Talk:Television licensing in the United Kingdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mast at Alexandra Palace
 This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. (Add assessment comments)
High This article has been rated as high-importance within the BBC WikiProject.
Tasks for WikiProject BBC:

Items on this page dated before 6 April 2006 have been moved from Talk:Television licence, because they referred to the content which has been moved to this article. Thomas Blomberg 00:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] False Argument

I deleted this paragraph:

However in its favour, it can be said that it does link use of a television to payment of the licence fee. This means that if someone does not wish to pay money to the BBC, they can choose to watch no television at all. This is an advantage over the alternative method of funding through advertising which forces everyone to pay for the television service, albeit indirectly, whether they watch television or not — the cost of advertising is passed on to consumers regardless.

It is a false argument as the paying of the licence fee is only connected to having a television not the actual watching of the BBC: the law forces a citizen to purchase a product they may not want simply in order to access other similar products.

I've reworded the funding mechanisms to help correct this false argument. The previous text implied the licence fee money goes directly to the BBC, which is incorrect (see Communications Act 2003 sec 365). The licence fee in law is for installing or using television equipment for the purposes of receiving television programme services, ie any live TV, not just the BBC. It's not the 'having' a TV that requires a licence, it's 'using' it in a licensable way.

The point about advertising costs being added onto products is irrelevant. First, the cost is only borne by those who buy the products, which requires a choice separate from choosing which television channel to watch: you can watch or not watch advert-supported channels and still not buy the products. Next, the increase in cost of consumer items due to advertising budgets relates to all forms of advertising, not only television. As long as companies are allowed to advertise their products somewhere the consumer will have to pay for these adverts, even if they were going to buy the product anyway.

It is a bad argument in defence of something that penalises the poor and makes criminals out of single mothers.

I agree with the above; it's an excellent paragraph in fact. One other point that I would raise is that the BBC constantly harp on about being "The nation's favourite channel" but point blank refuse to go for subscription or "pay per view" funding. If the BBC really is the Nations Favourite then I would have thought that just about everyone would take up a subscription and the BBC's funds would be no worse off! To force everyone to pay for your service even if they don't wish to use it is definitely a sign of a desperate organisation!
Also interesting to note that "UKTV" which is a joint venture featuring the BBC, does use advertising, and the BBC also regularly advertises it's own products (DVD's, books etc).

Isn't the "false argument" the claim that the fee is used to pay for the BBC? Yes, the BBC is 75% funded by 50% of the fee at present, but the other 50% goes for other purposes. But more to the point, this tax is one of several sources of funding for British broadcast services, which includes other taxes. And the BBC that I'm betting most readers of this article are thinking of is not the BBC funded by this tax. The only statements that are acceptable in the article are those official statements of purpose, and reasonable and sourced criticisms of, and support for, the tax. That seems to be well covered. Mulp 18:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

What is your source for the implication that only half of the licence fee goes to the BBC? Nick Cooper 18:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UK Payment Confusion

I am a little confused about the licence fee in the UK. Is it £121 per colour TV, or just £121 per household. "The fee was... £121 for colour TV" isn't clear to me. --Commander Keane 11:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is £121 per household if it has a colour set or a black and white set with a extra gadget like a VCR or a set-top box. Provided that, it has no other addresses like a separate outbuilding or a self-contained flat in the building or his/her property. In Germany, It is to a family including everyone under 18, however if the teenager (over 18) has a TV in the bedroom, s/he has to pay his/hers own licence. - 159753

I wish to point out that you do NOT have to let the Telly Man into your house unless he has a warrant from the court. You do not have to talk to him, answer any questions or sign any 'confessions'. If he enters your house and you change your mind tell him to get out or the police will be called.If someone else has let him into the house tell him to get out or the police will be called. Matthew Norton

"It is a false argument as the paying of the licence fee is only connected to having a television not the actual watching of the BBC"
NO you can own a TV without the need for a TV Licence. The TV Licence is for receiving LIVE TRANSMISSIONS so you are allowed to use TV's for DVDs,Consoles and videos without the need for a TV Licence. You've just fell into the BBC's trap that you own one you pay us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.78.138 (talk) 2007-01-19

I'm not clear if it's 121 pounds per month or per year or a one time fee.--Kvon 22:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UK stuff

Allegations of capita abuse and victimisation do exist. However, they will need properly sourcing, to reputable sources, to be in here. Pending this I've removed the content, rather than make a ham-fisted attempt at watering it down. New content covering this should be created : the old content was worthless. Morwen - Talk 01:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

This is something of a hornets' nest, as it is difficult to state the facts and remain neutral! The BBC breaks its own charter by advertising a commercial company (i.e. TV Licensing, a subsidiary of Capita plc) on its BBC1 TV channel. Moreover, the adverts are not just threatening, but menacing ("Get One or Get Done", etc.) and may well stray into the realm of black propaganda. Evidence from the much-vaunted "detector vans" has never been adduced in court. There are also questions about invasion of privacy and the Human Rights Act. The EU is considering the whole matter. Meanwhile what little political independence the BBC once has been steamrollered by the Hutton Inquiry: [Thomas Fuller's rant]

Hi - the adverts on BBC are not provided by Capita, they are called TV Trails and produced by the BBC itself. I work for TVL, so if anyone has any questions feel free to ask.

An apparently level-headed chap has set up this site to report abuses: [[1]] Might be a good source for research.

This site is more problematical, as it was co-founded by a journalist on the Sunday Times (prop: R. Murdoch): [[2]]

Puffball 13:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding threatening letters, I can source a few, as I've received them in the past. Selective quoting eg ([3] is tricky to be npov, so ideally it would be nice to have all the letter (or picture thereof) so people can judge it as an whole. but I don't know what the copyright position would be in having a picture of letter sent to you. anyone know? MartinRe 11:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UK Law?

I was under the impression that the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 and The Wireless Telegraphy (Television Licence Fees) Regulations 1991 [4] had been largely replaced by the Communications Act 2003 [5] and The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004 [6] (para 9). Anyone? zzuuzz (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting links, must see if I can translate them into English :) Looks valid to me, do you want to update the appropiate links/and or references? MartinRe 19:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The wireless telegraphy act was indeed replaced, for TV licensing purposes, by the Communications Act (2003), sections 363-368 - text here. This creates TV licenses ( 'A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this Part.' ), and the legal authority of licensing bodies to, for example, get search warrants. It leaves setting license rates, and the exact definition of what a 'television receiver' is, to further legislative instruments - currently The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004 - text here. It states that, for example, 'In Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV reception), "television receiver" means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose.'
All these links work, as of this message. Mike1024 (t/c) 23:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] copyright issues

I've removed the reference to copyright under tv licencing, as it's not really relevent to playing recordings or tv licenencing in general. This article is hard enough to get npov without adding the complex matter of copyright into the mix. MartinRe 19:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TV Detector Vans - Urban Myth / Hoax?

