BBC licence fee to rise by £10.50 to £169.50 in 2024, culture secretary says

[+ouija ouija]

11 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

The individuals harassing me were TV License Inspectors (or whatever they're called) wanting access to my flat to confirm that what I told them was indeed true. I finally told them that I was willing to have them inspect my flat but that they would have to make an appointment so that I could arrange to have an adult present (I was just a teenager at the time living alone). I did my best to be cooperative, yet they showed up unannounced one evening, managed to get through the locked main door by following another tenant in, and began banging on my door like they were the cops.

 

I suppose their thinking was that if they made an appointment with you, if you did have a TV you could simply leave it in a neighbour's house during their visit.

Better for them to make a surprise visit.

Edited December 17, 2023 by ouija ouija

[Kittens Are Jerks]

1 hour ago, ouija ouija said:

I suppose their thinking was that if they made an appointment with you, if you did have a TV you could simply leave it in a neighbour's house during their visit.

Better for them to make a surprise visit.

Yes, I'm sure that was exactly their thinking.

I wish my interaction with them was as easy as yours was. The banging on my door was quite fierce and lasted for more than five minutes. I called my parents first, they freaked and told me they would contact lawyers, but wanted me to immediately call the police, which I did. They arrived after the TV Licensing person left and were quite sympathetic. Not only were there kick marks on my door, a threatening letter was also tied to my door handle with an elastic band.

The police took the time to inform me of my rights regarding TVL and said that contacting lawyers was a good idea as a cease and desist letter would well position me to sue for harassment and/or trespass in future.

[Duke Wellington]

On 12/16/2023 at 4:09 PM, Saru said:

The TV license is an antiquated concept that originated decades ago when it actually made some sense.

These days, it's the equivalent of being legally obligated to pay for a Netflix subscription because you happen to own a TV.

With no where near the same quality of content!

[pellinore]

22 hours ago, Michelle said:

But I was kidding. I have serious doubts no one has had any trouble from them. And there were at least a couple *ahem* who more than suggested it would never happen. It irks me a little when people act like the authority and final word on something they just might not know everything about.

On 12/17/2023 at 12:00 AM, Kittens Are Jerks said:

And you ran with it.

Who said anything about a collection firm? I made it very clear in my first post that I did not own a TV and that I had notified them of that fact. So why would I owe them any money? I also made it very clear that I lived in London for three years.

The individuals harassing me were TV License Inspectors (or whatever they're called) wanting access to my flat to confirm that what I told them was indeed true. I finally told them that I was willing to have them inspect my flat but that they would have to make an appointment so that I could arrange to have an adult present (I was just a teenager at the time living alone). I did my best to be cooperative, yet they showed up unannounced one evening, managed to get through the locked main door by following another tenant in, and began banging on my door like they were the cops.

The cease and desist letter sent by our lawyers was to get them to stop the harassment and intimidation.There was no justification for what they tried to do that night.

I actually agree with both of you. I'm sure @Kittens Are Jerks had a horrible experience. And I am sure the firms outsourced to collect TV licence fees act unethically at times (perhaps too often).

But there are two issues: one is whether the UK way of funding TV is still appropriate, bearing in mind it was set up in 1946 when hardly anyone had a TV anyway. TV has changed since then, with digital streaming on different devices now the norm. Maybe we should move to a national broadcaster supported by advertising- but I personally like the BBC as an institution (like tea and digestive biscuits in the afternoon and the annual Last Night at the Proms) and think it is good value. I rarely watch TV, I use BBC audio more, but I suppose it is also an important point that the £160 annual cost is not a concern to me.

And the other is simply: if we are keeping the current system, how do we stop people avoiding paying? When I lived in London, I was visited by an inspector, who told me quite rightly that 1. there was no record of a TV licence being paid at the address I lived in, and 2. they could hear the TV from the doorstep. Caught red-handed, I paid rather than be fined. If I wasn't using a TV, I would have told them to **** off.

