@goldon makes a perfectly fair point about the Licence fee being a flat rate tax, and thus there is an unfair element to the way it is charged.
If this Government was (for example) to decriminalise it, and say everyone on certain means-tested benefits would pay a lesser (or no) licence fee in return for inflation-based rises for everyone else, I could fully understand that.
But they are not. The current suggestion is a levy on Broadband. A service that (like the TV Licence) has flat rates for everyone, regardless of circumstances.
A service that has rocketed in cost in the last few years. There is no Broadband currently marketed that is less than £200 p.a (unless you tie yourself in to other things at greater cost). And the decent Broadband packages cost rather more. For a service that (to my untrained eye) seems a lot cheaper than running the BBC.
I don't trust this Government. But I would rather trust TV Licensing than Sky/BT/Talk Talk with my money.
@goldon makes a perfectly fair point about the Licence fee being a flat rate tax, and thus there is an unfair element to the way it is charged.
If this Government was (for example) to decriminalise it, and say everyone on certain means-tested benefits would pay a lesser (or no) licence fee in return for inflation-based rises for everyone else, I could fully understand that.
But they are not. The current suggestion is a levy on Broadband. A service that (like the TV Licence) has flat rates for everyone, regardless of circumstances.
A service that has rocketed in cost in the last few years. There is no Broadband currently marketed that is less than £200 p.a (unless you tie yourself in to other things at greater cost). And the decent Broadband packages cost rather more. For a service that (to my untrained eye) seems a lot cheaper than running the BBC.
I don't trust this Government. But I would rather trust TV Licensing than Sky/BT/Talk Talk with my money.
There have been a number of suggestions put forward. Many things have a flat rate of tax/duty, like a gallon of petrol, or a pint of beer. You can of course save money by having a black and white tv.
Their intentions are not clear. If you just added the current licence fee to another bill, who does that help? Would those that are unhappy with the licence fee be happier if it is just added to their broadband bill? If they just wanted to make consumers better off they could just get rid of the licence. If they just want to give the BBC less money, they could reduce the licence fee. If they want to keep part of the licence fee proceeds, they could keep the fee the same, and give less to the BBC.
Parasite on the backs of the less well off with no conscience taking the blood money while lavishing it on the already rich presenters. The Days when they deserved the Fee are gone along with their morals. Hasta la vista, baby.
Parasite on the backs of the less well off with no conscience taking the blood money while lavishing it on the already rich presenters. The Days when they deserved the Fee are gone along with their morals. Hasta la vista, baby.
When do you think they deserved the fee? Do you think skint presenters would do a better job? Talented successful people usually get paid more than those that arent. So would you prefer the BBC to let their most talented presenters to go and work elsewhere? Wouldnt you then be whinging about their presenters not being very good.
The Data Doesn’t Back Dorries on the TV Licence Fee
The Culture Secretary has announced sweeping changes to BBC funding that will mean an end to elderly people being threatened by the Beeb – but are elderly people really going to prison for not paying their licence fee?
“The days of the elderly being threatened with prison sentences and bailiffs knocking on doors are over”, said Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries on Twitter yesterday, as she trailed the Government’s “last announcement” on BBC funding and the licence fee.
That this will be “the last” announcement has led to rumours that the Government will abolish the fee altogether when the BBC’s Royal Charter comes up for renewal in 2027. The proposals also include a two-year freeze on the fee.
But, as speculation about the BBC’s future heats up, two implications in Dorries’ tweet need to be challenged: that the elderly are being threatened with prison, and that the BBC is wholly responsible for charging older people for its content.
Last January, the Government confirmed that there were no people in prison for failing to pay a fine for non-payment of a TV licence in England and Wales. The data was published at the end of a consultation into decriminalising the licence fee. The Government chose to maintain the existing law, saying that it would “keep looking at this as we negotiate the next licence fee settlement”.
The BBC has also been clear that over-75s would not be targeted for non-payment of the licence fee. Last March, the Corporation’s director general Tim Davie confirmed that enforcement letters regarding TV licence non-payment would not be sent to over-75s who previously had a free licence, and the cohort would not be prosecuted for non-payment.
