Post by Teddy Bear on Jul 11, 2009 18:24:55 GMT
Another public personality declares why he won't be paying his license fee. The more the merrier.
Dear BBC: No, you can’t have my £142.50. Will I see you in court?
Charles Moore says he will only change his mind if the corporation ends Jonathan Ross’s contract .
This week, I received a letter from Mr Carl Shimeild, the operations director of TV Licensing, informing me that my television licence expires on July 31, and telling me to renew it. Today, I have sent Mr Shimeild the following letter:
What will happen next? I do not know, of course, but I suspect that Mr Shimeild, being a public-sector administrator, will not read my letter.
Although TV Licensing writes threateningly to citizens as if it had legal powers, it is only the money-collection arm of the BBC. It has no right of entry. It cannot even hire bailiffs to secure the licence fee, since the fee is not, in law, a debt. As I know from my pied à terre in London, where I have no television and therefore constantly receive menacing communications from TV Licensing accusing me of licence evasion, the BBC computer mindlessly spews out increasingly shrill letters, which are then not followed up. I ignore them. After a bit, the cycle of accusation starts all over again.
But I think it is likely in this case that something will, eventually, happen. In January, Mark Thompson, the director-general of the BBC, gave me lunch to talk about my promised defiance. (The occasion is described as “business lunch to discuss project, £58.90” in Mr Thompson’s recently published list of expenses.) So he is at least vaguely aware of what I am up to, and no doubt employs someone to read the Daily Telegraph for him and “draw his attention” to this article. He will have to decide, or permit others beneath him to decide, whether I be prosecuted for evasion.
Apparently, the corporation has a policy of not allowing airtime to people who will not pay the licence fee. As I write, I am booked to appear on Any Questions? on August 7. If my name is erased from the programme, I shall know that trouble is afoot.
Kind friends worry that I might go to prison. As the late, great W. F. Deedes used to say, “We’ll burn that bridge when we come to it”. But the maximum penalty for television licence evasion is a fine of £1,000, so prison only comes into the picture later, if one refuses to pay the fine. And the fine, by the way, does not go to the BBC, but solely to the court, so the corporation will not end up getting my money after all. In any case, as I make clear to Mr Shimeild, I am not evading the licence fee. I am refusing to pay it because the BBC is in breach of its Charter. I do not believe I am committing an offence at all.
Kind supporters want to know if I am running a campaign which they can join. In a sense, of course, it is a case of the more the merrier. Anyone can do what I am about to do. But I think it is less complicated to run, and less legally fraught, if I act alone.
Over recent months, I have discovered that quite a lot of people already refuse to pay their licence fee for various reasons of principle. There are many, including the determined Mr John Kelly, who will appear at Exeter magistrates’ court next week, who think the BBC breaks its Charter by its bias in favour of the European Union. Others object to the basic principle of the licence fee. Some tell me that their stand has succeeded and the authorities have avoided confronting them, or that they have won a conditional discharge. I wish all rebels luck, but I am steering clear of any organisation or political viewpoint.
The great thing we are all told to do nowadays is “move on”. It is a way of never confronting bad things. Ross did a very bad thing, and one that is typical of the obscenity and arrogance the BBC encourages in its “artists”. The BBC, by keeping him and paying him so grotesquely, is proving the truth of the words in the Gospel, “... where your treasure is, there will your heart be also”. Why should we be forced to pile that treasure ever higher in order to be allowed to watch television? Can pay: won’t pay!
Charles Moore says he will only change his mind if the corporation ends Jonathan Ross’s contract .
This week, I received a letter from Mr Carl Shimeild, the operations director of TV Licensing, informing me that my television licence expires on July 31, and telling me to renew it. Today, I have sent Mr Shimeild the following letter:
“Dear Mr Shimeild,
Thank you for your letter of June 30.
On October 18, 2008, The Russell Brand Show on BBC Radio 2 broadcast a nine-minute sequence in which the presenter, Brand, and his guest, Jonathan Ross, left messages on the answering machine of the then 78-year-old actor, Andrew Sachs. In these, Ross shouted that Brand had “****** your granddaughter”. Further obscene and insulting messages broadcast included remarks about Mr Sachs’s granddaughter’s menstruation, and whether Mr Sachs would now kill himself because of the shame. The pair joked, on air, that they would “find out where Andrew Sachs lives, kick his front door in and scream apologies into his bottom”.
