The Television Licence – Do You Need One?

To some, the BBC provides a wonderful range of quality television, radio and online content. Indeed many are happy to pay for their TV licence as it funds this long standing institution. The current licence fee is £145.50 a year and goes towards the cost of programming and the high salaried TV stars that light up our living rooms. You can pay for your licence upfront in one no fuss, no hassle fee, or if you choose, you can spread the cost by paying in monthly instalments. The BBC, a private company, employs another private company in the form the TV Licensing who, on the BBC’s behalf, arrange for collection of payment and visit unlicensed addresses to make sure that the “current occupier” is obeying the law.

Do you need a TV licence? The TV Licensing Company state that “You need to be covered by a valid TV licence if you watch or record TV as it’s being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone, or DVD/video recorder”. If you do not have a television capable of receiving a live broadcast, then you are not required to get a TV licence. However, simply informing TV Licensing of this is not enough. This private company will insist on entering your property to see for themselves. A point to be remembered is that you have no obligation to allow them access to your property, nor are you obliged to tell them your name or whether or not your are the occupier of the property. The company then has three choices, they can either accept that you do not require a TV licence and leave you alone, continue to send you harassing letters with warnings and threats, or if that fails, they will apply to a judge to obtain a warrant to enter your premises to ascertain whether or not you require a TV licence. The third option is their last resort.

I spoke with a TV Licensing representative on their customer service helpline to ask what evidence would satisfy a judge that the occupier was watching or capable of receiving live television. I was advised that:

“They could obtain any evidence to send out a warrant so that’s information they have received from service providers, even by the signals if the signals have been checked or if someone has reported yourself”.

I asked if he meant the internet service provider:

“It could be from your television service provider.”

What if you do not have a television service provider? This question seemed to cause him some consternation and he advised that he would get the customer specialist unit to call me back to answer my questions but they never did. I was intrigued by his claim that television service providers give the TV Licensing company such sensitive information. I contacted Sky, BT and Virgin but thus far only Virgin have responded.

A Virgin Media Spokeswomen had this to say:

“We’ve looked into this and can confirm we do not share customer information with TV licensing authorities. Sometimes we may release information to public authorities but only to assist with an investigation or via a court order.”

It is entirely possible that the TV Licensing representative was mistaken so I will not hold what he said to be an actual practice of the TV Licensing, although I am still awaiting a response from BskyB and BT. In the meantime, I decided to contacted the TV Licensing press office to ask what evidence a judge requires to grant a warrant to enter a premises.

A TV Licensing spokesperson said:

“We only apply for a search warrant as a last resort and we state this on our website. Each application is considered scrupulously before it is submitted, and a warrant cannot be granted by the court unless there are reasonable grounds for the application.”

In addition to the official comment the spokesperson also advised that:

“TV Licensing apply to a magistrate (or sheriff in Scotland) for a search warrant when there is reasonable grounds to believe an offence has been committed, evidence of the offence is likely to be found on the premises and entry will not be granted unless a warrant is produced. We’re open about the fact we only apply for a search warrant as a last resort. We don’t give out specific examples of the type of evidence we might use to support a search warrant application, because this information might be useful to people looking to avoid paying the fee.”

Below is a cleverly edited video showing how the TV Licensing company work.

Evidence is likely to be found on the premises. Just remember that statement and remember that a TV Licensing agent has no authority to enter your premises. This means that by giving an agent no details, as to your identity, and refusing them access to your property, then they are unable to gather any evidence that they might present to a judge. I have asked for further clarification on what other evidence they might use, however, as you can see they are unwilling to let that information be known. I have, as a result of this response, made an FOI (Freedom of Information) request to ascertain exactly how many warrants the TV Licensing people apply for and how many are successful. Additionally, I have requested “what other evidence” might be used in order gain entry to your property. I will also be writing to the Sheriff officer for Glasgow to get their side of it, their processes, and how they evaluate the evidence presented by the TV Licensing company. I will keep you updated once I have received another response from my FOI request and I have spoken to the Sheriff Officer.

Peace and love fellow human.