This was affirmed by Dorries herself when she addressed Parliament on 6 January this year. “The BBC confirmed recently that no enforcement action has been taken against anyone over 75 years of age at this stage,” she said.
“I am clear that the BBC must support those affected by the decision to end free TV licences for over-75s, and I expect it to do so with the utmost sensitivity.”
A 2020 change in BBC policy limited free TV licences for the over-75s, meaning that only those on pension credit would continue to receive the free benefit. Previous to this, all over-75s were entitled to a free TV licence.
Downing Street condemned the move, however the BBC hit back to say that the change was forced upon it by the Government’s decision to stop funding the policy. Labour backed the BBC and accused the Government of betraying pensioners and trying to shift the blame on to the broadcaster.
Between 1992 and 1999 – before the free licences for over-75s was introduced by the Labour Government in 2000 – no one over the age of 75 was prosecuted for non-payment of the licence fee, according to the Ministry of Justice.
Short Sentences, Long Impact The issue of incarcerating people for non-payment of the TV licence is a serious one that has long been the subject of debates and consultation – with everyone from Conservative MP Andrew Bridgen to prisoners rights groups condemning it as criminalising poverty.
The law disproportionately impacts on women – 74% of those jailed for this offence are women and it accounted for 30% of all female convictions. The majority of convictions (114,000 in 2019) are dealt with by fines, while 91 people were sentenced to prison for not paying their TV licence between 2015 and 2018.
Short custodial sentences for non-violent crimes such as non-payment of the licence fee have a devastating impact on women’s mental health, economic outcomes and their relationships with their children. They also fail to resolve the economic issues that lead to non-payment in the first place.
For this reason, it is good news that between June 2020 and at least January 2021, no people were in prison for this offence and that the BBC said it will not send enforcement letters to the older population. However, this does suggest that Dorries’ assertion that the elderly are being threatened with imprisonment is not reflective of the current reality when it comes to sanctions for not paying the licence fee.
Less attention is paid to the imprisonment of people for non-payment of council tax, which affected 700 people in England between 2010 and 2017. England is the only country in the UK that imposes prison sentences for this offence.
As with the non-payment of the TV licence, women are disproportionately impacted by this law as they are more likely to have council tax bills in their own name, and are more likely to be home when enforcement officers arrive. The law also has an impact on women who may be struggling having fled domestic abuse, as they are still obliged to pay council tax.
Women imprisoned for council tax enforcement laws are often caregivers and face losing custody of their children, their home and their jobs if sent to prison. Prison does not clear the debt, and it risks exacerbating the cycle of poverty that led to non-payment in the first place.
However, MPs eager to attack the TV licence fee have less to say about custodial sentences for other offences related to non-payment of bills, such as council tax. Speaking to Channel 4 News in 2019, Conservative MP Kevin Hollinrake said that he “would prefer not to have this sanction but if it’s necessary, we should keep it”. His colleague Andrew Bridgen MP called criminalising the non-payment of the TV licence fee “indefensible”. However, he told Channel 4 News that the same did not apply for council tax as it “is not a regressive tax”.
Nadine Dorries is in a dizzying spin cycle over BBC licence fee freeze
NADINE Dorries has been on full-spin mode after briefing the media before Parliament over the weekend about a funding cut for the BBC.
She's now suggesting that her freeze to the TV licence fee that supports the broadcaster is being done to ease the burden of household bills ... that her colleagues are responsible for increasing.
An article appeared in the Mail on Sunday over the weekend with details of Dorries' plan and Brandon Lewis, described as an ally of the Culture Secretary, is quoted as saying that the "days of state-run TV are over".
Lewis suggested that a subscription model, similar to streaming services like Netflix, could be employed by the broadcaster to stop people from being "forced to pay for" the BBC.
Dorries shared the Mail on Sunday article with some gusto, sharing Lewis's sentiments but her tweet was slammed as an act of "cultural vandalism" with others sharing the services that it will affect.
