Talk:Television licensing in the United Kingdom/Archive 1

message: Items on this page dated before 6 April 2006 have been moved from Talk:Television licence, because they referred to the content which has been moved to this article. Thomas Blomberg 00:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I deleted this paragraph:
:However in its favour, it can be said that it does link use of a television to payment of the licence fee. This means that if someone does not wish to pay money to the BBC, they can choose to watch no television at all. This is an advantage over the alternative method of funding through advertising which forces everyone to pay for the television service, albeit indirectly, whether they watch television or not — the cost of advertising is passed on to consumers regardless.
It is a false argument as the paying of the licence fee is only connected to having a television not the actual watching of the BBC: the law forces a citizen to purchase a product they may not want simply in order to access other similar products.
::I've reworded the funding mechanisms to help correct this false argument. The previous text implied the licence fee money goes directly to the BBC, which is incorrect (see Communications Act 2003 sec 365). The licence fee in law is for installing or using television equipment for the purposes of receiving television programme services, ie any live TV, not just the BBC. It's not the 'having' a TV that requires a licence, it's 'using' it in a licensable way.
The point about advertising costs being added onto products is irrelevant. First, the cost is only borne by those who buy the products, which requires a choice separate from choosing which television channel to watch: you can watch or not watch advert-supported channels and still not buy the products. Next, the increase in cost of consumer items due to advertising budgets relates to all forms of advertising, not only television. As long as companies are allowed to advertise their products somewhere the consumer will have to pay for these adverts, even if they were going to buy the product anyway.
It is a bad argument in defence of something that penalises the poor and makes criminals out of single mothers.
:I agree with the above; it's an excellent paragraph in fact.  One other point that I would raise is that the BBC constantly harp on about being "The nation's favourite channel" but point blank refuse to go for subscription or "pay per view" funding.  If the BBC really is the Nations Favourite then I would have thought that just about everyone would take up a subscription and the BBC's funds would be no worse off!  To force everyone to pay for your service even if they don't wish to use it is definitely a sign of a desperate organisation!
:Also interesting to note that "UKTV" which is a joint venture featuring the BBC, does use advertising, and the BBC also regularly advertises it's own products (DVD's, books etc).
Isn't the "false argument" the claim that the fee is used to pay for the BBC?  Yes, the BBC is 75% funded by 50% of the fee at present, but the other 50% goes for other purposes.  But more to the point, this tax is one of several sources of funding for British broadcast services, which includes other taxes. And the BBC that I'm betting most readers of this article are thinking of is not the BBC funded by this tax. The only statements that are acceptable in the article are those official statements of purpose, and reasonable and sourced criticisms of, and support for, the tax. That seems to be well covered. Mulp 18:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your source for the implication that only half of the licence fee goes to the BBC? Nick Cooper 18:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  False Argument 

message: Allegations of capita abuse and victimisation do exist.  However, they will need properly sourcing, to reputable sources, to be in here.  Pending this I've removed the content, rather than make a ham-fisted attempt at watering it down.  New content covering this should be created : the old content was worthless. Morwen - Talk 01:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding threatening letters, I can source a few, as I've received them in the past. Selective quoting eg ( is tricky to be npov, so ideally it would be nice to have all the letter (or picture thereof) so people can judge it as an whole. but I don't know what the copyright position would be in having a picture of letter sent to you. anyone know? MartinRe 11:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK stuff 

message: I've removed the reference to copyright under tv licencing, as it's not really relevent to playing recordings or tv licenencing in general. This article is hard enough to get npov without adding the complex matter of copyright into the mix. MartinRe 19:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  copyright issues 

message: The UK section in this article is growing quite large in relation to all the other sections, any objections to splitting this into its own article and having a brief summary here with a  at the top? MartinRe 14:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split article 