Independence Referendum – Blanket Boycotts Are Not The Answer

Let us face the facts, the majority of the Scottish electorate, fifty-five percent, voted against Scotland becoming an independent country. That is the result and we can do nothing but accept it as fact. However, we do not need to forget it, or let go of the dream of one day being an independent nation. Based on nothing more than my conversations with no voters, the reasons for voting no includes, fears over economy, defence, currency, border control and bloody Doctor Who. Furthermore, the notion that voters were turned from voting yes by the image painted by politicians and the media that the SNP and its members as nasty, angry nationalists was put forward, while the same press ignored nationalistic sentiment from the no side. This helped create an environment in which fear was a massive factor in deciding which way to vote. As a by-product, anyone associated with the yes side were lumped together as a single frame of mind and ideal. The truth is, that the yes campaign transcended many different sections of society, with most sharing nothing in common with the SNP, other than their desire for constitutional change through Scottish independence.

The “vow”, not worth the paper it was printed in.

The scare stories, which were designed to frighten people to vote no, came from all angles. We had media reports telling us that the oil was running out, and that Scotland could not survive without the financial aid of Westminster. We were billed as subsidy junkies, looking for handouts from a benevolent master. “Please sir can I have some more”. However, as it looked like Scotland might vote for independence, up stepped the leaders of the UK to promise us less than what independence would deliver. The press played a massive part in project fear, giving us daily doses of doom and armageddon should we choose wrongly. Out of all the publications in the UK only The Sunday Herald supported a yes vote. Every other newspaper and media outlet refused to officially announce itself one way or the other, however, their leanings were obvious and punctuated by anti-independence announcements from businesses.

The big four supermarkets threatened to raise their prices if Scotland voted yes. How this could be seen as anything other than a bluff is beyond me. It would have been impossible for them to increase the costs of essentials without losing a large bulk of their customer base. Yes and no voters would have been driven off in their masses. A boycott of every single business that supported maintaining the union is simply impractical. However, boycotts do have their place and should be used where their impact will be felt the greatest. It would be hard for people, already struggling, to shop elsewhere, every penny counts. Believe it or not, these places offer the best value for money. It’s all well and good having principles, but if you can’t feed your family, or yourself then, what’s the point.

Threats to hike prices seemed to work for some voters.

Furthermore, it would also be difficult to hurt the media with any boycott. Print media’s circulation has dropped dramatically over the years due to the rise of smartphones and tablets. The biggest source of any newspaper’s wealth, in print or on the internet, is through advertising. Given this fact it would be hard to see how a boycott would affect income. Refusing to buy a particular publication will have less of an impact than previously as most people get their news online. I’m sure there will be those among you who like the feel of the paper between their fingers, but by and large this is not the case. RBS and Clydesdale were among the Scottish banks which threatened job cuts in the event of a yes vote. However, it would also be difficult to change bank accounts to a different provider considering most of us are living off of our overdraft and simply do not have the funds to close the account.

The businesses which would be most affected by any boycott are those that rely on a regular subscription fee, for example, Sky and Virgin Media both came out against independence, both have considerable reach, in terms of viewership, and both depend on regular subscription fees. It would be rather easy to cancel your subscription to these services and find an alternative supplier. You can get most TV programs on catch-up services and freeview is also available. Plus, boycotting Virgin should be the norm, given the amount of tax avoided via an immoral, yet legal loophole.

A private tax collecting company.

Another effective boycott could be done against the biggest offender of the independence referendum. The BBC licence fee brings in nearly £4 billion a year. This television tax helps pay over inflated wages to its stars and directors. I would strongly urge everyone reading this to cancel your subscription to this outdated form of tax on the poor. If a representative from TV Licensing appears at your door, remember that they are a private company and in no way affiliated with the law. Do not speak to them, you are not obliged to answer any questions, you do not have to give them any information and any information they do get will only help them to legally enter your premises to check if you have a television capable of receiving a live signal. Remember that laptops and smartphones also require a licence to watch live television. You do not need a licence to watch catch-up. The licence is completely unnecessary and can be legally avoided. If you would like to officially be free of harassment from this private company then you can follow the advice printed in The Telegraph on how to avoid the fee, which can be found by clicking here.

Peace and love fellow human.