Owen Jones 🌹 @OwenJones84 This is inarguably an act of cultural vandalism which the likes of Rupert Murdoch will be slavering over.
The problem for the BBC is that it's alienated so many people who would have instinctively defended it, while - as we can see - nothing it does will ever satisfy the right. Nadine Dorries @NadineDorries This licence fee announcement will be the last. The days of the elderly being threatened with prison sentences and bailiffs knocking on doors, are over.
Layla Moran 🔶 @LaylaMoran The BBC and the British Council are key to Britain’s soft power status. This move puts that in jeopardy. Eg license fee pays for 75% of the World Service. And what about local radio like @BBCOxford vital for our democracy? Global Britain has become Little Britain. Nadine Dorries @NadineDorries This licence fee announcement will be the last. The days of the elderly being threatened with prison sentences and bailiffs knocking on doors, are over.
Dorries said not much at all apart from "Let's start a discussion" when she FINALLY announced the plans to Parliament on Monday.
She can even be seen checking her phone while SNP shadow culture secretary John Nicolson took her to task on her true intentions, saying that the Tories want broadcasters to become as "sycophantic as most of the print press".
JOHN NICOLSON M.P. @MrJohnNicolson I tackled the Culture Secretary, Nadine Dorries, today about the hatred the Tory right feels for public service broadcasting. They want broadcasters to become as obsequious as much of the print media. Have a listen.
Clearly rattled, Dorries replied to the SNP MP for Ochil & South Perthshire: "I have no idea how anyone could make the leap from “let’s have a debate and a discussion in the House about how the future funding looks” to 'privatisation'. It’s just—I have no further comment."
The rest of her responses in this session were equally lacking in substance.
It's incredible to see such gaslighting from a minister after she openly leaked the details of announcement to the press before Parliament.
Dorries has been on a dizzying spin cycle to roll back her threatening tweet to the BBC and frame it as the Tories offering an olive branch to people struggling with household bills.
She tweeted today: "I simply do not believe those responsible for setting household bills should instinctively reach into the pockets of families across the country for just a little bit more every year to cover those costs."
Pull the other one, Nadine.
It was of course the Tories that ended the free TV licence for over-75s in August of 2020, meaning pensioners have to start paying £159 a year to watch the BBC.
But hey, Dorries has frozen that cost for two years and started a "discussion" about what to do in the future. You should be happy with that.
The cost of living crisis is about to impact people across the UK, with household energy bills expected to increase by 50% from April as the price cap is set for review.
Who has the ability to do something about a massive increase in energy prices? The Tory government, but maybe they have other things to think about ...
The Tories also Universal Credit by £1040 per year which makes it as rich as a Tory donor to suggest that this party is looking out for the poorest across the UK.
National Insurance payments will also increase in April, something the Tories promised they wouldn't do in their 2019 manifesto, but we've learned not trust a word of those.
So thanks for the extra £21 Nadine, but we all know what you're really doing and it's not subtle.
BBC director-general Tim Davie warns staff of job cuts after freezing of licence fee for next two years that will lead to £285m black hole
Tim Davie, 54, reportedly told employees that the licence fee settlement, which will see the fee frozen at £159 for two years, would require the BBC to rethink its operational structure.
'Take bias seriously', MPs tell BBC boss: Director General Tim Davie is accused of glossing over anti-Tory slant in his warning on budget cut
Tory MPs have accused the BBC's Director General Tim Davie of seeking to underplay concerns about the Corporation's impartiality in an interview with BBC Radio 4 last week.
Slash stars' and bosses' bloated pay packets, scrap CBBC, axe Radio 1 Xtra and stop wasting cash on taxis and hotels: How the Beeb can save £285m at a stroke, writes ROSS CLARK
ROSS CLARK: In fact, there is an easy way to cut £285 m from the BBC's budget: just carry on doing what it did last year when Covid stopped or delayed the making of some series.
'Take bias seriously', MPs tell BBC boss: Director General Tim Davie is accused of glossing over anti-Tory slant in his warning on budget cut
Tory MPs have accused the BBC's Director General Tim Davie of seeking to underplay concerns about the Corporation's impartiality in an interview with BBC Radio 4 last week.
