12% of Court Cases are for Licence Fee Evasion

[Teddy Bear]

Another very good reason to privatise the BBC instead of letting it continue to tie up the courts for those who don't want to pay the licence fee.

Consider the lack of morality and ethics we see as the norm for the BBC, and the fact that the public is still forced to pay for it, then you will see the real state of this country.

TV licence offences account for one in ten UK court cases
The BBC was responsible for more than one in ten criminal prosecutions last year as the number of people taken to court for non payment of their television licence reached a new high.

By Martin Evans

More than 180,000 people – almost 3,500 a week – appeared before the Magistrates Courts, accused of watching television without a valid £145.50 licence.

The figure has been steadily rising as TV Licensing, which is responsible for catching and prosecuting non payers, improves its ability to identify those responsible and becomes more determined in its approach.

But with Magistrates handling a total of 1.48 million cases last year, it means that around 12 per cent of their workload is now being made up of TV licensing offences.

The rise in prosecutions also comes against the backdrop of the BBC executive pay-off scandal, which saw the Corporation pay £60 million in severance deals – enough to pay more than 412,000 licences.

Anyone who watches television as it is being broadcast must have a valid television licence for their home regardless of whether they watch it on the internet or on a traditional TV set.

However it is possible to claim an exemption if you can demonstrate that you only watch television programmes via the various catch up systems available on the internet, such as the BBC’s iPlayer.
Last year a total of 155,000 people were convicted of not having a valid licence and received a fine as a result.

But unlike the non-payment of utility bills and parking tickets which are treated as civil matters, those who refuse to pay the television licence receive a criminal record.

The maximum penalty for non-payment is a £1,000 fine, but anyone who refuses to pay, or is unable to pay the fine can end up in prison.
In recent years at least 70 people have been jailed for non-payment of fines associated with TV licensing offences.

There are now growing calls for TV licensing issues to be dealt with as civil prosecutions in order to free up the courts to handle more serious matters.

Lord Pearson, the UKIP leader in the House of Lords is sponsoring a bill to decriminalise the non-payment of the licence fee.
He said: “It is outrageous that so many people are brought in to the criminal justice system through this means. I believe that non payment should be treated in the way that parking tickets are. It is absurd that the courts are being clogged up by such a minor offence.”

While BBC services remain popular with millions of TV viewers and radio listeners, there is mounting anger over the cost of the licence measured against financial waste at the Corporation.

Tory MP Steve Barclay, who is a member of the Public Accounts Select Committee, which has closely scrutinised spending at the BBC, said: “It is interesting to look at these figures against the backdrop of the recent vast pay offs made to BBC executives.

“The average pay-off was in excess of £164,000, with some executives getting more than £1 million in severance deals. Meanwhile you have hard working people being taken to court and given criminal records for non payment of their licence fee.”

A spokesman for TV Licensing said: “We have a duty to enforce the law on behalf of the 95 per cent of people who pay. TV Licence evasion cases take up a small proportion of court time as they are dealt with in bulk in dedicated sessions and very few people attend court.

“When we visit an unlicensed property, a statement is taken from any responsible adult our Enquiry Officer speaks to and it is that person who becomes liable to face prosecution for evading the licence fee.”
Regarding the number of people who now watch television via the internet on catch up channels, the spokesman added: “Well under 2 per cent of adults only consume catch up TV in a typical week, although over the course of a year may watch some live TV and therefore still need a licence.”

But the growing backlash against the licence fee has also been fuelled by various scandals at the Corporation, including the revelations over the Jimmy Savile sex abuse cover up.
In 2010, Charles Moore, the former editor of The Daily Telegraph was ordered to pay £807 in fines and costs after refusing to pay his television licence on a point of principle.

Mr Moore had accused the BBC of a “gross violation of its charter”, by broadcasting obscene phone calls made by Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand to the former Fawlty Towers actor Andrew Sachs.
He informed the TV Licensing Authority of his intention not to pay his licence until the BBC terminated the contract of Jonathan Ross, who at the time was one of the Corporation’s most highly paid stars.
Appearing at Hastings Magistrates’ Court Mr Moore explained that he had informed the authorities of his intention not to pay the licence fee so there was no question of evasion.

But the Magistrate said it was not for the court to decide whether the BBC had broken its charter.

[Teddy Bear]

An excellent response in The Telegraph to the above article, short of getting rid of the licence fee altogether, which would be my action. But it would make a good start.

