will free to air BBC survive past the next election

[Dave2002]

And this news makes it extremely likely that the non-payment of licence fees will be decriminalised at some point in the next year or so.

And also gives an interpretation of the difference between civil and criminal cases:

The difference between a criminal and civil offence is that one leads to a criminal punishment because it is an offence against all of society, while the other seeks to redress a wrong committed by one person against another.

In practice, magistrates don't jail people for criminal failure to pay a TV licence unless they have refused to pay a previous fine. That's because prisons are a last resort - reserved for the worst offenders. However, they do get a criminal record.

If someone commits a civil offence, there will be a finding against them in court that can include an order to make amends, including damages. If that person fails to comply with that order, that's an offence against the court which can lead to jail.

In English law, civil damages are more limited than myth would have it - so a future civil penalty could be no more than the price of a licence fee plus legal costs.

Does this sentence

If that person fails to comply with that order, that's an offence against the court which can lead to jail.

indicate that failure to comply with a court order is a criminal offence?

[french frank]

I'm not sure that imprisonment for non-payment of the court fine is 'nothing to do with the BBC' as the fine was for not paying the licence fee. Those who are imprisoned for not paying, either because of lack of funds or out of principle, are doing so ultimately because of the licence fee. It's like saying that in the case of those who were imprisoned for not paying the poll tax, it was nothing to do with the poll tax.

I had second thoughts about writing 'Nuffink to do wiv us, guv.' Only the quotes remained :-)

[aeolium]

I had second thoughts about writing 'Nuffink to do wiv us, guv.' Only the quotes remained :-)

Anyway, I think the Beeb or the TV Licence people are going to be a bit wary about going after older women who don't pay their licences in a heavy-handed way now, particularly while the review into possible decriminalisation is going on.

Does this sentence
"If that person fails to comply with that order, that's an offence against the court which can lead to jail."
indicate that failure to comply with a court order is a criminal offence?

I am not sure since contempt of court in civil proceedings is different from contempt of court in criminal proceedings (and reportedly there is a lower probability of jail resulting from the former):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court#Criminal_contempt_of_court

[aeolium]

Here are a couple of essays on the state of the BBC and critical views about it from Charlotte Higgins in the Grauniad (I think there may be more to come):

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/apr/15/bbc-origins-future

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/apr/16/the-bbc-there-to-inform-educate-provoke-and-enrage

There is some discussion about the licence fee/subscription debate in the second article.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

the evidence to the HoC Select Ctttee on taxation v license was illuminating; the academics thought it might take several days before Ministers threatened the budget of the BBC if it were funded through taxation; they also pointed out how pernicious top slicing is ... the usual Whitehall funding dodge, nick it from somewhere no one will notice ... what emerged over the course of the Cttee evidence was the essential popularity of the BBC - mess with it at your severe peril ... i suspect the BBC and the NHS are central and sacred icons of our society and culture .... the party that does for them will never be forgiven ... that will not stop them trying ... too many front bench idiots on both sides of the House

[aeolium]

I thought what came through from the academics' evidence to the Select Committee was actually how little evidence they really had, including for instance about the details of people imprisoned for non-payment. As for the points about ministers grabbing funds allocated to the BBC if it were funded through taxation, that is nothing more than speculation and could be countered for instance with safeguards, hypothecation so that any robbery would have to be out in the open, in parliament. And after all, what has happened with the so-called independent licence fee: a real-terms 20% cut, including the rollout of digital in the BBC obligations, including support for the World Service in the BBC when it was previously funded by Foreign Office grant (another effective cut in the BBC's funding)? Not much robbery there

As for the "essential popularity of the BBC", that is not really at issue. Warding off all criticism does no institution any favours when criticism is merited. Not only are there serious concerns about the quality levels in the BBC, but also its sheer scope (as Paxman mentioned in the second of those Higgins articles). There seems to be nothing off-limits as far as it is concerned, so that stuff that really ought to be done by the commercial sector is being done by the BBC. And with technological change there are real questions as to how the licence fee - which is indeed a regressive tax - can be sustained. These questions won't go away.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

you misread me
the BBC is popular because it is popular not because of the management .... that was evidence the academics had; alas i feel their suspicions as to politicians and civil service budgets are fully justified [ever followed the MoD procurement fiascos? Treasury Mandarins will slice Peter and Paul quite mindlessly]

if i want to read a critique of the BBC the authors of the Graun pieces which i have read do not approach the level of analysis and rigour required ..

what was clear from the evidence that there were exceptionally few imprisonments for failing to pay the fine for failing to pay the license, and that such an outcome would be heavily influenced by a context of non payment of several/many fines per annum somewhere less than 20 custodial sentences [of unknown severity and actual durati0on and for what combined range of misdemeanours is unknown] is my recollection

what was also clear is that the woman who had worked for Sky was uttering ideological assertions and that the other witnesses were concerned at the sources and influences at work in the stories of grannies in the nick and so on .... Rothermere Murdoch Guardian Media Group Trinity Express take yer pick .... just as with the NHS the vultures of private profit are pecking pecking pecking ...