message: --C 1 18:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice that the source you quote in support of most of your additions is two forum posts on a campaign forum. This does not appear to meet Wikipedia's requirement for verifiability from reliable sources. Other points you have made do not seem supported by the sources at all, for example, "Virtually all TV licensing related convictions are due to signed "confessions"", and others seem to be a bit POV, for example, "the most accurate description of an "enforcement officer" is a door-to-door salesman". I'm inclined to remove the material which isn't unsupported by reliable sources. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capita Abuses 

message: Ideas for photos: Demand letters, detector vans, or enforcement officers. Edward 19:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wish I'd known.  During Freshers' Fortnight (Fortnight!  Would you believe it?) a few weeks back, I saw what looked like a Ford Transit minibus with the TVL logo and a "Detection equipment" vinyl on the side.  81.104.170.167 04:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, still waiting for the warrant. WikianJim 13:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo request 

message: === Part 1 ===
The article about the UK TV licence has some NPOV problems.  Many of the sentences use unattributed `beliefs'.  Eg `It is believed that approximately 5% of TVs are unlicensed' and `[the licence] has been denounced as a violation of the freedom to receive information without inteference'.
There are also falsehoods like `Proper debate of the licence fee is consistently suppressed by the BBC from its own airwaves. Numerous polls show significant public opposition to the fee.'
I don't have time to read on and make more substantial contributions, particularly if this page is having an edit war as seems likely.  Apologies.  - Ian Jackson
:Here's a link to viewing figures: [] Seems like 88% of the population do watch the BBC, rather than the claimed 80% that don't. Kanthoney
=== Part 2 ===
Many of the edits may be in fact correct, but we cannot tell due to lack of sources. I truly believe thia is not a "Neutral Point of View" issue like the tag on the article claims, rather just in need of sources.What do others think? -- Duey Finster 21:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done a major edit on this article, which includes a few more sources. It might look drastic on a diff, but most of the rewerite was a move around of the article to try and get the sections independent, so we can try and get the POV stuff into a single section, and then into a subsection, and so on.  It still needs some tiying up and filling out, and personally I think as it's growing, it should really be a separate article, with just a summary here. MartinRe 21:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, thanks! pit-yacker 23:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I've removed the information from the FOI request until it has been published by a reliable source and is properly verifiable. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The only NPOV-disputed part is now the bits that appear to give legal advice about what to do when an enforcement officer turns up. This needs to be reliably sourced or removed, and I have asked for citations to that effect. The discussion of some say/others say is actually taken almost (IIRC) verbatim from the Green Paper ( PDF), but it could probably be improved. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Many of the edits may be in fact correct, but we cannot tell due to lack of sources. I truly believe thia is not a "Neutral Point of View" issue like the tag on the article claims, rather just in need of sources.What do others think? -- Duey Finster 21:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done a major edit on this article, which includes a few more sources. It might look drastic on a diff, but most of the rewerite was a move around of the article to try and get the sections independent, so we can try and get the POV stuff into a single section, and then into a subsection, and so on.  It still needs some tiying up and filling out, and personally I think as it's growing, it should really be a separate article, with just a summary here. MartinRe 21:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Part 2 

message: I have tagged the article with NPOV.  I think as it currently stands the article is not at all neutral, in particular the FOI section.  The FOI answers have been picked very selectively to demonstrate the author's point of view.  I'm also not sure whether
1) extracting of information using the FOI constitutes original research (the reference is a forum).  Given the authors' continual references to this site, I have a feeling that while they may not be the original researcher, they are actively assisting the researcher in "publishing" what is otherwise unpublished, and thus unreviewed or verified work.
2) On that point given the reference is a forum.  Does this consitute a valid source? IMHO forums are worse than blogs as sources. Just because it is published on a forum doesnt make it true.  (Although, when looking at forums in general there seems to be an unwritten rule that if you repeat an unsubtantiated rumour enough it magically becomes true).
Secondly, I have a concern about Wikipedia giving incomplete legal advice without some sort of disclaimer. AFAICT, could this leave Wikipedia liable if someone follows advice given and subsequently finds themselves in more trouble?  Although, TVLicensing.biz choose to do this, a) that is the decision of the website owner b) Is there some sort of legal disclaimer on their site?
Finally, I also think the discussion could be more rigourous than the current some say/other say.
pit-yacker 12:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks! pit-yacker 23:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I've removed the information from the FOI request until it has been published by a reliable source and is properly verifiable. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The only NPOV-disputed part is now the bits that appear to give legal advice about what to do when an enforcement officer turns up. This needs to be reliably sourced or removed, and I have asked for citations to that effect. The discussion of some say/others say is actually taken almost (IIRC) verbatim from the Green Paper ( PDF), but it could probably be improved. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Part 3 (31st July 2006) 

