BBC Decriminalising Licence Fee

ProfessorSlocombe · 05/02/2020 10:13

My question is this: if they decriminalise the licence fee requirements and just have a fixed fine to apply won't this in essence make it easier to apply? Won't that lower the threshold if the burden of proof is simply the balance of probability?

Yes. They won't have to actually gather any evidence you were watching licensed TV, just suggest to the court how unlikely it was that you weren't.

prh47bridge · 05/02/2020 11:44

It is actually the government that is proposing decriminalisation, not the BBC.

The fact that it is currently a criminal offence doesn't seem to cause too many problems with getting convictions. In 2018 (the most recent year for which statistics are available) more than 121,000 people were convicted. If we go back to 2013, there were 178,322 prosecutions and 153,369 convictions. So the conviction rate is pretty high. I understand that many defendants plead guilty, which undoubtedly helps. The fact that any prosecutions are dealt with by magistrates is probably also relevant - anyone with experience of criminal cases in magistrates courts will tell you that they generally work to a lower standard than proof beyond reasonable doubt (with apologies to any magistrates reading this).

Having said that, when there was a review a few years ago one of the concerns with decriminalisation was that the lower threshold could lead to an increase in the number of cases. For example, someone who has let their licence expire and is delaying renewal could be sued whereas, under the current system, they would be able to avoid prosecution by buying a licence.

There was, as I mention above, a review a few years ago which concluded that licence fee evasion should not be decriminalised. Anyone interested can read that review at assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/445212/166926_Perry_Review_Text-L-PB.pdf

I note that Nicky Morgan is quoted as saying, "Many people consider it wrong that you can be imprisoned for not paying for your TV Licence". As the minister responsible she should know that you cannot be imprisoned for non-payment of the licence fee. You can be imprisoned for non-payment of the fine but not for failing to pay the licence fee. Even then, imprisonment is used as a last resort when it has been established that the defendant can pay and all other methods of enforcing the fine have failed.

ProfessorSlocombe · 05/02/2020 11:48

I note that Nicky Morgan is quoted as saying, "Many people consider it wrong that you can be imprisoned for not paying for your TV Licence". As the minister responsible she should know that you cannot be imprisoned for non-payment of the licence fee.

Many years have taught me to ignore what ministers say to the press - much a case as my DM would have said of "the blind leading the blind". Just look at the laws they pass and the way they act.

Original poster

hiddenmnetter · 05/02/2020 18:41

Yes. They won't have to actually gather any evidence you were watching licensed TV, just suggest to the court how unlikely it was that you weren't.

Ok this is my understanding- that essentially balance of probability comes down to plausibility, if the magistrate finds one side more convincing than the other that is the standard required.

If this is the case, my second question is, isn't this a win for the BBC? As @prh47bridge said, Having said that, when there was a review a few years ago one of the concerns with decriminalisation was that the lower threshold could lead to an increase in the number of cases. For example, someone who has let their licence expire and is delaying renewal could be sued whereas, under the current system, they would be able to avoid prosecution by buying a licence.

Is all this business with the government 'threatening' to decriminalise the licence fee actually throwing the BBC a bone? Making it easier to collect on non payment when right not unless people actually confess, or actually allow TV licensing people into your property while watching live TV means it must be fairly difficult to collect.

Those numbers you mention are much higher than I expected to be honest- it would be interesting to see what proportion of people convicted are with ESL. They would be easier to trap with the crafty double talk the agents use insinuating that they have a right to enter and search for license violations.

OP posts:

prh47bridge · 05/02/2020 19:26

No, this isn't throwing the BBC a bone.

Whilst decriminalisation could lead to an increase in the number of cases, it would also lead to a reduction in compliance. A study found that, even if the penalty was £500 (almost 3 times the current average fine) the level of non-payment would be higher than it is today. The BBC believes that decriminalisation would roughly double the amount lost through non-payment and there is evidence to support this view. Also, if evasion is decriminalised it is likely that TV Licensing would lose some of its investigatory powers such as the ability to obtain search warrants, making it harder to gather the evidence needed for enforcement. Finally, the BBC is unhappy that, instead of cases for evasion being listed as R v Evader, they would become BBC v Evader. They believe this could be damaging to their image and reputation, and could lead to accusations of profiteering in the same way as some local councils are accused over parking charge notices.

The BBC is very much against decriminalisation.

