Talk:Television licensing in the United Kingdom

Gender breakdown of prosecutions

I'm not entirely convinced this is notable. Assuming a random/even split, out of every 100 prosecution, one would expect 50 male and 50 female. The stated 1:2 ratio would be around 33 men and 66 women - not a huge difference for either. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at the court proceedings section of your local paper - male defendants always outnumber female defendants in most criminal cases. The 2:1 ratio women to men in this case is unusual - almost certainly it is due to the way people are prosecuted for TV licence evasion. In almost all cases those prosecuted for this offense have signed a 'confession' on the doorstep. The most likely cause for the the high proportion of women prosecuted is, as the article referenced suggests, that women are more likely to be at home when the TV licence officer calls. Alternatively, it could be that men are less likely to sign a statement that incriminates them. It is interesting that TV Licensing claims to catch 1000 evaders a week but only proceeds against 300 of them.193.105.48.21 (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

There is an interesting article here: http://www.spiderbomb.com/tv/womenprison.html - it also explains the discrepency between the number of evaders and the number of prosecutions.89.206.230.105 (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Biased source + dead-link to supposed original source (which looks iffy in itself) = not usable. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's a cracker of a reference then - from Radical Statistics 57 (Summer '94) http://www.radstats.org.uk/no057/gordonpantazis.pdf - in 1992, 58% of all convictions for women (excluding summary motoring offences) were for TV licence evasion. 89.206.230.105 (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

So it's 58% by virtue of selectively excluding other convictions that might make it look less "significant"? And even then, 58% is not that much different from a 50/50 split. It's also at least 19 years out of date, so we can't rely on it for anything now. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

You didn't understand. That's 58% of all convictions for women (excluding summary motoring offences). In other words the majority of criminal cases involving women (taking out motoring offences) were for TV licence evasion. In the same year less than 10% of male convictions were for tv licence evasion. 89.206.230.105 (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

It's still a nonsense concept. Men outnumber women for the vast majority of crime types, and obviously male criminals outnumber female ones as a whole (that's why there are many more male prisons than female prisons), yet somehow it's some sort of "injustice" that women outnumber men in one or two specific offences? How does that work? Arbitrarily discounting summary traffic offences for no adequately explained is also intellectually dishonest, but I guess including them and pushing TVL offences down to 42% didn't suit the agenda there. It's ironic that Table 2 clearly shows that substantially more men got imprisoned for TVL evasion, yet the following paragraphs try to present such female criminals as being the victims of sexist bias by the justice system. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Well if the point of Wikipedia is to provide interesting information about a subject, I'd say the 2:1 gender balance is very interesting. You'd never find the information on a BBC Website (although they do give the 'amusing' excuses that people give on their doorstep http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14975564). The method chosen by the BBC to deal with offenders (a door-to door prosecution service) would seem to bear down more heavily on women (unless you believe that women are much more likely than men to be TV licence fee dodgers). I wonder if there is any crime where women are twice as likely as men to feature in court?89.206.230.105 (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's an update on this subject - http://www.cityam.com/article/1377046054/exclusive-tv-licence-offences-responsible-tenth-all-uk-court-cases - it's interesting that the TV Licensing authority (ie the BBC) accepts that 'the gender imbalance was because women are more likely to be at home when their inspectors call.' 193.105.48.21 (talk) 10:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It also says that there were 155,000 convictions out of 180,000 prosecutions, so massive 86% were confirmed to be criminals. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It would be interesting to hear how the gender imbalance in prosecutions can be squared with the BBC's statutory duty to 'Eliminate unlawful discrimination and harassment on the grounds of gender' and 'Promote equality of opportunity between men and women' http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/equality-AB8/ . The method chosen to prosecute TV licence evasion guarantees a higher number of women are caught than men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.105.48.21 (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any proof that that is the case, as opposed to, say, women simply evading more than men? As noted above, there are gender biases in lots of different crimes. I doubt anyone would claim that more men get convicted of robbery because of sexist investigation techniques. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The actual answer given to Lord Laird in the Houswe of Lords only gives the statistics - http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldtoday/writtens/120813.htm - in fact, 68% of people convicted for the offence were women, so we're getting close to 7 in 10. It's in the City AM article that a reason is given by the 'TV Licensing authority' ie. the BBC. According to the BBC - 'the gender imbalance was because women are more likely to be at home when their inspectors call.' I assume from this that TV Licensing EOs mostly call Monday to Friday 9am-5pm. 89.206.230.105 (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

