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

My theory is it's not because they let them in. They don't need to get in and in most cases they dont.
The vast majority of people convicted are caught out and convicted by what comes out of the mouths on the door step.
The salesmen ( that's what they are) are experts at tripping people up and getting them to self incriminate. The longer you talk on the doorstep the more likely you are to be caught out.
We all know for various reasons women are higher on the agreebility scale and less likely to abrasively tell somebody to sling their hook very early on in a door step encounter.
The other main way they are caught is it they see or hear live TV through a window or door as the approach the property
I think it's this plus You tube being more likely to be watched by men.
Why?
Because there's hours of footage on YT of people, self filmed, (always men) in doorstep encounters.
Comments under he clips advising how not to be caught if you are watching unlicensed. Because of this men are more likely to be savvy on how to avoid getting caught in the first place.
Do you know that TV detector vans a complete con btw. I only found this out watching yt and reading comments below. There were a relatively small number of them for publicity and those that were going about were unable to operate as all the scary adverts said. Nobody has ever been convicted with evidence collected by "TV detecting technology. " I only found this out watching yt.

Its fascinating.
Check out "TV licence Goons" or something similar on YT. ( see, even the language is more abrasive)
YT is a "How to get away with not paying your TV licence fee" masterclass and I am amazed the BBC haven't put pressure on them to take down the vids.

1. More SAHP are women than men
2. Fewer women than men will ignore the door
3. On opening the door, more women will let the bastards in

[quote Thelnebriati]PaddleBoardingMomma The BBC and Ministry of Justice both agree with you.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tv-licence-fee-women-convictions-b1763192.html[/quote]
Thanks for the link!

It's interesting that it seems to be the case. When I was mulling it over I thought if my husband was here then he wouldn't let anyone in and would stand his ground, but I would feel quite intimidated to do as I'm asked. Probably says more about me than I'd care to admit but it's interesting that it's clearly a theme...

The question is what do we do about it?

PaddleBoardingMomma The BBC and Ministry of Justice both agree with you.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tv-licence-fee-women-convictions-b1763192.html

According to the 2019 Gov report on Women and the Criminal Justice System.........

females made up 74% of the 114,000 convictions in 2019, up
3 pp from 2015. TV licence evasion made up 30% of all female convictions, compared to 4% of male convictions. A contributing factor is the greater availability of females when an enforcement officer visits the home. Fines accounted for 99% of
those sentenced for TV licence evasion in 2019 across both sexes.

I have no facts to back this theory up, merely floating a thought I had on the situation in regards to more women being prosecuted than men...

To have a conviction the tv license inspectors need access to the property which doesn't have to be given as far as I'm aware? I wonder if it's easier to coerce or frighten women into letting them enter the property to check (and this convict) perhaps they aren't so quick to demand entry to a property with a big bloke in front of them.

Only a thought, feel free to tell me otherwise I'm happy to be educated on it.

And also assume that my post was based on bias etc rather than on what they said.

The stats around it are mind boggling tbh. All there in black and white.

So you've read the bit about the massively skewed prosection conviction rate female v male and that they state a contributing factor is the greater availability of women at home.

Given you do trust the ONS in general and have read what they have published on this, can you say why you don't trust/ believe them on that particular point?

Criminy, do you mean to be so tedious?

@NiceGerbil
I said I hadn’t read your links because I’ve researched this issue recently and don’t need to re-read it all again. I’ve read the ONS stuff.

The BBC must have a rough idea of how many households do not have a licence.

That would tell you nothing though because not having a licence doesn’t = license evasion. Many households don’t watch TV as defined by the U.K. gov. For example, if you only watch Netflix. No TV license required. That’s not evasion.

The ONS has more than one section about TV licence on that link.

Plan- you don't trust the ONS?

WTAF, you are the one not trusting the ONS. Not me, ONS says 10x more women than men guilty of tv licence evasion and I trust it. You are the one who does not trust it because you see 10x more women convicted than men and think, right there are either a lot of innocent women wrongly convicted or guilty men getting away with it because you’ve said that the ONS statistics were “appalling” and clearly showed “indirect discrimination”= not trusting the ONS.

Plan I'm confused.

First you say

'Now how about you answer my question? 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? '

And then say you won't read the links (including the ONS) and say duh look at ONS men are more violent than women.

So in the end I'm not sure what you're arguing.

PlanDeRaccordement Theres no need to be rude.

You've confused the number of people evading the licence fee with the number of people convicted of evading the fee. I was wondering what the former is. The BBC must have a rough idea of how many households do not have a licence.

Plan- you don't trust the ONS?

Be really interested to hear why that is.

'crying' is an interesting word to use!

I note that you imply that the difference in male v female convictions is something other than men being more violent..? That it's down to something else? Interested in your thoughts.

The bloke who joined the women and equalities committee suggested that for equality, women should be sent to prison in the same numbers. I can't agree with that argument. It seems very silly to me tbh.

Anyway there's stats on the nature of crimes committed, the numbers imprisoned etc etc on the ONS link.

If you refuse to treat the ONS as a reasonable source of info then there's not much point in talking is there? You are operating from a certain point of view and opinion of the women who post on here.

And you said the way I approached stats was iffy!

If it was decriminalised and became a civil offence, the sentences would still be similar however the burden of proof would be far lower. For a criminal conviction, the prosecution must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Whereas for a civil case, it only needs to be proved on the balance of probabilities. So if it were to be decriminalised, then there would be far more people paying the same fines.

I'd certainly be interested to find out the proportion of men and women who get caught without a television licence who are single parents to children.

What evidence is there that more women than men break the law and evade paying the TV licence?

@NiceGerbil
Ah, haven’t followed your links but presume it’s the usual speculation to try and explain why more women break that particular law. I’ve seen many over the years. The one about women being home more so are the ones tangling with enforcement officers (silly given unemployment % between sexes not being that much different). Women being more likely to be poor and thus somehow more entitled or tempted to free TV. Women being stupider than the more tech savvy men and not understanding you can’t watch BBC iplayer on your phone or laptop without a license. I don’t buy any of these speculations and I don’t think women are inherently holier than men. We break laws. Knowingly. Because we are human. We just tend to do it through peaceful means. Passive resistance instead of violent.

Now how about you answer my question? 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? The mere existence of a sex gap doesn’t automatically mean discrimination.

Under there's been loads of stuff about head injuries and women. Turns out loads have long term brain damage usually due to DV and one effect is often memory issues/ not communicating well/ stuff like that. This has an impact in court as they are seen as unreliable/ vague/ behaviour can be peculiar etc. So it all works together to mean women who have been seriously abused are more likely to end up in prison.

And plan if you haven't read the links (?) then why are you making assumptions about why I came to that conclusion.

And if you have I'd be interested to hear why you disagree with the reasons given for the difference in the links.

Here’s another grim statistic, 4 in 5 women in prison in Scotland have a history of head injury, often through domestic abuse.

www.theguardian.com/society/2021/may/13/four-in-five-female-prisoners-in-scotland-found-to-have-history-of-head-injury?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1620945643