Decriminalising non-payment of TV licence

[Cwenthryth]

So one of the first non-Brexit things coming out of the new government is reconsidering decriminalisation of TV licence non-payment

www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50800128

A quick look at various media it seems to be being mostly spun as Johnson&co being vindictive after how the BBC handled their election campaign, refusing Andrew Neil/Today etc.

But, I am all for this from a feminist standpoint! This being a criminal offence overwhelmingly affects women more than men - 72% of people prosecuted for non-payment of TV licences are women; if this is decriminalised then you cut total prosecutions of women by 30% instantly. source. Brilliant. You don’t go prison for falling behind with other utility bills; this should be a civil matter, not a criminal one.

I wish this was being reported from this viewpoint though; it is clearly a feminist issue. Or am I missing it perhaps.

Absolutely agree.

Plus for good feminist reasons I can no longer support the BBC’s protected status.

Evan Davies on PM today was very good on this:

It's a crime not to pay t because it's a tax. It is collected by Capita on behalf of the BBC who levy it on behalf of the Treasury, and send it to the Treasury so they can give it straight back in the form of a grant.

Why not just put it on the income tax and have done with it?

Completely agree.

It’s a completely outdated concept anyway.

Agree.

There's only so much advertising money to go around and the BBC provides more than the three TV channels. It also funds the national and local radio stations, World Service and web services. All of these will either have to be funded out of general taxation or via advertising. Many may simply disappear, especially the less popular/mainstream. It'll be a bit rough for both the BBC and the commercial stations.

Scrapping/reforming the licence fee is technically a separate issue than decriminalising non-payment of it, surely. It wouldn’t make it legal to not pay it; it would just be a civil issue rather than a criminal one though, the BBC could still pursue you for it same as any other debt you owe; you just wouldn’t end up in prison for it.

Thats my understanding anyway, not my area of expertise, happy to be corrected if I’m wrong.

I’m sure decriminalisation would kickstart a review of the licence as a whole though.

It's returning it to being a civil issue.

Knocking the BBC back down a step is always a good thing in my opinion.

@BigFatLiar how would this have any effect on funding?

I 100% agree with this. Debtors prison isn’t supposed to be a thing in the 21st century.

Definitely a civil and not a criminal matter. Can't stand Boris but agree with this move, whatever his motive.

If it becomes a civil only issue people will simply not pay as I doubt the BBC could make that many civil claims so in effect it would simply be abolishing it.

It's unbelievable that poor women can end up in prison for not paying their tv licence.

I think it's usually the fine for not paying the licence that is what they get jailed for, is that right? Which is way more than the actual licence.

I believe most of the people prosecuted by the BBC for dodging the license are women, is this still the case?

The sooner the BBC becomes a subscription service the better, they've had far too much control and influence for far too many years.

Fat The BBC is a multibillion dollar world wide company, the public service but is tiny in comparison.

''Nearly three quarters (72%) of people prosecuted for TV licence evasion in 2017 (137,913 in total) were women, with the crime accounting for 30% of all female prosecutions (compared to 4% of male prosecutions) – making it the most common offence for which women were prosecuted, according to government figures. In addition, a greater proportion of women (94%) than men (92%) were convicted.''

www.refinery29.com/en-gb/2019/07/237240/tv-licence-evasion-women

One things that's rarely mentioned is that when women are imprisoned for crimes of poverty, they often have kids who are taken into care.
Apart from the disruption and harm caused to children, the cost to the taxpayer is disproportionate to the offence.

I think there is a double motive in this. Yes it looks good, because in terms of public knowledge it is usually single mothers struggling to make ends meet, so this seems a caring thing to do.

But it is also part of the Tory strategy to destabilise the BBC and its core purpose.

If the Tories really cared then they would also say, sorry it was a bit meant to tell the BBC you should now pay what is essentially a benefit (free tv for over 75s) because really what we want to do is cut your budget.

Just as the foreign office used to fund the world service. The unexpected consequence of the reach of the BBC and there "balanced" reporting is one of the reasons so many people in different countries think it is a good place to live. Not the benefits system as right wing tabloids like to say, but because the WS makes it seem the UK is totally anti racist, supportive of gays rights etc.. It is a rude awakening for many when they arrive.