From the article:

No evidence from any kind of "detection equipment" has been used by Capita in any UK court case to date - some speculate that it would be inadmissable because information about how such equipment works is not known (unlike for example Gatso speed cameras).

Is it not time the category 'TV Detector Vans' was added to either the Urban Myth or Hoax heading? Some points:

1. I am not aware of any existing technology that is able to 'detect' televisions.

2. I am not aware that any explanation (or attempted explanation) of how such technology is supposed to work has been placed in the public domain by either TV Licencing / Capita or any other arm of the UK Government.

3. If (a)the belief that the vans exist is a false belief

and (b) the belief is widely held

and (c) the state makes no active attempt to correct this false belief, because it serves their purpose

then the state is guilty of passively but deliberately misleading the general public, which I would suggest would be a moral crime.

Suggestions anyone?

As I understand it, the primary method of detection (both handheld and from the vans) involves detecting the Local oscillator within the tuner circuit, which enables them to locate it. In addition, they've got access to the main database of unlicenced properties, and GPS to pinpoint them more accurately.
As for the existence of the vans, I've seen a few over the years, though the latest generation of vans can be "debranded", so you won't necessarily spot them on sight.
More information here.
--Barry Salter 09:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I added a link today on the main page with a copy of the Public Accounts Committee hearing on TV License colection where a few questions were asked on this subject. It seems that they really only use the central database of addresses in the UK (from the post office) and a bit of natural detective work. However it does confirm that they do have detection equipment, but not any technicalities, and it seems that these are a last resort, seeing at the cost of the units themselves.
--User:Gruffy 8 Mar 06


Very useful Gruffy - I guess that's a good source for the statement in the article about the database system (LASSIE) being the primary method of detection. If "detection equipment" is moved to a sub-category, then I think it needs to be under (or very close to) the "collection and enforcement" section.
Should it even be called "enforcement"? Propaganda would be a more accurate term, as a real "detector van" would be no use at all by the prosecution in any court case - any defence lawyer worth a dime would have the whole scam exposed and thrown out of court.
Therefore the matter of existence or not is a moot point - the sole purpose of "detection equipment" is only to frighten people.
C 1 06:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


I agree - much of the public perception of the "detector vans" came from the seventies and the public information / advertising campaigns; I would guess when advertising standards where slightly more lax then they are now (I loved those adverts - "and they're watching Columbo"). Any "law enforcement" agency would prefer the public to believe that it is an all-seeing, all-knowing organisation with equipment to match.
Agree it shouldn't be "enforcement", but the right word fails me - especially as it seems to be the only thing in Britain where you have to prove your innocence (guilty until proven innocent!), rather than the normal British legal system of the other way around. I for one know of one bloke in our office who does not have a TV, and falls into the category of trying to prove his "innocence" by telephone and letter conversations.
What is true is the fact that TV licensing has always been probably the most well enforced ummm "public services charge" (I won't say tax, as some people would say that is a POV!!). For instance car tax has only very recently gone to a direct-DVLA detectable process (automatic fines from a database etc) - before that the police or a traffic warden would have to report it to the DVLA before someone could be picked up on it.
They only thing I do find concerning is the fact that it is currently run by a private company (albeit a major government supplier) - does the chasing of offenders out-weigh the ultimate collected fee itself, seeing that the majority do actually pay - again it's all part of the mystique so that no-one tries to get away with it!!
Gruffy 20 Mar 2006

[edit] Split article

The UK section in this article is growing quite large in relation to all the other sections, any objections to splitting this into its own article and having a brief summary here with a {{main|Television licencing in the United Kingdom}} at the top? MartinRe 14:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  • No objection Edward 14:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Good move -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, let's do it, and move the lengthy UK only discussions with it. Thomas Blomberg 23:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capita Abuses

--C 1 18:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

As requested by Morwen above, I have added a new paragraph about capita abuses in the "License fee enforcement" section, complete with 2 verifiable sources/references (#'s 12 and 13) of TVL officers being convicted in the criminal courts of illegal activity in the past 12 months. Such activities included forgery, fraud, deception and even ASSAULT! It could probably do with a bit of a cleanup into its own sub-heading though...

I notice that the source you quote in support of most of your additions is two forum posts on a campaign forum. This does not appear to meet Wikipedia's requirement for verifiability from reliable sources. Other points you have made do not seem supported by the sources at all, for example, "Virtually all TV licensing related convictions are due to signed "confessions"", and others seem to be a bit POV, for example, "the most accurate description of an "enforcement officer" is a door-to-door salesman". I'm inclined to remove the material which isn't unsupported by reliable sources. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo request

 It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in the United Kingdom may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Ideas for photos: Demand letters, detector vans, or enforcement officers. Edward 19:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Wish I'd known. During Freshers' Fortnight (Fortnight! Would you believe it?) a few weeks back, I saw what looked like a Ford Transit minibus with the TVL logo and a "Detection equipment" vinyl on the side. 81.104.170.167 04:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I had a knock on the door today. I don't have a TV because I can't very easily afford it (well, maybe I could afford it, but I spend the few pennies I have on other things and have more desire to listen to Radio 4 than watch TV) - I politely told the "enforcer" I wasn't going to let him in my house without a warrant. If he returns with one, I'll get the video camera out to make sure they don't break anything, and could put up a few stills from that. If they have a warrant, ID cards etc, I could photo them too. WikianJim 20:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI, still waiting for the warrant. WikianJim 13:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

[edit] Part 1

The article about the UK TV licence has some NPOV problems. Many of the sentences use unattributed `beliefs'. Eg `It is believed that approximately 5% of TVs are unlicensed' and `[the licence] has been denounced as a violation of the freedom to receive information without inteference'.

There are also falsehoods like `Proper debate of the licence fee is consistently suppressed by the BBC from its own airwaves. Numerous polls show significant public opposition to the fee.'

I don't have time to read on and make more substantial contributions, particularly if this page is having an edit war as seems likely. Apologies. - Ian Jackson

Here's a link to viewing figures: [[7]] Seems like 88% of the population do watch the BBC, rather than the claimed 80% that don't. Kanthoney

[edit] Part 2

Many of the edits may be in fact correct, but we cannot tell due to lack of sources. I truly believe thia is not a "Neutral Point of View" issue like the tag on the article claims, rather just in need of sources.What do others think? -- Duey Finster 21:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I've done a major edit on this article, which includes a few more sources. It might look drastic on a diff, but most of the rewerite was a move around of the article to try and get the sections independent, so we can try and get the POV stuff into a single section, and then into a subsection, and so on. It still needs some tiying up and filling out, and personally I think as it's growing, it should really be a separate article, with just a summary here. MartinRe 21:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Part 3 (31st July 2006)

I have tagged the article with NPOV. I think as it currently stands the article is not at all neutral, in particular the FOI section. The FOI answers have been picked very selectively to demonstrate the author's point of view. I'm also not sure whether

1) extracting of information using the FOI constitutes original research (the reference is a forum). Given the authors' continual references to this site, I have a feeling that while they may not be the original researcher, they are actively assisting the researcher in "publishing" what is otherwise unpublished, and thus unreviewed or verified work.