A criminal waste of taxpayers’ money

Why should failure to pay for a TV licence attract a criminal penalty?
The BBC’s claim to the fee can be substantiated only if it informs, educates and entertains at a higher level than would be possible if it were a commercial enterprise

By Telegraph View

Figures from the Ministry of Justice show, staggeringly, that nearly one in 10 prosecutions brought before the magistrates’ courts in England and Wales last year was for non-payment of the TV licence fee. Around 180,000 people received a criminal record for this offence, which carries a maximum fine of £1,000. It appears to be the most common crime dealt with by JPs. This is madness – not least at a time when the Government is anxious to reduce court costs.

Why should failure to pay this particular charge – currently £145.50 – attract a criminal penalty, unlike, for instance, a gas or electricity bill? It should be a matter for civil disposal, by way of a fixed-penalty notice. Even “real” crimes such as shoplifting goods up to the value of £200 and vandalism of up to £500 are now dealt with in this way.

True, it is an offence not to pay a tax; but the BBC has always denied that the licence fee is a tax, so that won’t wash either.
The Magistrates’ Association has been pressing successive governments for years to decriminalise non-payment, and it is hard to understand why the existing state of affairs has been allowed to continue.

Whenever such a change is suggested, however, the BBC objects in the strongest terms. But why should the corporation be allowed to dictate the law of the land? Evidently, it fears that if non-payment is decriminalised then the number of people refusing to cough up will grow rapidly – and this may well be right, given public anger over the way the BBC has spent so much paying its own executives and building new media centres.

The truth is that, in a digital age, no one entertainment provider enjoys a monopoly on our viewing habits worthy of exclusive subsidy – and it is hard to justify a compulsory charge for owning a television set when people now use it to do many more things than just watch the BBC live. The levy is unique in the civilised world and the paternalistic justification used by Sir John Reith for imposing it no longer applies.

The BBC’s claim to the fee can be substantiated only if it informs, educates and entertains at a higher level than would be possible if it were a commercial enterprise. Once the corporation began routinely to make the same sort of demotic programmes as its rivals, the proposition that this should be underpinned by a national levy became hard to defend.

Even if no political party has the courage to challenge the BBC and insist that it should be subsidised in future by subscription, the very least that ministers should do is to end the criminalisation of thousands of people for not paying the licence fee.

[Teddy Bear]

The Mail offers a few more snippets, in particular this one:
The data from the Ministry of Justice also showed that women are disproportionately affected, being involved in two thirds of the prosecutions brought.

The TV Licensing authority told City AM that the gender imbalance was due to women being more likely to be at home when inspectors call.

Notice how they avoid stating that most of the women are single mothers.

About 3,000 people a WEEK prosecuted for not having a TV licence (and there are calls for it to be treated like a parking ticket)

• Figures show women are disproportionately represented in prosecutions
  
• TV Licensing authority says they are more likely in when inspectors call

By Daily Mail Reporter

More than a tenth of criminal prosecutions - nearly 3,500 a week - are brought against people offences related to the TV licence, it emerged today.

More than 180,000 people were hauled before magistrates last year after being accused of watching television without paying the £145.50 fee, which funds the BBC.

The former leader of the UK Independence Party today called the figures 'absurd' and 'horrifying' and called for reform to make non-payment a civil rather than criminal offence.

UKIP peer Lord Pearson of Rannoch said: 'It is outrageous that so many people are brought in to the criminal justice system through this means.

'I believe that non payment should be treated in the way that parking tickets are.

'It is absurd that the courts are being clogged up by such a minor offence.'

The shocking figures were released in response to a parliamentary question tabled by Lord Laird.

Magistrates dealt with 1.48million cases in 2012, meaning that 12 per cent of cases heard in such courts were related to the TV licence.

Of these cases, 155,000 ended in a conviction. The maximum penalty of £1,000, with any who refuse to pay facing jail.

The data from the Ministry of Justice also showed that women are disproportionately affected, being involved in two thirds of the prosecutions brought.

The TV Licensing authority told City AM that the gender imbalance was due to women being more likely to be at home when inspectors call.

A spokeswoman for the Ministry of Justice said around 193,000 defendants had proceedings taken against them for TV licence evasion in England and Wales last year.

She added: 'Most TV licensing cases that are heard by magistrates' courts are uncontested and the case is therefore often resolved in the defendant's absence.

'However, as part of our ongoing work to make court processes more efficient, we are looking at the best ways to manage high-volume, low-level cases such as TV licence evasion.'