Slash stars' and bosses' bloated pay packets, scrap CBBC, axe Radio 1 Xtra and stop wasting cash on taxis and hotels: How the Beeb can save £285m at a stroke, writes ROSS CLARK
ROSS CLARK: In fact, there is an easy way to cut £285 m from the BBC's budget: just carry on doing what it did last year when Covid stopped or delayed the making of some series.
His solution for Budget cuts? Simple. Get rid of anything he doesn't like. And reduce salaries of anyone he doesn't like. Moron.
Why do people always trot out this "people shouldn't earn more than the PM" nonsense? For the job a PM is supposed to do, the pay is rubbish. That is probably why we get such rubbish PMs, who need to go cap in hand for just about everything. Or resign and get far more money working for some sleazy get.
How many Daily Mail Executives earn more than the PM? Lots.
And journalists give even the BBC more than a run for their money in relation to expenses and becoming increasingly irrelevant in the modern age.
'Take bias seriously', MPs tell BBC boss: Director General Tim Davie is accused of glossing over anti-Tory slant in his warning on budget cut
Tory MPs have accused the BBC's Director General Tim Davie of seeking to underplay concerns about the Corporation's impartiality in an interview with BBC Radio 4 last week.
Slash stars' and bosses' bloated pay packets, scrap CBBC, axe Radio 1 Xtra and stop wasting cash on taxis and hotels: How the Beeb can save £285m at a stroke, writes ROSS CLARK
ROSS CLARK: In fact, there is an easy way to cut £285 m from the BBC's budget: just carry on doing what it did last year when Covid stopped or delayed the making of some series.
His solution for Budget cuts? Simple. Get rid of anything he doesn't like. And reduce salaries of anyone he doesn't like. Moron.
Why do people always trot out this "people shouldn't earn more than the PM" nonsense? For the job a PM is supposed to do, the pay is rubbish. That is probably why we get such rubbish PMs, who need to go cap in hand for just about everything. Or resign and get far more money working for some sleazy get.
How many Daily Mail Executives earn more than the PM? Lots.
And journalists give even the BBC more than a run for their money in relation to expenses and becoming increasingly irrelevant in the modern age.
The public become irate over BBC salaries, and expenses because they believe they personally pay for them. I think it is stupid to leave the BBC in limbo. The Government needs to come up with an acceptable alternative plan asap, and maybe give the BBC 10 years notice before implementing the change. That would at least give them time to adapt.
'Take bias seriously', MPs tell BBC boss: Director General Tim Davie is accused of glossing over anti-Tory slant in his warning on budget cut
Tory MPs have accused the BBC's Director General Tim Davie of seeking to underplay concerns about the Corporation's impartiality in an interview with BBC Radio 4 last week.
Slash stars' and bosses' bloated pay packets, scrap CBBC, axe Radio 1 Xtra and stop wasting cash on taxis and hotels: How the Beeb can save £285m at a stroke, writes ROSS CLARK
ROSS CLARK: In fact, there is an easy way to cut £285 m from the BBC's budget: just carry on doing what it did last year when Covid stopped or delayed the making of some series.
His solution for Budget cuts? Simple. Get rid of anything he doesn't like. And reduce salaries of anyone he doesn't like. Moron.
Why do people always trot out this "people shouldn't earn more than the PM" nonsense? For the job a PM is supposed to do, the pay is rubbish. That is probably why we get such rubbish PMs, who need to go cap in hand for just about everything. Or resign and get far more money working for some sleazy get.
How many Daily Mail Executives earn more than the PM? Lots.
And journalists give even the BBC more than a run for their money in relation to expenses and becoming increasingly irrelevant in the modern age.
The public become irate over BBC salaries, and expenses because they believe they personally pay for them. I think it is stupid to leave the BBC in limbo. The Government needs to come up with an acceptable alternative plan asap, and maybe give the BBC 10 years notice before implementing the change. That would at least give them time to adapt.