2) On that point given the reference is a forum. Does this consitute a valid source? IMHO forums are worse than blogs as sources. Just because it is published on a forum doesnt make it true. (Although, when looking at forums in general there seems to be an unwritten rule that if you repeat an unsubtantiated rumour enough it magically becomes true).

Secondly, I have a concern about Wikipedia giving incomplete legal advice without some sort of disclaimer. AFAICT, could this leave Wikipedia liable if someone follows advice given and subsequently finds themselves in more trouble? Although, TVLicensing.biz choose to do this, a) that is the decision of the website owner b) Is there some sort of legal disclaimer on their site?

Finally, I also think the discussion could be more rigourous than the current some say/other say.

pit-yacker 12:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


FOI request

I'm the 'original' requester of the FOI information... will try and tidy that section up and fill it out when I'm back from holiday. Hopefully response to the request will be one that will make it onto the BBC FOI website; which would give it something of a source. --Gingerheid 23:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! pit-yacker 23:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the information from the FOI request until it has been published by a reliable source and is properly verifiable. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The only NPOV-disputed part is now the bits that appear to give legal advice about what to do when an enforcement officer turns up. This needs to be reliably sourced or removed, and I have asked for citations to that effect. The discussion of some say/others say is actually taken almost (IIRC) verbatim from the Green Paper ([8] PDF), but it could probably be improved. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Right to Silence?

Not an expert here but is the implied right to silence in "There is no obligation to answer the question" not the same as the rest of English Law? That is the defendant doesn't have to say anything but anything a defendant fails to mention and later relies on in court can be used against them. pit-yacker 13:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The 'position' of an employee of Capita trading as TV Licensing holds absolutely no power in law. At the point at which they turn up at someone's door they are in much the same position as an an employee of a supermarket would be in if they turned up at your door to ask if you were hiding a television from their shop that you had taken without paying for.

The person being visited wouldn't need to as much as open the door, and if they did could refuse entry and refuse to speak to the caller without fear of anything being implied legally.

--Gingerheid 01:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Spot on. C 1 17:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical position

What seems to be lacking both here and on the main TV Licence page is any historical perspective to licensing in the UK, specifically as regards the year-on-year number of licences issued (and the evolution from the Radio Licence), and the cost over the years. I can easily pull together these figures upto and including 1992 and subsequent ones with a bit more work, but the question is where should such information (which has interest beyond the issues of linsing per se) be placed? Nick Cooper 16:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Some historical perspective would be good - there is probably room for a section just after the introduction. You say you can pull these figures together - they would have to fit with the policies of no original research and verifiability. They are surely published somewhere? -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
IIRC the link on the main Television licence page http://www.radiolicence.org.uk/ provides quite a lot of good detail and source to do with this (It provides cost from 1926 -2003, that leaves 2004: £121 (according to an earlier version of TV Licence page); 2005: £126.50; 2006: £131.50. I certainly think more info of the history and how it is increased year on year and numbers bought year-on-year is worthy of inclusion. I agree that the best place to put it would be immediately after the introduction of this article. Pit-yacker 16:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, on reflection this would be rather a large chunk of figures - perhaps better at the end or even as a separate page, e.g. "Television licensing in the United Kingdom (history)"? Nick Cooper 08:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The figures for the number of licences on issue at 1 April each year used to be published in the BBC Annual Report and Handbook. The one for 1987 has the figures for 1955-thru-1986 inclusive, while everything upto 1955 can be got from the 1954-1955 Report. Reproducing one table from each of these two books effectively covers the most historically interesting period in terms of the spread of TV ownership, the switch from b/w to colour, etc. Regarding the changing cost of the licence, these are all on the BBC website at the moment in the press release about the most recent change. Giving a 2006 equivalent for historical costs would be useful, I think. Nick Cooper 07:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Are the licences a monthly or annual fee? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The licence is annual, but can be paid in monthly installments, for example by direct debit. Regardless of payment method, you still receive a paper licence once a year which is covered for a complete period of a year. You can cancel a licence before the year is up and receive the remainder of the year back - pro-rata.Neilajh 17:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The Direct Debit seems a bit of a scam the last time I checked, in that you pay for the licence in the first six months, one-sixth per month, then from month seven onwards you pay for the next year's licence at one-twelfth per month. In other words, after the first twelve months you've paid for that year's licence plus half of the following year's. Nick Cooper 17:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question for foreign TV sets and licence acquisition

What if foreign travellers bring in their own portable TV set to the UK? Are they allowed to do so and if yes, how can they get a TV licence for their set? This is assuming they will bring the sets out of the UK when their stay is over.

Also, do u have to purchase your licence before you purchase a TV or are you given a grace period after purchasing a TV to pay for your licence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.198.192 (talk • contribs)

One would assume that they're exempt in the same way that foreign vehicles "just visiting" don't need to pay UK Road Tax. This presupposes that they can actually receive broadcasts, of course. Quite apart from the differences between PAL and NTSC/SECAM, Britain's broadcast version of PAL is different to that used in the rest of Europe and most of the rest of the world, so unless the set has a proper multi-standard tuner, a foreign visitor will either get nothing at all, or won't be able to tune into both sound and vision at the same time.
There is no grace period. If you buy a TV set, you should have an in-date licence covering your address before you install and use it. Nick Cooper 07:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok thanks. Just one more question, if foreigners are supposedly exempt from the licence fee, how will the authorities know that the set belongs to a visitor and not a uk resident? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.198.192 (talk • contribs)
Your initial question seemed to be framed around a non-UK resident temporarily visiting the UK, and I assumed you meant someone staying at a hotel, in a caravan, etc., and presumably able to prove they're in the country for a short time (i.e. a holiday, work visit, etc.), and ownership of the set in their possession (you did say "portable").
By the way, could you sign your comments in future? Nick Cooper 12:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I framed it as a visitor to the UK in possession of his own portable TV set wanting to use it there, bringing it with him wherever he goes (even if there is no point in doing so) and of course, I am assuming that his set works in the UK. Paolo--58.69.5.169 04:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
You said "foreign travellers," which suggested someone either on holiday or in the country for a short period of time. I don't see where your question about "the authorities" knowing who their TV set belongs to comes into that. Perhaps you could be more specific about the situation/time period you have in mind? Nick Cooper 07:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, I meant foreign travellers on holiday. When I talked about authorities, I was referring to those in charge of detecting unlicensed TV sets (e.g. authorities in detector vans). OK, let's say I am on vacation in the UK and I bring my portable TV set, which I purchased outside the UK. Assuming the set I bring with me can work in the UK, am I allowed to operate it in the UK with or without paying the licence fee? If I need to pay, how should I pay the licence fee? If I don't need to pay, how will these authorities know if the set belongs to a non-UK resident like me and not charge me unnecessarily with a fine?

