TV licence thread

[Car Boot 10]

CONSIDERATION OF EQUALITY ISSUES IN BBC DECISION-MAKING IN RELATION TO AGE-RELATED CONCESSIONS FOR TV LICENCES.

 

"Some consultees  raised  concerns  about the  BBC’s  consultation  process  including length  of  documents,  complexity, accessibility  for  older  people  who  were  not online  and accessibility  for  disabled  people  and  those  with  health  conditions including dementia." 

 

"In  addition,  Frontier  found that losses  would be  spread equally across  over  75s,  but would represent a larger  proportion  of  the  income  of  poorer  households  than  richer  ones."

 

"Finally,  the  financial  impact of  abolishing the  concession  would be  more  significant for women, disabled  people  and  people  with  BAME  backgrounds  in  the  relevant age  group because  they  are  more  likely to  be  poorer"

 

The BBC still went ahead despite being fully aware that it's actions would harm the elderly, women, ethnic minorities and people with serious health conditions. 

 

BBC GREED DESTROYS LIVES.

 

 

 

[Magilla 510]

20 minutes ago, Car Boot said:

CONSIDERATION OF EQUALITY ISSUES IN BBC DECISION-MAKING IN RELATION TO AGE-RELATED CONCESSIONS FOR TV LICENCES.

 

"Some consultees  raised  concerns  about the  BBC’s  consultation  process  including length  of  documents,  complexity, accessibility  for  older  people  who  were  not online  and accessibility  for  disabled  people  and  those  with  health  conditions including dementia." 

 

"In  addition,  Frontier  found that losses  would be  spread equally across  over  75s,  but would represent a larger  proportion  of  the  income  of  poorer  households  than  richer  ones."

 

"Finally,  the  financial  impact of  abolishing the  concession  would be  more  significant for women, disabled  people  and  people  with  BAME  backgrounds  in  the  relevant age  group because  they  are  more  likely to  be  poorer"

 

The BBC still went ahead despite being fully aware that it's actions would harm the elderly, women, ethnic minorities and people with serious health conditions. 

 

BBC GREED DESTROYS LIVES.

Well, you managed to completely miss 20% of it, so maybe they have a point!

 

So, in essense, if it's much more complex and detrimental than people initially thought, maybe they should be asked to choose again in light of this new information?

 

Hmmm, I think I've heard that somewhere before... If I recall you were staunchly against the idea?

Edited June 13, 2019 by Magilla

[catmiss 12]

I appreciate that if means testing is introduced there has to be a dividing line but there are a lot of pensioners who are just above Pension Credit limit. This means they get no help with rent or council tax leaving them worse off than PC recipients. I think this is the thin edge of the wedge- I ‘ve heard politicians discussing applying this to the winter fuel allowance too

[Waldo 96]

11 hours ago, gaz 786 said:

If I don't watch BBC do I still need A licence? 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/terms/do-i-need-a-tv-licence/

 

As I understand it, if you watch any TV channel, or use iPlaher, you need a license.

 

If a person has a TV, but never turns it on, do they need a license?

 

[L00b 441]

10 minutes ago, Waldo said:

If a person has a TV, but never turns it on, do they need a license?

Why would the person have a TV that they never turn on?

 

(...is the very obvious question, which the Crown would put to the judge in proceedings, to very easily sway the balance of probability their way)

 

I believe -but may be wrong- that the license is about the reception of broadcast material (these days, via the Internet also), so the test would be about whether the person uses their equipment to receive broadcasts. Many uses for a TV these days, besides receiving broadcasts: playing recorded media (DVDs etc), watching digital photos, playing videogames (...), as monitor for a computer...

Edited June 14, 2019 by L00b

[Waldo 96]

1 minute ago, L00b said:

Why would the person have a TV that they never turn on?

 

(...is the very obvious question, which the Crown would put to the judge in proceedings, to very easily sway the balance of probability their way)

I've not seen the nitty gritty terms, but on the BBC site, it does say you need a license to *watch* TV.

 

I imagine if it got to court the assumption would be, they have a TV, so it must have been used.

 

What if a person had a TV in their home, never used it, and submitted evidence to the court that it was never used (they have years worth of 24hr cctv aimed at the never-turned-on TV)?

 

Also, why would the court assume the TV was used, isn't the burden of proof on the prosecution side to prove it was used? How does that work?

[Waldo 96]

Also, to answer your question why someone may have a TV and never watch live TV on it, or indeed, ever turn it on.

