Dear Sir,
I have submitted my response to the Government’s Consultation on decriminalising the BBC Licence Fee. The consultation period ends at 5PM on 1st April. I thought you could be interested in my views, and to put them in Independence Daily if you so wish.
I am over 16 and have read through the whole of the consultation document and my response to the five questions posed is as below.
Question 1: Should TV licence evasion (the use or installation of a television receiver without a TV licence) no longer be a criminal offence? Why do you consider that TV licence evasion should no longer be a criminal offence?
TV Licence evasion should continue to be a criminal offence. For my reasons see answer to Q2.
Question 2: If, alternatively, you consider that TV licence evasion should remain a criminal offence, why is this the case?
TV licence evasion should continue to be a criminal offence because to fiddle around changing the nature of the offence now when there are far more substantial issues concerning the future of the BBC that should be addressed first. To focus on the nature of the offence is akin to fiddling while Rome burns. For further analysis see answer to Question 5.
Question 3: If you have a view, what alternative enforcement scheme models do you consider to be most appropriate? Why?
Not applicable in light of my answers to Questions 1 and 2, see answer to Question 5.
Question 4: What steps could the Government take to mitigate any impacts that may result from decriminalisation of TV licence evasion?
Not applicable in light of my answers to Questions 1 and 2, see answer to Question 5.
Question 5: Please provide any evidence you consider appropriate in answering these questions and any other information that you believe the Government should consider, especially where there is an impact on those with protected characteristics or the most vulnerable.
In this rapidly changing world of television and radio broadcasting from ground based and satellite transmitters, and multicasting via the internet, the context in which the BBC operates is already substantially different from that at the time of the last Charter review. The Communications Act of 2003 was passed when to inform, educate and entertain as practiced then now seems a world away: the many programme repeats giving an insight into as it was then, and to an earlier age.
In that context, to consider whether failure to pay the Licence Fee should be a criminal offence or a civil offence is to fiddle with trivia. I accept not trivial for those that this Consultation rightly highlights as “where there is an impact on those with protected characteristics or the most vulnerable”, but I would argue their interests can be better served by other means, as I will argue below.
Firstly, we should ask if the nation should have a Public Service Broadcaster. I take it as read that the answer is YES, and the BBC is to fulfil that role.
Secondly, we should ask what is the scope of that role. This is difficult to answer meaningfully because the simple answer is “what ever you want it to be”. But if the BBC is to be funded by some means or other by the state, i.e. it is not a commercial business required to fund its own activities, answer there must be. In simple terms the more it is required to do the more it costs to run.
Once upon a time there was only the BBC, which had to be all things to all men. Now it is but one of many. I was impressed by David Attenborough when he said that there should be no area into which the BBC should not go, but that the amount of coverage of any one area should be limited: breadth in preference to depth.
Looking at current BBC output I would say there is too much depth and not enough breadth. In areas where there is good coverage I cannot see the need for the BBC to have more than one programme. This contrasts with other areas that the BBC have never addressed.
The BBC World Service is a special case that should continue.
Once upon a time BBC Engineering led the World, such as FM stereo, and I think it is a shame such initiatives have been abandoned.
Standards have slipped since the days of Lord Reith. The BBC should be about quality, not quantity. Aim to be the best of all broadcasters.
And BBC scope should be as a broadcaster, NOT a streaming service via the Internet. The BBC does need to have a web site and on-line presence, but that should be to supplement the broadcasts not to extend the scope. NOTE that while broadcasts can be received throughout the whole of the UK, internet connections of comparable quality do not have close to the same coverage, and for the more remote areas unlikely to for the foreseeable future. There are those, such as some of the elderly, who can turn on a radio or TV but do not have a computer and would not know how to use it if they did; they should not be excluded from, for instance, BBC3.
Thirdly there must be a means of funding the BBC to cover the scope required of it. The members of the Public are going to pay for this one way or another. A balance needs to be struck between what could be required of an extensive BBC and what we, the Public, think is a reasonable cost.
Given that there are now so many broadcast and internet options it seems to me the BBC is unnecessarily large. If the cost was seen to be reasonable by the Public and it was paid by the tax payer via the Government to the BBC, i.e. out of taxation, then there would be no licence fee and everyone would be happy. There would be no special hardship cases to considered. Administrative cost running and enforcing the Licence Fee system would not arise. The courts would have no involvement. And what ever the cost it has to be better value for money.