I hope this is clearer to you. -Paolo-58.69.5.169 17:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I would imagine that if you are travelling to the UK for a holiday, and will not be there for more than 3 months, you will not need a licence. This I believe also applies to those with second homes - if they are occupied for less than 3 months, they do not need a licence (licences work in quarters). The detectors are only wheeled out only when they have serious suspicions about a specific address (there are legal restrictions on their use, and what can be done with any evidence they might provide). If you are staying at an established holiday site (campsite, hotel, cottages, etc.), the site owners will already have told TVL about it (and, if necessary, bought a licence for the site covering their own use), and you won't get a visit. If you're in a caravan in the Middle Of Nowhere(TM), your "address" won't be on the database, hence they won't know to visit in the first place. If in doubt, you don't speak English :) (They'll send an interpreter around if they're still interested) 81.104.170.167 (not Nick) 07:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BBC website

I wonder if we could add something about how the (massive) BBC web site is funded by the licence fee, yet is accessible, free of charge to non licence payers outside the UK? Magic Pickle 14:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but how is that fundamentally different from any other publicly or privately-funded website here or abroad? You can access US government websites just as easily as an American can access British government sites, but neither pays for the other. Nick Cooper 20:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Unfair comparison. BBC is not government. Government sites more essential than BBC. It would be tricky (but not impossible) for the Beeb to ask browsers from another country for a subscription to access - software can detect which country the user is located in. I know it can be circumvented pretty easily - but then so can payment of the licence fee itself. Magic Pickle 16:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I never said the BBC was government - you're just quibbling to avoid acknowledging the blatently simple metaphor. As far as I'm aware, the BBC certainly use IP detection to prevent non-UK viewing of streaming media. Nick Cooper 08:36, 14 November 2006
But the BBC is paid for by a private subscription, not taxes - again it comes down to the 'essential' argument - it may be a necessity to make government info available on the web, but its not essential to make the BBC website available. My point is, (that I may add to the article) the BBC could use foreign browser access as a source of revenue - but they don't. It's related to the point that accessing BBC radio and the website does not require a licence - (the website is obviously funded from the fee) again revealing that the fee is archaic. I'm glad the BBC do prevent streaming, they should extend this to most of their site. That's my opinion. Magic Pickle 18:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I can definitely confirm the previous comment; despite being in the UK, my work web access is via proxies in non-UK locations, and I frequently get "this content is only for UK consumers" when browsing to bbc.co.uk sites. Carre 11:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Given that in 3 weeks it is likely advertising on the BBC's sites for overseas users is likely to be approved by the board of governors [9] is there really any point? Of course if you want to put a historical persepective, it should include the reasons why this plan wasn't previously implemented, such as protests from the commercial sector [10][11], the EU legal reasons (re state funding of commercial services) and reasons of principle (something that is a thorn in the BBC's side with regard to the current proposals (especially from employees))[12] to why this has been rejected in the past [13]. Not to mention the economic (i.e. I remember the BBC rejecting it in the past because "it was not economically viable"), UK legal (RE: licence payers seeing adverts on BBC services) and technical reasons (Re: ensuring licence payers arent locked out and dont see adverts)[14] that I seem to remember being put up as excuses in the past.
Pit-yacker 19:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Interesting stuff, pit-yacker. Thanks. Magic Pickle 18:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the case, but I suspect BBC Worldwide are likely to to contributing funds to the website costs, so that the costs are balanced. Also, while the BBC website is huge and has many features and facilities, the majority is only relevant to people in the UK - why would other people want to access it?

If your argument, however, were along the lines of 'Why can anyone from the UK access the BBC website, regardless of owning a TV licence or not?', then this would be more complicated. Don't forget that the BBC broadcast 6 analogue radio stations (including the 2 versions of Radio 4) with many more digital only stations, for which no licence is required to listen to. Trying to police things like this would be very difficult. Also, IP geolocation isn't all that reliable - I connect the Internet at university via JANET, and yet Sourceforge will point me to French, German or Belgian download sites (while Kent University is also a download site). --smiler 12:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essential Service

I have deleted the parenthesis comment:

"(although water is an essential service while the BBC is not)"

I think this verges dangerously on being an opinion, that does not add anything to the article, other than being a device to colour the reader's opinion. The comment (and the necessity of water to life) is largely irrelevant to the statement that both the licence fee and water/sewage services are bills that must be paid and remain the same regardless of the number in the household .

Whilst I do not dispute that water is probably a more important service than public service broadcasting, pure public service broadcasting could be argued as being an essential to the functioning of a modern civilised democratic society. In fact water services are a relatively recent - even in the UK (its worth note that some in rural areas, people do still survive without a water/sewage service) and dont actually go back much further than public service broadcasting. Pit-yacker 14:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

