27 February 2009
TV Licensing
A personal saga with TV licensing. As developments occur I add them at the top so some of the material may make more sense if you start about half-way down.
To the uninitiated; the BBC runs a campaign of harassment and nasty letters which they inflict on anyone in the country who does not require a TV license and who is impudent enough not to participate in the BBC's invented universal registration scheme.
Update: 30 October 2011: Trick or Treat
In brief. I had a letter full of honeyed words from some man, a Mr Carl Shimeild, (does he exist? did he write the letter? is it a stock letter? one can only guess) at the BBC who said that my "clear statement that I was not breaking any laws which the BBC is entitled to regulate" was good enough for him to interpret as my saying that I do not watch TV. And he would not bother me for two years. In fact he just quoted the first half of what I'd said that "I wasn't breaking any laws". Clearly Mr Shimeild (if he exists) thinks he's a policeman with rights to regulate laws. Anyway he warned me I would receive "one more letter" which he "couldn't stop" (the machine again) but then I wouldn't be bothered for two years. He did mention the 'visit' letter as well. Back tonight from a short holiday and another letter from BBC/Capita on my doormat. Not the one that Carl (if he exists) said he "couldn't stop"; I already had that but the visit letter he mentioned. This is the one I was trying to avoid; the one that says "even though you've written to tell us that you don't watch TV we don't believe you because some people lie (god, they should know); so we may 'visit' you soon". No time specified. So out of the frying pan and into the fire. Now an unspecified 'visit' hangs over you and gets under your skin.
Carl Shimeild (if he exists) brazenly referred to "their role in enforcing and administering the license system" Of course, as anyone who has looked into this knows (and is apparent from the discussion below for the uninitiated), there is no such 'system'. No one, other than the BBC, has appointed the BBC to administer any such system. In fact Carl (if he exists)'s letter is quite careful legally (one suspects the text has in fact been produced by a lot of lawyers). He (the text) admits that I am not obliged to respond but says the BBC "must" rely on the public to keep their records up to date. This is the BBC's legally careful way of admitting that they are dragooning the public into supporting their system of sending nasty letters. For the record the reason I object to that is I believe in freedom and think I should be asked. At any event this is a subtle admission that the 2003 Communications Act does not institute the system of universal registration that the BBC runs. And it is in fact an insight into their prepared 'legally defensible position', which, as I guessed in posts below, will depend on an extrapolation of the powers which the 2003 Communications Act does give them to pursue (to court) people who should pay for a license but do not. One can almost hear the plaintive wail to the court "how can we pursue people who should pay and don't unless we can smoke them out by harassing everyone?" Of course if the BBC believed in democracy rather than send out a text about how they 'must' rely on the public to help they would lobby parliament for a change in the law to put what they are doing on a legal footing. It is interesting to speculate why they might not be doing this.
Watchers of BBC/Capita may be interested in this advert which I saw in my local paper. Notice the reference to 'selling':
So; it seems arguable then that all this intolerable harassment and intimidation is 'ultimately selling'. Yuck. The problem is we live in a society where ultimately what matters is making a 'shed-load of money' to quote one marketing expert who worked for the public sector (I heard on a course); nothing else matters. The BBC Trust and the BBC managers can get away with this for one simple reason - millions and millions of pounds are at stake. The system to gather these millions and millions of pounds works by assuming that all households without a TV license are cheats. No doubt some are. (And they will generally be poorer ones; which is another discussion). But some are not. The BBC has simply at some level taken the decision to ignore that fact and the mental peace of those people - because that makes them more money. Double yuck. It really is on the level of trick or treat. They come to your door; if you pay up for a TV license (give them a treat) they go away until next year. If you don't they 'trick' you - send you nasty, harassing, 'joke' letters about going to court etc. (Whether or not you actually by law should pay for a TV license is really an irrelevance as far as the BBC is concerned). If the lads in my neighbourhood did that as their trick or treat they'd have the PSO's breathing down their necks in short order and in fact they'd probably be arrested (the police are generally on top of things around here). But the BBC can do it because millions of pounds are at stake. This indeed is the absurdity (and horror perhaps) of the society we live in. Money is the god and justifies everything. But what is money? Exchange tokens we've invented... Yet some people are willing to destroy other peoples' lives (or just irk and worry them, spoiling their peace) for the sake of it.
It gives an interesting insight into the mentality of the people who work for the public sector (in management positions). They really do believe in some sense that they are 'the law'. It isn't democracy. Public sector managers by and large are a self-interested and self-perpetuating clique of lickspittling servants of royal power. They align themselves with the royal power that is the real 'power' in our democracy because that is the safest place to be; (like royal servants throughout the ages). From here they can screw the rest of the population and get rewards and a safe salary from the king. (Our parliamentary democracy is a modified form of monarchy; the nature of the power is still monarchical rather than democratic. This is self-evidentally true historically; as well as being evident when you look around this society for signs of democracy and notice how what little democracy there is seems in fact to be about lending legitimacy to monarchical, top-down, power systems rather than allowing citizens to control their destiny through collective discussion).
Update: 18 October 2011: Reflections
Essentially the BBC (and Capita) have created a machine. The machine is based around a database and some software which sends out various letters, leaflets etc and triggers doorstep calls etc. The basis of it is any address without a license is bombarded with increasingly stressful letters/leaflets/leaflet contraptions/doorstep harassment until they either buy a license or register that that don't need one. If the latter the BBC may try to search their home to check. I don't know what happens if you register and then refuse a search - do they then treat it as 'unconfirmed' and continue the harassment? In any event the cycle starts again after 18 months whatever you do.
The campaign is largely a work of fiction. It is based around creating a fiction in peoples' minds that something called 'TV Licensing' is some sort of authority with which people must register and which has various powers. The fiction is created by a mixture of deception and outright lying.
Auschwitz was a machine. What happens is that people create these machines and then somehow take no responsibility for them. In one of their recent letters sent to me (signed by what looks like a standard fake name) the BBC said that if I write to them they will 'update their records and stop their letters being sent'. The machine develops an autonomy of its own. And people cease to take any responsibility for anything. The BBC is not murdering people in gas chambers but the system of bureacratic madness is the same. In the BBC's case it is a fact that many people are upset and frightened by this. In the case of some elderly people this must be significant. It is quite possible that it plays a role in a certain number of suicides. There are many situations where even people who would register with the BBC (i.e. submit to the mad machine) if they could don't because e.g. they've been away, the letters/leaflets/leaflet contraptions are being sent to a second home etc. In these cases, which will be many not just a few, even on their own terms (which treat people who don't reply as guilty) the BBC is knowingly harassing completely innocent people. How for example does an elderly person, living alone, feel when they come out of a stay in a nursing home, get home and open an official looking letter about their upcomming appearance at their local court?
It gives a flavour for how topsy-turvy this society is, how what passes for law is actually a system of power, that the response of Thames Valley Police to a complaint was to send a couple of bullying coppers round to silence me.