[pellinore]

On 12/16/2023 at 10:38 PM, Setton said:

I've no doubt that's the story plenty of people tell the daily mail for their 15 seconds of fame (and probably in some cases omitting the part where they actually should have had a licence...). But my post above is based on a sample I trust (my friends and family). Most people my age don't need a TV licence one and I don't know anyone who's had any hassle over it.

The right wing has always had a problem with the BBC. They confuse non-biased neutral reporting with being left wing. Facts are always troublesome for the right, they prefer narrative.

[pellinore]

On 12/16/2023 at 4:09 PM, Saru said:

The TV license is an antiquated concept that originated decades ago when it actually made some sense.

These days, it's the equivalent of being legally obligated to pay for a Netflix subscription because you happen to own a TV.

I normally agree with you, but there is no way Netflix is comparable to the BBC as a service. Is Netflix going to offer a free world service, high quality radio drama, news and entertainment? Local radio? Programmes dedicated to disabled people, minority interests and educational programmes for children? Or are they going to front blockbusters which they cancel immediately viewing figures drop, to keep investment?  (Just as one example, Blackadder would have been cancelled after the first series).

There, I think I have answered my own question for you.

[Saru]

9 hours ago, pellinore said:

I normally agree with you, but there is no way Netflix is comparable to the BBC as a service.

I just used Netflix as a rough example i.e. as an alternative provider of television shows and movies.

 

[Essan]

On 12/16/2023 at 7:04 PM, Saru said:

While that's technically true, it can be easier said than done to stop paying for a license. The licensing authorities can threaten to send 'licensing officers' to your home and people have been met with all manner of intimidation tactics, typically involving letters containing threats of court orders and fines, simply for declaring that they don't need a license.

I notified them I did not need a licence, via the website (literally took minutes to do), last January - and, after an acknowledgment, have heard nothing from them since.  

[itsnotoutthere]

11 hours ago, pellinore said:

The right wing has always had a problem with the BBC. They confuse non-biased neutral reporting with being left wing. Facts are always troublesome for the right, they prefer narrative.

Is that what's known as 'gaslighting' ( but a man in a wig is now magically a woman....damn your leftist facts.  )

Facts :- https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.bbc.co.uk

Always makes me smile when left wingers bleat on about how the BBC is unbiased & actually too right wing & then proceed to cry in their beer when the majority of people suggest funding it by subscription. What are you afraid of, that nobody would actually pay for it perhaps?

Edited December 18, 2023 by itsnotoutthere

[Kittens Are Jerks]

21 hours ago, pellinore said:

I actually agree with both of you. I'm sure @Kittens Are Jerks had a horrible experience. And I am sure the firms outsourced to collect TV licence fees act unethically at times (perhaps too often).

I remember someone telling me (not sure if it's true or not) that inspectors deliberately target women and the elderly as they are deemed the most vulnerable and, hence, easily intimidated.

21 hours ago, pellinore said:

And the other is simply: if we are keeping the current system, how do we stop people avoiding paying? When I lived in London, I was visited by an inspector, who told me quite rightly that 1. there was no record of a TV licence being paid at the address I lived in, and 2. they could hear the TV from the doorstep. Caught red-handed, I paid rather than be fined. If I wasn't using a TV, I would have told them to **** off.

I honestly don't know much about why the system is in place (even though I think it absurd) and certainly have no idea how to ensure people who should pay do so. I also don't know if the rules/regulations have changed since I last lived in London, but I recall something about not needing a licence if you only watched programs on services other than the BBC iPlayer. If you used your TV to rent or buy movies from other providers, for example, a TV licence wasn't necessary.

So even though that inspector heard your TV, how could he prove you were watching the BBC?

[pellinore]

58 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

So even though that inspector heard your TV, how could he prove you were watching the BBC?