I appreciate that such a major change would require major consultation and could not happen quickly. I note the legislative timescales described, but new legislation can be introduced to replace existing.
Certainly, to make a minor change to the current Licence Fee system seems to me a waste of time, effort and money when far more substantial changes can be made to a much greater benefit for all of us.
The BBC were World pioneers and are part of our British heritage. But standards are falling, not helped by Government strong arming the BBC to take over the responsibility for the licence for the over-75s.
So, stop wasting time and effort on a minor issue that should be dealt with as part of a wide ranging re-casting of the BBC as our National broadcaster funded out of general taxation. And in so doing cut out unnecessary costs, eliminate any reason to be concerned for “those with protected characteristics or the most vulnerable”, emphasise quality over quantity and encourage and allow the BBC to be great again.
Respectfully, Alan Wheatley
I feel most strongly that the licence fee should be decriminalised. Recently, after many years, I took out a BBC licence again. I did this because I have someone else now living in my house and they might, inadvertently, do something that would render me liable for prosecution. The only BBC thing I’ve watched for many a year is football, in the pub. The days when people in South Africa would go to Britain on holiday and revel in watching BBC TV are long gone. It speaks for itself. Now that I have a license I do sometimes watch some of the older programmes on YouTube.
The sort of thing I’d like to see, were I to watch BBC TV again, is feature explaining in detail how it is, when Communist China builds new coal power stations one after the other to become the world’s biggest single carbon ‘polluter’ (the plants are loving it) and at an ever increasing rate, that we in GB are going to ‘save’ the planet by dynamiting even more of our coal power stations and doing away with all diesel and petrol cars. (Look up the numbers, in the light of what China is doing the difference we’d make to carbon ‘emissions’, globally, is utterly negligible).
If the BBC overlords did decide to do this and were wondering where to start, I’d suggest first follow the carbon (the motivation).
Thanks to having (before Trump came along) the cheapest electricity in the world and unlimited slave labour Communist China has become, or perhaps is becoming (not sure if they’re quite there yet) the worlds biggest manufacturer, a first step to becoming the world’s greatest military power.
And to have the cheapest electricity in the world, everyone else’s must be more expensive. Right?
Second, follow the money.
Obviously, for China to achieve this (and it is being achieved and it appears there’s no stopping it as things are at the moment) some money needs to be changing hands and lots of nests need to be feathered, especially if they’re not to be seen doing this. The whole Global Warming swindle can’t be cheap to run!
I must be honest, waiting to see such a BBC programme would be like waiting to see pigs fly, so until then, if I watch anything from the BBC on YouTube it’s likely to be something like this.
We do not watch TV in any shape or form. In particular we find the BBC, as seen via Radio4, thoroughly politically biased to the left. However, the point is that however the BBC collects its licence fee, we insist on having the right to opt out. Getting the licence fee automatically added to your broadband bill is a fiddle, and typical of the current left wing mindset. It can not take challenge, or scrutiny, believes in the absolute infallibility of it’s opinions, and discounts anyone who disagrees as an inferior being. The left wing broadcasting mindset prefers to gets its way by manipulating the rules, mixing their politics in with the programmes, using “personalities” and “status individuals” such as Attenborough to lead public opinion wherever they choose. It is highly proficient at disseminating propaganda.
What’s needed is a monitoring of the organisation by all shades of political opinion, and the rooting out of those at the top who are currently corrupting it’s traditional role in order to push their own agendas. In view of the considerable number of channels, the only fair way to support the TV system is to create a method of paying for what you view, to the channel concerned…..and certainly not with all the money going to the BBC.
Alan,
I’m not sure where the answer to Q5 ended and your opinions started., However.
the BBC is overfunded for its actual value, and is aware of it and hides it. So it knows it’s guilty and would probably welcome a return to its old reputation. Like Hansard, ONS and many other British institutions. It used to be listened to and believed. The whole world would have been grateful for that.. There is no need to dabble in sewage. Let others copy or mock. The Reputation ifs beyond value to the whole world. The BBC has devalued itself. Let it cure itself byshowing them what is needed. It probably uses PR or polls to show how to become ‘popular’
The whole world wants Truth and honesty and value and now.