That's not evidence, it's just an assumption. There are plenty of reasons to suppose that the chances of there being a man in any given house at that time of the day may not be significantly less than for women (e.g. men are twice as likely to be unemployed, three times more likely to be self-employed, etc.). Nick Cooper (talk) 16:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's the BBC who give the reason and it's their contractors who knock on the door so I suppose they know or at least have the data. One thing that interests me is the fact that the EOs have the discretion when faced with an evader to simply sell a licence and not take a statement. They have censored the part from their visiting procedures which say on what grounds they do this. 89.206.230.105 (talk) 12:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I doubt they know anything of the sort. If they actually had information on the employment status or other circumstances of those who are prosecuted, they would undoubtedly come up with a more convincing analysis than a lazy, "women are more likely to be at home," because in many respects they're not to a degree that would explain such a large discrepancy.

There seems to be a suggestion that women are over-represented either because housewives are copping the prosecution for a joint crime (i.e. with their male partner) by virtue of being the one at home, or because they're poor single mothers. The first is probably over-stated, given that vast majority of women with a working partner also work themselves; the second may merely explain the reason for their choice to break the law. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

There's probably a combination of factors - I'd agree with your previous comments. Also, men might be more likely to say nothing and simply slam the door in in the EOs face. BTW, having had a look again at the interview form TVL 178 (or at least that part which is not redacted) it appears that TV Licensing do record the occupation (it's one of their standard questions) but not the gender of the person being interviewed. So it looks like the statement from the TV Licensing wasn't based on hard statistics. Presumably, the courts record the sex of the defendant and that information was passed on to the Lord Laird.193.105.48.21 (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Detection Equipment

I came upon this description of the use of TV detection equipment. http://tv-licensing.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/lifting-lid-on-tv-licensings-pandoras.html It's perhaps not reliable enough a source to include in the main article, but it's interesting particularly as the BBC itself refuses to publish any technical information about the detection equipment they employ. In the past, it was assumed that detector vans picked up an rf or hf signal from a TV. however that method wouldn't work with a computer - or at least wouldn't distinguish between a live TV picture and any other picture on the screen. The optical method described in the reference would seem to be designed to get around this problem.193.105.48.21 (talk) 10:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

"Traditional" detection was for an operating local oscillator, from which it was fairly easy to determine which of the limited number of terrestrial channels a LF evader might have been watching. That the BBC have developed an optical method of detection isn't really that surprising (despite the appeal to absurdity/incredulity by the cited blog); they could presumably have just as easily gone down the route of laser microphone surveillance to match up the audio. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's a follow up to the link given above. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/statements_involving_tv_detector A 'seeker after truth' tries to get the BBC to justify the claim that the optical equipment can reveal a TV in use with a 97% confidence factor. Not surprisingly, the BBC doesn't play ball. 89.206.230.105 (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

On prevention or detection of crime grounds. Hardy surprising. Those who are suggesting that TVL have beeing "lying" to magistrates would be advised to brush up on the libel laws. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Going back to your previous comment - probably they wouldn't be allowed to use laser microphone surveillance on grounds of invasion of privacy as they'd be able to listen to conversations. Also, reading again the description of how the device works I suspect it really would only detect the presence of a display screen in use. Matching the light fluctuations with a particular broadcast channel would seem to be problematic (and it is not claimed in the deposition to the magistrate) since there are a huge number of channels available and there is a variable time delay between picking up the signal and displaying it on the screen. Probably, what they are claiming is that there was a 97% chance of a display screen being in use at the property. The confidence factor would seem to be linked to the signal strength. It is simply a more hi-tech version of peeking through the curtains and seeing a flickering screen. It is notable that TVL lost the case when it came to court.193.105.48.21 (talk) 10:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Looking again at the deposition made to the magistrate (which is very cleverly worded), it's clear that the optical device is picking up the characteristic colours generated by a display screen. Of course, that could be a TV receiver (which itself could be any of a number of devices ie conventional TV, computer, games machine etc) receiving a broadcast but could be something else (a DVD playback or the picture on the screen when digital radio is being listened to). As for the 97% confidence factor - it's like listening to an unknown bird singing in a tree and saying that it's 100% evidence of a possible song thrush.193.105.48.21 (talk) 11:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you can make those assumptions. For example, a TV broadcast would be characterised as a constantly changing/moving picture, whereas a radio channel would usually display as a static graphic image. In any case, none of this means much, since we would need fairly robust citations to cover these issues on the subject page. We can refer to the warrant and what it says, but speculation as to the technology would need an appropriate technically-literate source, which tv-licensing.blogspot.co.uk most certainly is not. Certainly any speculation there to what the detection does, and even hints that it does not exist (which may be libellous in the context of the warrant being based on it), are right out. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

