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.

If its a problem for single mums paying perhaps we should also allow them not to pay road tax, council tax or motor insurance.

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.

Just to make a correct you mean not watch TV, not just the BBC.

A lot of people don't know the law around what the license covers, which isn't their fault, the BBC actually scares them. Ive corrected a few people in the past who thought it also covered receiving radio.

The landscape has changed. Fewer people, other than the elderly, watch via ariel. The basis through which the BBC charges for its licence fee can and should be reviewed, perhaps on a Netflix model which interalia would make it easier to pull in revenue from overseas viewers.

At the very minimum Boris is ensuring that there won't be a bunch of pensioners locked up when TV licenses cease being free for the elderly'. Sensible. The sight of granny being dragged into jail on her mobility scooter would have made a hell of a front page picture.

There is a whole different debate on BBC bias and wokeness, and the extent to which its programming should lead on social change. Boris will feel he has a mandate to address this, but I don't think the two are linked.

To those posters who seem to be interpreting this as saying that it’s fine for women to not pay because women.....erm nope! Decriminalising is not the same as legalising. I’m not arguing for single Mums to be let off for not paying the TV licence fee... I’m saying they shouldn’t go to prison for it. Bit different! If it is managed the same as other civil debts then you have the option of dealing with debts in a more manageable way - IVAs, formal bankruptcy etc (disclaimer - not my area of expertise) rather than criminal record, possibly losing job, home, children going into care etc.

CAptainkirk,
Its just live TV or BBC live and catch up that requires the license.
There is lots of TV you can watch legally with no license:
You can watch all nonBBC channels on catch up with no license-eg channel 4
You can watch Netflix or Amazon Prime video with no license (any subscription TV)
You can play mp4s, DVDs etc with no license.

Plan is right. Young people often don't watch live TV, but You Tube etc. I have always paid the license fee for DDs student houses, judging that as a group they will decide it is too much money yet one is likely to watch at some point and could be caught potentially leaving all of them with criminal records. I suspect her current house have no idea that they do in fact have a licence. They have never discussed it.

But elderly people do watch live TV. They also may not be able to use the internet/box. For the last decade of her life, my mum was only able to push the on off button. She watched a huge amount of daytime rubbish.

(Actually come to think of it, putting her in prison would have saved a lot of care costs....I'm joking, but I suspect someone on Boris' team had thought about this.)

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

This is what makes me uncomfortable. We should never conclude a law is inappropriate just because of the demographic of people is unequal. It then leads to questions like why have a criminal fly tipping law when over 90% of those convicted are men?

How many women are actually given a custodial sentence for nonpayment of the tv license fee or fine? And if so, for how long? All I could find were news articles. One saying “38 people mainly women” were handed a custodial sentence in 2016. Another stated that the custodial sentences lasted 1 day for the vast majority of those convicted. So are poor women really losing homes, jobs or children into care over this?

If you look at the sentencing guidelines the top category 1 sentence is a band B. You would have to have aggravating factors (have done more than evade the TV license fee) to end up in jail.
“Statutory aggravating factors

Previous convictions, having regard to a) the nature of the offence to which the conviction relates and its relevance to the current offence; and b) the time that has elapsed since the conviction
Offence committed whilst on bail

Other aggravating factors

Failure to comply with current court orders
Offence committed on licence or post sentence supervision”

www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/tv-licence-payment-evasion-revised-2017/

Band B Fine. Not sure why the word fine dropped out.

Yes you are right this is a good move for women.

A lot of people don't know the law around what the license covers, which isn't their fault, the BBC actually scares them. Ive corrected a few people in the past who thought it also covered receiving radio.

The licence doesn't cover radio or web (other than live) however it does fund all the services including radio.

If the TV licence is dropped then either the funding is supplied by direct taxes or the BBC is opened up to be more commercial and to drop non-profitable services. May see an end to many regional services but such is life. BBC iplayer could be become subscription. Ads on telly/radio same as commercial channels. It looks like something like 75% of BBC income is from licence fees which is a lot to make up commercially and would have a major impact not only on BBC but also the existing commercial channels. Netflix/Amazon/Sky have a lot of cash to focus only on commercial work and spend a lot more on individual productions than the BB can afford. For BBC to compete they need to drop a lot/all of their 'public interest' work and simply focus on what people are willing to pay for (soaps, quizzes, reality TV). Make BBC4 subscription and put new drama on there.

If we make it payable by direct tax (4Bn?) then people will complain it could be better spent elsewhere. So I'd go for making it a fully commercial service operating on its own, though who knows how long it would be before it was bought up by Murdoch or Amazon or some other organisation.

We should never conclude a law is inappropriate just because of the demographic of people is unequal. It then leads to questions like why have a criminal fly tipping law when over 90% of those convicted are men?
Flytipping isn't generally done because someone is bringing children up on their own and is prioritising feeding/keeping their kids warm.

While I agree that not paying your TV license shouldn't land you in jail, I don't see why the government shouldn't foot the bill for public broadcasting services like the BBC. People who are able to afford their TV licence should continue to pay for it, while those who cannot should be able to access it for free. Other financial models can also supplement this framework, like a subscription service for non-UK based viewers, without abandoning the core principle of it being a public broadcaster.

I'd always supported the licence fee until the last couple of years when I saw its coverage of trans issues which can be summed up as 'trans people are brave and stunning'.