Update: 15 October 2011: Visit from Thames Valley Police
Well; I wasn't expecting that. A visit from two of her majesty's finest at 10.00 am this morning in response to my letter (see update 9 October below). I let them in and we had a little discussion. There was reasonable cop and another more confrontational one. Their opening gambit was to just start investigating me - 'do I know the law about TV licenses!' I think they quickly grapsed that indeed I do and that I wasn't some fuddled half-wit incriminating myself.
We had a sort of intellectual discussion about the matter though little blonde cop's method of discussion was a sort of paring away of my points. One by one 'that isn't the point' - until he established that I had decided not to respond and that's why I'm getting the nasty letters at which point he looked disgusted and they left. I think reasonable cop decided to leave at that point before little blonde cop jumped on me and tried to arrest me for something. Interestingly though he might have been closer to my viewpoint than he thinks he is. He said 'there must be a statute somewhere which says you have to register' - which indeed is what a normal and reasonable person would believe. Slightly annoyed with myself that I let him get away with sicking up on me - I should have re-iterated the point that I'm not obliged to reply and are they really saying that the fact that I'm not justifies this campaign of nasty letters and visits - the BBC's point of view.
They did say that I was just trying to pick a fight with a big and powerful organisation which indeed I am though I did suggest that the BBC is trying to pick a fight with me by the look of it - and showed them the letters. I did agree though and pointed out that if I behaved liked this they would be on me like a shot, which was probably a mistake because it looked like I was trying to pick a fight with them!
So when the BBC writes in one of their form letters "It is true that you are not legally required to respond to our enquiries" the unfinished part of that sentance is "but our lawyers advise us that we should be able in court to use the fact that you haven't to justify harassing you because of our remit under the 2003 Communications Act to issue licenses and prosecute evaders" (despite the fact that it does not institute a registration scheme). And blonde cop, to his credit, had some intuitive perception of the strength of this legal position being winnable.
They both (I think) made the point that "why don't I just reply and then it will all go away". I explained that I objected to the campaign of intimdation - which is why blonde cop thought he won the argument; because (so logical) if I did reply there wouldn't be any nasty letters. The police of course are not interested in the intellectual argument from principal - as he said (repeatedly) whenever I made a general point "That doesn't matter it is just your case I am interested in". His position is one one would expect from the police - heck this is a big powerful national organisation just comply with their demands and it is that easy, no trouble for anyone. I don't think I was planning an exercise in demonstrating that the police and criminal justice system serve power rather than justice but they can't of course help themselves - and of course the BBC rely on this.
(If instead of my fairly humble house in a blue collar neighbourhood they'd had to come up a big drive to visit me I think the tone would have been more respectful from blonde cop; apologetic perhaps. It is regretable that the police assess peoples' social status and treat those with less property with less respect than those with more, though at the same time quite funny).
The BBC's TV license regime is a very good example of an extra-judicial scheme which 'big, powerful' organizations run in this country. They use the law and extrapolate from it to develop a scheme which itself was never legislated for. Another good example is the Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme (ISSP) which is a scheme run by the Youth Justice system. This scheme uses various bits of legislation - about curfews, doing activities etc, to build up the scheme - but the scheme itself has no legal basis. Power, not sated by what a compliant parliament has provided, and unwilling to be limited by the laws, expands, using the law, not to defend freedom, but to limit freedom - by a creative and manipulative process of selecting helpful bits of the law, rehashing them and developing something new.
One of the concerns people who find the BBC's campaign revolting often raise is that some elderly people must be really frightened by this. Indeed this is not simply a polemical point; you can imagine an elderly person who has been in hospital for a few weeks and returns home to find a letter about 'Enforcement Officers' or even about 'what to do when you appear at court'. I imagine some really do pay who don't need to out of fear. We can't move these days without the authorities justifying some intrusive intervention or other on the grounds of 'protecting vulnerable people'. But do they mean this? The insincerity of this claim is exposed when it turns out that power is still as allowed to abuse vulnerable people as it ever was. It is the behaviour of ordinary people which is being placed under surveillance here - not that of power itself.
Reasonable cop's view seemed to be that the BBC says they do this on their web site (he'd prepared for the meeting) so it isn't harassment - which I suggested was an interesting point of view about what constitutes harassment.
Anyway reasonable cop said he'd run it past their legal department and they'll be back on Monday - probably to arrest me for wasting police time I imagine.
Download a copy of my recent correspondence to the BBC and complaint to the Police
The BBC's responses are basically all the same (sent from what I assume is one of their standard fake names) and admit that I'm not legally required to reply to their letters, misleadingly describe their campaign of intimidating leaflets and doorstep visits as 'we write to all addresses without a license', and brazenly tell me they'll continue doing it (the harassment that is) until I do register. I haven't included copies of the intimidating leaflets and leaflet contraptions in the PDF because I assume gentle readers will be familiar with them.
Update: 9 October 2011: I've complained to the police
OK. I moved house in August 2010. The sequence started quite soon. Possibly the last tennant 'moved' her TV license and that triggered their database to start mailing me. This time my strategy was to ignore it all. It followed the usual pattern - letters about 'Action required immediately' (a lie - none is) and harassing red ink letters, leaflets and what I think one can call leaflet contraptions - strangely designed leaflets with flaps and perforations - threats of various kinds about investigations being opened, my details being passed to 'Enforcement Officers' - leaflets about what I should do when I appear in court etc. There were then 3 'visits' in fairly quick succession; I was out on each occasion but threatening pseudo-official leaflets were pushed through my door with e.g the time of visit written in by hand (the poor people the BBC employs to do their dirty-work, how do they feel?), and threats like "We said we'd call and we'll call again" etc.
Well, finally one of these threatening communications shoved through my door got my goat so I wrote to the BBC. The line I am taking is clear: a) I feel frightened and worried by their letters, leaflets, leaflet contraptions and visits, b) I am not going to tell them that I don't need a TV licence because I am not legally required to make such a declaration. Their scheme is not based on legislation . If Parliament legislates for a sort of SORN for TV licences at that point I will of course comply, c) Given that I've told them I'm not going to register and asked them to stop harassing me that should be the end of it.
To cut a long story short I've written to them three times along these lines and the answer, like a metronome is always the same: just fill in this form and we will stop the 'letters' being sent. It is interesting how when challenged a little bit the carefully crafted campaign of intimidating leaflets and doorstep visits is being described as 'letters and enquiries'. I imagine with one view to a possible court case. One has the feeling of dealing with experienced and shifty no-gooders. So we have quickly reached the critical point. I am stating that I won't answer their question and register not needing a license and notwithstanding that asking them to stop the campaign of harassment. They are stating that they will only stop when I register. (They have admitted that there is no legal requirement for me to register thus admitting their letters which claim 'Action required immediately' are a lie).
The law
I also reported them to the Police. I sent copies of the intimidating leaflets, leaflet contraptions etc and pointed out that the main justification the BBC uses for the harassing tone is that I have not replied to their previous letters (leaflets, leaflet contraptions etc) but that since I'm not legally required to do this the whole thing is harassment - or a case of Malicious Communications. (Since they clearly lie that people should reply when they say 'Action required immediately' this meets one of the criteria for a prosecution under the Malicious Communications Act, namely that they are saying things they know to be false). My letter to the police has been acknowledged and I'm waiting to hear back from them. It appears to me that a criminal case could well be brought under the 1997 Harassment Act or the 1988 Malicious Communications Act. I am also looking into seeking a civil injuction under the 1997 Harassment Act. But..