While your ammendments are an improvement on the original version, sorry for being thick, but what help do the poorer members of society get to pay their water bill? Pit-yacker 16:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
But it is also an opinion that the licence fee is not a regressive tax - the article is full of opinions. I humbly submit that piped water into a home is a far more essential service than public service broadcasting. It is a fair point to make because the article is making an opinionated and unfair comparioson between two entirely unrelated services in order to justify the fee. This argument says that a single person household paying a licence fee is fair because the water rates system is similar - but this is a grossly unfair comparison of two services which are vastly different in importance. Besides, council tax allows single person households a discount. It would not be an impossible task to discount the licence fee for single person households, while increasing the licence for those in multiple occupancy, or alternatively, reducing the total amount paid to the BBC. As for the poor, council tenants on low incomes can get their water rates paid. Magic Pickle 16:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
The point is the article should be balanced. We are not writing what the opinion of Wikipedia is (or our own opinion is), we are writing what different people think. That means when writing we should be as independent as possible and give credence to both sides of the argument, regardless of whether we agree with them. IMHO that means there should be a commentary of what people think rather than putting our own opinions in brackets. I agree the article is not perfect but in the previous version there was a balance that one side says... but on the opp side people say... For example, the given example does indeed say many believe it is a regressive tax but others point out that is no different to other regressive taxes.Pit-yacker 16:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
The current article is clearly not balanced, it goes: criticism of licence fee - then, riposte to criticism. It then moves on to the next point. the defence of the licence fee always has 'the last word' at each point raised. If we are not going to add my counterpoint that water is an essential servcie while the BBC is not (which is probably share dby others, not just myself), then can I ask we remove the water reference entirely from the article. Magic Pickle 17:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be heaping inappropriateness on inappropriateness by separating out and making a big point about water charges in relation to a sentence which runs: "water charges, petrol tax, vehicle tax, VAT and many other taxes and charges." "Poor" or single people don't pay less tax on petrol or lower vehcile excise duty, and by definition, items which attract VAT are "luxuries." Water is very much the exception, and so is hardly a reasonable comparison. Nick Cooper 17:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
"many other taxes and charges" is vague and needs removing unless specific charges are mentioned. Water was singled out because of the 'multiple occupancy' comparison (an inappropriate one, as we seem to agree). I still think the comparison to car tax is inappropriate - running a car is a vastly expensive business (anyone running a car can afford to choose between the car and transport), buying a television set is not expensive (second hand) and incurs hardly any running costs. The running costs are electricity, and the licence fee. As for the poor paying for TV licences, the article now mentions the discount system in other countries which is a good thing to mention. We can either decide the BBC is an essential service (which is what the article seems to be saying at one point) in which case variable fees (perhaps through taxation) is more appropriate, or we admit the BBC is not essential (luxury), in which case we can consider pro-choice funding options. I think the article could be clearer on which side of the debate is more popular amongst most pro-licence advocates. I would mention regarding VAT that one has the choice of whether to buy VAT goods or not, but no-one needs a licence to buy any goods in the first place.Magic Pickle 21:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
IIRC the reason for the current structure of the section is that it is a virtual cut and paste from a government report. Given there seems to be a consensus that a comparison to water is inappropriate I have removed this. I have also tried to rewrite the relevant paragraphs a little bit to rebalance away from the defence having the last word by giving a slightly more comprehensive argument. Pit-yacker 18:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
As to the method of funding the BBC which is most appropriate, IMHO it is most certainly not the position of Wikipedia to decide this.
  • Not suggesting it was, merely arguing with Nick, there.Magic Pickle 23:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Nor should Wikipedia try and stereotype "one side"'s main thrust as being a particular point. IMHO Wikipedia should do more or less, but perhaps in a better way, what this article currently does i.e. discuss the various arguments given by either side of the debate. If only because if the truth be known there are not just two sides to the debate, there are numerous shades of grey of people supporting the licence or opposing the licence fee for different reasons. Some support the licence fee purely because it means no ads, others see it as an important foundation for public service broadcasting in the UK. Those opposing range from those who idealogically oppose the idea of state intervention in broadcasting (or in some cases anything) at all, to those who believe that whilst public service broadcasting is essential, the licence fee is the wrong way to fund the BBC. Pit-yacker 21:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Pit-yacker, to my mind the article still comes down in favour of the licence fee. Most point-by-point criticism of the fee is still answered by a pro-licence fee riposte, and ends with the survey saying licene fee support is strong. To be honest, is it really appropriate to have this sort of 'debate' on Wiki at all? Just write out the facts about the licence fee, perhaps include some supported info on why the licence fee is seen as a good thing, and link to another article perhaps criticising the fee. Or alternatively, leave this debate out entirely.

As you say there are many arguments on both sides, so the article is automatically selecting which arguments are more popular/prominent by their inclusion in the article themselves. The article did not mention funding via tax at all until I added it, for example. Magic Pickle 23:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Purely annecdotal, but from my own observations I'd say that there a lot of people who are anti-Licence Fee are so simply because they want to save themselves £130 a year; moral, political and artistic considerations don't come into it, although they may hide behind such arguments. This is no different to those who don't pay for vehicle insurance or road tax, buy bootleg DVDs or un-taxed cigarettes, etc. It shouldn't be pretended that everyone who doesn't pay for a Licence when they should is acting out of some high moral conviction. Nick Cooper 08:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

A rather pessimistic view of others, perhaps. Have more faith in people! I don't pay for a licence (legally), but I'm still opposed to the licence. I can only speak for myself, in that yes, a good deal of my opposition is to save £130 a year - but why not? The old argument of 'but you have to pay for police, fire brigade, hospitals even though you may never use them' doesn't wash because these services are vastly more important than a media service. Also, paying for such services via tax even if I never use them allows for the poor to access them - even if I pay my licence fee - the poor have to pay the same amount as me anyway. If we believe the BBC is so important, we need to pay for it in a fairer variable way - ie the poor pay less. . I would add that although I am against the TV licence and (may or may not have avoided paying it in the past) I have never bought bootleg DVDs, downloaded DVDs or untaxed cigarettes. The fee is an archaic and clunky system of payment from an era when TV ownership was rare. My own view is that the BBC should be funded via tax, a very unpopular option amongst most anti-licence lobbyists! It may be a selfish motive driving people to fight the licence fee - it may not. Who knows? Just as a great deal of those who do pay the licence fee do so out of fear of prosecution or simple habit - rather than having a deep interest in public television and the lofty aims of the BBC. Anecdotally I might say most licence payers do not pay out of the goodness of their heart towards the BBC. Anecdotally I would also add that a lot of the most fervent supporters of the fee do not do so for entirely altruistic reasons (ie public service) but rather of a political fear of right wing broadcasters taking over (eg Murdoch). User:Magic Pickle|Magic Pickle]] 23:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a rather sweeping statement to make of those who do pay the licence, but then lacking the real facts, many people seem to believe all sorts of rubbish about the issue. In fact, only today I overheard some old guy in a shop complaining about the fact that, "It just keeps going up and up," when the reality is that when it was introduced in 1968, the colour licence cost the equivalent of £120, and over the years has rarely strayed more than the equivalent of £15 away from what it costs today. Nick Cooper 00:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I lack the real facts? Your personal observations are not 'facts'. Indeed it is a sweeping statement to make, and so is "I'd say that there a lot of people who are anti-Licence Fee are so simply because they want to save themselves £130 a year; moral, political and artistic considerations don't come into it" As for the fee going up, the BBC originally asked for a much bigger increase to support digital.Magic Pickle 16:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, my observations of Usenet, web forum and real-life discussions over the years demonstrates that there are many people who simply wish to save themselves the cost of the Fee, but just want to know how to get away with it and their chances of doing so. On other hand, I've rarely heard anyone claim that the only pay out of "fear." Nick Cooper 08:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Your own observations... on the contrary my own anecdotal observations are that a lot of people I know, pay the fee not because of a desire to support public service broadcasting, but rather out of concern ('fear' was a bit of hyperbole) that if they don't, they will be prosecuted. TV licencing ads often played on such 'fears' or, if that's a bit dramatic, read 'worry'. I would add though, that opposition to the licence fee on grounds of not wanting to pay is perfectly valid in itself anyway, as long as those not wanting to pay accept the loss of non-commercial public service broadcasting. If they do accept it, it's their prerogative to argue against the fee. Magic Pickle 17:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Interesting discussion; I'll add some ramblings here, although I don't plan to edit the article (although I think it needs a weasel tag!). I'm one of the people who pay the licence fee because I have to (not out of fear), despite only watching about 20 hours of BBC output a year - the 5 England 6 Nations rugby matches; hardly value for money, but I have no choice in the matter while remaining within the bounds of the law.
  • Well that's what I mean by 'fear' - the desire to stay within the law and not be prosecuted. Magic Pickle 17:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
The comparison with water services is, perhaps, more valid than might appear, disregarding whether water is more essential than the BBC - especially on the side of the anti-licence argument. All modern houses built in the past, what, 10? 20? years have water meters. Meters can be installed in older houses (I've never owned a property without a meter, so don't know what the old rates method was). With metering, regardless of house occupancy, you only pay for what you use, with sewerage being charged at, IIRC, 90% of water consumption. If you live in a property that gets its water from a private, non-mains source such as a well, and uses a cesspit for sewerage you do not pay water charges to anyone. If one were to apply BBC licence fee rules in this case, such a property owner would have to pay their local water authority a fee, despite not using their services or infrastructure. Arguments about some of the other taxes cited have similar rebuttals: petrol tax - you pay for what you use. VAT - you pay for what you use. Vehicle tax - not exactly a 'pay for what you use', but you always have to option of a SORN if you don't actually use the car!
So, as far as I'm concerned, the licence fee is just another tax that has to be paid; but then I'm hardly representative of the nation, since I prefer to put the radio on and read a book over watching TV :)
Carre 12:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Carre, what's a SORN? I may add this argument to the article. Magic Pickle 20:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Statutory Off-Road Notification - You can sign a legally binding document stating that your car is not being used on public roads. IIUC, if you dont make a SORN declaration these days and your tax disc lapses you are automatically sent a fine. I assume the implication to the licence fee would be that you make a legally binding statement that you do not watch television. At that point TV Licensing wouldnt come around to check on you. However, I assume if you are caught in breach of the document (perhaps because the police are checking on something else) you will find yourself charged with a much more serious crime (e.g. Perjury??? - If so, effectively you would raise the maximum penalty for licence fee evasion from £1000 to 12 years in prison). Pit-yacker 22:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

