if we were just talking sales and marketing, that is encompassed in common law freedoms, and citizens would have rights to opt out and to complain about misleading information.
indeed they can.
so the BBC can override the law here?OK, fair enough.
at the expense of all practicality.
whatever else, this point is becoming absurd.
by saying 'pointless and dangerous', did you mean to suggest that there was any element of danger or not? yes or no?
it clearly does - there might also, in your opinion, be an element of pointlessness also, but that's not really the point.
if you have fish and chips, you don't not have chips, because you also happen to have fish.
but i haven't said that the visit is necessary, as in 'if you don't have a visit, there's no other way to resolve the issue'.
i'm simply saying it exists as one way in which it can be resolved.
you seem to arguing that it cannot achieve that, by your repeated assertion that communicating with tvl is pointless.
clearly, if someone gets the letters stopped for a year or two, it isn't pointless.
you personally choosing to go down another route still doesn't change that fact, no matter how many times you like to suggest that it does.
there is no straw man though, because i'm not talking about you - the point is that i disagree that advising tvl and possibly having them visit for 10-15 minutes is particularly difficult. i believe that to be an absolute, regardless what any individual may choose to do.
OK - so in your analogy, despite the implication of danger, it turns out that its actually very safe. still not that great an analogy, given that the risk, however small, is one of actual loss of life, and there being no benefit whatsoever in crossing the road.
but that's not what we're discussing here. we're specifically discussing whether or not there is any point in communicating with tvl, whether or not it can achieve anything.
my view is that it can - it can achieve getting letters stopped for a year or two.
are you disputing that fact? (simply pointing out that you can do something else isn't really an answer.)
its not about denying anyone anything - its about finding it difficult to accept that sending an letter, or making a phone call, and possibly having someone visit for 10-15 minutes is anything difficult.
well, there's the whole practical issue of tvl knowing that you're not evading, and also enabling them to identify people who are evading. you might not approve of how they go about it, but that doesn't make that practicality non existent.
sure - perhaps i'm unusual, but off the top of my head i wouldn't really know much about a cease and desist order, so i'm guessing that for a lot of people, sending a letter or making a phone call, with the possibility of a 10-15 minute from tvl would be less hassle, and take up less time that finding out about cease and desist orders, the advantages of having one, and getting it arranged.
i consider it in the same way that i would consider that, in the most part, its safe to leave the house in the morning.
very wise, what with the risk, however small, of actual death and all.
i disagree - i respect people's choice to adopt a stance of non compliance. but i do think its all a bit of an overreaction, given how little is really involved, the practical circumstances, the tiniest chance of being wrongfully convicted.
i think it is relevant - because whether you agree or not will resolve this thing about whether or not its pointless.
i'm not trying to sell you anything - i'm just trying to point out that there is an alternative. you don't have to agree that its the best alternative, but i can't understand why you seem to be saying point blank that it doesn't exist.
in breach, or possibly in breach?
i think you're deliberately being careful with your wording here - 'The form is structured as a confession....'.
what does that mean exactly?
is there a part, above everybody's signature, which says something like :
I, the undersigned, confess to operating tv with the express purposes of watching live tv broadcasts, without a valid tv licence.....?
or not?
Iain
yes - and we'd gotten onto CAB....
...and i asked you to post any extracts from (initial) tvl letters that you considered to be unduly threatening or aggressive.
so you agree that initial letters are polite enquiries?
i think it all depends on the person - different people will take things differently.
i'd also wonder why it was people didn't reply to initial letters.
don't get me wrong - if people want to exercise their right to not reply, that's entirely up to them.
but if they do ignore initial letters, they shouldn't perhaps be surprised when they get more letters.
Iain
if you were tvl employees popping round to confirm that i didn't need a tv licence, then yes.
Iain
if people don't want to reply to letters, that's entirely their right.
but i don't think they should then be surprised if they get more letters.
Iain
It looks like Cornucopia's issue is
- TV licensing have no legal right to enter the home
- The reason for which TV licensing want to enter the home has no legal benefit to the homeowner
- Contacting TV licensing is not required by law
So the problem isn't that sending a letter, making a phone call or having someone visit is difficult, but that it just isn't for consideration, regardless of whether doing any of those things is easier. It isn't about it being easier, it is about not having someone 'invade' your personal life who has no reason to be there. (At least, this is my reading of Cornucopia's position.)
This viewpoint tends to follow from a concern that if it becomes OK to let one public body (or its agents) 'invade' your personal life, then it becomes the norm for other public bodies, and the government ends up interfering with everything. I seems to bear a relationship to the response from some people in USA when the police came to their house without a warrant and ask if they can come in.