There is a good reason for having 5 year plans for the BBC. That is roughly the same time period as a Government (or at least it used to be )
On what basis do this Government believe that they have already won the next election?
Right now, that is looking increasingly unlikely. But Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries being in their respective roles looks even less likely.
'Take bias seriously', MPs tell BBC boss: Director General Tim Davie is accused of glossing over anti-Tory slant in his warning on budget cut
Tory MPs have accused the BBC's Director General Tim Davie of seeking to underplay concerns about the Corporation's impartiality in an interview with BBC Radio 4 last week.
Slash stars' and bosses' bloated pay packets, scrap CBBC, axe Radio 1 Xtra and stop wasting cash on taxis and hotels: How the Beeb can save £285m at a stroke, writes ROSS CLARK
ROSS CLARK: In fact, there is an easy way to cut £285 m from the BBC's budget: just carry on doing what it did last year when Covid stopped or delayed the making of some series.
His solution for Budget cuts? Simple. Get rid of anything he doesn't like. And reduce salaries of anyone he doesn't like. Moron.
Why do people always trot out this "people shouldn't earn more than the PM" nonsense? For the job a PM is supposed to do, the pay is rubbish. That is probably why we get such rubbish PMs, who need to go cap in hand for just about everything. Or resign and get far more money working for some sleazy get.
How many Daily Mail Executives earn more than the PM? Lots.
And journalists give even the BBC more than a run for their money in relation to expenses and becoming increasingly irrelevant in the modern age.
The public become irate over BBC salaries, and expenses because they believe they personally pay for them. I think it is stupid to leave the BBC in limbo. The Government needs to come up with an acceptable alternative plan asap, and maybe give the BBC 10 years notice before implementing the change. That would at least give them time to adapt.
There is a good reason for having 5 year plans for the BBC. That is roughly the same time period as a Government (or at least it used to be )
On what basis do this Government believe that they have already won the next election?
Right now, that is looking increasingly unlikely. But Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries being in their respective roles looks even less likely.
I thought the charter was renewed every 10 years. All they are doing at present is creating uncertainty.
"Upon the expiry of the first charter, it was renewed with a replacement charter – a process that has continued ever since. It, and each subsequent royal charter, was initially for a period for ten years, except for the charter from 1947 to 1952, which ran for five years, and the charter from 2006 to 2017, which ran for eleven years. However, several charters were extended in duration, including 1947 (six months), 1952 (two years), and 1964 (two extensions totalling five years).
The most recent charter took effect on 1 January 2017 and will run until 31 December 2027."
"Upon the expiry of the first charter, it was renewed with a replacement charter – a process that has continued ever since. It, and each subsequent royal charter, was initially for a period for ten years, except for the charter from 1947 to 1952, which ran for five years, and the charter from 2006 to 2017, which ran for eleven years. However, several charters were extended in duration, including 1947 (six months), 1952 (two years), and 1964 (two extensions totalling five years).
The most recent charter took effect on 1 January 2017 and will run until 31 December 2027."
Yes I think that if they are adamant there has to be a new plan, then they should continue funding as normal until the end of 2027. Agree the new plan by then. Renew the charter on 2028 for the last time. No changes to the funding until the end of the 2028 charter. Implement the new plan in 2038. I will be long gone by then. This would give the BBC an opportunity to develop a new business model.
"Upon the expiry of the first charter, it was renewed with a replacement charter – a process that has continued ever since. It, and each subsequent royal charter, was initially for a period for ten years, except for the charter from 1947 to 1952, which ran for five years, and the charter from 2006 to 2017, which ran for eleven years. However, several charters were extended in duration, including 1947 (six months), 1952 (two years), and 1964 (two extensions totalling five years).
The most recent charter took effect on 1 January 2017 and will run until 31 December 2027."
In the meantime I am sure there is loads of stuff they can do to create revenue. I am not a great fan of loads of adverts interrupting programmes. I would be happy with programme sponsors, where the sponsor got 30 seconds at the start, and that was it, end of. Some of the BBC programmes would rake in millions from sponsors. Product placement seems to be a thing. Good advertising without interruptions. Phil Mitchell has to drink Stella in the Queen Vic, Danny Dyer wears Nike trainers, half a dozen of them wear Levi jeans. More millions?