One thing that might be notable was that the equipment was used 1 hour before sunset when there would have been a considerable amount of daylight as background to the signal being measured.193.105.48.21 (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Just out of interest Nick Cooper, why are you so sure the the youtube clip showing what is supposed to be a TVL man with an optical detector, is a fake? It looks quite a complicated set up for a joke youtube clip although it is quite amusing when he pokes the lens through the letterbox. Given the blanket refusal of the BBC to discuss its technology it seems fair enough (for the purposes of accessing information) to be able to refer to the youtube clip on the Talk page even if it is probably not reliable enough a source for the main article.193.105.48.20 (talk) 11:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

You think a big box with a pipe stuck on the side, emitting a comedy "electronic noise," can be in any way genuine? Nick Cooper (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure. It does seem to be very elaborate and well thought out for a youtube hoax. Note there is a white van parked outside the address of the type used by TVL. The sequence of knocking first with clipboard in hand, then returning with the 'detector' and then coming back with the letter seems plausible. The 'box' does have a display screen on the back with some sort of image displayed on it. The 'detector' has a sort of loop on the side that could be some sort of rf or hf detector. The noise is odd- it could be the CCTV has picked up an interference signal of some sort as the 'detector' or whatever it is was powered up. There are some spoof detector sequences on Youtube but they are obviously not serious hoaxes195.194.15.1 (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The single most common type of trade vehicle in the UK is the white van - hence white van man - so that's hardly compelling "evidence" of anything. It doesn't seem very "elaborate" to me at all. I could knock up that "dectetor" prop in about ten minutes, spending no money doing so. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I have to admit you are correct over this one, Nick. There is a big clue in the final sequence - the supposed name of the visiting officer on the letter.195.194.15.1 (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Listening to Digital Radio on the TV

I think it is interesting and informative for the readers of the article to include the point that a TV can be legally used to listen to digital radio without the householder having a TV licence. This means it is legal to have a tuned TV attached to an aerial in the house as long as it's not used to watch live TV. The BBC's advice to non-TV watchers who have a TV set to 'play innocent' by disconnecting the TV from the aerial socket, covering the socket and detuning the TV would therefore seem to be meaningless. This, in itself, is an interesting point and should be in this article since it has wide implications for the present licence enforcement methods. See the the information regarding the court case in the Detection Equipment section above as a case in point.193.105.48.20 (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

You need to find a reliable source that specifically states that there is a contradiction between BBC/TVL advice on the one hand, and the supposed acceptability of only using a TV and/or STB to listen to digital radio broadcasts, especially since the latter would obviously be a financially disproportionate method of achieving that, being far more expensive than simply buying a digital radio. It's a bit like installing a electricity throughout a building just to boil a kettle in one room. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

According to the House of Commons Library publication http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN01148.pdf a TV Licensing spokesperson said: “Those who wish to make it clear that they do not need a licence can take the following actions to detune their television set, but this is not compulsory:-

remove the television from the aerial;

cover the aerial socket so that it can't be used;

ensure that when channels on the television are selected no television signal is received.”

According to TV Licensing: http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-administering-the-tv-licensing-system-part-1-AB19/ in answer to question 'Is a TV Licence required for listening to digital radio broadcasts?' -

'A TV Licence is required to watch or record TV programmes as they are being shown on TV, regardless of the channel and device being used (e.g. TV, computer, laptop, mobile phone, game console, digital box or DVD/VHS recorder), and how it is receive (terrestrial, satellite, cable, via the internet or any other way). You do not need a TV Licence if you only use this equipment to listen to digital radio broadcasts.'