[Teddy Bear]

MP Douglas Carswell writes an excellent piece in the Telegraph. I hope he'll actually pursue it in parliament.

The BBC’s mid-twentieth century TV poll tax should be consigned to the history books
By Douglas Carswell

The Director General of the BBC, (Lord) Tony Hall, earns a reported £450,000 a year; or the equivalent of 3,103 license fees.
National Audit Office figures show that £25 million (172,413 license fees) has been used to pay off senior managers leaving the Beeb over the past three years.

Meanwhile, we now discover that more than one in ten court cases in the country are the result of people being prosecuted for not paying the license fee. Our courts, it seems, have become a tool used by the state-broadcaster to collect revenue. Public broadcasting that prosecutes the public.

“But the BBC fulfils a social role!” a Leftie told me on Twitter. Since when was prosecuting low-income households a useful social role? It is a disgrace.

Imagine, for a moment, the uproar there would be if Sky were to prosecute that many people for non-payment of Sky subscriptions? But then, of course, if folk cannot afford to pay Sky subs, they just don’t pay. No one comes after them in a court.
So why not extend the same principle to the BBC? Make it a subscription service.

Lefties keep on telling us how popular the BBC is. The Corporation's output is, they say, second to none. In which case, the BBC would have no difficulty in persuading us to pay for its services. The BBC should generate revenue by persuading willing customers to pay for its output, just like any other media outlet.

Digital technology gives us almost unlimited choice over what we can watch and listen too. So why do we still fund the BBC using a mid-twentieth century TV poll tax?

[Teddy Bear]

I'm glad to see these recent statistics has generated so many articles. I only hole the government will take notice and do something about it.

Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime: we must abolish the hated BBC poll tax
By Graeme Archer

Three thousand, five hundred people every week appear before magistrates, charged with non-payment of the poll tax. That's more than one in 10 cases heard by the magistrates. Seventy such people have been imprisoned, for failing to pay the fines handed down by the court.

And that's surely right. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. We have to be tough! Tough on these miscreants. If none of us paid our poll tax, we'd lose all our vital services.

But as Mr Blair said – so bravely! so insightfully! – it's not enough to punish the wrongdoer. We have to root out, too, the seeds of their misdeeds. Leave no stone unturned until the soil is clean, nitrogen-rich, and . We have to be tough on the causes of crime too.

And if so many hundreds of thousands of people don't pay their poll tax, might it not suggest that many of them are having real difficulty in paying? That they can't pay? No one finds himself before a court lightly. One may infer, I think, that financial hardship plays a large role in – is the precursor of – this criminality.

So doesn't it behoove the government – if this be the case – to abolish this hated poll tax?
Quite.

Such was the argument against one poll tax in living memory – the community charge. A poll tax is a flat-rate tax which is charged regardlesss of ability to pay – it's not progressive, in liberal language – minus the odd concessions (there were plenty of reductions for Mrs Thatcher's community charge).

The BBC licence fee is a poll tax. The figures in the passage above are real, but apply to non-payment of the licence fee, as the paper reported today.

So if, according to the logic of the liberal Left, it is (1) by definition wrong to impose regressive taxes and (2) important to uncover the deep-rooted pathology which lies behind – which explains away – the criminal act: surely it follows that we must abolish the licence fee?

Abolish the BBC poll tax: at a stroke, we would cut crime by a significant amount. And we'd have finally won the war on the cause of that crime, too. Surely the Left would be enraptured?

[Teddy Bear]

It appears that many people have found the way to avoid the licence fee legally, but still watch TV programmes.

Question is will the government close this loophole, or use it as the incentive to end the licence fee?

Threat to the TV licence as BBC reveals more watch programmes online fuelling fears thousands are legally dodging fee

• iPlayer received 242million hits last month - up 38 per cent on last year
  
• Two million watched Top Gear online and many watched Wimbledon live
  
• People who watch online legally avoid £145.50 annual licence fee

By Alasdair Glennie

The BBC has revealed a record number of viewers now watch its programmes on the internet, fuelling fears thousands of households are legally dodging the licence fee.

New figures show the corporation’s iPlayer website received 242million hits last month, up 38 per cent on last year.

More than two million watched Top Gear online, while many others used the internet to stream sporting events, such as the Wimbledon tennis final.

It is thought many viewers who use the iPlayer service do not own televisions, meaning they are not required to pay the £145.50 annual licence fee.

