Are TV licences really necessary?

[Flosshilde]

Flosshilde and Mr GG...why the aggression towards a reasonable post made by Simon?

Because it wasn't a reasonable post. Most of us who don't have a TV know that the Licensing agency don't send 'polite' letters & let the matter drop. They send numerous threatening letters. If Simon received a polite letter & that was it he lives in a parallel world where 'polite' has a different meaning, or a parallel world where a different organisation deals with people who say they don't have a TV.

[agingjb]

Even if the BBC were to be given to some private concern tomorrow, the licence fee on receiving equipment would continue to be charged, probably without concessions of any kind, and simply pocketed by the Treasury.

[Flosshilde]

That's a point that's often forgotten - it's not a permit to watch BBC programmes.

I would be afraid that if it is simply subsumed into general taxation there would be no reason for the government to ring-fence it. Claims that the BBC is a 'public service' would hold no water - look at how other 'public services' - water, railways, energy supply - have been sold off, & other 'public services' being subjected to commercial pressures & opened up to 'private-sector' competition.

[Vile Consort]

It gets me that politicians and others pop up whenever the licence fee is under discussion and claim that it is in effect a tax because nobody can avoid paying it. Rather to my surprise, I have never heard this view challenged.

This attitude then infects the TV Licensing authority. You can almost see the curl of the lip as they thank you for telling them you haven't got a TV, as if to say "either you are lying to us or you are some sort of pervert and we will get you in the end".

[Simon]

Because it's pointless, Simon. One can write and tell them that you don't have a TV but they will still come round to check. They have to. Otherwise all that the evaders have to do is write and tell them the same thing!

Yes, I suppose that's true. As you say, they have to check. They haven't done here yet, as far as anybody knows, though I do recall a couple of years ago giving them the green light to call if they wanted to. Maybe they came when I was away!

[aeolium]

I would be afraid that if it is simply subsumed into general taxation there would be no reason for the government to ring-fence it. Claims that the BBC is a 'public service' would hold no water - look at how other 'public services' - water, railways, energy supply - have been sold off, & other 'public services' being subjected to commercial pressures & opened up to 'private-sector' competition.

That's a plausible argument, although the 'ring-fencing' of the licence fee at present does not stop the government from freezing it and effectively reducing its income in real terms (allowing for inflation) by up to 20% by 2016. Nothing will prevent the government from holding the purse strings, whether or not the income comes from the licence fee or general taxation.

As to selling off parts of the BBC, this was actually recommended for BBC Worldwide in a House of Lords report in early 2010, and was subsequently put under serious consideration by Mark Thompson in his own review of the BBC's services. Privatisation has also been suggested for other services within the BBC at various times and I don't think the presence of the licence fee is a necessary defence against this if there is a sufficiently determined government:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jan/25/lords-report-privatise-bbc-worldwide