On the face of it this is clearly harassment. If I decided to write to all the people in my street and demand that they register with me that they are not growing pot (marijuana) plants in their spare room and then started a campaign similar to the one the BBC runs against those who did not reply I would quickly I assume get a visit from the police.
The BBC of course has got oodles of money - all those people who do pay the license - and has no doubt invested some of it on lawyers to make sure they have a legally defensible case. The BBC claim that they " The BBC has an obligation under the Communications Act 2003 to enforce the TV Licensing system". (BBC). I have reviewed the 2003 Communications Act and this is not in fact stated. There are sections relating to the role of the BBC in applying to courts where it believes license infringement is taking place but I cannot see the BBC being appointed as having some sort of overall 'obligation to enforce the TV licensing system'. This appears to be an interpretation by the BBC.
The main defence the BBC would use I think to any criminal or civil action under the 1997 Harassment Act or criminal action under the Malicious Communications Act is that their actions are reasonable and that they are trying to detect and prevent crime. They would not I expect try to deny that it is harassment. For example the 1997 Harassment Act has this to say:
Of course this is a sophist argument. If the campaign of harassment is to be justified by the argument that it is about 'preventing crime' my campaign of harassment about growing pot is also ok. Which is why I imagine that the BBC is pinning its hopes on being able to persuade the courts that it really does have some general over-arching rights in terms of enforcing the license conferred by the 2003 Communications Act. No doubt their limitless budgets could allow lawyers to spend time finding other legislation, parliamentary answers, regulations etc which would support a case that they do have such a general remit. My guess is the courts would go with them - not because it is right or just but because the BBC is big and powerful and a national institution (like the Queen) and they'd get a free pass because of that.
There is a similar possible get-out clause in the 1998 Malicious Communications Act:
So all in all my guess is the BBC is counting on being able to strong-arm a court into believing that they really do have some general remit to collect licenses and that in this context it is 'reasonable' to require everyone in the country to register with them and reasonable to assume that those who don't have something to hide. Clearly there is no respect for freedom in this (and no concern either for the people who must be actually frightened by this - I certainly was but at least can see through it) . It would be interesting to test it. I think that with their limitless funds and given the fact that courts don't just deliver justice but have an agenda to support national institutions regardless of justice the BBC would win. It doesn't make it right or ethical. In fact it is a good example of a large modern business acting to maximise its revenue and maintain a legally defensible position without a care for ethics. But there you go.
So - my strategy now? (Assuming the police don't prosecute the BBC). The BBC may stop the harassment - it is possible they just don't want to admit in writing that they do not have a right to harass people who don't reply to their letters. But I doubt it - perhaps I'll get a modified version of it. Anyway I guess I can write to them occasionally asking them politely to stop harassing me. If I do meet one of these doorstep callers just take his name for my records and then ask him to leave.
In passing: this is a useful link with some detailed analysis of the falsity of the BBC's position. Anti BBC site
This is also useful and has a lot of links: Anti BBC site Marmalade
Update: 7 March 2010
And so it goes on. Another letter - the usual lie about how I haven't contacted them. My address has been 'passed to Enforcement Officers' and so on. The usual unpleasant attempts to intimidate me. I'm sure this must count as criminal harassment. It does make you feel a bit miserable to be harrassed like this.
And here it is. Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988. Since (1) ii) and (1) iii) apply (it is a threat and they are making untrue statements about my not having contacted them) and it is the case that the purpose is to cause me anxiety - they are trying to worry me into paying for something and (2) (a) does not apply because the BBC can have no grounds for believing that I owe them for a TV Licence (indeed I've explained to them several times in writing that I don't watch TV) it would appear to me that the BBC is indeed guilty of an offence. The fine I note is currently £2,500.00 which is hardly likely to worry the BBC.
The BBC is clearly using the argument that people have not replied to previous letters as grounds for believing that they might require a license. Even leaving aside the case where, like myself, people have contacted them in the past, this is an abuse of the law. Not replying to their letters is not I suspect what parliament intended when it said that a company must have reasonable grounds for believing their claim was genuine - but it is obvious that this is the defence they intend to use in court. Again; there is no requirement to register for not using a TV. The BBC is riding slipshod all over the law.
Update: 13 February 2010
At last! A visit! Unfortunately I wasn't in. They came today and pushed a 'letter' - well a sort of 'notice' through my door. This is a real disapointment - not only did I miss them but having missd them I missed the opportunity to put an end to this. By the way: this is after 9 missives - various kinds of letters and leaflets etc - each warning me that a visit was just about to happen..
The 'notice' they've left is even more outrageous than usual. There is the usual lie that they do this to people who have not written back to them; I have, about 5 times. The system works on a cycle. The point is it isn't enough just to tell them that you don't watch TV - you have to do so in every cycle; each cycle is about 18 months apart I think. I'm still on the electoral register for this address - which they certainly have a copy of because that's the foundation of their whole system. So - it is pretence that they don't still know that I live here. But anyway; the main point about this is that there is no law that says I have to communicate with them at all. You need a TV Licence to watch TV but there is no requirement to register if you don't (say like SORN for cars). The BBC is just making this up. So - when they also (now) say "We also visit the homes of people who have stated that they don't have televisions or only have black and white TV sets to verify these statements. This is just a routine visit and should only take a few minutes." they are acting like a sort of illegal gestapo.
It really amazes me that the BBC can get away with this. The actual work of lying and harrassing people is carried out by Capita - the IT consultancy which has grown fat out of government contracts while screwing up simple payments which ordinary people actually need. But it originates with the BBC.
Just today on their web site (which you do not need a licence to look at) they have an 'investigation' into a firm which helps people write off bank loans and credit card debts in cases where the banks have made mistakes on the paperwork so the debts are unenforceable. Not much of a coup; some minor almost semantic point about one of this firm's promotional claims is paraded as investigative journalism. What a a joke. If they wanted to practice some 'investigative journalism' they could start with the dishonest and frightening campaign which they subject people to who simply don't watch TV.
Update: 30 May 2009
After a batch of about 4 letters all promising a visit it was beginning to look like bluff. There is only so many times you can write to someone threatening to turn up on their doorstep and not do it and expect to be taken seriously. Now there's a letter saying my 'address is on the list to be visited this month'. We'll see. Otherwise the letter contains the usual threats. And the 'you must not ignore this letter' one - which, of course, I haven't. Even though I don't use TV and don't need a license I've written to them about 5 times to explain that this is the case. I certainly haven't ignored them - in fact they appear to have ignored my letters. There are all the usual false claims to have power; 'Enforcement Officers' (retired Post Office workers) from the 'enforcement' division (Capita) will take a statement under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. (Only they won't because I've got no intention of co-operating).
Well, after all this I'm looking forward to the 'officials' arriving. But, of course they may yet not arrive. It is after all much cheaper to lie and threaten than it is to actually inquire.