The net is eating away at good, real, and basic
Facts are one thing <Opinion is another, entertainment is popular and everywhere and valueless. Gossip is the .net The popularity of the net is down to a lack of anchor of the truth.
I think…
One thing however is quite clear, The hands of politics are dirty and must not be allowed near. However exhalted.So, not tax.
T G If you don’t have an opinion then you do not have an answer.
For a public service broadcaster, say the BBC, there are two issue: where does the money come from; what do they do with the money.
All the bad issues relating to the licence fee are avoided by the money coming out of general taxation.
All the bad issues as to what the public service broadcaster, say the BBC, does with the money is down to the Government, as it is they who write the Charter which lays down what the BBC can and can not do. As long as the Charter concept remains we can, at least in theory, control how the BBC spends the money it receives by putting pressure on the Government. By contrast we, the public, can not put pressure on commercial broadcasters, other than not to watch their broadcasts; that leads to them only broadcasting programmes that are popular with the consequence that minority interests are ignored.
There is no quick fix, but simply scrapping the Licence Fee gets us nowhere. The criminal offence consultation is a sideshow.
Alan,Mmmmm,
Perhaps we could seperate ‘ Having a telly,. ‘ or ‘ Allocating Channels’ or whatever from other purposes.Which can then be subdivided to specific channels.There can then be Payment for different purposes by different means.. eg. a VAT rate on tv sets etc.
The problem as always is the deliberate blurring of lines for profit or advantage but if the demarcation is cost effective or non cost effective to blurr lines . You know what I mean.Move prices to move lines.[ is a Nigel speech political or humour ]. ..Have both it’s only another £5 a year.. Sort of thing. THEN you get bureaucrats. Bound to. Like ….
Sorry Mike .below. Why do I read these things from the top. One would almost certainly find a select committee had examined these issues. But we do have many examples in Brit of these public/pricvate companies like the mint etc.and ex Quangos.
A Licence Fee is a most stupid and out-dated business model. – If Government requires a National Broadcaster, then let it be via taxation, although this requirement could be met by an addition to broadcasting law, for all channels that are Nationally generated !
The Parliament Channel could be broken off from the BBC, and serve as the voice of Government, while the rest of the BBC could be required to generate its own income, as the other channels do. – At present, there are folk who do not use any BBC output, yet pay a fee to them, which is totally stupid. – The fee is for ownership of the set, rather than use of BBC output. – A business model that the Mafia would be proud of !
This fee should have been axed at the same time as the cessation of the Radio Licence, or when ITV started to broadcast !
when in the last 20 years has the bbc not been biased ? it’s money to a large extent and the views it broadcasts are all directed by the eu, I have not paid the tax for close to 20 years as I don’t need to be battered by to the most extent by biased views or to support over paid presenters
As a matter of principle, people should not be forced to pay for something they don’t want. And I certainly don’t want the Brussels Broadcasting Corporation.
We Brits should be thankful, though; in Germany there are two public broadcasters to be paid for, ARD and ZDF. On the “logic” of those advocating compulsory financing, HMG could even set up a public service newspaper. It could be called Pravda.
George, when we pay our taxes we are paying for things we do not need. The BBC as a Public Service Broadcaster can be one tiny bit more, and those who have the most pay the most.
Jake, the only way the BBC can be “self funding” is as a commercial business, which is completely at odds with being a Public Service Broadcaster.
One more commercial broadcaster is neither here nor there. One less Public Service Broadcaster is no Public Service Broadcaster.
It is a choice we may have to make.
The Government writes the Charter by which the BBC operates and they appoint the Director General, so you are right to point to their shortcomings.
Decriminalising the licence fee alone is not the answer in itself as the author outlines. But decriminalising the licence fee now as well as giving the BBC five years to become self funding in whatever way it can with whatever programme/service content it considers appropriate to meet that commercial objective is something I would give serious consideration.
Unfortunately, that is not going to happen. The Tories are playing games on the BBC issue just like they have done with law and order and immigration. For four or five decades now they have banged on about these two issues before elections to appeal to the credulous to vote for them and then once in power quietly drop the issue.
The BBC may at times be just as useful to the Tory agenda as it is to the Guardianistas with theirs.