They would be easier to trap with the crafty double talk the agents use insinuating that they have a right to enter and search for license violations

I've never been visited by one so I can't comment on what they say. However, if you refuse entry they can currently apply for a search warrant which would give them the right to enter.

BubblesBuddy · 05/02/2020 23:24

The government will eventually want the BBC to be subscription. They are softening the laws because they want the BBC to reduce it costs and output and only supply programmes no one else does - so said John Wittingdale today. So he thinks no drama, or news, because other networks can do it. The viewing public won’t care enough to save the excellent service we have for very reasonable cost. They are happy to pay more for Sky and Netflix etc. Well miss it when it’s gone - except if you are under 30 you won’t because you don’t watch it and don’t want to pay for it!!!

LuluBellaBlue · 05/02/2020 23:29

Can anyone confirm the exact requirements for paying for a BBC licence?
Is it correct that it’s now for any live TV channel even if you don’t have BBC?
Thanks

prh47bridge · 06/02/2020 00:05

You need a licence if you:

watch or record programmes as they are being shown on any channel
watch or stream programmes live on an online service
download or watch BBC programmes on iPlayer

This applies regardless of whether you are watching on a TV, a PC or some other device.

ProfessorSlocombe · 06/02/2020 06:50

The government will eventually want the BBC to be subscription.

Well Murdoch and Co will, which is the same thing.

The BBCs days were numbered when it turned out people didn't need Sky News - or indeed content - as the BBC was top quality value in the UK.

MarieG10 · 06/02/2020 08:00

Decriminalisation brings a sting in the tail. What will happen is that non payers will be pursued through the civil courts for non payment. They will then end up with a civil debt which if not satisfied with costs will result in a CCJ which means their credit rating will be zero and worsen any financial situation they are already in.

Ask those who are being ruthlessly pursued by private parking companies that judges are now wholly sick of with their tactics and using dubious debt collectors which the BBC will no doubt end up using

Original poster

hiddenmnetter · 06/02/2020 10:32

Can anyone confirm the exact requirements for paying for a BBC licence?
Is it correct that it’s now for any live TV channel even if you don’t have BBC?
Thanks

If you watch any live TV, via aerial or steaming online, or if you watch BBC iPlayer you need a license. Netflix, Amazon, or catch-up services do not require a license.

OP posts:

FinallyHere · 06/02/2020 10:32

isn't this a win for the BBC?

I really don't think so. Along with the excellent arguments set out above, it would put the not insignificant costs of following up non-compliance onto The BBC

Along with cost of providing over-75 licences

More cost -> less output.

Original poster

hiddenmnetter · 06/02/2020 10:37

I've never been visited by one so I can't comment on what they say. However, if you refuse entry they can currently apply for a search warrant which would give them the right to enter.

I have been visited a few times, because I don't require a license. The threatening nature of the letters they send is bad enough, but the way they try to imply that they have a right to inspect your setup if you tell them you don't need a license is bordering on lying. Didn't fuss me as I told them to leave and get a warrant and come back with the police if they had any evidence of criminal activity. Surprisingly they didn't .

I object to the tactic that appears (at least in my experience) to be built on strong arming people who may not know the law or their rights. Essentially it's based on bullying the vulnerable. To be fair that might not be the BBC, but captiva, but they're agents of the BBC sand and that's bad enough.

OP posts:

RedRiverShore · 06/02/2020 10:44

They threatened my dead DM with all sorts when I was trying to sell her house.

ginghamstarfish · 06/02/2020 10:55

A thorough overhaul of the licence fee is long overdue. I've never understood why we had to pay for the programs to be made, which they then flog off all around the world, sell to Netflix/Amazon, on DVD etc (while licence payers have only 30 days to see on catchup). I haven't paid a licence fee for some years now, but if they moved to a monthly subscription fee like Netflix etc I would be happy to pay for a month here and there, but not if I have to pay for a whole year (and they have a deliberately complicated way of applying the fee - when I wanted to cancel I was told that because the fee is paid in advance, they could not refund if it was less than a full quarter's fees to be refunded, or some such. Funny that .... only works in their favour of course).

Reginabambina · 06/02/2020 10:58

I’ve received many threatening letters and visits from them. It eventually stopped when I put on my posh voice and asked whether I looked like the kind of person that watches ‘television’ (I do by the way, I just prefer Netflix/apple). I think the reality of the situation is that the BBC has outlived it’s usefulness and the changes in the law are just reflecting societal changes.