It was 30 years ago, no one had other than terrestrial TV then. So I had to be tuned to the BBC. And I was, so it would have been hard for me to prove otherwise. Tbh, even though they have no right of the entry, if one of the inspectors had come to my son's place when he had no terrestrial TV, I would have invited them in, just to be friendly and so they could see for themselves. I don't resent them for doing a thankless and unrewarding job. As long as they were friendly and polite, if they were aggressive, I'd send them on their way in short order.

Edited December 18, 2023 by pellinore

[pellinore]

37 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

I remember someone telling me (not sure if it's true or not) that inspectors deliberately target women and the elderly as they are deemed the most vulnerable and, hence, easily intimidated.

I'm sure that is true. Where I live the council have outsourced a private firm to target fly tipping and littering. A young girl I work with was at a bus stop when she was approached by a young man she thought was canvassing for something or other as he had a clipboard, he engaged with friendly chit chat, she responded in a friendly way, and as they were talking she dropped her cigarette butt and stepped on it. He hit her with a £80 fine for littering. She said there were men standing there also smoking, but he was too cowardly to confront them. She said, and I believe her, they looked like the kind of men who would have taken his clipboard and stuffed it somewhere that would have caused him difficulty walking if he had confronted one of them.

[Kittens Are Jerks]

13 minutes ago, pellinore said:

I'm sure that is true. Where I live the council have outsourced a private firm to target fly tipping and littering. A young girl I work with was at a bus stop when she was approached by a young man she thought was canvassing for something or other as he had a clipboard, he engaged with friendly chit chat, she responded in a friendly way, and as they were talking she dropped her cigarette butt and stepped on it. He hit her with a £80 fine for littering. She said there were men standing there also smoking, but he was too cowardly to confront them. She said, and I believe her, they looked like the kind of men who would have taken his clipboard and stuffed it somewhere that would have caused him difficulty walking if he had confronted one of them.

I find the way in which he handled your friend extremely disturbing. Like a predator playing with his prey before pouncing. What a creep!

[pellinore]

6 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

I find the way in which he handled your friend extremely disturbing. Like a predator playing with his prey before pouncing. What a creep!

Yes, he was a creep. She cried when she came in to work, not because she was sad, but because he had played her, asking her her name, to get his commission on the fine. She had only been friendly because she felt sorry for him, doing what she thought was a gig job when she was on her way to work in a proper job.

Edited December 18, 2023 by pellinore

[Setton]

1 hour ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

I also don't know if the rules/regulations have changed since I last lived in London, but I recall something about not needing a licence if you only watched programs on services other than the BBC iPlayer. If you used your TV to rent or buy movies from other providers, for example, a TV licence wasn't necessary.

That's correct. You only need one to watch BBC content or live TV.

[Slugnutty]

The news and journalistic output, including documentary and special interest programming is (imo) far superior to the tripe from other terrestrial broadcasters. But it’s the accessibility of radio and above all educational and development content for children that we would lose if the BBC became “optional”. 
I know for a fact my own experience has been enriched by bbc content. And that CBBC and CBeebies has improved the life of my children. Not to mention the online content during lockdown. I think it’s too easy to claim “why should I pay, I don’t watch it” when in fact the wider benefit is something we should all value and invest in. If it needs to be profitable this standard will quickly erode and advertising will ruin it. I’d happily pay more or pay for someone else if it would preserve this for future generations. 

[Kittens Are Jerks]

23 minutes ago, Setton said:

That's correct. You only need one to watch BBC content or live TV.

If that's the case, could they not simply activate the BBC once a license is purchased, like any other pay per view type service?

Or is there something I'm missing?

[Shadowsfall]

10 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

If that's the case, could they not simply activate the BBC once a license is purchased, like any other pay per view type service?

Or is there something I'm missing?

That’s a very good point KAJ….be interesting to hear what the answer is…

[Setton]

27 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

If that's the case, could they not simply activate the BBC once a license is purchased, like any other pay per view type service?

Or is there something I'm missing?

