The Biased Broadcasting Corporation

[Risso]

9 minutes ago, limpid said:

Amazon has live content so you probably need a TV licence. (Strictly speaking, according to the law.) The licence is for using equipment capable of receiving broadcasts, where "broadcasts" is poorly defined for current technology. Your laptop probably counts as such equipment.

“You don’t need a TV Licence if you never watch live on any channel, TV service or streaming service, or use BBC iPlayer*.

This applies to any device, including a TV, computer, laptop, phone, tablet, games console or digital box.”

https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ99

[fruitvilla]

If I lived in the UK and was king for the day ... I would stuff the TV licences and have the BBC as a line item in the tax revenue stream. It's like libraries, I would guess the vast majority of people buy their own books or don't read books. But I would not want to be in a society that did not have libraries. The BBC for better or worse is a National Treasure.

[limpid]

1 minute ago, Risso said:

“You don’t need a TV Licence if you never watch live on any channel, TV service or streaming service, or use BBC iPlayer*.

This applies to any device, including a TV, computer, laptop, phone, tablet, games console or digital box.”

https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ99

That site suggests that you need to inform them if your property is empty. This is not true. I'm not sure I'd rely on their advice as a defence.

[VILLAMARV]

28 minutes ago, limpid said:

Amazon has live content so you probably need a TV licence. (Strictly speaking, according to the law.) The licence is for using equipment capable of receiving broadcasts, where "broadcasts" is poorly defined for current technology. Your laptop probably counts as such equipment.

The only way they could prove I was watching live broadcast would be to get a copy of my viewing history, which would only prove what I'm saying. They can only prove I'm innocent.

You don't need a license to own a laptop and have an internet connection at the same time as far as I understand it.

I appreciate the concern and the legal disclaimer. I'll add one, this is not advise for others. I also appreciate people might read all this and assume I'm sailing the high seas or using vpns and all that. But I don't.

The reality is we watch the streaming services less and less and talk about giving them up anyway. If push came to shove or they tighten the legislation even further we'd ditch them too. The clampdown on netflix of watching stuff in didfferent places on different devices might be the final nail in that one anyway.

Of course there's always another option if my £160pa is so important, the BBC could get back to providing real journalism and hold power to account, stop pandering to extremists and bastardising the language, but I think deep down we all know that's not a realistic option. At least that's what I feel. Embedded journalism used to be a bogeyman and now it is the industry standard.

I just prefer not to financially support the blatant propaganda machine it has become and have the follow through to not be hypocritical to what I believe. For example people who say they dislike McDonalds but still buy a big mac every now and then are the antithesis of how I choose to live my life. There's not a lot that the rich and powerful take notice of anymore but you can be sure they care where we choose to spend our money and take real notice of trends in spending patterns. I'd like to be counted in that column please. The dissenting one.

[KentVillan]

51 minutes ago, fruitvilla said:

If I lived in the UK and was king for the day ... I would stuff the TV licences and have the BBC as a line item in the tax revenue stream. It's like libraries, I would guess the vast majority of people buy their own books or don't read books. But I would not want to be in a society that did not have libraries. The BBC for better or worse is a National Treasure.

Yea, the term for taxes that have a specific spending purpose is “hypothecated”. They are usually a crap idea, but never seem to die.

In practice govt just collects billions of pounds of tax and then spends billions of pounds, and there are no specific buckets, but hypothecation often plays well politically and in the media, so it endures.

The reason it hasn’t been abandoned with the BBC is presumably the fear that once the BBC loses its specific pot of money, the budget will be slowly eroded by central govt during periods of austerity.

The BBC’s annual budget is about £3bn. NHS England’s is £153bn. A licence fee costs roughly the same as a Netflix subscription.

You could halve investment in the BBC without any tangible beneficial impact on public finances or any noticeable improvement in people’s disposable income… but with a huge impact on its output.

So the cost arguments seem like a huge distraction. The reason the BBC gets attacked is the culture war. There is no real economic case for sweeping reforms, it’s just not that expensive in the grand scheme of things.

Even the arguments that the BBC is an establishment brainwashing vehicle seem pretty tenuous in a world where everyone has access to 100s of channels, YouTube, streaming services, social media, online news, etc.

Hopefully this obsession with sabotaging the BBC will fade away again if Labour get in, and we get on with being a normal country.

[KentVillan]

Having said all that, I **** hate the One Show.

[fruitvilla]

32 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

Yea, the term for taxes that have a specific spending purpose is “hypothecated”. They are usually a crap idea, but never seem to die.