message: Not an expert here but is the implied right to silence in "There is no obligation to answer the question" not the same as the rest of English Law? That is the defendant doesn't have to say anything but anything a defendant fails to mention and later relies on in court can be used against them.  pit-yacker 13:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Right to Silence? 

message: What seems to be lacking both here and on the main TV Licence page is any historical perspective to licensing in the UK, specifically as regards the year-on-year number of licences issued (and the evolution from the Radio Licence), and the cost over the years. I can easily pull together these figures upto and including 1992 and subsequent ones with a bit more work, but the question is where should such information (which has interest beyond the issues of linsing per se) be placed? Nick Cooper 16:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some historical perspective would be good - there is probably room for a section just after the introduction. You say you can pull these figures together - they would have to fit with the policies of no original research and verifiability. They are surely published somewhere? -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC the link on the main Television licence page http://www.radiolicence.org.uk/ provides quite a lot of good detail and source to do with this (It provides cost from 1926 -2003, that leaves 2004: £121 (according to an earlier version of TV Licence page); 2005: £126.50; 2006: £131.50.  I certainly think more info of the history and how it is increased year on year and numbers bought year-on-year is worthy of inclusion.  I agree that the best place to put it would be immediately after the introduction of this article.  Pit-yacker 16:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, on reflection this would be rather a large chunk of figures - perhaps better at the end or even as a separate page, e.g. "Television licensing in the United Kingdom (history)"? Nick Cooper 08:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The figures for the number of licences on issue at 1 April each year used to be published in the BBC Annual Report and Handbook. The one for 1987 has the figures for 1955-thru-1986 inclusive, while everything upto 1955 can be got from the 1954-1955 Report. Reproducing one table from each of these two books effectively covers the most historically interesting period in terms of the spread of TV ownership, the switch from b/w to colour, etc. Regarding the changing cost of the licence, these are all on the BBC website at the moment in the press release about the most recent change. Giving a 2006 equivalent for historical costs would be useful, I think. Nick Cooper 07:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical position 

message: Are the licences a monthly or annual fee? --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 17:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The licence is annual, but can be paid in monthly installments, for example by direct debit. Regardless of payment method, you still receive a paper licence once a year which is covered for a complete period of a year. You can cancel a licence before the year is up and receive the remainder of the year back - pro-rata.Neilajh 17:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Direct Debit seems a bit of a scam the last time I checked, in that you pay for the licence in the first six months, one-sixth per month, then from month seven onwards you pay for the next year's licence at one-twelfth per month. In other words, after the first twelve months you've paid for that year's licence plus half of the following year's. Nick Cooper 17:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: The whole article reads like a big rant you'd find on a personal site. It needs a complete rewrite. --88.111.41.106 22:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone 

message: I've now created Television licensing in the United Kingdom‎ (historical), which gives the historical position r.e. the varying cost of the licence and the number issued over the years, although I've not linked this page to it yet. Comments/constructive amendments welcome. Nick Cooper 02:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now cross-linked the two pages. Nick Cooper 14:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Television licensing in the United Kingdom‎ (historical) 