 

I'm thinking of people trying to limit the scope of the BBC's ability to prosecute for have no license. I'm assuming, that the current situation is if you have a TV, it's assumed it's been used; without the BBC needing to prove such in court? Would having a case where you can prove a TV in your possession has never been used, challenge that precedence (the default assumption that a TV has been used to receive TV channels)?

Edited June 14, 2019 by Waldo

[RiffRaff 10]

I was always a bit ...erm... late buying my licence back in the day.

Thinking about it, the only licences I bought on the due date were for the dog and the metal detector!

[L00b 441]

58 minutes ago, Waldo said:

What if a person had a TV in their home, never used it, and submitted evidence to the court that it was never used (they have years worth of 24hr cctv aimed at the never-turned-on TV)?

...and how does that person check what the CCTV records/has recorded/that it works, without turning the TV (or another) on?  

 

(put aside the obvious question: what would be the point of doing this, unless that person needs some serious psychological help? )

 

The burden of proof is on the accusation of course, and that is the reason why the BBC used to have detector vans.

 

I don't know if they still use them these days, but nowadays it's probably easier for the prosecution to obtain discovery of people's IP addresses and connection times from their ISP, and to correlate that data with iPlayer / catch-up TV services server data (as with the torrents-based infringements of old); or discovery of Sky membership <or anything else similar, proving that the person 'consumes' broadcasts, live or not; e.g. a family photo on Facebook showing the TV turned on in the background - and showing Strictly for bonus points >.

 

Then it doesn't matter if the person used a (connected) TV, a computer, a laptop, a tablet (...): BBC's got them bang to rights all the same.

Edited June 14, 2019 by L00b

[Black Brick 10]

The government and financial organisations are treating people as inanimate cash cows instead of PEOPLE.  The way to treat people as people is by employing local PEOPLE. Means testing for TV licence, benefits and tax should be best done locally by PEOPLE who can actually talk to the individuals, visit them and know their situations.

 

I am sure some pensioners can afford to pay the TV licence but for many it will mean going without food. If it comes to that then I could not support the BBC with any enforcement against a single pensioner. The trauma it would cause could be the end of them. It could even mean the BBC before the courts for manslaughter.

Edited June 14, 2019 by Black Brick

[Waldo 96]

57 minutes ago, L00b said:

...and how does that person check what the CCTV records/has recorded/that it works, without turning the TV (or another) on?  

 

(put aside the obvious question: what would be the point of doing this, unless that person needs some serious psychological help? )

 

The burden of proof is on the accusation of course, and that is the reason why the BBC used to have detector vans.

 

I don't know if they still use them these days, but nowadays it's probably easier for the prosecution to obtain discovery of people's IP addresses and connection times from their ISP, and to correlate that data with iPlayer / catch-up TV services server data (as with the torrents-based infringements of old); or discovery of Sky membership <or anything else similar, proving that the person 'consumes' broadcasts, live or not; e.g. a family photo on Facebook showing the TV turned on in the background - and showing Strictly for bonus points >.

 

Then it doesn't matter if the person used a (connected) TV, a computer, a laptop, a tablet (...): BBC's got them bang to rights all the same.

They could check CCTV on a computer monitor. Wonder how the court would react to the possibility of wading through 1,000's (or possibly 10,000's) hours of video evidence of a TV not being switched on. I guess they wouldn't allow that.

 

Anyhow, silliness aside, good to hear that the BBC do have to prove consumption of broadcasts (rather than, you have a TV, you're nicked!).

Edited June 14, 2019 by Waldo

[ECCOnoob 1,050]

8 hours ago, Black Brick said:

 

I am sure some pensioners can afford to pay the TV licence but for many it will mean going without food. If it comes to that then I could not support the BBC with any enforcement against a single pensioner. The trauma it would cause could be the end of them. It could even mean the BBC before the courts for manslaughter.

What a load of crock.  

 

These so called destitute pensioners were paying the TV licence perfectly well until 2000 when money tree labour decided they would dangle another freebie to boost their vote share with the blue rinse crowd.   

 

The current licence is less than £13 a month.   42p a day.     If these pensioners are so brassic and so incapable in their affairs that they are choosing television over food then they need to be put into care not given a handout.

 

People bang on about TV being this vital lifeline that prevents loneliness and is some vital communication to the world but what's next?   Free telephone service?   Free internet service?   Free Sky Television to  expand the channel choice?      Its rediculous.  

 

IF YOU DONT WANT TO PAY DONT WATCH LIVE BROADCAST TELEVISION. 

 

Not exactly rocket science is it.

 

There are plenty of working people who are on low incomes and have to manage to get by too.   They dont get their lifestyle choices supported for free.

 

 

Edited June 14, 2019 by ECCOnoob