I've been getting another batch of nasty, frightening letters from 'TV Licensing'. The software starts the sequence after every 12 or 18 months. A series of increasingly nasty letters. Usually I write and remind them that I don't have a TV and that seems (sometimes it takes two letters) to stop their letters. This time, I'm fed up as I've already told them about 5 times, so I'm just ignoring them and seeing where the sequence leads. Currently they are threatening to send 'Enforcement Officers' around who will interview me under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. It all sounds terribly official.
Most of it is a pack of lies. The envelopes say on them 'Action Required Immediately'. This is a lie. No one is obliged to communicate with 'TV Licensing' at all. The threats to send the Enforcement 'Officers' round is sounding a bit thin as they keep saying they'll do that if I don't reply and then they say it again in the next letter, in a slightly different way. For example the most recent letter is signed personally by someone from the Solent Enforcement Team - to make it sound like it has been escalated, when, in fact, all that has happened in all likelihood, is that the computer has gone on to the next step. The 'Enforcement Officers' are private employees of a firm of contractors; without a warrant they have no right to enter your home. TV Licensing is a marketing term for a group of contractors hired by the BBC.
The most recent letter is designed to make me feel fear. It is a testimony to its crude psychology that it succeeds even though I am totally 'innocent' and do not need a license. I suppose this is fairly trivial except there is a theme here. This is a public body, the BBC, a so-called 'respected public institution' yet they are engaged in a campaign of lying and intimidation targetting people about whom they have no evidence at all are breaking the law. It is the arrogant, complacent BBC. In fact I don't want to watch the shit that they produce. The defence is apparently that you can tell them you don't have a TV but as several of the correspondents linked on the site below point out :
i) Even if you tell them they still don't believe you and demand in some cases entry to your home.
ii) They will keep writing. At best they stop for 2 years (much less in my case) and then start again - even though they could see from the electoral register that it is the same person at the address, and I've already told them I don't use TV
iii) No one is obliged to tell them anything - why should I help them by answering their rude correspondence; I have no interest in the subject.
Finally; it seems to be the case that many of the people who are prosecuted for TV License evasion each year are poor single women. No doubt a) they can't afford the license b) use telly to keep the kids quiet c) are lonely so let the 'Enforcment Officers' in. BBC are bastards really.
Reading through the newsgroups on this I find quite a lot of people saying that people who object to this are just being awkward. I asked myself whether that was the case and I don't think it is:
i) I have written to this organisation 5 times to tell them I don't use TV. To continue to send me quite threatening letters is inexcusable. No other business would behave like this. The police would not behave like this. It is harrassment, as well as implictly saying they don't believe me. In other words I may as well have not written back to them at all. When I complained about the rude letters I had back what now seems a totally insincere letter acknowledging my concerns, I think also saying they would write to me again after a period of time. In other words it appears that this goes on until you buy a TV license, which is actually quite funny. The BBC can't have much confidence in the quality of their programmes if they have to resort to this kind of tactic.
ii) In fact this is all about profit-maximisation and efficiency. The strategy adopted is this: compare a database of people on the electoral roll with those who have a TV license. Where someone does not have a TV license bombard them with nasty letters. This is very cheap - it needs a database and some stamps. No doubt the letters produce a crop of people who were actually evading the fee and who are frightened into paying. Indeed I would have thought anyone who needed to pay would give in unless perhaps they really couldn't afford it or had nerves of steel. Thus the BBC can get maximum compliance for a small cost. The problem is (and isn't this a standard problem of capitalism?) that values such as decency and civilised behaviour have bitten the dust. Senior figures in the BBC, and Capita who run this, must have decided quite consciously that a policy of frightening about 100,000 (?) totally innocent people is acceptable in their efforts to get their hands on as much license revenue as possible. The reason I won't help them any futher is I don't want to be a collaborator in such a sordid scheme. I could have replied to one of the rude letters which asked me to telephone them and arrange to have my home searched. But, apart from the fact that I value my privacy and see no reason to surrender it if I haven't done anything wrong, if I did this I would be enabling them to tick me off and thus directly supporting their strategy of assuming everyone without a license is guilty until proven otherwise.
The correct way to go about this would be something like this:
i) Write people who don't have a license ONE polite letter. Believe them. After all, even the police (whatever they may think privately) treat people as innocent until they have some actual evidence.
ii) If there is some evidence e.g that someone has bought a TV and doesn't have a license this perhaps justifies a more robust intervention, perhaps a single doorstep interview. (Though I have to say I find the fact that shops are reporting people for buying TVs something of a violation of privacy).
iii) Where there is concrete evidence of someone breaking the law then by all means conduct PACE interviews and get a search warrant (but see iv) below).
The problem is this approach would net far fewer people. But it would at least be decent and civilised, up to a point.
iv) Really, though, it is unpleasant that the BBC hounds poor single mums. A lot of single mums, living alone and managing children with very little money or support, must find a telly more or less indispensible. £150 is a more or less impossible sum to find living on benefit. TV license stamps are a humiliating joke. You still have to pay the full amount. It is ironic that it is probably this, the most vulnerable group, on whom the axe of the BBC's profit maximising and 'efficiency' drive falls most heavily.
What Capita are doing (on behalf of the BBC) and in the interests of their shareholders is basically this: take all the people in the country, subtract those who have a TV License and you are left with a dataset. Then shake this set, by submitting them to a barrage of intimidating letters and doorstep calls, long and hard (in fact continually, permanently) - and, obviously, a few rotten apples will fall out. No matter that the good apples in this dataset get a good bruising in the process. It is breathtakingly cynical. The BBC needs to go back to ethics school if they think that their 'duty' to maximise revenue from licenses justifies upsetting thousands of ordinary people who just happen not to watch TV.
Links
Marmalade
A blog about TV Licensing
Update: 30 October 2011: Trick or Treat
In brief. I had a letter full of honeyed words from some man, a Mr Carl Shimeild, (does he exist? did he write the letter? is it a stock letter? one can only guess) at the BBC who said that my "clear statement that I was not breaking any laws which the BBC is entitled to regulate" was good enough for him to interpret as my saying that I do not watch TV. And he would not bother me for two years. In fact he just quoted the first half of what I'd said that "I wasn't breaking any laws". Clearly Mr Shimeild (if he exists) thinks he's a policeman with rights to regulate laws. Anyway he warned me I would receive "one more letter" which he "couldn't stop" (the machine again) but then I wouldn't be bothered for two years. He did mention the 'visit' letter as well. Back tonight from a short holiday and another letter from BBC/Capita on my doormat. Not the one that Carl (if he exists) said he "couldn't stop"; I already had that but the visit letter he mentioned. This is the one I was trying to avoid; the one that says "even though you've written to tell us that you don't watch TV we don't believe you because some people lie (god, they should know); so we may 'visit' you soon". No time specified. So out of the frying pan and into the fire. Now an unspecified 'visit' hangs over you and gets under your skin.