FinallyHere · 06/02/2020 11:10

I used to quite enjoy the cards they would put through my letter box, in the days when I lived alone and without a TV.

They would urge me to give them a reason that I did not have a licence, in order to "avoid any further costs in following up" which no one would consider a powerful argument, if they gave a moments thought to things likely to motivate me.

The options to tick did not include the obvious 'I do not own or run a TV on the premises'. Pah.

Curiously, I am a massive fan of Radio4 and BBC7/4 Extra I would happily pay a licence fee for their comedy and drama, though increasingly buy it from audible to get the full sets. Pity but there it is.

LuluBellaBlue · 06/02/2020 12:25

Thank you for answering the Q about when a licence is required.
Just wanted to check I wasn’t breaking the law as only have Amazon and Netflix and so cancelled my licence last year

yellowallpaper · 06/02/2020 19:27

Don't know about the licence fee as I pay mine by direct debit, but it it's a criminal offence, the standard is beyond reasonable doubt. On the balance of probabilities is civil law.

I'm shocked anyone gets prosecuted for this, let alone so many people.

prh47bridge · 06/02/2020 20:37

See my post up thread. The fact it is a criminal offence gives TV Licensing investigatory powers they would lose if it was decriminalised, e.g. the ability to obtain a search warrant. Also, cases are tried in the magistrates court where, although the standard is theoretically proof beyond reasonable doubt, the reality is often somewhat different.

Original poster

hiddenmnetter · 07/02/2020 02:46

@prh47bridge the ability to obtain a search warrant.

Do you happen to know what sort of scope they have to obtain a warrant? Or even an educated idea? Once again, not a lawyer so my understanding is they have to have some good reason to suspect that I am breaking the law to obtain a warrant don't they? It can't be enough that 'they don't have a tv licence, and come on your honour, who doesn't watch tv?' can it?

OP posts:

prh47bridge · 07/02/2020 07:31

To get a search warrant they have to show that there is good reason to believe that an offence has been committed, that they are likely to find evidence and that they cannot gain access to the premises without a warrant.

Search warrants are relatively rare. They have other investigatory powers which they would probably lose if licence fee evasion is decriminalised, e.g. the use of detection equipment.

ProfessorSlocombe · 07/02/2020 09:28

To get a search warrant they have to show that there is good reason to believe that an offence has been committed, that they are likely to find evidence and that they cannot gain access to the premises without a warrant.

A lot of obsessing over physical address going on ... which (predictably) totally misses the emergence of a group that download licensable TV content in one place (via WiFi) and then takes it home to watch offline.

Although if it becomes a balance of probabilities offence, anyone with a smart device will be expected to pay.

Interesting, if confused, times ahead. But as long as you know the end goal is to reduce the BBC to the level of any other media outlet, you'll be able to guess the twists and turns.

prh47bridge · 07/02/2020 10:05

Although if it becomes a balance of probabilities offence, anyone with a smart device will be expected to pay

Disagree. Cases will be heard in the County Court rather than by magistrates. There will need to be at least some evidence that the smart device has been used in a way that requires a licence. The courts are unlikely to simply assume that any such device has been used in this way.

But as long as you know the end goal is to reduce the BBC to the level of any other media outlet

The problem is that the licence fee model is increasingly unsustainable. Given the proliferation of channels now available there is a real question as to whether viewers should be forced to pay for a channel they do not watch which may carry content to which they object. Polls consistently show a majority of the population in favour of replacing the licence fee with a subscription fee and/or advertising.

For clarity, I am personally in favour of leaving the licence fee as it is. But I recognise that there are good arguments for change and that support for change cuts across the political spectrum.

ProfessorSlocombe · 07/02/2020 10:16

Disagree. Cases will be heard in the County Court rather than by magistrates. There will need to be at least some evidence that the smart device has been used in a way that requires a licence. The courts are unlikely to simply assume that any such device has been used in this way.

The courts will do what they are told.

The problem is that the licence fee model is increasingly unsustainable. Given the proliferation of channels now available there is a real question as to whether viewers should be forced to pay for a channel they do not watch which may carry content to which they object.

A problem which seems unique to TV, given that our taxes go on things that I find deeply objectionable ...

The fact that no one has tried to move the BBCs funding to come from general taxation speaks volumes.