And I think if the face of the onslaught of trash tv gushing out of stations funded through advertising, with the pressure to go for mind numbing escapism has contributed to the dumbing down of news presentation and factual reporting.

Because like lemmings we all chose the easy option so the BBC has now slid into trying to compete.

I always find it bizarre to say that it is a problem that young people dont watch it. That's fine. Young people are entitled to occupy themselves with what it there priority. Nobody goes its awful old people dont listen to which music station is currently the most popular.

But I think what the BBC should be valued for. ie proper in depth news reporting, and balanced reporting happens less and less.

So to go back to the original point, if you add together the cutting of the free licence (a Tory cut not a BBC one) the effective change in status of the licence fee, it is about sidelining and financially undermining its status.

I obviouls think it is wrong to send someone to prison for non payment of the tv licence, but this could be overcome if there was a proper benefits system or an equal one, ie if you are on pension credits maybe you should get a free tv licence just as over 75s should.

If it becomes a civil only issue people will simply not pay as I doubt the BBC could make that many civil claims so in effect it would simply be abolishing it.

Versus single mums being imprisoned and their children taken? Yeah, I don't think it's a contest.

Good move. I cant see why it needs to be party political, or why ulterior motives need to be attached. I would have welcomed it even if Jo Swinson had become PM.

I think the BBC should be protected at all costs. An independent news service, public message broadcaster is a thing to cherish. Programming doesn't only have value when it's popular or commercial, would we ever have seen blue plannet or horizon on a commercial service?

would we ever have seen blue plannet or horizon on a commercial service?
Yes, in fact Netflix made "our planet"...

Not sure I agree. I’d be uncomfortable to be in favour of abolishing a criminal law solely because more women than men break it. That doesn’t seem feminist to me but rather favouritism towards female tax dodgers. And I don’t agree with the poverty excuse because a TV license is not that much money. A poor person’s working or child tax credit for 1 month would cover the entire year. These people just choose not to pay because they think they can get away with it.

It would be like a misogynist abolishing speeding tickets just because more men are prosecuted for these than women.

I also think stumbled in has a point about independent news source funded by taxation not lobbying advertisers. Can you imagine a pseudoscience show about trans issues funded by a trans lobby group? How scientifically independent do you think that would be? Or an environmental show brought to you and funded by BP oil in partnership with Russian natural gas? Or how about health news funded by KFC?

I don’t think decriminalisation is at odds with cherishing the BBC - although I do think you have very rose-tinted specs there SciFi.

I bet if we took all the public money spent on prosecuting & imprisoning people for this (overwhelmingly women), along with all the money spent picking up the pieces of these women being in prison - social services for their children, loss of NI/tax for those that were working, being trapped in benefit system, possibly increased need for mental health services, reduced productivity etc etc etc.... it would far outweigh whatever is gained by this being a criminal offence rather than a civil one. This isn’t a funding issue.

I’m not against protecting the BBC..... but ‘at any cost’ being imprisoning poor women, putting children into care? Nope.

And I don’t agree with the poverty excuse because a TV license is not that much money. A poor person’s working or child tax credit for 1 month would cover the entire year. These people just choose not to pay because they think they can get away with it.
Sorry, this makes you sound really daft. ‘Not that much money’ is entirely relative. For families relying on food banks, choosing between eating or heating their homes, paying the tv licence or buying their child shoes that month to keep their feet dry, then it is just not possible. Let’s just not feed the kids this month so we can keep funding Strictly Come Dancing* hey - that is patently ridiculous, but that’s how your post sounds.

*I have nothing against SCD specifically.... you could probably construct a feminist argument pro-SCD based on wellbeing, shared social referencing or something!

Cwen
Or you could just not watch the BBC? No one is forcing anyone to watch the BBC. People have a choice. Its not like a mother shoplifting food to feed her kids.
Why? Because watching Strictly Come Dancing is not essential like food is. I’m afraid you sound daft by prioritising a dance show over food, heat, shoes, etc.

Are there any other laws that are inappropriate since the demographic of people convicted is unequal?

Why is the licence fee not waived for people under a certain income threshold?
The government can subsidise it for those on a low income, those who rely on benefits or are unemployed, those who are elderly etc.