the BBC is a popular national institution of immense importance, that is why it must be criticised ... but not by lackeys of the right wing press and the other stooges of private profit ... i do not find the BBC too liberal at all, rather too orthodox right of centre, too London and too middle class and quite likely too bloody Oxbridge as well as too big .... but then i could have said that at any time since 1945 .... except now one has to mean it


the purposes and charter of the BBC are pretty fine; the Trust and the Management are abominations and keeping politicians out of the BBC a top priority [a major vulnerability and never so threatening in my experience - the present generation of politicians are so callow and Oxbridge SPAD they do not see, taste or smell the damage they cause; their PPE induced analyses in their own interest will always appear the best thing to do]

it is a major challenge to keep politicians out of the running, with their hands off the budgets of our major national institutions ... something Hall is trying to say in his references to John Lewis and mutual ownership but i doubt he will attack the auto aggrandisement of managing AUNT; the self nominated indispensability of such as Yentob ... Hall is one of the boys

the very interesting thing about the NHS and the BBC is that they belong to the people; not the Government, not the State, not the City, not the Royals and no Duke owns their acreage - servants and friends of the people and not for private profit - the real question is why such bodies prove so interminably difficult for our establishment to manage?

[aeolium]

the very interesting thing about the NHS and the BBC is that they belong to the people; not the Government, not the State, not the City, not the Royals and no Duke owns their acreage - servants and friends of the people and not for private profit - the real question is why such bodies prove so interminably difficult for our establishment to manage?

But that is a kind of rhetorical statement (I mean about the BBC). The people do not have any say in how the BBC operates or how it is funded - in what meaningful sense does it "belong" to them? And one answer to your question might be that both institutions have grown to be unmanageably large.

As to the popularity of the BBC, that does not extend to the licence fee. Regular surveys have shown that there is a real difference between (higher) support for the licence fee among ABC social groups, with some saying they are prepared to pay more, and (lower) support for it among DE lower-income groups, with also a south-north divide in relative support. See for instance this.

You cannot keep politicians out of the running of the BBC - it's too important an institution. You think no politicians were involved in the setting of the current licence fee, or the BBC's involvement in digital rollout, or the shifting of responsibility for the World Service? What you could do is to make the involvement of politicians controlled and regulated under statute, and transparent, not cloak-and-dagger as at present.

[Ariosto]

Very interesting Guardian articles, and the history of the BBC.

One thing that is often overlooked. The Licence Fee is only payable if you use a TV set for live programmes. If you are penniless then you can stop watching and either sell the set or put it in the attic or similar. Or get programmes on a public or own computer using catch up TV.

[french frank]

Here are a couple of essays on the state of the BBC and critical views about it from Charlotte Higgins in the Grauniad (I think there may be more to come):

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/apr/15/bbc-origins-future

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/apr/16/the-bbc-there-to-inform-educate-provoke-and-enrage

There is some discussion about the licence fee/subscription debate in the second article.

(I liked the note that it was necessary to amend the spelling of 'Radio 1Xtra" :-) )

Also:

The earliest parliamentary committee on broadcasting, the Sykes Committee of 1923, rejected funding the BBC from general taxation precisely on the grounds that not everyone used the service. "If practically every taxpayer were a ‘listener’ there might be no injustice in meeting the cost of broadcasting out of taxation. But it would not, we consider, be right that the general body of taxpayers should be required to pay for the daily service which only those possessing wireless sets can enjoy."

I can confirm from recent contact with TVL (Capita) that the assumption is now that everyone does use a television set. Ergo ...?

[Beef Oven!]

I tried to watch a news item on the BBC iPlayer this morning in Istanbul, and quickly realised that I couldn't. On searching for a workaround, I came across this

IMV, the challenge of future funding is being approached in an un imaginative way, given that the preferred option is to move from a type UK of poll tax to a type of UK income tax.

The BBC is a global player. There's a lot of users out there, and even more potential users!

We live in a global world economy and entrepreneurial options may well solve the problem, but only if we are open-minded and modern-thinking.

[teamsaint]

I tried to watch a news item on the BBC iPlayer this morning in Istanbul, and quickly realised that I couldn't. On searching for a workaround, I came across this

IMV, the challenge of future funding is being approached in an un imaginative way, given that the preferred option is to move from a type UK of poll tax to a type of UK income tax.

The BBC is a global player. There's a lot of users out there, and even more potential users!

We live in a global world economy and entrepreneurial options may well solve the problem, but only if we are open-minded and modern-thinking.

That really is funny, nice one Beefy.

We?

You mean They?

And why on earth would they want to be open minded and modern thinking?
Is there a precedent?
Is it in their interests?
Will it help control us more?