In practice govt just collects billions of pounds of tax and then spends billions of pounds, and there are no specific buckets, but hypothecation often plays well politically and in the media, so it endures.

The reason it hasn’t been abandoned with the BBC is presumably the fear that once the BBC loses its specific pot of money, the budget will be slowly eroded by central govt during periods of austerity.

The BBC’s annual budget is about £3bn. NHS England’s is £153bn. A licence fee costs roughly the same as a Netflix subscription.

You could halve investment in the BBC without any tangible beneficial impact on public finances or any noticeable improvement in people’s disposable income… but with a huge impact on its output.

So the cost arguments seem like a huge distraction. The reason the BBC gets attacked is the culture war. There is no real economic case for sweeping reforms, it’s just not that expensive in the grand scheme of things.

Even the arguments that the BBC is an establishment brainwashing vehicle seem pretty tenuous in a world where everyone has access to 100s of channels, YouTube, streaming services, social media, online news, etc.

Hopefully this obsession with sabotaging the BBC will fade away again if Labour get in, and we get on with being a normal country.

I agree by and large. My one regular contact with the BBC is their web page. Seems neutral as far as I can tell. The license thing just seems contentious. The BBC does seem top-heavy with political appointments at the moment. 

I am reminded of a while back the BBC appointed an atheist as head of religious programming. So long as that person could reflect in some way the desires of the populace then fair enough. But he's never going to keep everyone happy. 

As to culture wars ... VT is a microcosm of that in the football sphere.

[limpid]

1 hour ago, VILLAMARV said:

The only way they could prove I was watching live broadcast would be to get a copy of my viewing history, which would only prove what I'm saying. They can only prove I'm innocent.

It's civil law and would be based on convincing a magistrate that it was more likely you ever watch something live. Browser histories can be (trivially) tampered with so are unlikely to be accepted as evidence. If it got to court, you wouldn't get legal aid.

It's your call. I don't watch anything broadcast or live and still pay for a licence. Although partly that's because I value what the BBC produces even if its political viewpoint is wonky at the moment.

[Davkaus]

2 hours ago, limpid said:

That site suggests that you need to inform them if your property is empty. This is not true. I'm not sure I'd rely on their advice as a defence.

I think it being the advice not just on the official TV licensing website, but also on gov.uk would make it a bloody good defence.

https://www.gov.uk/tv-licence#:~:text=You need your own TV,have a joint tenancy agreement

Quote

You do not need a TV Licence to watch:

• streaming services like Netflix and Disney Plus
• on-demand TV through services like All 4 and Amazon Prime Video
• videos on websites like YouTube
• videos or DVDs

 

[limpid]

4 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I think it being the advice not just on the official TV licensing website, but also on gov.uk would make it a bloody good defence.

https://www.gov.uk/tv-licence#:~:text=You need your own TV,have a joint tenancy agreement

Good. I'm glad that this has convinced you. The government has never had to change it's advice

[Risso]

1 hour ago, limpid said:

It's civil law and would be based on convincing a magistrate that it was more likely you ever watch something live. Browser histories can be (trivially) tampered with so are unlikely to be accepted as evidence. If it got to court, you wouldn't get legal aid.

It's your call. I don't watch anything broadcast or live and still pay for a licence. Although partly that's because I value what the BBC produces even if its political viewpoint is wonky at the moment.

It’s criminal law, as it’s a criminal offence under the Communications Act.

[limpid]

27 minutes ago, Risso said:

It’s criminal law, as it’s a criminal offence under the Communications Act.

Just reading the relevant part of the act and you are correct. I've been informed previously that the police have confirmed it's not a police matter which seems contradictory (or I've remembered it wrongly).

Interestingly, paras 363.1-3 makes it clear that simple installation of a "television receiver" without a licence is to be in breach. No mitigation is made in  act for "live" in all of Part 4. So the "official" advice appears materially incorrect. "Television receiver" is defined in S.368 and includes "software used in association with apparatus". Although it fails to define "television programme", which might give some wriggle room.

[MakemineVanilla]

3 hours ago, KentVillan said:

You could halve investment in the BBC without any tangible beneficial impact on public finances or any noticeable improvement in people’s disposable income… but with a huge impact on its output.

 

That sounds like a charter for robbing anyone who looked like they could afford it.

[KentVillan]

4 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

That sounds like a charter for robbing anyone who looked like they could afford it.

If you think tax is theft, then yes. I don't.