A TV licence is required for viewing programmes online only when they are broadcast in their scheduled slots or streamed live, as in the case of Wimbledon.

Although the BBC has so far refused calls to reveal how many households dodge the fee by using this online loophole, the statistics suggest the corporation’s funding model has become increasingly outmoded in the digital age.

Almost all the BBC’s programmes are available on the internet catch-up service and can be viewed just a few minutes after finishing on television. Some programmes, such as a forthcoming Peter Kay sitcom, are even being made available on iPlayer first.

The idea is likely to be extended after the BBC approved a 12-month trial which would allow up to 40 hours of programming to be shown online before transmission on TV.

It means licence fee payers without internet access are funding programmes they cannot watch.
The figures were released as Hollywood actor Kevin Spacey predicted that traditional TV channels will be killed off in the next ten to 20 years as viewers turn to the internet to watch their favourite shows.

He said viewers of the future will choose to ‘binge’ for days on end as entire series are made available online, rather than commit to weeks of viewing as each episode is broadcast on TV.
Kevin Spacey predicted traditional TV channels will be killed off in the next ten to 20 years

Kevin Spacey predicted traditional TV channels will be killed off in the next ten to 20 years

Spacey, 54, said the success of his online-only series House of Cards was proof of the shift in viewing habits.

He starred in and produced the political drama, which has been watched by more than 1.5million Britons this year via online distributor Netflix.

Giving the annual MacTaggart lecture at the Edinburgh Television Festival last night, Spacey said viewers now want the freedom to watch what they want, whenever they want.

‘Clearly the success of the Netflix model – releasing the entire season of House of Cards at once – has proved one thing: The audience wants the control. They want freedom,’ he said.

‘If they want to binge – as they’ve been doing on House of Cards – then we should let them binge. Many people have stopped me on the street to say, “Thanks, you sucked three days out of my life”.’

The Oscar winner, who has starred in a string of successful films, became the artistic director of London’s Old Vic theatre in 2003.

But instead of defending traditional mediums, he said film and TV would be completely replaced by online shows ‘in the next decade or two’.

He said: ‘For kids growing up now there’s no difference watching Avatar on an iPad or watching YouTube on a TV and watching Game of Thrones on their computer. It’s all content. It’s all story.’

He added: ‘We all still crave shared experiences. But these days the water cooler moment where people gathered at work to talk about what they’d seen on TV the night before, has vanished. We no longer live in a world of appointment viewing.’

[Teddy Bear]

MP Douglas Carswell continues his campaign to get rid of the licence fee with this article countering recent promises by Tony Hall, that in his opinion, (and mine), are directed at the symptoms, not the cause.

Wasteful, self-serving and cumbersome. The only way to change the BBC is to scrap the licence fee
By Douglas Carswell

The BBC needs to change, says Tony Hall, Director General of the Corporation.

The £5.1 Billion-a-year Corporation is wasteful, Hall admits. The BBC management has been self-serving, helping themselves to licence fee payers’ money, he seems to recognise in the wake of the payout scandal.

And the Corporation's culture is cumbersome, Hall suggests, making it difficult to get decisions made, or wrong decisions reversed.
So what is the new DGs answer?

Instead of having everything decided by committee, Hall wants “one identified person” to be “responsible for key issues and major projects”. There needs to be accountability, and Hall will “cut bureaucracy at the BBC”, reports the BBC.

What could be more reassuring? Except I fear that the new DG is tackling the symptoms of the problem, rather than the cause.
The BBC is indeed wasteful, self-serving, cumbersome, unaccountable and – when it comes to commissioning – extraordinarily cliquey (note how the same faces are endlessly given the job of making programmes).

But in being all those things, the BBC is merely acting the way that all unaccountable bureaucracies behave.

It is wasteful and self-serving with licence fee payers' money not because it sets out to be. That is what happens when you have a £3.7 billion per year guaranteed income stream from the licence fee.
The Corporation is unaccountable not through choice. It is what you will be when you exist because of a Royal Charter, rather than because you are able to satisfy millions of willing customers every day.

And it is cliquey and self-regarding because that is how all organisations that answer to themselves will always become.
There is only one way to change the culture at the BBC; abolish the licence fee.

If the BBC had to strive and stretch for every subscription, it would soon learn to be more careful with other people’s money. If it had to weigh up the demands of its senior management and talent for higher salaries with the interests of its shareholders and customers, it might start to say “no” to some of the more outlandish demands.