The model of the BBC is totally outdated now - I don't know one person on the right or left who wouldn't support decriminalisation of non-payment of the licence fee

£154.50 is a lot of money for some, especially old people and young people who have just moved into their own place.

"Or you could just not watch the BBC?"

Even if you don't watch BBC channels you are still required to pay the fee to watch any live TV channel, even the non-BBC ones.

My idea would be by default the BBC channels would be broadcast encrypted, and anyone who wants to watch them could pay the TV licence fee. That means everyone else is free to watch all the other channels without having to pay anything or worry about legal implications.

We should never conclude a law is inappropriate just because of the demographic of people is unequal.

I agree with this premise on the face of it BUT when the demographic of people falling foul of a law or regulation is so massively skewed to one sex (/ethnicity, faith/culture, age group etc) then it definitely warrants analysis as to why, and review if it becomes clear that the law is directly or indirectly discriminatory in a disproportionate/illegitimate manner.

Good.
In full agreement with this, it’s a disgrace people go to prison for not funding BBCs propaganda

Since last night and reading the thread, I wonder if a fairer system would be to fund the BBC via taxation. So those who are below the taxation level wont have to pay. This would include many pensioners (everyone forgets in the WASPI arguement that those who retired before the changes to the age of retirement are on a lower pension) as well as those struggling on poverty wages.

re catch up being free - in fact they are changing this so you are supposed to have a licence to do this, but stupidly they are just saying to you have one. Unlike Virgin media which gives access to BBC on demand go through a whole time consuming process of actually entering my licence information.

This is what makes me uncomfortable. We should never conclude a law is inappropriate just because of the demographic of people is unequal. It then leads to questions like why have a criminal fly tipping law when over 90% of those convicted are men?

I suggest you look at how people are convicted of these crimes.

90% of men are convicted of fly tipping because, well, 90% of fly tippers are men.

Likewise when it comes to rape, violent crime, etc.

That's as it should be.

Convictions for the following offences are mostly of women:

• Truancy - 73%
• TV licence evasion - 72%
• Cruelty to children - 53%
• Benefit fraud - 52%

For all other offences convictions are mostly of men.

Now for benefit fraud you could say well probably women have more opportunity since the benefits system is weighted towards those with children, so it might make sense that (just) more women than men commit this.

But for TV licensing most offenders are never caught, and it's simply a matter of enforcement. Capita's agents knock on doors to catch people watching TV. Men are more likely to tell them to fuck off, and women are more likely to be at home when they call.

That does not mean the offence is mostly committed by women. It's just that women are the ones caught.

Obviously for truancy and child cruelty there was always a man involved at some point so it might not be fair that mostly women are convicted, but neither offence is so blatantly sexist in its enforcement as licence non-payment - truancy is very easy to identify - if a child doesn't turn up to school that would be noticed very quickly, whereas you can easily watch TV for decades and never be caught.

I tend to agree with you, OP. The fact that women are in prison for non-payment (often, admittedly, repeated non-payment) of the tv licence is a disgrace. It's a crime of poverty - it's not well-off women who aren't paying the licence. And prison has a disproportionate impact on women, because children are left without a mother and may be taken into care.

Unlike a lot of people, however, I cherish the BBC and think, for all its faults, we're incredibly lucky to have it. I haven't come across a broadcaster elsewhere in the world that can match it. So I do worry about it losing a valuable source of income.

I have never quite understood, however, why it can't be funded out of general taxation, like the NHS or schools. Not everyone goes to state schools, or sends their children to them, but we expect all tax-payers to contribute to the education system. Similarly, all taxpayers should contribute to funding our public broadcaster.

Well we never watch live TV and so don't pay the tv license but we do pay for Amazon prime and there are a whole load of BBC programmes on there - so presumably Amazon is paying the BBC for these? It seems that they are already making money through traditional commercial channels.

I really think it's disgusting that women with children go to jail for this with the consequent impact on the children (and cost to the taxpayer). How do they prove they're watching live TV anyway? Unless they force their way into someone's home (which is illegal) how would they know it's live tv versus a video / netflix / other subscription service? I find it difficult to believe they can have incontrovertible proof.It seems more likely that people are jailed for repeatedly failing to deal with fines / administration which means that anyone non NT or just with difficult life problems which mean they don't respond to correspondance in a timely fashion is going to be disproportionately punished.

Unless you have your TV on with the volume turned up and the curtains wide open in the front room, there is no prospect of a conviction.

You do not have to let the Capita busybody in. They cannot come in without your permission. You do not have to answer their questions. And a TV with its aeriel unplugged is totally legal without a licence.

I remember being horrified at a story in the local paper 20+yrs ago. A single mother who lived on the same council estate as my sister was jailed for not affording the fine. Don't remember details butvwas very shocked at the time and shocked it's still happening.

The great disadvantage of the tv licence system is that everyone who has a tv pays the same amount, regardless of whether they're a billionaire or living on universal credit.

And it makes no sense. It probably made sense in the early days, when not everyone had a television, but now everyone does have a television, why not simply pay for the BBC out of general taxation?

AS on another thread looks like the papers are looking to mumsnet to find topics for their articles!

Is scrapping the TV licence a feminist issue? Campaigners say so
www.independent.co.uk/life-style/women/tv-license-scrap-decriminalise-bbc-women-feminist-a9250041.html#r3z-addoor