[bickster]

4 hours ago, fruitvilla said:

If I lived in the UK and was king for the day ... I would stuff the TV licences and have the BBC as a line item in the tax revenue stream. It's like libraries, I would guess the vast majority of people buy their own books or don't read books. But I would not want to be in a society that did not have libraries. The BBC for better or worse is a National Treasure.

I get where you are coming from but it then sort of crosses the line between State Broadcaster and National Broadcaster. It’s good just doing that, it’s independence needs to be written in stone and it’s impartially rules need to be changed because right now they are weaponised

[fruitvilla]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

I get where you are coming from but it then sort of crosses the line between State Broadcaster and National Broadcaster. It’s good just doing that, it’s independence needs to be written in stone and it’s impartially rules need to be changed because right now they are weaponised

But my guess would be: both sides see it as weaponized. And regarding what I was trying to say earlier regarding impartiality, not only must it be impartial it must be seen to be impartial. Historically conservatives have complained about the BBC's left-leaning stuff. Today the left is complaining about the easy passage that conservative politicians get. There's a narrow fuzzy path there somewhere. 

But I agree, the BBC should not be a sinecure for party supporters, and if one is forced to install leadership with or without political affiliations, hopefully, we can have logical people who can put aside their beliefs and biases. 

[bickster]

14 minutes ago, fruitvilla said:

But my guess would be: both sides see it as weaponized. And regarding what I was trying to say earlier regarding impartiality, not only must it be impartial it must be seen to be impartial. Historically conservatives have complained about the BBC's left-leaning stuff. Today the left is complaining about the easy passage that conservative politicians get. There's a narrow fuzzy path there somewhere. 

But I agree, the BBC should not be a sinecure for party supporters, and if one is forced to install leadership with or without political affiliations, hopefully, we can have logical people who can put aside their beliefs and biases. 

Historically the Tories have complained of its bias to an agenda set by the likes of Murdoch, it wasn’t particularly true.

Now the bias is actually there because of the political appointments made to it.

The argument that if both sides are complaining it’s doing something right, used to hold water. It really no longer does.

 

[Risso]

23 hours ago, sidcow said:

All these people claiming they never use any BBC services, was it weird only watching half of the World Cup? 

But the BBC doesn’t produce the World Cup, and if it (the BBC) didn’t exist it would just be shown elsewhere. I don’t mind paying the licence fee because in the grand scheme of things it’s peanuts, but honestly, the only person who uses the BBC to any extent whatsoever in our house is me. R4 and R5 in the morning, and the BBC website at various times during the day. Match of the Day when we win, but I could easily live without that. Programmes on CBBC stopped being a thing when our two eldest kids were little, more than ten years ago. For the young ones now, it’s all about YouTube and other online stuff. Happy Valley is probably the one BBC programme my wife has watched in the last 5 years. The kids (all five of them) nothing at all, in years, or in the youngest’ a case as I said, ever.

Edited March 19, 2023 by Risso

[VILLAMARV]

6 hours ago, fruitvilla said:

If I lived in the UK and was king for the day ... I would stuff the TV licences and have the BBC as a line item in the tax revenue stream. It's like libraries, I would guess the vast majority of people buy their own books or don't read books. But I would not want to be in a society that did not have libraries. The BBC for better or worse is a National Treasure.

See, I love libraries. But the one in this town shut down years ago. I think you can order stuff online to pick up or ask the people on the front desk at the local council offices now where they moved some of the stuff. The building is derelict and boarded up. As is the old day centre next door. I can see them both from my window tbh. They've been that way for years.

 

[VILLAMARV]

4 hours ago, Davkaus said:

I think it being the advice not just on the official TV licensing website, but also on gov.uk would make it a bloody good defence.

https://www.gov.uk/tv-licence#:~:text=You need your own TV,have a joint tenancy agreement

 

exactly. I agree. It seems pretty conclusive to me. Advice from the government advice website. I'm not in contravention of anything.

4 hours ago, limpid said:

It's civil law and would be based on convincing a magistrate that it was more likely you ever watch something live. Browser histories can be (trivially) tampered with so are unlikely to be accepted as evidence. If it got to court, you wouldn't get legal aid.

It's your call. I don't watch anything broadcast or live and still pay for a licence. Although partly that's because I value what the BBC produces even if its political viewpoint is wonky at the moment.

If companies or 3rd parties potentially tampering with evidence to make it look like I watched a live broadcast is my worst problem, I'll take my chances

I totally get where you're coming from. I don't hate the BBC. It's hard seeing it like it is.