--- Regardless of both sides, and not aiming at any particular member, this is turning in to a discussion forum. This is not what talk pages are intended for. Can we perhaps take the discussion about things not related to the article elsewhere please? Thanks Pit-yacker 12:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I know for one I am introducing my thoughts on to the talk page before I alter the article itself. I thought it best to express these views here first. Magic Pickle 18:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, the original point about whether the water service metaphor was valid does seem to have diverged a bit. However, if we are considering the whole subject of UK TV Licensing, the motives of non-payers are of relavence, although I'm presuming they're not well documented beyond the vocal "out of principal" examples. Nick Cooper 14:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tone

The whole article reads like a big rant you'd find on a personal site. It needs a complete rewrite. --88.111.41.106 22:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Television licensing in the United Kingdom‎ (historical)

I've now created Television licensing in the United Kingdom‎ (historical), which gives the historical position r.e. the varying cost of the licence and the number issued over the years, although I've not linked this page to it yet. Comments/constructive amendments welcome. Nick Cooper 02:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Now cross-linked the two pages. Nick Cooper 14:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delayed post-editing by Magic Pickle

Magic Pickle, I see that on 17 November you added a number of new comments to this page, but at the same time made amendments to and deletions from several comments you added some time previously, which myself and others have already responded to. This is fundamentally dishonest, as it now looks as if some points you didn't originally make were "ignored," or that responses were made in light of things it now looks like you never said. Such behaviour is contrary to accepted Wiki practice - see Don't change your text. Nick Cooper 19:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, feel free to restore the original comments if you feel it is important to do so. Could you let me know about issues like this on my talk page next time? Thanks.Magic Pickle 18:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The issue needed highlighting on this page, otherwise how would people know it had happened? Nick Cooper 08:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Because it would reach my attention a lot faster, as I do not check this article every day. Also, you are addressing me personally about policy, not the article, surely more appropriate on my talk page. Magic Pickle 20:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Free licences for the blind

If blind folk can get a tv license at half price why can`t deaf folk too? 172.202.247.39 12:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably now because most TV is subtitled, while selected programmes are transmitted signed, so the medium is not as inaccessible to them as it is to the blind. Nick Cooper 15:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
A lot of digital TV (probably most) isn't subtitled. Magic Pickle 20:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't know about that. I get the impression that virtually all primetime TV is subtitled these days. That said a lot of digital programmes have Audio Description. However, given this situation has been around for years the reason is probably lost in the mists of history. For example AD is a relatively new thing and there may have been an expectation that deaf people can lip read, etc. But does this have anything to do with the article? If not this is not the appropriate place for a discussion. Pit-yacker 22:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes sorry, if it has no relevance to the article. As a quick test, though I have turned on my subtitles tonight and flicked through these channels at 8pm: Paramount Comedy, BBC Four, Livingtv, More 4, UKtv Gold - none of these had subtitles. I am using cable digital, though. Magic Pickle 20:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology re: devices requiring licence

See here - fully credible source. Please could someone fix the ref numbering though please on the above section: [15] --leopheard 10:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Incorrect statement

televisions receiving a broadcast from outside the UK (e.g. Satellite from USA) - this is no so - any device installed for receiving broadcast signals regardless of point of origin needs a licence and this statement should be deleted —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.176.79.35 (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Other Issues

Just a couple of things I expected to read about on this page that aren't here:

1)The assumption that if you don't have a TV licence you're lying about not having a TV and need checking out. I can't think of any other service that acts this way. Guilty until innocent and all that.

2) The requirement for students to pay for individual TV licenses when living in halls (Similar to the multiple tenancy rules)

3)When you buy a license for the first time, you are required to pay for 6 months of the cost prior to your getting the licence, on the assumption that you didn't apply for the license until after you were recieving a TV signal, essentially charging for a service you never recieved and never will.

I imagine the section on the harrassment of non-Licence holders could easily be expanded!