I think that makes it clear that the person listening to digital radio on a TV cannot also follow the TVL's advice “Those who wish to make it clear that they do not need a licence can take the following actions" since they wouldn't be able to receive anything. The cost argument is not relevant to the point - in any case second hand TVs are very cheap whilst DAB radios are still quite costly. Note also that a true radio buff could get access to many radio stations through a SKY dish for example. I expect when the analogue signals get switched off in a few years time many more people will be using their TV in just this way. Of course the point is that people don't really have to show the BBC or its agentsthat they are innocent - in British Law it's up to the prosecuting authorities to prove otherwise.195.194.15.1 (talk) 08:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

And you're overlooking the fact that the HoC "advice" sepcifically states, "this is not compulsory," therefore there is no "contradiction." Had it been "it is compulsory," then there would have been such a contradiction. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The word 'contradiction' does not appear in the original edit that you deleted. If it did you would have a point, although not a strong one. I suppose you are claiming it to be case of 'a Synthesis of published material that advances a position'. I wonder therefore what 'position' is being advanced? If you look at the original edit, there is no contradiction between the statements, both of which are referenced. It is obvious that to use a TV as a digital radio it would need to be attached to an aerial and tuned in (unless you can think of some other way of doing this). It is also clear that the BBC's position is that one does not need a TV licence to listen to digital radio on a TV. The BBC also are offering some advice to those people who want to show they are innocent of TV licence evasion, however it is not compulsory. Also looking at the edit again - the word 'indeed' specifically indicates that there is no contradiction between the two statements nor is the information controversial.Therefore I am reinstating the original edit.195.194.15.1 (talk) 13:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I was addressing the point that you were still labouring with in the post I replied to, i.e. that of 8 October at 08:29. What you keep trying to advance is a synthesis, and a false one at that. As noted above, the BBC advice states that it is not compulsory, so to present it as a contradiction - even without using that particular word - is intellectually dishonest, because it can only be a contradiction if the BBC had said it was compulsory. As to sourcing, only the two elements of the argument you are pushing are referenced; you have not been able to come up with a reliable source that makes the explicit connection between the two that you do. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

This FOI exchange contains the most clear guidance regarding using a TV as a radio receiver. A person asked the BBC if it is legal to use a 32" colour TV as a radio receiver without a TV Licence. The BBC replied 'You do not need a TV Licence if you only use this equipment to listen to digital radio broadcasts.' https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/black_white_tv_radio_use 193.105.48.21 (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Here it is from the horse's mouth: http://www.televisionlicence.info/downloads/foi/RFI20080234.pdf193.105.48.20 (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Moving Public Opinion Sections

It would seem a good idea to move the Public Opinion sections of the article to a position after the legal issues section ie. after the bulk of the article. This would seem a more logical place - especially as the opinions do refer to enforcement of the licence fee.195.194.15.1 (talk) 13:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

"

Over-reliance on FOI responses

There long seems to have been a pattern on this page of (mostly) anonymous IPs adding references to Freedom of Information Act responses hosted by whatdotheyknow.com, most of which appear to have originated from a anti-licence fee mindset. It seems to me that much of this is, if not actually being original research, certainly bordering on a synthesis using primary sources.

Overall this page seems to suffer from a creeping abolitionist/anti-BBC agenda, not least in the obsessive detailing of potential loopholes or borderline spurious defences for licence fee evaders. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, there is a lot more well sourced and reliable information in the article now then there was a few months ago. Hopefully, if Wiki editors are not happy with the balance of article they will improve it by contributing positively to its growth and expanding the article. Politically, the whole topic seems to be heating up and the article could be very helpful to the general population seeking reliable information (I've noted it has been quoted in the odd blog recently) on the subject. As for the FOI requests - it has to be said that often these are the only reliable sources for certain information regarding enforcement techniques since the BBC tends to be rather selective in the information it makes available about enforcement.193.105.48.21 (talk) 11:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to talk about 'borderline spurious defences'. The 'borderline' should be pointed out in as much detail as possible. This gives people the ability to choose whether or not they need a licence, and if they don't have one, know what they are allowed to do. Knowing where the borderline is enables people to stay within the law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happypoems (talk • contribs) 08:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