As a result of public outrage at this broadcast, several people left the BBC. Jonathan Ross, however, was only suspended for three months. It has been reported that Jonathan Ross earns £6 million a year from the BBC. Despite being a corporation mainly funded by the taxpayer, in the form of the licence fee, the BBC refuses to reveal the figure for Ross’s contract, but it has not denied it. If the reported amount is correct, Ross is by far the best-paid person in its history.
The Public Purposes of the BBC are, says its Charter, the “main object” of the BBC’s existence. They state that the corporation must take the lead in “sustaining citizenship and civil society” and “stimulating creativity and cultural excellence”. The Ross/Brand obscene broadcast – and several other broadcasts by Ross – are clearly contrary to the Public Purposes. The fact that Ross remains in post, paid an enormous sum, shows that the BBC has contempt for its own Public Purposes.
Since the BBC is breaking its own Charter, it has forfeited its right to collect a compulsory tax – the licence fee – from everyone who possesses a television. I wrote in public, at the time of the broadcast last autumn, that, in the circumstances, I would not pay my licence fee again. The circumstances have not improved. I hereby inform you, therefore, that I refuse to renew my licence, but I shall continue to keep and watch my television.
I am not seeking to profit from my refusal, so I have today sent a cheque for £142.50 (the current rate) to Help the Aged. I have chosen this charity because part of Jonathan Ross’s offence was his insult to the old.
If the BBC terminates Ross’s contract, I shall pay my licence fee. I am happy to agree with you to put the necessary money in an escrow account against such an eventuality.
Yours sincerely,
Charles Moore ”
What will happen next? I do not know, of course, but I suspect that Mr Shimeild, being a public-sector administrator, will not read my letter.
Although TV Licensing writes threateningly to citizens as if it had legal powers, it is only the money-collection arm of the BBC. It has no right of entry. It cannot even hire bailiffs to secure the licence fee, since the fee is not, in law, a debt. As I know from my pied à terre in London, where I have no television and therefore constantly receive menacing communications from TV Licensing accusing me of licence evasion, the BBC computer mindlessly spews out increasingly shrill letters, which are then not followed up. I ignore them. After a bit, the cycle of accusation starts all over again.
But I think it is likely in this case that something will, eventually, happen. In January, Mark Thompson, the director-general of the BBC, gave me lunch to talk about my promised defiance. (The occasion is described as “business lunch to discuss project, £58.90” in Mr Thompson’s recently published list of expenses.) So he is at least vaguely aware of what I am up to, and no doubt employs someone to read the Daily Telegraph for him and “draw his attention” to this article. He will have to decide, or permit others beneath him to decide, whether I be prosecuted for evasion.
Apparently, the corporation has a policy of not allowing airtime to people who will not pay the licence fee. As I write, I am booked to appear on Any Questions? on August 7. If my name is erased from the programme, I shall know that trouble is afoot.
Kind friends worry that I might go to prison. As the late, great W. F. Deedes used to say, “We’ll burn that bridge when we come to it”. But the maximum penalty for television licence evasion is a fine of £1,000, so prison only comes into the picture later, if one refuses to pay the fine. And the fine, by the way, does not go to the BBC, but solely to the court, so the corporation will not end up getting my money after all. In any case, as I make clear to Mr Shimeild, I am not evading the licence fee. I am refusing to pay it because the BBC is in breach of its Charter. I do not believe I am committing an offence at all.
Kind supporters want to know if I am running a campaign which they can join. In a sense, of course, it is a case of the more the merrier. Anyone can do what I am about to do. But I think it is less complicated to run, and less legally fraught, if I act alone.
Over recent months, I have discovered that quite a lot of people already refuse to pay their licence fee for various reasons of principle. There are many, including the determined Mr John Kelly, who will appear at Exeter magistrates’ court next week, who think the BBC breaks its Charter by its bias in favour of the European Union. Others object to the basic principle of the licence fee. Some tell me that their stand has succeeded and the authorities have avoided confronting them, or that they have won a conditional discharge. I wish all rebels luck, but I am steering clear of any organisation or political viewpoint.
The great thing we are all told to do nowadays is “move on”. It is a way of never confronting bad things. Ross did a very bad thing, and one that is typical of the obscenity and arrogance the BBC encourages in its “artists”. The BBC, by keeping him and paying him so grotesquely, is proving the truth of the words in the Gospel, “... where your treasure is, there will your heart be also”. Why should we be forced to pile that treasure ever higher in order to be allowed to watch television? Can pay: won’t pay!