"Upon the expiry of the first charter, it was renewed with a replacement charter – a process that has continued ever since. It, and each subsequent royal charter, was initially for a period for ten years, except for the charter from 1947 to 1952, which ran for five years, and the charter from 2006 to 2017, which ran for eleven years. However, several charters were extended in duration, including 1947 (six months), 1952 (two years), and 1964 (two extensions totalling five years).
The most recent charter took effect on 1 January 2017 and will run until 31 December 2027."
In the meantime I am sure there is loads of stuff they can do to create revenue. I am not a great fan of loads of adverts interrupting programmes. I would be happy with programme sponsors, where the sponsor got 30 seconds at the start, and that was it, end of. Some of the BBC programmes would rake in millions from sponsors. Product placement seems to be a thing. Good advertising without interruptions. Phil Mitchell has to drink Stella in the Queen Vic, Danny Dyer wears Nike trainers, half a dozen of them wear Levi jeans. More millions?
Programme sponsorship? That is probably what will happen. I fear for the future of ITV and a lot of smaller channels.
Product placement? Most unlikely. It goes against the way TV is heading, and would be totally against the ethos of the BBC.
We are likely to end up having to pay for "additional services" on the Red button. Much like Britbox. Which will probably mean the end of all free-to-air sport on the BBC
"Upon the expiry of the first charter, it was renewed with a replacement charter – a process that has continued ever since. It, and each subsequent royal charter, was initially for a period for ten years, except for the charter from 1947 to 1952, which ran for five years, and the charter from 2006 to 2017, which ran for eleven years. However, several charters were extended in duration, including 1947 (six months), 1952 (two years), and 1964 (two extensions totalling five years).
The most recent charter took effect on 1 January 2017 and will run until 31 December 2027."
In the meantime I am sure there is loads of stuff they can do to create revenue. I am not a great fan of loads of adverts interrupting programmes. I would be happy with programme sponsors, where the sponsor got 30 seconds at the start, and that was it, end of. Some of the BBC programmes would rake in millions from sponsors. Product placement seems to be a thing. Good advertising without interruptions. Phil Mitchell has to drink Stella in the Queen Vic, Danny Dyer wears Nike trainers, half a dozen of them wear Levi jeans. More millions?
Programme sponsorship? That is probably what will happen. I fear for the future of ITV and a lot of smaller channels.
Product placement? Most unlikely. It goes against the way TV is heading, and would be totally against the ethos of the BBC.
We are likely to end up having to pay for "additional services" on the Red button. Much like Britbox. Which will probably mean the end of all free-to-air sport on the BBC
Comments
Have Tory ministers got shares in / or “advisors” to Netflix perchance…
They wont want to give that back.
If this Government was (for example) to decriminalise it, and say everyone on certain means-tested benefits would pay a lesser (or no) licence fee in return for inflation-based rises for everyone else, I could fully understand that.
But they are not. The current suggestion is a levy on Broadband. A service that (like the TV Licence) has flat rates for everyone, regardless of circumstances.
A service that has rocketed in cost in the last few years. There is no Broadband currently marketed that is less than £200 p.a (unless you tie yourself in to other things at greater cost). And the decent Broadband packages cost rather more. For a service that (to my untrained eye) seems a lot cheaper than running the BBC.
I don't trust this Government. But I would rather trust TV Licensing than Sky/BT/Talk Talk with my money.
Many things have a flat rate of tax/duty, like a gallon of petrol, or a pint of beer.
You can of course save money by having a black and white tv.
Their intentions are not clear.
If you just added the current licence fee to another bill, who does that help?
Would those that are unhappy with the licence fee be happier if it is just added to their broadband bill?
If they just wanted to make consumers better off they could just get rid of the licence.
If they just want to give the BBC less money, they could reduce the licence fee.
If they want to keep part of the licence fee proceeds, they could keep the fee the same, and give less to the BBC.
Do you think skint presenters would do a better job?
