Its time for a proper campaign for the abolition of the TV licence. There are lots of websites opposing the licence (e.g. http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info, http://licencefree.co.uk/, http://tv-licensing.blogspot.co.uk etc), and various MPs are now getting in on the act, but nothing that could be called an organised campaign - that is, one that sets out with the sole aim of the abolition of the TV licence fee in its current form, brings together all its opponents and raises the funds necessary to bring the campaign to fruition.
Why would anyone want to support this campaign? I'm pretty agnostic about the merits of the BBC. They make some quite good programs (that I don't watch many of...). They are also reasonably authoritative and fair in reporting many issues (which makes it all the more annoying that they use this perceived neutrality to push their biases). The BBC in its current form may also be at risk without the TV licence funding it - but there are many alternatives, subscriptions, advertising, direct government grants - and what should replace the TV licence isn't a relevant consideration if the current funding mechanism is so unacceptable.
So what makes the tv licence so unacceptable:
1) It is unfair.
As a flat tax, levied across most of the population, its costs are disproportionately hard to bear for those on low incomes. As a result, many thousands of low income households have been fined or people even imprisoned for not paying it.
2) The methods essential to enforce the tv licence are unacceptable in a free, modern society.
Evidence of whether or not a licensable activity is being undertaken by an individual can only be determined by gross intrusions into personal privacy, and even then only if there is almost 100% takeup of the licence, such that anyone without a licence can be bullied, threatened and harassed as if they were breaking the law. With modern methods of watching broadcast TV, it is pretty much impossible to determine if the law is being complied with unless you give those responsible for enforcement the power to enter any unlicensed property unannounced and to have a snoop around. Such a power is never going to be acceptable in a free society, so the only other tactic available for enforcement is one of bullying and harassment - personal visits and threatening letters (often designed to deceive about the requirements of licensing or the powers of those enforcing it) targeted at all unlicensed premises. The aim is to scare people into being licensed, or for people to inadvertently incriminate themselves. With so much consumer protection around misleading claims from suppliers, and criminal sanctions available against most types of harassment, it is unclear how TV licensing gets away with its tactics.
As technology moves on and fewer people need or want to watch live broadcast TV, those legally licence free can only increase, and with it the anger at the tactics of tv licensing. It is time for the TV licence to be abolished, and funding for the BBC to be moved to a more sustainable long term arrangement. So who's up for making it happen?
(Memo to self - must work out the difference between licence and license.)
(Memo to others - I currently have a TV licence as I watch live TV.)
The BBC Worldservice is a globally influential broadcast, now financed out of the license fee. Would you want to abolish the BBC Worldservice or how would you see it to be financed?
ReplyDeleteWhy could this not be funded through general taxation out of the international aid budget? I am sure DFID could find £250 million from their budget for such a worthy (and influential) cause :)
DeleteUK:
ReplyDeleteLicence - noun.
License - verb.
US:
License - noun and verb.
---
It has to be paid for somehow.
Well, in the UK the verb can be 'licence' too. Extra hence confusion.
DeleteDoesn't funding the BBC out of general taxation make it more of a 'state broad-caster' and erode some of its independence, especially come budget day. Currently the government look at the grant only every ten years. The BBC is definately as useful for Britain abroad as it is for its viewers at home. It has to be paid for somehow, so unless we want advertisements on it then i would keep it as it is.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteProcedure By Which conservatives Could Control Parliament
If UKIP is Lucky, UKIP could get, perhaps, get five to ten seats
in Parliament. Do not forget, the public still regards UKIP as a
one issue party. To gain control of Parliament UKIP and (and frie-
nds) should form a new conservative party with a platform that is
close to that of the existing Conservative party, omitting, of course,
policies that are objectionable to conservatives. The purpose would
be to make a bed that would be easy for conservatives to slide into,
including the eighty percent of the Conservatives who left Conser-
vative associations. UKIP and the conservatives should then form
a political association in each parliamentary district. UKIP could
merge with the new party, thus getting rid of the one issue problem.
Every one who would have worked to form the new, conservative,
party should be prevented from joining the new party for
a period of time to prevent the impression that UKIP controls it.
The two or three conservative parties should hold a primary election
to determine who runs as the Parliamentary candidate, with the losers
to help the winner. The cost of forming new associations can be raised
by local contributors. It is suggested that the new conservative asso-
ciations and the political party be controlled by the lowest level of con-
servatives, such as teachers, small businessmen, solicitors, professionals
etc. If the above procedure can not be completed in time to get
candidates elected to Parliament, the new party must wait until
after the election and hold a petition demanding that the elected
MP resign. Note: an MP represents every person in his district, not
just members and supporters of his party. When the petition reaches
fifty percent of those who voted in the prior election, the conservatives
will be morally justified in demanding their MP"s resignation. Then the
new party could run their candidates in the following by elections.
To select a candidate, a local association should advertise for applicants
or the position of candidate for Parliament, then select the best app-
licant by using rigorous tests, including, most importantly, psychological
evaluation. psychological evaluation is an absolute necessity as the psych-
ological evaluation is the only way to tell who is honest and who is a con-
artist; members of the public cannot. Testing could be required of the
association officers, committee members and delegates, etc.
The platform, selected by new party associations, should be some what
vague in order to facilitate integration the platforms of the new assoc-
iations into one platform. It is suggested that self forming cliques of those
who are honest and trust worthy be formed; then form self forming
cliques of those who have political skills and capabilities, within the
first described clique.
The corruption in Ukip is a cause for concern. Information about the corr-
uption may bee seen on the following websites:
ukip-vs-eukip.com
unfashionista.com
eureferendum.com
John Newell