message: Magic Pickle, I see that on 17 November you added a number of new comments to this page, but at the same time made amendments to and deletions from several comments you added some time previously, which myself and others have already responded to. This is fundamentally dishonest, as it now looks as if some points you didn't originally make were "ignored," or that responses were made in light of things it now looks like you never said. Such behaviour is contrary to accepted Wiki practice - see Don't change your text. Nick Cooper 19:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, feel free to restore the original comments if you feel it is important to do so. Could you let me know about issues like this on my talk page next time? Thanks.Magic Pickle 18:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The issue needed highlighting on this page, otherwise how would people know it had happened? Nick Cooper 08:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Because it would reach my attention a lot faster, as I do not check this article every day. Also, you are addressing me personally about policy, not the article, surely more appropriate on my talk page. Magic Pickle 20:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delayed post-editing by Magic Pickle 

message: If blind folk can get a tv license at half price why can`t deaf folk too?
172.202.247.39 12:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably now because most TV is subtitled, while selected programmes are transmitted signed, so the medium is not as inaccessible to them as it is to the blind. Nick Cooper 15:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of digital TV (probably most) isn't subtitled. Magic Pickle 20:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know about that.  I get the impression that virtually all primetime TV is subtitled these days.  That said a lot of digital programmes have Audio Description.  However, given this situation has been around for years the reason is probably lost in the mists of history.  For example AD is a relatively new thing and there may have been an expectation that deaf people can lip read, etc. But does this have anything to do with the article? If not this is not the appropriate place for a discussion. Pit-yacker 22:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes sorry, if it has no relevance to the article. As a quick test, though I have turned on my subtitles tonight and flicked through these channels at 8pm: Paramount Comedy, BBC Four, Livingtv, More 4, UKtv Gold - none of these had subtitles. I am using cable digital, though. Magic Pickle 20:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free licences for the blind 

message: See here - fully credible source. Please could someone fix the ref numbering though please on the above section:  --leopheard 10:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology re: devices requiring licence 

message: televisions receiving a broadcast from outside the UK (e.g. Satellite from USA) - this is no so - any device installed for receiving broadcast signals regardless of point of origin needs a licence and this statement should be deleted —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.176.79.35 (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect statement 

message: I have tagged the passage "Simply suspecting that the occupier of the premises possesses an unlicensed TV is not considered to be reasonable grounds." for clarification. I think it is too vague.  What does "Simply suspecting" actually mean? Does it mean that the fact the property is unlicensed? Does it mean the fact the property is unlicensed and the owner refused entry? Does it mean the fact the property is unlicensed, the owner refused entry, and the inspector heard the TV/heard the kids saying 'can we watch CITV'/saw a TV/etc (delete as approp).
Whilst someone might like to come up with a referenced clarification, I think it might be easiest if the sentence is removed altogether, as I cant see anyway that avoids turning it dangerously close to "pseudo-legal advice" which may leave Wikipedia liable for giving out bad advice should someone use it as such- especially when I assume that the definition of "Simply suspecting" can change with time.  Pit-yacker 17:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, removed. TheIslander 13:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Simply suspecting" is too vague 