Talented successful people usually get paid more than those that arent.
So would you prefer the BBC to let their most talented presenters to go and work elsewhere?
Wouldnt you then be whinging about their presenters not being very good.
The Culture Secretary has announced sweeping changes to BBC funding that will mean an end to elderly people being threatened by the Beeb – but are elderly people really going to prison for not paying their licence fee?
“The days of the elderly being threatened with prison sentences and bailiffs knocking on doors are over”, said Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries on Twitter yesterday, as she trailed the Government’s “last announcement” on BBC funding and the licence fee.
That this will be “the last” announcement has led to rumours that the Government will abolish the fee altogether when the BBC’s Royal Charter comes up for renewal in 2027. The proposals also include a two-year freeze on the fee.
But, as speculation about the BBC’s future heats up, two implications in Dorries’ tweet need to be challenged: that the elderly are being threatened with prison, and that the BBC is wholly responsible for charging older people for its content.
Last January, the Government confirmed that there were no people in prison for failing to pay a fine for non-payment of a TV licence in England and Wales. The data was published at the end of a consultation into decriminalising the licence fee. The Government chose to maintain the existing law, saying that it would “keep looking at this as we negotiate the next licence fee settlement”.
The BBC has also been clear that over-75s would not be targeted for non-payment of the licence fee. Last March, the Corporation’s director general Tim Davie confirmed that enforcement letters regarding TV licence non-payment would not be sent to over-75s who previously had a free licence, and the cohort would not be prosecuted for non-payment.
This was affirmed by Dorries herself when she addressed Parliament on 6 January this year. “The BBC confirmed recently that no enforcement action has been taken against anyone over 75 years of age at this stage,” she said.
“I am clear that the BBC must support those affected by the decision to end free TV licences for over-75s, and I expect it to do so with the utmost sensitivity.”
A 2020 change in BBC policy limited free TV licences for the over-75s, meaning that only those on pension credit would continue to receive the free benefit. Previous to this, all over-75s were entitled to a free TV licence.
Downing Street condemned the move, however the BBC hit back to say that the change was forced upon it by the Government’s decision to stop funding the policy. Labour backed the BBC and accused the Government of betraying pensioners and trying to shift the blame on to the broadcaster.
Between 1992 and 1999 – before the free licences for over-75s was introduced by the Labour Government in 2000 – no one over the age of 75 was prosecuted for non-payment of the licence fee, according to the Ministry of Justice.
Short Sentences, Long Impact
The issue of incarcerating people for non-payment of the TV licence is a serious one that has long been the subject of debates and consultation – with everyone from Conservative MP Andrew Bridgen to prisoners rights groups condemning it as criminalising poverty.
The law disproportionately impacts on women – 74% of those jailed for this offence are women and it accounted for 30% of all female convictions. The majority of convictions (114,000 in 2019) are dealt with by fines, while 91 people were sentenced to prison for not paying their TV licence between 2015 and 2018.
Short custodial sentences for non-violent crimes such as non-payment of the licence fee have a devastating impact on women’s mental health, economic outcomes and their relationships with their children. They also fail to resolve the economic issues that lead to non-payment in the first place.
For this reason, it is good news that between June 2020 and at least January 2021, no people were in prison for this offence and that the BBC said it will not send enforcement letters to the older population. However, this does suggest that Dorries’ assertion that the elderly are being threatened with imprisonment is not reflective of the current reality when it comes to sanctions for not paying the licence fee.
Less attention is paid to the imprisonment of people for non-payment of council tax, which affected 700 people in England between 2010 and 2017. England is the only country in the UK that imposes prison sentences for this offence.
As with the non-payment of the TV licence, women are disproportionately impacted by this law as they are more likely to have council tax bills in their own name, and are more likely to be home when enforcement officers arrive. The law also has an impact on women who may be struggling having fled domestic abuse, as they are still obliged to pay council tax.
Women imprisoned for council tax enforcement laws are often caregivers and face losing custody of their children, their home and their jobs if sent to prison. Prison does not clear the debt, and it risks exacerbating the cycle of poverty that led to non-payment in the first place.