Carl Shimeild (if he exists) brazenly referred to "their role in enforcing and administering the license system" Of course, as anyone who has looked into this knows (and is apparent from the discussion below for the uninitiated), there is no such 'system'. No one, other than the BBC, has appointed the BBC to administer any such system. In fact Carl (if he exists)'s letter is quite careful legally (one suspects the text has in fact been produced by a lot of lawyers). He (the text) admits that I am not obliged to respond but says the BBC "must" rely on the public to keep their records up to date. This is the BBC's legally careful way of admitting that they are dragooning the public into supporting their system of sending nasty letters. For the record the reason I object to that is I believe in freedom and think I should be asked. At any event this is a subtle admission that the 2003 Communications Act does not institute the system of universal registration that the BBC runs. And it is in fact an insight into their prepared 'legally defensible position', which, as I guessed in posts below, will depend on an extrapolation of the powers which the 2003 Communications Act does give them to pursue (to court) people who should pay for a license but do not. One can almost hear the plaintive wail to the court "how can we pursue people who should pay and don't unless we can smoke them out by harassing everyone?" Of course if the BBC believed in democracy rather than send out a text about how they 'must' rely on the public to help they would lobby parliament for a change in the law to put what they are doing on a legal footing. It is interesting to speculate why they might not be doing this.
Watchers of BBC/Capita may be interested in this advert which I saw in my local paper. Notice the reference to 'selling':
So; it seems arguable then that all this intolerable harassment and intimidation is 'ultimately selling'. Yuck. The problem is we live in a society where ultimately what matters is making a 'shed-load of money' to quote one marketing expert who worked for the public sector (I heard on a course); nothing else matters. The BBC Trust and the BBC managers can get away with this for one simple reason - millions and millions of pounds are at stake. The system to gather these millions and millions of pounds works by assuming that all households without a TV license are cheats. No doubt some are. (And they will generally be poorer ones; which is another discussion). But some are not. The BBC has simply at some level taken the decision to ignore that fact and the mental peace of those people - because that makes them more money. Double yuck. It really is on the level of trick or treat. They come to your door; if you pay up for a TV license (give them a treat) they go away until next year. If you don't they 'trick' you - send you nasty, harassing, 'joke' letters about going to court etc. (Whether or not you actually by law should pay for a TV license is really an irrelevance as far as the BBC is concerned). If the lads in my neighbourhood did that as their trick or treat they'd have the PSO's breathing down their necks in short order and in fact they'd probably be arrested (the police are generally on top of things around here). But the BBC can do it because millions of pounds are at stake. This indeed is the absurdity (and horror perhaps) of the society we live in. Money is the god and justifies everything. But what is money? Exchange tokens we've invented... Yet some people are willing to destroy other peoples' lives (or just irk and worry them, spoiling their peace) for the sake of it.
It gives an interesting insight into the mentality of the people who work for the public sector (in management positions). They really do believe in some sense that they are 'the law'. It isn't democracy. Public sector managers by and large are a self-interested and self-perpetuating clique of lickspittling servants of royal power. They align themselves with the royal power that is the real 'power' in our democracy because that is the safest place to be; (like royal servants throughout the ages). From here they can screw the rest of the population and get rewards and a safe salary from the king. (Our parliamentary democracy is a modified form of monarchy; the nature of the power is still monarchical rather than democratic. This is self-evidentally true historically; as well as being evident when you look around this society for signs of democracy and notice how what little democracy there is seems in fact to be about lending legitimacy to monarchical, top-down, power systems rather than allowing citizens to control their destiny through collective discussion).
Update: 18 October 2011: Reflections
Essentially the BBC (and Capita) have created a machine. The machine is based around a database and some software which sends out various letters, leaflets etc and triggers doorstep calls etc. The basis of it is any address without a license is bombarded with increasingly stressful letters/leaflets/leaflet contraptions/doorstep harassment until they either buy a license or register that that don't need one. If the latter the BBC may try to search their home to check. I don't know what happens if you register and then refuse a search - do they then treat it as 'unconfirmed' and continue the harassment? In any event the cycle starts again after 18 months whatever you do.
The campaign is largely a work of fiction. It is based around creating a fiction in peoples' minds that something called 'TV Licensing' is some sort of authority with which people must register and which has various powers. The fiction is created by a mixture of deception and outright lying.
Auschwitz was a machine. What happens is that people create these machines and then somehow take no responsibility for them. In one of their recent letters sent to me (signed by what looks like a standard fake name) the BBC said that if I write to them they will 'update their records and stop their letters being sent'. The machine develops an autonomy of its own. And people cease to take any responsibility for anything. The BBC is not murdering people in gas chambers but the system of bureacratic madness is the same. In the BBC's case it is a fact that many people are upset and frightened by this. In the case of some elderly people this must be significant. It is quite possible that it plays a role in a certain number of suicides. There are many situations where even people who would register with the BBC (i.e. submit to the mad machine) if they could don't because e.g. they've been away, the letters/leaflets/leaflet contraptions are being sent to a second home etc. In these cases, which will be many not just a few, even on their own terms (which treat people who don't reply as guilty) the BBC is knowingly harassing completely innocent people. How for example does an elderly person, living alone, feel when they come out of a stay in a nursing home, get home and open an official looking letter about their upcomming appearance at their local court?
It gives a flavour for how topsy-turvy this society is, how what passes for law is actually a system of power, that the response of Thames Valley Police to a complaint was to send a couple of bullying coppers round to silence me.
Update: 15 October 2011: Visit from Thames Valley Police
Well; I wasn't expecting that. A visit from two of her majesty's finest at 10.00 am this morning in response to my letter (see update 9 October below). I let them in and we had a little discussion. There was reasonable cop and another more confrontational one. Their opening gambit was to just start investigating me - 'do I know the law about TV licenses!' I think they quickly grapsed that indeed I do and that I wasn't some fuddled half-wit incriminating myself.
We had a sort of intellectual discussion about the matter though little blonde cop's method of discussion was a sort of paring away of my points. One by one 'that isn't the point' - until he established that I had decided not to respond and that's why I'm getting the nasty letters at which point he looked disgusted and they left. I think reasonable cop decided to leave at that point before little blonde cop jumped on me and tried to arrest me for something. Interestingly though he might have been closer to my viewpoint than he thinks he is. He said 'there must be a statute somewhere which says you have to register' - which indeed is what a normal and reasonable person would believe. Slightly annoyed with myself that I let him get away with sicking up on me - I should have re-iterated the point that I'm not obliged to reply and are they really saying that the fact that I'm not justifies this campaign of nasty letters and visits - the BBC's point of view.
They did say that I was just trying to pick a fight with a big and powerful organisation which indeed I am though I did suggest that the BBC is trying to pick a fight with me by the look of it - and showed them the letters. I did agree though and pointed out that if I behaved liked this they would be on me like a shot, which was probably a mistake because it looked like I was trying to pick a fight with them!
So when the BBC writes in one of their form letters "It is true that you are not legally required to respond to our enquiries" the unfinished part of that sentance is "but our lawyers advise us that we should be able in court to use the fact that you haven't to justify harassing you because of our remit under the 2003 Communications Act to issue licenses and prosecute evaders" (despite the fact that it does not institute a registration scheme). And blonde cop, to his credit, had some intuitive perception of the strength of this legal position being winnable.