On the flipside - it is always the minority that cause problems for the majority. That's just the way the world works. Those who evade cause problems for other people who are not evading (although in this case the evaders are a larger group than the non-licensed non-evaders, there are still a minority of the relevant population ie everyone).
Although it does looks, from the ICO information, that the principle of registering and verifying non-customers is not an HR issue. The manner in which the verification takes place may, or may not, be an HR issue. The attempt at law enforcement is not unlawful per-se. Other organisations do hold 'whole-population' databases, eg, councils.
'Probable cause' has a statistical basis and is used to further investigations and collect evidence. You do not have to have any concrete evidence initially, but have a certain likelihood that a crime has been committed by a particular individual (eg). There is certainly a difference - 'probable cause' is used when a crime has occured but you don't know who committed it, whereas with TV licensing you are assuming that a crime is likely to have occured.
Hmmm. How to detect license evasion without giving TV licensing the right to enter people's homes, and without a technological solution (which needs to, as a minimum, provide strong enough evidence that a physical check can be carried out). OK, maybe not straightforward. Maybe TVL should just employ attractive and charming people who can enter people's homes without it feeling like an invasion (obviously having resolved any PACE issues).
This still doesn't mean that low-income households are being 'targeted'. You would need to know the social class breakdown of evaders compared to the social class breakdown of people against whom action is taken. A reasonable statistical comparison is stop-and-search - this should not be a problem when the proportion of being being stopped who are minorities is greater than the proportion of the population who are minorities, provided it is still in line with the proportion of offenders who are minorities.
They haven't taken any notice and have just continued to send threatening letters.
OK he is abroad so when I go to his house to check the mail I am the one who reads them.
I can't think of any other body who send threatening letters without probable cause.
If it was debt collectors harassing you then usually they would have proof that you owed money to a company.
TVL seem to think that anyone not on their database is automatically an offender and they must prove beyond doubt to TVL that they are not breaking the law.
And at the end of the threatening letter they tell you to ignore it if you've bought a licence.
These people need reeling in as their treatment of people who may be innocent is appalling and should not have to be tolerated by anyone especially if they have no tv and do not require a licence.
Indeed, and that, along with the issue that "TVL" see acting lawfully as a cause for suspicion, are the reasons why I object to the "statistical suspicion" princple.
The resolution to the PACE issues is for "TVL" to work through the "considered consent" that PACE Code B provides for. Liberty suggest that this would involve the citizen giving written consent to the search.
TBH, I really don't think that any evader and most legally licence free citizens will provide "considered consent" to search, given the knowledge that they do not have to. What I think is happening at the moment is that searches are filtering to those who don't know they are evading added to those who don't know/aren't told they can refuse "TVL" entry.
I think "filtered" is perhaps a better description. There are a number of filtering points in the process that would tend to remove people with knowledge and people with readily available funds from the court process. I even witnessed "TVL" in Court, withdrawing or proceeding with individual cases on the basis of weekly/DD payment records.
I completely accept your analysis. But I also have the first-hand experience of seeing 83 cases run through a court, virtually all of which concerned people on low incomes.
Likewise those who quite legitimately don't require a licence but refuse to co-operate with TV Licencing. Simply replying to the inital letter and allowing an inspection would free up resources and help keep costs down, while at the same time removing the "stress and fear" which these "threatening" letters apparently cause.
When the Police are allowed to go door-to-door looking for Drug dens and Brothels, then I think we can justify "TVL"'s behaviour as being similarly practical. Until then, it's simply not relevant (to me, anyway).
Yes, clearly pointless with overtones of danger.
I'm thinking it's not the same, possibly because fish & chips are both nouns. But don't quote me on that.
"TVL" do.
I think that has become confused over the many posts. Salixorby's post is a good summary of my position.
Why does "TVL" need to mislead people about its necessity, then? If all reasonable people would agree to it, anyway?
That's not really a very good argument. The reason why cease & desist is required, is because "TVL" somehow needs this in order to be able to unhold rights I/we already have. If they were honest about their powers and my/our rights, then C&D would not be required.
In breach, but IANAL.
No, I'm really not.
That it forms evidence of a confession when completed with the relevant answers to leading questions.
There doesn't need to be.
There are ways, but they require the government and the BBC to accept them.
One is funding via general taxation. Everyone pays, so there's no evasion. Costs as in collection overheads are reduced and the BBC can focus on being a PSB rather than a tax collector. Downside is the government then needs to find £3bn+ a year to keep the BBC in the style to which it's become accustomed.