Spugmeister 13:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

1) Please provide proof that this is the case.
2) Yes, that does need to be included.
3) Really? Could you cite proof that is the case. Certainly when I bought my first licence in early 2002, and was not required to pay for the previous six months.
4) Feel free to expand, subject to the usual Wikipedia rules of verification and reliable sources. Nick Cooper 15:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV (again)

Since there is an insistence we have the latest edits, I have tagged it as NPOV. The new section is highly POV and highly subjective. The single reference appears to be particularly poor - just a list of articles on another personal anti-TV licence website. The rest is completely unreferenced and in some cases disputable. Pit-yacker 19:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You have asked for 10 citations in one paragraph, some for statements which are common knowledge. This seems OTT. Many of your requests for citations will be satisfied by a scanned version of an enforcement letter, which I can provide, since I also don't own a TV. However the level of sourcing you want in this one paragraph is not consistent with that present in the rest of the article, the latter throughout which statements of similar apparent veracity are made but with infrequent citations. If I applied the standards to which you have subjected this paragraph to the whole article, there would need to be hundreds of extra citations. Please revise down your requests for citations to a reasonable level. For my part I will revise the text and provide the scanned letter - I will have to check the copyright for letters sent to me.
Two other points: Firstly there is not actually any NPOV issue here, since there is no view opposing the one that non-owners of TVs are treated badly by TV Licensing (so there is no balance to strike). It is simply a matter of fact, the main evidence for which is the letters we are sent. I notice other editors have requested this topic to be covered - see earlier contributions to this discussion page. Secondly, it is apparent that you have not read the many contributions to the referenced website. Some are compelling and the site is not a rant in the way you suggest. The site is respectable enough to be already listed as an External Link on this WP entry.
131.111.7.2 20:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Common knowledge: Please see WP:CK. I think WP:OR and WP:RS might also be relevant. The reason I have tagged for so many citations is that so many of the statements are potentially contentious and potentially disputable. Statements such as letters being "distressing", "frequent", "offensive", "aggressive" and "threatening" are all subjective and serve no purpose other than to colour the readers opinion - thus making the article POV. What one reader might find "distressing" another might find "mildy irritating" and as previous debates here have shown, another might regard as "a fact of life because so many people are less honest than themselves, but unfortunately everyone gets tarred with the same level of suspicion because of that". Even with a letter such statements should be removed. However, I do think that a letter at this point would be useful as it would allow the reader to make their own mind up about the letter without being told what to think.
Equally other issues:
  • often addressed to "The Present Occupier" - often is a Weasel word. Does that mean a small minority of letters but the total number of letters sent out means that it happens every day/once a week/month?, about 10% of cases?, somewhere over/below half of the cases, in virtually all cases? Unless it is a significantly large proportion, I fail to see what it adds to the article, other than again to colour the reader's opinion. Even if it is a large proportion the figures need a source.
  • no return envelope or Reply Paid address is provided - last time I had such contact with TV Licensing, I'm sure they did.
  • 0870 numbers - based on what prices? The article implies it is 3x for everyone, AFAICT this isnt the case. The article 0870 says that it can be more expensive in some cases.
  • Do not stop the letters - I have been in a situation were I didnt have a TV and a simple phone call stopped the letters. Whilst the situation may have changed it therefore needs a reliable source.
  • If no licence is purchased, whether or not one is required, visits begin from 'enforcement officers' from Capita - again from my own experience I dispute this.
Pit-yacker 21:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
It's grossly spurious to claim that , "there is no view opposing the one that non-owners of TVs are treated badly by TV Licensing (so there is no balance to strike)." It is the nature of such consumer matters that those with complaints are often heard, but those without aren't. My own experience and those of others I know of directly (i.e. people I actually know or have known) do not demonstrate that such that people are universally "treated badly", and as with Pit-Yacker's experience, more seem to take a simple phone call to resolve than all the horror stories would suggest.
In addition, the marmalade.net page is very poor and - where the links actually still work (a number are dead) - the pages it leads to can be regarded as little better than blogs in sourcing terms. Nick Cooper 07:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

In response to the tag-bombing of the section about enforcement letters, this page shows a number of example letters which should be sufficient to remove these tags. Iceage77 13:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I see it's been removed. Some of it can definitely be restored with the above ref. Iceage77 13:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but no. Not in the state it was in. My experiences are in line with Pit-yacker's and others, and I'm a university student - we're bombarded the most! I got a letter, stating that I needed a TV license, phoned them up (didn't cost a bomb), and wasn't bothered again. I'm sorry, but whatever you've experienced is not commonplace, therefore it cannot be included, especially with such a pov slant. As for the letters on the site you cite above, I've not seen them before. I'm not suggesting they're faked (though, having said that, provide proof that they're not), but I'm certainly saying that they're not commonplace. TheIslander 13:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but you can't base articles on your own experience that's WP:OR. The letters clearly prove many of the points which removed, although I accept some were POV. Iceage77 13:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, hence most of what I deleted should have been deleted. Most of what I deleted was based on personal experience. My personal experience doesn't agree with the contributor's personal experience, but that's not why I'm removing it, I'm removing it because of WP:OR ;) TheIslander 13:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The commentary on the site is based on the owner's experience yes. But the letters themselves are valid primary sources. As they are obviously computer-generated we can assume they are representative. Iceage77 13:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you need to be a bit more objective. Looking at the site which you are so keen to use as a reference, they are not, as you claim, "a number of example letters," rather they are a single sequence of letters sent to the same address. On top of that, the one glaring fact that leaps out is that at no point does the recipient state that they contacted TV Licensing at any time to inform them that they no longer needed a licence. In fact, they admit after the February 2007 letter that, "I have not contacted TVL/BBC in over a year." No, people don't have any obligation to respond to TVL letters, but it is hardly surprising if they (TVL) do not stop bothering after the first few have been ignored, especially when sent to an address that was previously licensed. Along with Pit-Yacker and TheIslander, my own experience of an "unlicensed property" letter from TVL was dealt with satisfactorily with one 'phone call. Nick Cooper 15:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that Nick Cooper has hit the nail on the head. I have changed the description of the link in the article accordingly; it was misleading as it was. TheIslander 15:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, scrap that, the link can go, as it breaks the following points from WP:EL:
  • Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".
  • Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. TheIslander 16:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

On a blow for blow basis:

  • Often addressed to the present occupier - often is a weasel word - clarify and source or remove the whole statement.
  • and these letters are frequent - frequent is subjective. Website appears to show monthly letters. That is at least 4 times less frequent than the "threatening" letters I got from Sky when the previous occupant of a house I lived in left the house without cancelling. Given we get all sorts of things on a monthly basis calling monthly frequent is subjective.
  • agresssive and threatening ... distressing and offensive - subjective again. Whilst I'm minded (subject to those who are more familiar with Wikipedia policy agreeing), to agree that having a copy of a letter on the page is a good idea. Opinion based commentary is a no no.
  • they strongly insinuate the occupant is a law breaker, and do not consider the possibility that some people do not own TVs - open to debate, especially as the text of the letter indicates that it is far from the first. Whilst, I agree the letter is at least strongly worded -more to the point of reminding the householder of his legal obligations, it doesnt give any evidence of what they would get if they phoned after the first letter. I seem to remember in the dim and distant past on first letters I got having a section about advising them if you didnt own a TV.
  • no return envelope or Reply Paid address is provided - cited website disproves this.
  • telephoning a number prefixed with 0870, costing the caller approximately three times as much per minute as a regular national rate (long-distance) call - I dispute the cost of 0870 calls. Said page does not prove this "fact".
  • However following either of these procedures does not stop the letters in any case- letter doesnt prove this.
  • If no licence is purchased, whether or not one is required, visits begin from 'enforcement officers' from Capita - letter does not prove this
  • Simply suspecting that the occupier of the premises possesses an unlicensed TV is not considered to be reasonable grounds - weaseling at its worst giving very dodgy pseudo-legal advice.