message: Can anybody fix the following?
The television licence is often the subject of controversy. The licence fee comes under particular criticism from The Times and The Sun newspapers, owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation which also has a large share of British Sky Broadcasting, one of the BBC's main commercial rivals.
All the reference shows is that the license fee has been criticed in the Times - as it has in other non-Murdoch papers. It would be nice if the unsourced insinuation about bias and hypocrisy were replaced with some sort of allegation emanating from a documented source - otherwise I'm going to have to delete it. --Lo2u (T • C) 01:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue is a bit of a no-brainer. Murdoch is a virulent and frequent opponent of the licence fee and the BBC, which via Sky is one of his main rivals in the UK. In turn, his UK newspapers, particularly the red-tops, frequently attack the BBC at the same time as they big-up Sky. Plenty of newspapers indulge in the former, but the latter is endemic at The Sun and The News of the World. Look at how newspapers format TV listings, for example. In most the five terrestrial channels are given equal or similar prominence, with the digital channels - including Sky 1 - getting minor listings, often on a completely different page; in The Sun, The London Paper, et al, Sky 1 is given a main listing of equal size/prominence to the terrestrial channels. Similarly, the Murdoch Press frequently given disproportionate coverage to broadcasts on Sky. Nick Cooper 09:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I know all this though. I'm not trying deny Murdoch doesn't like the license fee and that he exercises close control over the Sun. I've also read the sources referenced and I'm glad the attempt has been made at improvement. What's alleged in the article is certainly not a "no-brainer" though; the Times unlike its sister paper is only occassionally accused of being heavily influenced by its proprietor. Of course as a right-leaning publication, it would, just as the Telegraph is, be naturally inclined towards opposition to the fee. I don't believe that most people assume this is all because of Murdoch, but if they did, sources would be there alleging this, apart from the one cited (which quite rightly calls the idea a "conspiracy theory"). At the moment the paragraph, though it references published sources, is blatantantly a synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, which is a form of original research. --Lo2u (T • C) 19:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be on a mission to deny the de facto known sources of criticism of the BBC in general and the licence fee in particular, or at least their reasons for doing so. Nick Cooper 07:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just think it's important to steer clear of the usual popular anti-Murdoch sneering and innuendo. We can point out the existence of criticism and we can point out allegations against those making the criticism. However we shouldn't start making up our own allegations. I won't prevent anyone adding a properly sourced assertion that some of the organisations responsible for criticism are doing so to advance their own interests but it should be made clear that these are merely allegations. By singling out only two criticisms, as if they're the only ones, and then trying to claim we're merely looking at examples of organisations furthering their business interests the article ignores other similar criticism and so falls a long way from presenting a neutral point of view. --Lo2u (T • C) 09:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I've just received a letter from the enforment people, would a scan be useful for the article? It's a "final warning" saying I'll be visited. 138.38.217.149 (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scan of letter 

message: The article TV Licence gives a global perspective of TV licensing. The UK section already carries a link to this article about UK licensing, but it was getting too long and to detailed for the article so I deleted some material.
If any of the following material is still relevant and not in the current article, editors to Television licensing in the United Kingdom might wish to check whether the deleted text needs to be incorporated. This is the text that was deleted:-
::Collection is enforced by criminal law. People accused of licence evasion are tried in a magistrates court.  Violators can be fined up to £1000. Prior to 1991, the collection and administration of the UK licence fee was the responsibility of the Home Office.   Since 1991, the revenue has been collected on behalf of the Government by the BBC and paid into Government's Consolidated Fund. From 1991 the fee was collected more directly by the BBC and was called the TV Licensing Authority.  Since then collection has been contracted out and is now collected and enforced by TV Licensing Ltd, which is operated by Capita.  As a consequence of the change the force of law in enforcing the licence has weakened somewhat. By 1994, 57% of all female criminal convictions in Britain related to television licence evasion.http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1468-2311.00047 Television Licence Evasion and the Criminalisation of Female Poverty 
::Once collected, the money is then passed to the BBC via the Appropriation Act(s) where MPs vote the amounts paid to the UK's public services. During the current Charter review process, concerns were raised as to the cost of collection (£152m for 2005-2006).
I suspect it doesn't but do not have the time to check it myself right now.--Tom (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information deleted from the UK section at [[TV Licence]] 

message: It seems that on 4th February 2008, an anonymous contributor added a reference to an old BBC press release, giving it the wrong date (i.e. the date of the edit and not the date of the release) so making it seem a new development affecting the preceding statement. I have therefore edited to restore the actual and intended meaning. Oldknowall (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal issues, licence fee enforcement, detector vans v. LASSY 

message: It seems that on 4th February 2008, an anonymous contributor added a reference to an old BBC press release, giving it the wrong date (i.e. the date of the edit and not the date of the release) so making it seem a new development affecting the preceding statement. I have therefore edited to restore the actual and intended meaning. Oldknowall (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal issues, licence fee enforcement, detector vans v. LASSY