Suggestions that the BBC loses independence are false given the BBC has never been financially independent of government. It collects the licence fee on behalf of government, pays it to the Treasury and then asks for it's budget.
Another is the French model and funding via Council Tax. This could reduce collection costs, possibly leaving the BBC to focus on enforcement. But it still leaves the licence fee as a line item to be opposed, needs care to avoid it being regressive and potentially a method to opt-out easily. Tiering it with council tax bands may be one way to make it less regressive, but then again property rating doesn't always reflect income, ability to pay or consumption.
Then there's technology options, so use DTT's features to deny service to non-licence payers, or limited unencrypted service. Main loophole with this option is dealing with IPTV, the rest could be covered by broadcaster/mux licences.
Biggest change was an upward revision to non-TV households following the last census. That asked if people watched TV, but the results may not be reliable if people thought answering 'yes' when they were unlicensed could lead to a criminal prosecution.
The BBC itself doesn't seem to care though. It assumes every unlicensed household is an evader, unless they prove otherwise to the BBC's satisfaction. It's been writing to me every month for the last 5+ years, but has never sent me a survey form to ask why I've stopped subscribing or watching live TV. That's a big wasted opportunity for the BBC to learn something about it's ex-customers.
Some of it was the demerger of the GPO, which used to be the PO, BBC and BT. Following that, the contract was put out to tender. The original bidder (who's name escapes me) gave up because it was costing them too much and the BBC got the job. They tender out parts of the activities under the 'TVL' brand, and Capita won a large slice of it. Supposedly worth £500m over 10 years, currently been worth way more than that to Capita's shareholders. That contract is nearing it's end, so an ideal time to reconsider the licence fee.
Depends how it's structured. Taxation already has an element of unfairness. I pay for schools but have no kids. I pay for hospitals, but don't get ill. I pay for tanks, but aren't allowed to play with one. Tax pays for services that are generally considered a 'public good', and we generally accept that's for the good of society. If Strictly Come Dancing is a public service, why not fund it from taxation?
Evasion could be much higher. A lot depends on how you classify the size of the population vs the size of the population that actually needs a licence. The BBC doesn't really bother doing this though, so actual non-licenced could be up to 10%, if you include all households and all businesses that could need a licence. Again this is where the current system is a bit pointless. There's no financial link between the number of properties and the BBC's costs, so why base it's budget on households?
There are examples here-
http://www.bbctvlicence.com/
The August one's a new one on me, I don't have that in my collection yet.
It can get complicated and be confusing. AFAIK, the UK doesn't have the US 'fruit of the poison tree' defence for illegal searches. It could perhaps do with some clarification though. Problem is our last government made lots of laws, widening powers granted to non-traditional law enforcement, often with little regulation or oversight for the use of those powers. That's bad for our civil liberties.
It's a similar to PACE discussions. I could interview you in accordance with PACE, but it would be largely meaningless. A BBC enfarcer has no more legal rights (sans warrant) than you, me, or any doorstep sales person. If a police officer breaches PACE, then police disciplinary procedures can sanction them, up to dismissal and prosecution. If a self-employed, commission-only BBC subcontractor breaches PACE, who's the regulator, and what sanctions could be applied?
I'd agree with that. It's entitled to hold a list of licenced or unlicensed properties. Why though does it need people's names, when licences are for properties? Especially when name changes on licences seem to cause it so many problems?
What additional powers do you think they should be granted?
I might reply to the BBC, if they included a reply-paid form for me to use. Remember I'm under no obligation to reply to them at all because I'm a law abiding citizen. Why would I bother replying, when the only way it seems possible to be accepted as a law abiding citizen is to provide consent to a warrantless search of my property?
Ok, so take my property as an example. I have 11 displays, 7 computers and assorted other gizmos like a PS3 that could potentially do something that might need a licence. None of them are installed or used for that purpose though, so all perfectly legal.
What do you think is reasonable to do during your search of my property?
How would you inspect them to ensure no offence is being committed?
How long do you think it would take, or it's reasonable for me to allow for this search?
What training do you think you'd need to perform this task?
What laws would you need to be aware of to avoid leaving yourself open to prosecution?
How much liability cover do you think you'd need?
How many times a year do you think I should allow you to do these searches?
I'll try again...
Do you think it's acceptable that people on the receiving end of TVL contact considered that the letters were 'threatening', or that they felt 'intimidated', 'bullied', 'harassed constantly' 'vulnerable', or 'very distressed'?