It perfectly appropriate, especially when we get into the realms of ready-made loopholes/excuses like the "using TV only for digital radio" conceit. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

One thing that this article makes clear (and is comfirmed by the BBC itself over and over again) is that the need to buy a TV licence does NOT depend on ownership of a particular piece of electronic equipment. It's what you do with the equipment that is important. Televisions, computers, mobile phones etc have multiple uses, only some of which require a TV licence. As for 'borderline or spurious defences' - the BBC has made it perfectly clear that a TV licence is not required to listen to digital radio using a TV. See https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/black_white_tv_radio_use . Someone has asked the BBC: "assuming this same 32" colour TV is ONLY used for radio reception, (EG to listen to Heart) would it need a TV licence at all?” and the BBC has answered "You do not need a TV Licence if you only use this equipment to listen to digital radio broadcasts". There doesn't appear to be any room for doubt here.193.105.48.21 (talk) 11:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I would put money on there being less people genuinely doing that, than evaders simply using it as a spurious defence for breaking the law. For one thing, why would anyone buy a TV set that big, just to do that, when a much smaller one would suffice? Indeed, why would anyone have digital TV installed for radio-only purposes in the first place, rather than simply buying a digital radio? Nick Cooper (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

For the purposes of Wikipedia it doesn't matter why. The BBC says it's legal so it's legal. The point is it's not the equipment in the property but what one does with it that is important. Some mobile phones can be used to watch live TV which would require a licence or to listen to the radio which wouldn't. The same could be said of computers. A modern television set can be put to a number of uses, only one of which requires a licence.193.105.48.21 (talk) 10:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

No, Parliament and courts get to say whether something is legal or not. The BBC could, or course, change their mind if too many evaders try invoking this loophole. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Parliament makes the laws and the courts deliver justice. It is the BBC (as Television Licensing Authority) that brings prosecutions for licence fee evasion (via their contractors). If they say it's OK to use a television as a digital radio receiver, then no one is going to argue with them or bring prosecutions on their behalf. If you think about it, it's not really any different from using a TV as a DVD player or having an unplugged TV in a cupboard under the stairs - in either case it would only take a minute or two to set up to receive TV broadcasts. In practice, the BBC relies on people either voluntarily paying their fee or confessing to evasion on their doorstep - so called 'loopholes' have little real bearing on BBC revenue.193.105.48.21 (talk) 11:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to answer your question though Nick, here are some reasons why someone might want to use a TV for only digital radio (and hence have it plugged into their freeview aerial). 1) DAB reception in my area is terrible in the downstairs of houses, so using an existing freeview roof aerial might be the easiest way to get digital radio downstairs. 2) Even if DAB reception is adequate, I believe freeview radio has a better bitrate for many stations. 3) The person might have the TV anyway for all sorts of other reasons (watching DVDs, Netflix, Skype, computer games...) so feel that they might as well use it for radio rather than spending money on, and finding space for, another electronic gizmo they don't need. Happypoems (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

A few hypothetical scenarios do not counter what I said, i.e.: "I would put money on there being less people genuinely doing that, than evaders simply using it as a spurious defence for breaking the law." Nick Cooper (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

My comment was in reply to your questions, rather than your wager. As for that — I don't personally know anyone who admits to being a license evader (although a friend's wife was - they're now divorced), let alone one who uses "using TV only for digital radio" as an excuse, but I do know more than one person who actually does use a freeview box or TV for radio only. So others may give you better odds than I could.Happypoems (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, as I understand it, it's possible to get a huge range of radio stations through a satellite TV system so a real radio fan might want to use such a system without watching the TV. For example, I came across a Christian web site the other day that recommended that course of action in order to receive Christian radio stations.193.105.48.21 (talk) 11:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

As a follow up, have a look at https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/tv_licence_requirements_radio_re#comment-47647 . Under the heading "General guidance issued to staff explaining what licence is required when digiboxes / set-top boxes are in use", it is stated "If the customer does not require a TV licence because they only use their digital box to listen the radio through a TV or an external sound receiver, read the customer the No TV formal statement and set a No Licence Needed Claim.195.194.15.1 (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

There are too many British words in this article, wikipedia is mainly written in American English, this kind of english is very difficult to understand for foreigners. I understand that is an article about British problems, nevertheless it is on the internet, and as such it should be uniformed like the rest.