Did you know that nearly a third of women’s convictions are for TV licence fee evasion?

I think in the long run the BBC will fail and will we end up with Fox news (eg launch of GB news) and nobody will care.

Why should people care about the launch of GB News?

If it was the only news channel, fair enough; but when you have a variety of news channels with different perspectives, where is the problem?

I think it's far better to have "open bias" and a variety of sources rather than the BBC pretending to be impartial.

I watch very little TV, the TV that I bought at Christmas is not even tuned in for any live broadcasts and I don't watch iPlayer.

There are enough people struggling to pay their council tax without adding an extra £170 onto it.

I thought the figure was higher actually, but that does not make it a good thing that it is only a third.

Given that the vast majority of houses have a tv, and that there is already a household based tax, the council tax, why not collect it as part of that, and have the same process for late or non-payment?

Why are you crying discrimination regarding more women than men being prosecuted over tv license evasion, but not crying discrimination over more men than women being prosecuted for violent crimes?

There a clear benefit to the public in locking up violent men. In fact it seems we should be doing much more of that, not less. There is almost no benefit to the public in locking up TV license evaders and it causes a great deal of harm to the women and their children... (they almost always have children don’t they?)

How is a policy with no benefits that causes massive harm to mothers and children not a case of discrimination against women?

Yes i remember seeing a TV investigation about it back in the 90s. On the BBC ironically!

Yes- this has been in the news every few years for decades!

I remember reading a similar statistic in 1988.
A friend of mine had been prosecuted for having no licence. She was a single mother and had no money to pay the fine. Her ex refused to pay maintenance and she was desperate so I paid it for her. I was shocked then to see how many other women had been convicted.
Clare Short was working on it at the time and she also highlighted how much more likely women were to be jailed at all.

I'm not claiming the BBC is filling its remit but that comparing a product that depends on getting bums on seats to an organisation that is intended to try and meet the needs of minority interests.

For instance I rarely watch any of the cultural (or do I mean arts) output of the BBC but for some people this is their main source.

And in fact it is clear from what happened during lockdown that this myth that everyone is one line etc., just isn't true. And the BBC failed in not providing more air time to online learning etc..

And the problem is that Tory capitalist competitive tendering even within the BBC means that a huge amount of money goes out of the organisation, so its potential to plan etc., had been underminded. As with the Tory cuts to the funding so that the BBC now pays fot the World Service (previously funded ie PR for UK) and for the over 75 free licence.

this is about diminishing the BBC by attrition.

So you may like the output of a particular streaming service. Lucky you. The point of the BBC like the NHS is to recognise that there is a wide range of needs to be met. Using the streaming service model would mean that the NHS would end up saying oh well so few people get x disease dont lets bother looking into it.

I think in the long run the BBC will fail and will we end up with Fox news (eg launch of GB news) and nobody will care.

I'm not claiming the BBC is perfect, and like most of the establishment in this country is male, pale and stale. But if the alternative is organisations with the mental age of social media companies I'm not interested.

Privatise the BBC, and let it compete for audiences and funding in the free market. If tens of millions of people are quite happy to voluntarily subscribe to Netflix, the Beeb should be fine in the private sector. I’m sure there is a vast market for its PC, identity politics obsessed output. After all, most people enjoy being constantly preached at about diversity & climate change, don’t they?

No more sexist prosecutions. No more women with criminal records. Problem solved.

MargaritaPie - It is about the concept of public service broadcasting. It is not meant to be driven by popularity. If it was there would be nothing but love island, selling houses and gossip.

The problem is who decides what public interest it.

Like the NHS the concept of the BBC is about having an easily accessible shared source.

More strange is that anyone would think subscriptions tv is a standard to aspire to. It is, as has happened with Universities driven by the downward spiral of the lowest common denominator.

Or possibly the Roman Circus.

Abusive men will often allow all the bills be put in to their partner's name and then don't pay towards them. Leaving the woman struggling to pay. If you have to choose between the gas, food, kids shoes or tv licence. I bet tv licence ends up at the bottom of the list of priorities.

You might be onto something. Unlike computers, TVs don't store logs of your activity. The TV licence people can only know if a household watches TV if they enter your garden and look through your window, or if someone from the household admits to watching it

But phones, pcs and laptops do and watching live tv and BBC (and other terrestrial catch ups) presumably do?

About 20 years ago when I was still on the left of the picture and like most left wingers, thought the sun shone out of the BBCs arse, I was talking with a right wing friend (in the days before identity politics when you were allowed to have one) and he said something that stopped me in my tracks.