I'm asking a simple enough question, I want to know what you think Iain, not what everyone else might think.
Paul.
i've told you what i think Paul.
if people feel so concerned by these letters, then i really do wonder why they hadn't simply replied to earlier letters.
and yes - before you ask - if people have made a reasonable effort to communicate with tvl, then yes, they have grounds to escalate the issue if they are still receiving letters.
but as far as i can tell, a lot of people choose to ignore letters, and then complain when they get other letters.
Iain
It seems you are the one with limited understanding - I posted extracts from letters/contacts received by CAB regarding problems with TVL. All the references I used were extracts from letters, which was quite clear. I can see though that me saying, 'CAB were in a much better position to comment' at the start of the post may have confused someone who is hard of thinking.
Anyway... do you think it's acceptable that people considered that the letters were 'threatening', or that they felt 'intimidated' or 'bullied' or 'harassed constantly' or 'vulnerable', or 'very distressed'? Again, I'm interested in hearing what YOU think, not others.
Paul.
So, it's acceptable then?
YES OR NO?
calm down Paul.
put it this way -
it would be unacceptable to harass and intimidate people.
however, just because someone thinks something is unduly aggressive or threatening, doesn't actually mean it is.
if i was a sensitive soul, i could say that i find your tone to be unnecessarily intimidating, but that might say more about me, than the tone of your posts.
and even if it is, it seems that people have every opportunity to avoid that by simply replying to earlier letters.
you said just now that you "want to know what you think Iain, not what everyone else might think", and yet you're the one relying on other people's views.
but when i ask you to post extracts from these letters that you would describe as unduly threatening or aggressive, you decline to do so.
Iain
No straight answer, just more diversion!
Thanks. Although I do think that this viewpoint is slightly unreasonable and doesn't fit particularly well with a properly functioning society.
I'm all for a society that functions well, and in which the public-spiritedness of citizens plays a role.
In order to achieve that, though, I think that public bodies need to approach citizens with an attitude of respect, helpfulness and above all, honesty. When "TVL" make in-roads into its issues in all of those areas, I will consider whether I can & will help them in any way. (Though, if they still want me to prove my innocence in some way to eliminate myself from enquiries, that isn't going to happen unless new law explicitly requires it).
In the meantime, I will do what I can to encourage them to change their behaviour, which at present I consider to be completely unacceptable.
Room for agreement in the broadcasting forum?
TV licensing see not-known-to-be-acting-legally as the cause for suspicion, but I don't see how they take acting lawfully as a cause of suspicion.
This does seem very likely. The solution of making people much more aware that they can tell TVL to go away has the effect that evasion becomes more prevalent - not a win-win.
Again, very likely even from not having witnessed the process. What I am not sure about is whether this is any different from other legal processes, where the richer and better informed people tend to come out better than poorer or less-informed people. If this is significantly worse with the TVL than that is relevant, otherwise it is just an example of an unjust system and the problem is not the TVL.
Which is indicative, but not more than that. I can't imagine though that Justice or CAB have sufficient funds to do the work necessary to find out the level of the problem, as regards low-income people being effectively targeted.
In reference to my previous point - did you observe non-TVL cases (at a similar level on the justice system) and if so were those also mostly concerning people on low incomes?
I think you misunderstand my position. I have legally instructed "TVL" to go away. Their expenditure in my case is reduced, because there are no letters or visits to pay for.
I am doing them a favour, since I would also be within my rights to let them carry on with their normal process, and simply turn them away (repeatedly) on the doorstep, until they got the message. Bear in mind, though, that this is THEIR process. It's not the most effective approach, nor is it mandated in law. As such, I have little sympathy if their costs are increased when innocent citizens enforce their rights.
I think that's semantics, TBH. The fact, in my situation, is that I am acting lawfully. What "TVL" think is not fact. Whether "TVL" believe me is what is at issue. Unfortunately, the law does not allow them to press the issue against my wishes. (Not only that, but in all honesty I think we have to question whether the BBC/this offence are a special case, in law, or not).
The law requires it. Simple as that.
I think that if you take the facts that 2/3 of cases are never prosecuted (presumably because a licence is bought), together with the lack of legal aid in these prosecutions, then people with money and knowledge will be at a significant advantage.
I think that the LF is part of the wider issue of poverty and social inequity, but it also has issues of its own, too.
There are other demographic slants that we haven't discussed. The main one is male-female. Whilst most crimes are heavily biased towards male offenders, this one is biased towards female offenders. There are a number of filtering factors that I think are in play, here:-