They both (I think) made the point that "why don't I just reply and then it will all go away". I explained that I objected to the campaign of intimdation - which is why blonde cop thought he won the argument; because (so logical) if I did reply there wouldn't be any nasty letters. The police of course are not interested in the intellectual argument from principal - as he said (repeatedly) whenever I made a general point "That doesn't matter it is just your case I am interested in". His position is one one would expect from the police - heck this is a big powerful national organisation just comply with their demands and it is that easy, no trouble for anyone. I don't think I was planning an exercise in demonstrating that the police and criminal justice system serve power rather than justice but they can't of course help themselves - and of course the BBC rely on this.
(If instead of my fairly humble house in a blue collar neighbourhood they'd had to come up a big drive to visit me I think the tone would have been more respectful from blonde cop; apologetic perhaps. It is regretable that the police assess peoples' social status and treat those with less property with less respect than those with more, though at the same time quite funny).
The BBC's TV license regime is a very good example of an extra-judicial scheme which 'big, powerful' organizations run in this country. They use the law and extrapolate from it to develop a scheme which itself was never legislated for. Another good example is the Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme (ISSP) which is a scheme run by the Youth Justice system. This scheme uses various bits of legislation - about curfews, doing activities etc, to build up the scheme - but the scheme itself has no legal basis. Power, not sated by what a compliant parliament has provided, and unwilling to be limited by the laws, expands, using the law, not to defend freedom, but to limit freedom - by a creative and manipulative process of selecting helpful bits of the law, rehashing them and developing something new.
One of the concerns people who find the BBC's campaign revolting often raise is that some elderly people must be really frightened by this. Indeed this is not simply a polemical point; you can imagine an elderly person who has been in hospital for a few weeks and returns home to find a letter about 'Enforcement Officers' or even about 'what to do when you appear at court'. I imagine some really do pay who don't need to out of fear. We can't move these days without the authorities justifying some intrusive intervention or other on the grounds of 'protecting vulnerable people'. But do they mean this? The insincerity of this claim is exposed when it turns out that power is still as allowed to abuse vulnerable people as it ever was. It is the behaviour of ordinary people which is being placed under surveillance here - not that of power itself.
Reasonable cop's view seemed to be that the BBC says they do this on their web site (he'd prepared for the meeting) so it isn't harassment - which I suggested was an interesting point of view about what constitutes harassment.
Anyway reasonable cop said he'd run it past their legal department and they'll be back on Monday - probably to arrest me for wasting police time I imagine.
Download a copy of my recent correspondence to the BBC and complaint to the Police
The BBC's responses are basically all the same (sent from what I assume is one of their standard fake names) and admit that I'm not legally required to reply to their letters, misleadingly describe their campaign of intimidating leaflets and doorstep visits as 'we write to all addresses without a license', and brazenly tell me they'll continue doing it (the harassment that is) until I do register. I haven't included copies of the intimidating leaflets and leaflet contraptions in the PDF because I assume gentle readers will be familiar with them.
Update: 9 October 2011: I've complained to the police
OK. I moved house in August 2010. The sequence started quite soon. Possibly the last tennant 'moved' her TV license and that triggered their database to start mailing me. This time my strategy was to ignore it all. It followed the usual pattern - letters about 'Action required immediately' (a lie - none is) and harassing red ink letters, leaflets and what I think one can call leaflet contraptions - strangely designed leaflets with flaps and perforations - threats of various kinds about investigations being opened, my details being passed to 'Enforcement Officers' - leaflets about what I should do when I appear in court etc. There were then 3 'visits' in fairly quick succession; I was out on each occasion but threatening pseudo-official leaflets were pushed through my door with e.g the time of visit written in by hand (the poor people the BBC employs to do their dirty-work, how do they feel?), and threats like "We said we'd call and we'll call again" etc.
Well, finally one of these threatening communications shoved through my door got my goat so I wrote to the BBC. The line I am taking is clear: a) I feel frightened and worried by their letters, leaflets, leaflet contraptions and visits, b) I am not going to tell them that I don't need a TV licence because I am not legally required to make such a declaration. Their scheme is not based on legislation . If Parliament legislates for a sort of SORN for TV licences at that point I will of course comply, c) Given that I've told them I'm not going to register and asked them to stop harassing me that should be the end of it.
To cut a long story short I've written to them three times along these lines and the answer, like a metronome is always the same: just fill in this form and we will stop the 'letters' being sent. It is interesting how when challenged a little bit the carefully crafted campaign of intimidating leaflets and doorstep visits is being described as 'letters and enquiries'. I imagine with one view to a possible court case. One has the feeling of dealing with experienced and shifty no-gooders. So we have quickly reached the critical point. I am stating that I won't answer their question and register not needing a license and notwithstanding that asking them to stop the campaign of harassment. They are stating that they will only stop when I register. (They have admitted that there is no legal requirement for me to register thus admitting their letters which claim 'Action required immediately' are a lie).
The law
I also reported them to the Police. I sent copies of the intimidating leaflets, leaflet contraptions etc and pointed out that the main justification the BBC uses for the harassing tone is that I have not replied to their previous letters (leaflets, leaflet contraptions etc) but that since I'm not legally required to do this the whole thing is harassment - or a case of Malicious Communications. (Since they clearly lie that people should reply when they say 'Action required immediately' this meets one of the criteria for a prosecution under the Malicious Communications Act, namely that they are saying things they know to be false). My letter to the police has been acknowledged and I'm waiting to hear back from them. It appears to me that a criminal case could well be brought under the 1997 Harassment Act or the 1988 Malicious Communications Act. I am also looking into seeking a civil injuction under the 1997 Harassment Act. But..
On the face of it this is clearly harassment. If I decided to write to all the people in my street and demand that they register with me that they are not growing pot (marijuana) plants in their spare room and then started a campaign similar to the one the BBC runs against those who did not reply I would quickly I assume get a visit from the police.
The BBC of course has got oodles of money - all those people who do pay the license - and has no doubt invested some of it on lawyers to make sure they have a legally defensible case. The BBC claim that they " The BBC has an obligation under the Communications Act 2003 to enforce the TV Licensing system". (BBC). I have reviewed the 2003 Communications Act and this is not in fact stated. There are sections relating to the role of the BBC in applying to courts where it believes license infringement is taking place but I cannot see the BBC being appointed as having some sort of overall 'obligation to enforce the TV licensing system'. This appears to be an interpretation by the BBC.
The main defence the BBC would use I think to any criminal or civil action under the 1997 Harassment Act or criminal action under the Malicious Communications Act is that their actions are reasonable and that they are trying to detect and prevent crime. They would not I expect try to deny that it is harassment. For example the 1997 Harassment Act has this to say:
Subsection (1) does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows.
(a)that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,
(b)that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or
(c)that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable
So, second-guessing the BBC's lawyers I reckon the argument would be that they are engaged in trying to prevent the crime of license evasion, that the 2003 Communications Act tasks them with this (I can't see that it does, having reviewed Part 4, the relevant section but I may be missing something in terms of what a lawyer thinks he can make of these general provisions relating to a right to modiy a license and the right to apply to a court for a warrant if they believe infringement is taking place), and that it is a reasonable demand to ask people to let them know if they don't require a license.
