Age-related TV licence policy

[Old Grumpy]

Thanks, Richard, for the explanation. I have read Scoop, but it was many years ago!

I think what the BBC are doing is fair, but don't see why it should come out of their budget, the cost should be met out of taxation.

OG

[agingjb]

I have had a free TV licence for 5 years. Now, I am to be charged again. And if my declining intellect is not capable of setting up the direct debit, I shall be harassed and perhaps arrested.

If I am capable of continuing to defend the BBC for the remaining good programmes it provides, then I shall not bother.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

The free TV license for over-75s was a piece of government social policy introduced by Gordon Brown - shoving it onto the BBC to pick up - or take the reputational hit for cancelling - as George Osborne did - was unfair and unreasonable. Finding themselve in this situation, a reasonable compromise, using a government not a BBC definition of poverty, as a lot of over-75's don't actually need a free TV license, and why 75?

I think the 75 cut-off is strange. Surely the state pension ago should be the determining factor, but based on income, rather than being a universal handout.

[french frank]

I think what the BBC are doing is fair, but don't see why it should come out of their budget, the cost should be met out of taxation.

If HMG, with all its trillions, can't afford any longer to fund the free TV licences which THEY introduced, how do they now expect the BBC to do so? All they're doing is diverting the blame from themselves to the BBC.

I think the 75 cut-off is strange. Surely the state pension ago should be the determining factor, but based on income, rather than being a universal handout.

I don't see why it should be age-related at all, especially when households which happen to have one elderly person have been exempt from paying. If television is considered a necessity (as appears to be the case) then free licences should go to poorer households, elderly or not. Out of taxation.

[Dave2002]

Does Dave mean he agrees up to a point....or does he disagree, because, in "Scoop", what Mr Salter meant by "Up to a point, Lord Copper" was in fact "No, Lord Copper" (Definitely, Lord Copper" meant "Yes")....? (One of those things like the curate's egg which is frequently misunderstood - I'm assuming Dave disagrees with you )

Richard - "Up to a point, Lord Copper". Yes - you got the details correct.

Whereas OG suggests this "solution" is fair, my view is that HMG is trying to get the BBC to deal with a situation which it itself has created, and to take the blame for any fall out. I suppose that it's not unreasonable for the BBC to use factors such as whether people are on benefits as a criterion for having a free licence - other organisations do similar things. ENO, for example give concessions to people who have some benefits - such as job seekers allowance, as well as students etc., so eligibility for either freebies or reduced price offers does not have to be defined by governments.

In the past I've suggested that there shouldn't be a TV licence at all, and the costs should be dealt with out of general taxation. That would raise other issues, and not necessarily lead to better outcomes. However, it would be administratively simple, as there would be no need to hassle people for a fee and there would be no need to introduce rules for older people, poor people, disadvantaged people etc. There would be concerns about government control - and funding levels, and fair competition between different media companies, though we have those already.

[DracoM]

<< If HMG, with all its trillions, can't afford any longer to fund the free TV licences which THEY introduced, how do they now expect the BBC to do so? All they're doing is diverting the blame from themselves to the BBC. >>

Indeed, FF. Totally agree.

[french frank]

In the past I've suggested that there shouldn't be a TV licence at all, and the costs should be dealt with out of general taxation.

That would be my preference - with a completely independent statutory body set up (not a unique situation) to set the level of funding for the BBC, to which the BBC would be expected to make its case for what it claims it needs. [With a proviso that the government Should Not Interfere, Procrastinate or Veto]

[Old Grumpy]

Richard - "Up to a point, Lord Copper". Yes - you got the details correct.

Whereas OG suggests this "solution" is fair, my view is that HMG is trying to get the BBC to deal with a situation which it itself has created, and to take the blame for any fall out. I suppose that it's not unreasonable for the BBC to use factors such as whether people are on benefits as a criterion for having a free licence - other organisations do similar things. ENO, for example give concessions to people who have some benefits - such as job seekers allowance, as well as students etc., so eligibility for either freebies or reduced price offers does not have to be defined by governments.

In the past I've suggested that there shouldn't be a TV licence at all, and the costs should be dealt with out of general taxation. That would raise other issues, and not necessarily lead to better outcomes. However, it would be administratively simple, as there would be no need to hassle people for a fee and there would be no need to introduce rules for older people, poor people, disadvantaged people etc. There would be concerns about government control - and funding levels, and fair competition between different media companies, though we have those already.

Rapid post via a Smartphone. As qualified in #46, I would prefer to see this funded out of taxation. I still think that in the circumstances thrust upon them by HMG, the BBC have made a decision that is fair both to over 75s and under 75s (myself included) who pay the licence fee.