The live TV bit. That's all live TV not just BBC. Also I'm not sure there's a technical means to make terrestrial TV login protected or anything.

Edited December 19, 2023 by Setton

[Essan]

9 hours ago, Setton said:

The live TV bit. That's all live TV not just BBC. Also I'm not sure there's a technical means to make terrestrial TV login protected or anything.

Yes, and I believe that applies also to any live TV on Sky and Netflix - not just terrestrial channels (you can watch Sky, Netflix etc without a licence only if you watch a programme after it was first broadcast)

[Setton]

2 hours ago, Essan said:

Yes, and I believe that applies also to any live TV on Sky and Netflix - not just terrestrial channels (you can watch Sky, Netflix etc without a licence only if you watch a programme after it was first broadcast)

Not sure about sky but pretty confident netflix doesn't need one as they don't do love content (as far as I know?)

[Duke Wellington]

On 12/18/2023 at 12:59 AM, pellinore said:

I actually agree with both of you. I'm sure @Kittens Are Jerks had a horrible experience. And I am sure the firms outsourced to collect TV licence fees act unethically at times (perhaps too often).

But there are two issues: one is whether the UK way of funding TV is still appropriate, bearing in mind it was set up in 1946 when hardly anyone had a TV anyway. TV has changed since then, with digital streaming on different devices now the norm. Maybe we should move to a national broadcaster supported by advertising- but I personally like the BBC as an institution (like tea and digestive biscuits in the afternoon and the annual Last Night at the Proms) and think it is good value. I rarely watch TV, I use BBC audio more, but I suppose it is also an important point that the £160 annual cost is not a concern to me.

And the other is simply: if we are keeping the current system, how do we stop people avoiding paying? When I lived in London, I was visited by an inspector, who told me quite rightly that 1. there was no record of a TV licence being paid at the address I lived in, and 2. they could hear the TV from the doorstep. Caught red-handed, I paid rather than be fined. If I wasn't using a TV, I would have told them to **** off.

The solution to all problems is easy - force the BBC to offer a subscription service.

Then only those who want it will pay for it.

[Slugnutty]

I’d go the other way. Enshrine the BBC as we do the NHS, make it free at the point of access. As the licence fee applies to households not individuals, the bill can be picked up by tax/ni. This goes up and down to suite at the moment anyway, and I’d argue the value of the core services of the BBC provide an important regulated alternative therapy that has medicinal value. 

[+ouija ouija]

1 hour ago, Slugnutty said:

I’d go the other way. Enshrine the BBC as we do the NHS, make it free at the point of access. As the licence fee applies to households not individuals, the bill can be picked up by tax/ni. This goes up and down to suite at the moment anyway, and I’d argue the value of the core services of the BBC provide an important regulated alternative therapy that has medicinal value. 

And we all know what a mess the NHS is in . . .

[Kittens Are Jerks]

3 hours ago, Slugnutty said:

I’d go the other way. Enshrine the BBC as we do the NHS, make it free at the point of access. As the licence fee applies to households not individuals, the bill can be picked up by tax/ni. This goes up and down to suite at the moment anyway, and I’d argue the value of the core services of the BBC provide an important regulated alternative therapy that has medicinal value. 

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) is Canada's TV and radio public broadcaster. It's free at point of access, as it's funded by the federal government. Its funding is supplemented by advertising revenue. It has been subjected to significant budget cuts over the years which forced it to cut a number of programs. Yet it still receives more than $1 billion per year which is absolutely ludicrous considering how nobody really watches it anymore.

I did a quick check to see what European countries were doing and, whilst many many fund public service broadcasting through TV licenses, the same way the UK does, others, like Finland have abolished TV licences. I mentioned Finland specifically because I like their solution of a progressive tax that is applied to all adults with the exception of very low income earners.

The following article outlines how other European countries fund public TV (it's from 2017 so some details will have changed):

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/tv-radio-web/how-much-does-a-tv-licence-cost-in-other-countries-1.3020199