(a)that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,
(b)that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or
(c)that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable
Of course this is a sophist argument. If the campaign of harassment is to be justified by the argument that it is about 'preventing crime' my campaign of harassment about growing pot is also ok. Which is why I imagine that the BBC is pinning its hopes on being able to persuade the courts that it really does have some general over-arching rights in terms of enforcing the license conferred by the 2003 Communications Act. No doubt their limitless budgets could allow lawyers to spend time finding other legislation, parliamentary answers, regulations etc which would support a case that they do have such a general remit. My guess is the courts would go with them - not because it is right or just but because the BBC is big and powerful and a national institution (like the Queen) and they'd get a free pass because of that.
There is a similar possible get-out clause in the 1998 Malicious Communications Act:
A person is not guilty of an offence by virtue of subsection (1)(a)(ii) above if he shows.
(a)that the threat was used to reinforce a demand [made by him on reasonable grounds]; and
(b)that he believed [F4, and had reasonable grounds for believing,] that the use of the threat was a proper means of reinforcing the demand.
This seems less easy for the BBC to use; the demand that one register with them is not a legal requirement and I'm not sure that just by itself they could argue that it was reasonable without any other support. On the other hand for something to be a malicious communication it has to be a 'threat' or 'information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender'. This might be harder to establish than harassment in general. The claim that 'Action is required immediately' is false - it isn't but it is printed on the outside of the envelopes and I can see the BBC somehow claiming that that means it is not serious. And 'threats' are arguable. All their threats are in a way legal - it may be unnerving to be sent a letter about my imminent court appearance but they haven't theatened to break my legs. (They mean it but they don't; they are creating a shifting world where threats manifest and dissolve with one version for the recipent and one for their legal defence team - this campaign must keep their lawyers on their toes).
(a)that the threat was used to reinforce a demand [made by him on reasonable grounds]; and
(b)that he believed [F4, and had reasonable grounds for believing,] that the use of the threat was a proper means of reinforcing the demand.
So all in all my guess is the BBC is counting on being able to strong-arm a court into believing that they really do have some general remit to collect licenses and that in this context it is 'reasonable' to require everyone in the country to register with them and reasonable to assume that those who don't have something to hide. Clearly there is no respect for freedom in this (and no concern either for the people who must be actually frightened by this - I certainly was but at least can see through it) . It would be interesting to test it. I think that with their limitless funds and given the fact that courts don't just deliver justice but have an agenda to support national institutions regardless of justice the BBC would win. It doesn't make it right or ethical. In fact it is a good example of a large modern business acting to maximise its revenue and maintain a legally defensible position without a care for ethics. But there you go.
So - my strategy now? (Assuming the police don't prosecute the BBC). The BBC may stop the harassment - it is possible they just don't want to admit in writing that they do not have a right to harass people who don't reply to their letters. But I doubt it - perhaps I'll get a modified version of it. Anyway I guess I can write to them occasionally asking them politely to stop harassing me. If I do meet one of these doorstep callers just take his name for my records and then ask him to leave.
In passing: this is a useful link with some detailed analysis of the falsity of the BBC's position. Anti BBC site
This is also useful and has a lot of links: Anti BBC site Marmalade
Update: 7 March 2010
And so it goes on. Another letter - the usual lie about how I haven't contacted them. My address has been 'passed to Enforcement Officers' and so on. The usual unpleasant attempts to intimidate me. I'm sure this must count as criminal harassment. It does make you feel a bit miserable to be harrassed like this.
And here it is. Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988. Since (1) ii) and (1) iii) apply (it is a threat and they are making untrue statements about my not having contacted them) and it is the case that the purpose is to cause me anxiety - they are trying to worry me into paying for something and (2) (a) does not apply because the BBC can have no grounds for believing that I owe them for a TV Licence (indeed I've explained to them several times in writing that I don't watch TV) it would appear to me that the BBC is indeed guilty of an offence. The fine I note is currently £2,500.00 which is hardly likely to worry the BBC.
The BBC is clearly using the argument that people have not replied to previous letters as grounds for believing that they might require a license. Even leaving aside the case where, like myself, people have contacted them in the past, this is an abuse of the law. Not replying to their letters is not I suspect what parliament intended when it said that a company must have reasonable grounds for believing their claim was genuine - but it is obvious that this is the defence they intend to use in court. Again; there is no requirement to register for not using a TV. The BBC is riding slipshod all over the law.
Offence of sending letters etc. with intent to cause distress or anxiety
(1) Any person who sends to another person.
(a) a letter or other article which conveys.
(i) a message which is indecent or grossly offensive;
(ii) a threat; or
(iii) information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or
(b) any other article which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature,
is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.
(2) A person is not guilty of an offence by virtue of subsection (1)(a)(ii) above if he shows.
(a) that the threat was used to reinforce a demand which he believed he had reasonable grounds for making; and
(b) that he believed that the use of the threat was a proper means of reinforcing the demand.
(3) In this section references to sending include references to delivering and to causing to be sent or delivered and .sender. shall be construed accordingly.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
From a wider societal point of view this is a very good example of the behaviour of what the author Ivan Illich described as a 'manipulative right-wing institution'. The BBC no doubt clamours for the law on TV licensing but shows its own cynical attitude with a campaign which distorts and bends the law. It about power, not respect for the law. (Read a review on Ivan Illich's Deschooling Society here - PDF).
(1) Any person who sends to another person.
(a) a letter or other article which conveys.
(i) a message which is indecent or grossly offensive;
(ii) a threat; or
(iii) information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or
(b) any other article which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature,
is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.
(2) A person is not guilty of an offence by virtue of subsection (1)(a)(ii) above if he shows.
(a) that the threat was used to reinforce a demand which he believed he had reasonable grounds for making; and
(b) that he believed that the use of the threat was a proper means of reinforcing the demand.
(3) In this section references to sending include references to delivering and to causing to be sent or delivered and .sender. shall be construed accordingly.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
Update: 13 February 2010
At last! A visit! Unfortunately I wasn't in. They came today and pushed a 'letter' - well a sort of 'notice' through my door. This is a real disapointment - not only did I miss them but having missd them I missed the opportunity to put an end to this. By the way: this is after 9 missives - various kinds of letters and leaflets etc - each warning me that a visit was just about to happen..
The 'notice' they've left is even more outrageous than usual. There is the usual lie that they do this to people who have not written back to them; I have, about 5 times. The system works on a cycle. The point is it isn't enough just to tell them that you don't watch TV - you have to do so in every cycle; each cycle is about 18 months apart I think. I'm still on the electoral register for this address - which they certainly have a copy of because that's the foundation of their whole system. So - it is pretence that they don't still know that I live here. But anyway; the main point about this is that there is no law that says I have to communicate with them at all. You need a TV Licence to watch TV but there is no requirement to register if you don't (say like SORN for cars). The BBC is just making this up. So - when they also (now) say "We also visit the homes of people who have stated that they don't have televisions or only have black and white TV sets to verify these statements. This is just a routine visit and should only take a few minutes." they are acting like a sort of illegal gestapo.
It really amazes me that the BBC can get away with this. The actual work of lying and harrassing people is carried out by Capita - the IT consultancy which has grown fat out of government contracts while screwing up simple payments which ordinary people actually need. But it originates with the BBC.