The BBC’s commissioning editors might even discover that you do not have to be a long established name at the BBC to have opinions about things that you can articulate in front of a camera. Perhaps we could then look forward to James Delingpole making a programme about climate change? Or how about George Galloway, Caroline Lucas or Zac Goldsmith presenting a programme on the need for political reform?
Now that would be worth paying for.

[Teddy Bear]

Another MP makes a case against the licence fee, and offers further statistics to justify his argument.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: ailing Auntie has become hooked on the licence fee
The television licence fee is a failing business model that condemns the BBC to ever-weakening growth. Wealthier, healthier Sky shows the way forward.

Jacob Rees-Mogg,

In normal circumstances the funding of the BBC through a tax on televisions is one of those anomalies that causes little concern. The amount is not unreasonable, at £145.50 a year, and the Corporation is still popular. It may have fallen from the status of national treasure following recent scandals but it takes a third of the viewings share and the World Service is highly respected internationally. It may have a left-wing bias, towards what is acceptable in polite Islington society but many of its best journalists successfully hide their political leanings.

However, the news that 180,000 people a year, or over 12 per cent of all prosecutions in the Magistrate’s Court, are for evading the TV licence has brought the legitimacy of the fee into question.

It is highly unusual that a non-governmental body can prosecute people for not paying a bill. The Government can and does criminalise the failure to pay things like the road fund licence, but in the normal course of events bills are a civil rather than a criminal matter. This helps the BBC to collect its revenue but it is a doubtful use of a harsh penalty, especially now that there is so much choice.

Crucially, however, the business model of having the BBC funded through the licence fee may harm the Corporation in the long term.
BSkyB was founded from a merger of Sky and British Satellite Broadcasting in 1990. At that point both companies seemed to be at risk of failure, so came together to see if something could be salvaged. In those days the money was with ITV which was about to pay out many millions for the renewal of its franchises.

Yet the upstart has succeeded. BSkyB’s revenues last year were £7.235 billion, against the BBC at £5.102 billion, and ITV in third place at £2.196 billion. The two entities that once held the duopoly in broadcasting now have combined revenues that only just exceed BSkyB. Yet the BBC and ITV still dominate the viewing figures, with a 55.9% share of the total against the lowly 8.3% for Sky. Choice in TV has not taken all the viewers away from the traditional broadcasters, but it certainly has taken a great deal of the money.

And this is where the risk lies for the BBC. Dependency on the licence fee means it either does not wish to, or is not allowed to commercialise some of its activities. Although it earns £1.4 billion from non-licence revenues, its content is free even where it is peripheral to its main broadcasting objectives. It cannot charge for anything that could reasonably be covered by the licence fee, so it has lost out on the lucrative sports rights that have underpinned BSkyB.

This means that the BBC cannot afford to provide the full service viewers want, which in turn undermines the legitimacy of the tax on televisions. This is not helped by the ability of people to use the iPlayer facility as a means of avoiding the need for a licence. As television watching becomes more flexible, so more people will be able to escape liability of the fee.

BSkyB has 31.6 million subscribers, according to its latest annual report. The BBC in its report says it has 25.7 million licence fee payers, including those aged over 75 who have their fee paid by the Government. Thus in just 23 years BSkyB has more people who are willing to pay for its service, than the 90 year-old BBC has of people compelled to pay.

Interestingly those who choose to subscribe spend more than those who are forced to do so. The licence fee provides a guaranteed but static revenue for the BBC that will probably rise by less than inflation while the number of new households who admit to owning televisions grows very slowly. BSkyB cannot be sure of its income stream as subscribers may cancel, but if it gets its strategy right it can continue to grow rapidly. To the extent that it is important for a media company to be large, BSkyB is in an increasingly strong competitive position against the BBC.

In a sense the BBC suffers from welfare dependency. It has a comfortable existence on its current tax base, but its growth is limited. To change appears risky, as it would have to learn to compete for revenues. But this leaves its future clouded. The licence fee and the concomitant prosecutions will become less justified. Avoidance may depress revenues, while multi-media increases the costs. As this happens, so a vicious circle could develop where a lack of money reduces the acceptability of the licence fee which in return leads to less money.

To prevent this from happening the BBC ought to work out how to wean itself off dependency and to plan ways of generating revenue, through subscription of its internet service or by taking adverts, so that when eventually the licence fee fails the Corporation will nonetheless be in a position to succeed.
Jacob Rees-Mogg is MP for North East Somerset