OG

[Frances_iom]

I still think that in the circumstances thrust upon them by HMG, the BBC have made a decision that is fair both to over 75s and under 75s (myself included) who pay the licence fee.

Even tho as a non-TV owner or viewer I think the decision by the BBC is utterly stupid (tho arising from yet another 'clever' decision by a pair of old Etonians who have managed to do major damage to the fabric of our society) - should we now expect the ROH or your local cinema to give free admittance to to any pensioner in receipt of pension credit - the BBC is supposed to be operated at arms length and in the business of providing national TV + Radio not as a branch of the social services

[french frank]

Even tho as a non-TV owner or viewer I think the decision by the BBC is utterly stupid

The argument that free licences for all over 75s would cost the BBC 20% of their budget seems quite a compelling one.

should we now expect the ROH or your local cinema to give free admittance to to any pensioner in receipt of pension credit

I think the case was that anyone over the age of 75 is incapable of doing anything except sitting in front of a television set, so at least offer them their one pleasure in life. The basic is point is possibly arguable, however.

the BBC is supposed to be operated at arms length and in the business of providing national TV + Radio not as a branch of the social services

Exactly.

[Bryn]

Even tho as a non-TV owner or viewer I think the decision by the BBC is utterly stupid (tho arising from yet another 'clever' decision by a pair of old Etonians who have managed to do major damage to the fabric of our society) - should we now expect the ROH or your local cinema to give free admittance to to any pensioner in receipt of pension credit - the BBC is supposed to be operated at arms length and in the business of providing national TV + Radio not as a branch of the social services

"Educate, inform, entertain." That does look pretty much like a social service, to me.

[Frances_iom]

"Educate, inform, entertain." That does look pretty much like a social service, to me.

playing with words - so is refuse collection but most property occupiers are charged - it was the arms' length that was damaged (tho admit Blair's guard dog Campbell had already used a wrecking ball on the Beeb's editorial independence)

[Dave2002]

"Educate, inform, entertain." That does look pretty much like a social service, to me.

Coronation Street (ITV), Eastenders, Countdown (C4), Homes under the hammer etc. Vital viewing clearly for those who haven't got anything better to do. I suppose these are entertainment. Not all are broadcast by the BBC, though curioiusly if you look at the way broadcasts are done these days some programmes would seem to be comissioned by the BBC, but then broadcast by other companies. Media companies have been fragmented - rather like the railway system - presumably based on some odd economic/business model.

Why shouldn't other companies be supported by the licence fee, so that they didn't have to put on those dreadful adverts - which neverthess are sometimes useful for calls of nature, and tea breaks? Arguably the BBC has become too big, and the business model seems bust, and maybe that's why its costs are now so high.

[oddoneout]

Coronation Street (ITV), Eastenders, Countdown (C4), Homes under the hammer etc. Vital viewing clearly for those who haven't got anything better to do. I suppose these are entertainment. Not all are broadcast by the BBC, though curioiusly if you look at the way broadcasts are done these days some programmes would seem to be comissioned by the BBC, but then broadcast by other companies. Media companies have been fragmented - rather like the railway system - presumably based on some odd economic/business model.

Why shouldn't other companies be supported by the licence fee, so that they didn't have to put on those dreadful adverts - which neverthess are sometimes useful for calls of nature, and tea breaks? Arguably the BBC has become too big, and the business model seems bust, and maybe that's why its costs are now so high.

Which presumably makes money for the BBC, but doesn't always do much for the quality of the programmes at either end of the process. The insertion of commercial breaks can be clunky to say the least and lead to some continuity problems, while the programmes now being made with that use in mind have narrative gaps in them followed by recaps(at least I assume that is the reason for that structure), which is tedious when viewed on a non-commercial platform.

[alycidon]

OK, so whether or not you agree with the premise of free TV for the over 75s, consider this. My wife tends not to watch much television but rightly insists on seeing the gardening programmes - namely, Gardeners’ World, and Beechgrove (a Scottish offering).

At the end of last Thursday’s Beechgrove the team told us that they would be absent from our screens until late July - we understand - to make way for sport, as usual. This is an half-hour programme, once a week - probably not watched by a vast number, but important to those who have an interest in gardening. So the main growing weeks of the summer have been cancelled and by the time the programme is back most of the growing season will be over.

A few days’ later we then learn that our free licence is to be revoked. Can you imagine the distress this is causing in our household. Mrs A is livid because she can’t watch one of the few programmes she really enjoys, and I am livid because as usual with the BBC, sport trumps anything else in the way of regular items.

So thank you BBC, but you know what? We have come to expect this cavalier treatment from your rotten organisation!