Just today on their web site (which you do not need a licence to look at) they have an 'investigation' into a firm which helps people write off bank loans and credit card debts in cases where the banks have made mistakes on the paperwork so the debts are unenforceable. Not much of a coup; some minor almost semantic point about one of this firm's promotional claims is paraded as investigative journalism. What a a joke. If they wanted to practice some 'investigative journalism' they could start with the dishonest and frightening campaign which they subject people to who simply don't watch TV.
Update: 30 May 2009
After a batch of about 4 letters all promising a visit it was beginning to look like bluff. There is only so many times you can write to someone threatening to turn up on their doorstep and not do it and expect to be taken seriously. Now there's a letter saying my 'address is on the list to be visited this month'. We'll see. Otherwise the letter contains the usual threats. And the 'you must not ignore this letter' one - which, of course, I haven't. Even though I don't use TV and don't need a license I've written to them about 5 times to explain that this is the case. I certainly haven't ignored them - in fact they appear to have ignored my letters. There are all the usual false claims to have power; 'Enforcement Officers' (retired Post Office workers) from the 'enforcement' division (Capita) will take a statement under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. (Only they won't because I've got no intention of co-operating).
Well, after all this I'm looking forward to the 'officials' arriving. But, of course they may yet not arrive. It is after all much cheaper to lie and threaten than it is to actually inquire.
I've been getting another batch of nasty, frightening letters from 'TV Licensing'. The software starts the sequence after every 12 or 18 months. A series of increasingly nasty letters. Usually I write and remind them that I don't have a TV and that seems (sometimes it takes two letters) to stop their letters. This time, I'm fed up as I've already told them about 5 times, so I'm just ignoring them and seeing where the sequence leads. Currently they are threatening to send 'Enforcement Officers' around who will interview me under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. It all sounds terribly official.
Most of it is a pack of lies. The envelopes say on them 'Action Required Immediately'. This is a lie. No one is obliged to communicate with 'TV Licensing' at all. The threats to send the Enforcement 'Officers' round is sounding a bit thin as they keep saying they'll do that if I don't reply and then they say it again in the next letter, in a slightly different way. For example the most recent letter is signed personally by someone from the Solent Enforcement Team - to make it sound like it has been escalated, when, in fact, all that has happened in all likelihood, is that the computer has gone on to the next step. The 'Enforcement Officers' are private employees of a firm of contractors; without a warrant they have no right to enter your home. TV Licensing is a marketing term for a group of contractors hired by the BBC.
The most recent letter is designed to make me feel fear. It is a testimony to its crude psychology that it succeeds even though I am totally 'innocent' and do not need a license. I suppose this is fairly trivial except there is a theme here. This is a public body, the BBC, a so-called 'respected public institution' yet they are engaged in a campaign of lying and intimidation targetting people about whom they have no evidence at all are breaking the law. It is the arrogant, complacent BBC. In fact I don't want to watch the shit that they produce. The defence is apparently that you can tell them you don't have a TV but as several of the correspondents linked on the site below point out :
i) Even if you tell them they still don't believe you and demand in some cases entry to your home.
ii) They will keep writing. At best they stop for 2 years (much less in my case) and then start again - even though they could see from the electoral register that it is the same person at the address, and I've already told them I don't use TV
iii) No one is obliged to tell them anything - why should I help them by answering their rude correspondence; I have no interest in the subject.
Finally; it seems to be the case that many of the people who are prosecuted for TV License evasion each year are poor single women. No doubt a) they can't afford the license b) use telly to keep the kids quiet c) are lonely so let the 'Enforcment Officers' in. BBC are bastards really.
Reading through the newsgroups on this I find quite a lot of people saying that people who object to this are just being awkward. I asked myself whether that was the case and I don't think it is:
i) I have written to this organisation 5 times to tell them I don't use TV. To continue to send me quite threatening letters is inexcusable. No other business would behave like this. The police would not behave like this. It is harrassment, as well as implictly saying they don't believe me. In other words I may as well have not written back to them at all. When I complained about the rude letters I had back what now seems a totally insincere letter acknowledging my concerns, I think also saying they would write to me again after a period of time. In other words it appears that this goes on until you buy a TV license, which is actually quite funny. The BBC can't have much confidence in the quality of their programmes if they have to resort to this kind of tactic.
ii) In fact this is all about profit-maximisation and efficiency. The strategy adopted is this: compare a database of people on the electoral roll with those who have a TV license. Where someone does not have a TV license bombard them with nasty letters. This is very cheap - it needs a database and some stamps. No doubt the letters produce a crop of people who were actually evading the fee and who are frightened into paying. Indeed I would have thought anyone who needed to pay would give in unless perhaps they really couldn't afford it or had nerves of steel. Thus the BBC can get maximum compliance for a small cost. The problem is (and isn't this a standard problem of capitalism?) that values such as decency and civilised behaviour have bitten the dust. Senior figures in the BBC, and Capita who run this, must have decided quite consciously that a policy of frightening about 100,000 (?) totally innocent people is acceptable in their efforts to get their hands on as much license revenue as possible. The reason I won't help them any futher is I don't want to be a collaborator in such a sordid scheme. I could have replied to one of the rude letters which asked me to telephone them and arrange to have my home searched. But, apart from the fact that I value my privacy and see no reason to surrender it if I haven't done anything wrong, if I did this I would be enabling them to tick me off and thus directly supporting their strategy of assuming everyone without a license is guilty until proven otherwise.
The correct way to go about this would be something like this:
i) Write people who don't have a license ONE polite letter. Believe them. After all, even the police (whatever they may think privately) treat people as innocent until they have some actual evidence.
ii) If there is some evidence e.g that someone has bought a TV and doesn't have a license this perhaps justifies a more robust intervention, perhaps a single doorstep interview. (Though I have to say I find the fact that shops are reporting people for buying TVs something of a violation of privacy).
iii) Where there is concrete evidence of someone breaking the law then by all means conduct PACE interviews and get a search warrant (but see iv) below).
The problem is this approach would net far fewer people. But it would at least be decent and civilised, up to a point.
iv) Really, though, it is unpleasant that the BBC hounds poor single mums. A lot of single mums, living alone and managing children with very little money or support, must find a telly more or less indispensible. £150 is a more or less impossible sum to find living on benefit. TV license stamps are a humiliating joke. You still have to pay the full amount. It is ironic that it is probably this, the most vulnerable group, on whom the axe of the BBC's profit maximising and 'efficiency' drive falls most heavily.
What Capita are doing (on behalf of the BBC) and in the interests of their shareholders is basically this: take all the people in the country, subtract those who have a TV License and you are left with a dataset. Then shake this set, by submitting them to a barrage of intimidating letters and doorstep calls, long and hard (in fact continually, permanently) - and, obviously, a few rotten apples will fall out. No matter that the good apples in this dataset get a good bruising in the process. It is breathtakingly cynical. The BBC needs to go back to ethics school if they think that their 'duty' to maximise revenue from licenses justifies upsetting thousands of ordinary people who just happen not to watch TV.
Links
Marmalade
A blog about TV Licensing