Let me know if I missed anything Pit-yacker 14:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think the 1st 4 points here are proven by the link (they are certainly threatening, distressing and offensive is POV). However as a compromise I'll just put it in the ext links section. Iceage77 14:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Whilst I think an uploaded copy of a letter might be useful for the reader, most of what is stated is still opinion and should be remain out. I also still fail to see where the website proves any of the rest of the statements that are "debatedly" framed as facts - such as making a telephone call not stopping the letters and visits. Equally it appears to disprove a good number such as there being no reply paid envelope. Pit-yacker 13:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Simply suspecting" is too vague

I have tagged the passage "Simply suspecting that the occupier of the premises possesses an unlicensed TV is not considered to be reasonable grounds." for clarification. I think it is too vague. What does "Simply suspecting" actually mean? Does it mean that the fact the property is unlicensed? Does it mean the fact the property is unlicensed and the owner refused entry? Does it mean the fact the property is unlicensed, the owner refused entry, and the inspector heard the TV/heard the kids saying 'can we watch CITV'/saw a TV/etc (delete as approp).

Whilst someone might like to come up with a referenced clarification, I think it might be easiest if the sentence is removed altogether, as I cant see anyway that avoids turning it dangerously close to "pseudo-legal advice" which may leave Wikipedia liable for giving out bad advice should someone use it as such- especially when I assume that the definition of "Simply suspecting" can change with time. Pit-yacker 17:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, removed. TheIslander 13:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Can anybody fix the following?

The television licence is often the subject of controversy. The licence fee comes under particular criticism from The Times and The Sun newspapers, owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation which also has a large share of British Sky Broadcasting, one of the BBC's main commercial rivals.

All the reference shows is that the license fee has been criticed in the Times - as it has in other non-Murdoch papers. It would be nice if the unsourced insinuation about bias and hypocrisy were replaced with some sort of allegation emanating from a documented source - otherwise I'm going to have to delete it. --Lo2u (T • C) 01:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

This issue is a bit of a no-brainer. Murdoch is a virulent and frequent opponent of the licence fee and the BBC, which via Sky is one of his main rivals in the UK. In turn, his UK newspapers, particularly the red-tops, frequently attack the BBC at the same time as they big-up Sky. Plenty of newspapers indulge in the former, but the latter is endemic at The Sun and The News of the World. Look at how newspapers format TV listings, for example. In most the five terrestrial channels are given equal or similar prominence, with the digital channels - including Sky 1 - getting minor listings, often on a completely different page; in The Sun, The London Paper, et al, Sky 1 is given a main listing of equal size/prominence to the terrestrial channels. Similarly, the Murdoch Press frequently given disproportionate coverage to broadcasts on Sky. Nick Cooper 09:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I know all this though. I'm not trying deny Murdoch doesn't like the license fee and that he exercises close control over the Sun. I've also read the sources referenced and I'm glad the attempt has been made at improvement. What's alleged in the article is certainly not a "no-brainer" though; the Times unlike its sister paper is only occassionally accused of being heavily influenced by its proprietor. Of course as a right-leaning publication, it would, just as the Telegraph is, be naturally inclined towards opposition to the fee. I don't believe that most people assume this is all because of Murdoch, but if they did, sources would be there alleging this, apart from the one cited (which quite rightly calls the idea a "conspiracy theory"). At the moment the paragraph, though it references published sources, is blatantantly a synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, which is a form of original research. --Lo2u (T • C) 19:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be on a mission to deny the de facto known sources of criticism of the BBC in general and the licence fee in particular, or at least their reasons for doing so. Nick Cooper 07:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I just think it's important to steer clear of the usual popular anti-Murdoch sneering and innuendo. We can point out the existence of criticism and we can point out allegations against those making the criticism. However we shouldn't start making up our own allegations. I won't prevent anyone adding a properly sourced assertion that some of the organisations responsible for criticism are doing so to advance their own interests but it should be made clear that these are merely allegations. By singling out only two criticisms, as if they're the only ones, and then trying to claim we're merely looking at examples of organisations furthering their business interests the article ignores other similar criticism and so falls a long way from presenting a neutral point of view. --Lo2u (T • C) 09:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scan of letter

I've just received a letter from the enforment people, would a scan be useful for the article? It's a "final warning" saying I'll be visited. 138.38.217.149 (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Information deleted from the UK section at TV Licence

The article TV Licence gives a global perspective of TV licensing. The UK section already carries a link to this article about UK licensing, but it was getting too long and to detailed for the article so I deleted some material.

If any of the following material is still relevant and not in the current article, editors to Television licensing in the United Kingdom might wish to check whether the deleted text needs to be incorporated. This is the text that was deleted:-

Collection is enforced by criminal law. People accused of licence evasion are tried in a magistrates court. Violators can be fined up to £1000. Prior to 1991, the collection and administration of the UK licence fee was the responsibility of the Home Office. Since 1991, the revenue has been collected on behalf of the Government by the BBC and paid into Government's Consolidated Fund. From 1991 the fee was collected more directly by the BBC and was called the TV Licensing Authority. Since then collection has been contracted out and is now collected and enforced by TV Licensing Ltd, which is operated by Capita. As a consequence of the change the force of law in enforcing the licence has weakened somewhat[citation needed]. By 1994, 57% of all female criminal convictions in Britain related to television licence evasion.[1]
Once collected, the money is then passed to the BBC via the Appropriation Act(s) where MPs vote the amounts paid to the UK's public services. During the current Charter review process, concerns were raised as to the cost of collection (£152m for 2005-2006).

I suspect it doesn't but do not have the time to check it myself right now.--Tom (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legal issues, licence fee enforcement, detector vans v. LASSY

It seems that on 4th February 2008, an anonymous contributor added a reference to an old BBC press release, giving it the wrong date (i.e. the date of the edit and not the date of the release) so making it seem a new development affecting the preceding statement. I have therefore edited to restore the actual and intended meaning. Oldknowall (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistent use of the term 'Television'

It seems to me that the use of the word television in this article is inconsistent with the definition of television in Wikipedia, where we are told that a television screen without a tuner is called a monitor. The licence states that it is needed "to use any television receiving equipment . . . . to watch programmes as they are being shown on TV." But if a monitor without a tuner is not a TV then programmes that are not 'broadcast' by radio transmission do not qualify as 'being shown on TV'. This means that internet only television (which is now coming into existence) does not need a TV licence, even to view on a 'TV'. The phrase 'being shown on TV' is obviously problematic, as is the term 'public' television, because the internet is public. If internet TV and cable TV constitute public television, then the phrase "as they are being shown on TV" seems redundant and nonsensical. --Memestream (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)