He said imagine if the BBC like ITV and all the rest, was free to use but to be able to watch all the free channels you had to pay for a Sky Subscription to Rupert Murdoch. How would you feel about it then?
I had to admit he had a point.

I very vividly remember the police coming and arresting my mum and taking her to court for not having a TV license. At the time she was newly divorced from my dad and we were living on a very low income.

I've no idea what happened in court, presumably she was fined and paid it off.

I had no idea this was still happening, humiliating women by dragging them to court and giving them a criminal license is horrible.

Does anyone know who is prosecuted in a household with more than one adult? Would it be the person who opens the door who would be liable or would all members of the household face prosecution?

Given the facts about the Bashir documentary and the way the BBC reported the Salmond enquiry (accusing Nicola Sturgeon of breaking the ministerial code two days before the enquiry results which said he had not done that) do they deserve our money anyway?

Mumo if ever you don't need a licence and cancel, rescind any implied right of access (Google for the exact phrase) and the Capita pricks can't come to the door.
You can do it email but they ask you to confirm you still don't need a licence every two years, post and email.
No risk of any "Inspection" then.

This thread just made me realise that my ex cancelled the TV license when he moved out.
Just went and got myself a new one. Luckily we had already paid this month but now I’m back to paying double for the next few months.

Worth it to have him out of my house, but still. I definitely don’t want the tv license people after me!

"Unless... what if they know that single women are much more cooperative? What if they know that they are an easier target to get a conviction? What if they deliberately focus their attention on them?"

You might be onto something. Unlike computers, TVs don't store logs of your activity. The TV licence people can only know if a household watches TV if they enter your garden and look through your window, or if someone from the household admits to watching it.

Just speculating here but in cases where the licence hasn't been paid and the inspectors come visiting, men may be more likely to deny watching live TV and just claim they use it for video games or DVDs, or simply not answer the door to them(unless they come with a cop who has a warrant, you don't have to answer). Women may be more likely to be honest and admit, which secures an easy conviction.

It's crazy Brits still have to pay a TV licence to watch live TV. Especially now times have moved on and there are other options of watching what we want eg Netflix.

It's outdated and needs scrapped.

I don't think it's automatically "discrimination" just because they catch a lot more women for it, even assuming the crime is committed equally by males and females.

If more women open the door and start talking, that's just how it is. It's difficult to see that as "discrimination" on the part of someone else.

Unless... what if they know that single women are much more cooperative? What if they know that they are an easier target to get a conviction? What if they deliberately focus their attention on them?

Is it discrimination then?

I really don’t understand why funding can’t just be rolled into general taxes.

That would be guaranteed cash for the BBC and there would be little incentive for them to provide viewers with what they want, because they already have their money.

Rather, switch to subscription for the people that actually like BBC programming.

Public funds shouldn't go anywhere near the BBC imo. It's like being forced to pay for the Daily Mail when you don't read it and strongly disagree with the politics that they promote. Actually it's worse, because at least the Daily Mail wouldn't try to lie to the public and tell people it's "impartial".

You shouldn't have to fund one-sided political propaganda that you don't agree with.

Another factoid is the fines talked about in TV Licence adverts.
"You can be fined up to £1,000" says the threatening voice in the advert. Most fines are under £300, so in the region of 2x a licence. Many may consider this worth a risk. Many others do it on a point of principal of not paying a regressive poll tax.

They may think, how is it right for a single mum living in a bedsit with a 19 inch Polaroid TV from Asda to be paying the same amount as say JK Rowling in 20 bedroom mansion with a 60" OLED in every room with family and guests watching as many as they like.

This is 100% true story albeit about 15 or so years ago.

My best friend was at home with her 2 toddlers when there was a very loud banging on the door, 4 police officers and a meat wagon were there to take her to the police station/ court can't quite remember which.

Apparently she had been getting letters for months and her abusive ex had hidden them from her.

She had to get her next door neighbour to look after her kids until I could get there, while she was taken away in the wagon. All neighbours outside, agog. Very very posh neighbourhood.

Really can't remember the outcome, think she was heavily fined, which luckily she could afford to pay. I have never trusted the justice system since, and my friend was severely traumatised.

Even now all those years years later, I feel sick thinking about it.

Childrenofthestones

Thanks, you explained that really well.
The convictions are for non payment of the fines handed out, not that, that makes it any better.
Women are targeted for all the reasons above, it is a disgrace.

I didn't realise it was as much as a third, but I knew it was alarmingly high.

That's why Boris's proposal to decriminalise non-payment (or at least remove imprisonment for it) is a good move.