However, MPs eager to attack the TV licence fee have less to say about custodial sentences for other offences related to non-payment of bills, such as council tax. Speaking to Channel 4 News in 2019, Conservative MP Kevin Hollinrake said that he “would prefer not to have this sanction but if it’s necessary, we should keep it”. His colleague Andrew Bridgen MP called criminalising the non-payment of the TV licence fee “indefensible”. However, he told Channel 4 News that the same did not apply for council tax as it “is not a regressive tax”.
https://bylinetimes.com/2022/01/17/the-data-doesnt-back-dorries-on-tv-licence-fee/
NADINE Dorries has been on full-spin mode after briefing the media before Parliament over the weekend about a funding cut for the BBC.
She's now suggesting that her freeze to the TV licence fee that supports the broadcaster is being done to ease the burden of household bills ... that her colleagues are responsible for increasing.
An article appeared in the Mail on Sunday over the weekend with details of Dorries' plan and Brandon Lewis, described as an ally of the Culture Secretary, is quoted as saying that the "days of state-run TV are over".
Lewis suggested that a subscription model, similar to streaming services like Netflix, could be employed by the broadcaster to stop people from being "forced to pay for" the BBC.
Dorries shared the Mail on Sunday article with some gusto, sharing Lewis's sentiments but her tweet was slammed as an act of "cultural vandalism" with others sharing the services that it will affect.
Owen Jones 🌹
@OwenJones84
This is inarguably an act of cultural vandalism which the likes of Rupert Murdoch will be slavering over.
The problem for the BBC is that it's alienated so many people who would have instinctively defended it, while - as we can see - nothing it does will ever satisfy the right.
Nadine Dorries
@NadineDorries
This licence fee announcement will be the last. The days of the elderly being threatened with prison sentences and bailiffs knocking on doors, are over.
Time now to discuss and debate new ways of funding, supporting and selling great British content. https://dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10406491/Nadine-Dorries-hits-BBC-2bn-funding-cut-freezes-annual-licence-fee-charge-2024.html
2:24 PM · Jan 16, 2022
Layla Moran 🔶
@LaylaMoran
The BBC and the British Council are key to Britain’s soft power status. This move puts that in jeopardy. Eg license fee pays for 75% of the World Service. And what about local radio like @BBCOxford vital for our democracy? Global Britain has become Little Britain.
Nadine Dorries
@NadineDorries
This licence fee announcement will be the last. The days of the elderly being threatened with prison sentences and bailiffs knocking on doors, are over.
Time now to discuss and debate new ways of funding, supporting and selling great British content. https://dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10406491/Nadine-Dorries-hits-BBC-2bn-funding-cut-freezes-annual-licence-fee-charge-2024.html
Dorries said not much at all apart from "Let's start a discussion" when she FINALLY announced the plans to Parliament on Monday.
She can even be seen checking her phone while SNP shadow culture secretary John Nicolson took her to task on her true intentions, saying that the Tories want broadcasters to become as "sycophantic as most of the print press".
JOHN NICOLSON M.P.
@MrJohnNicolson
I tackled the Culture Secretary, Nadine Dorries, today about the hatred the Tory right feels for public service broadcasting. They want broadcasters to become as obsequious as much of the print media. Have a listen.
Clearly rattled, Dorries replied to the SNP MP for Ochil & South Perthshire: "I have no idea how anyone could make the leap from “let’s have a debate and a discussion in the House about how the future funding looks” to 'privatisation'. It’s just—I have no further comment."
The rest of her responses in this session were equally lacking in substance.
It's incredible to see such gaslighting from a minister after she openly leaked the details of announcement to the press before Parliament.
Dorries has been on a dizzying spin cycle to roll back her threatening tweet to the BBC and frame it as the Tories offering an olive branch to people struggling with household bills.
She tweeted today: "I simply do not believe those responsible for setting household bills should instinctively reach into the pockets of families across the country for just a little bit more every year to cover those costs."
Pull the other one, Nadine.
It was of course the Tories that ended the free TV licence for over-75s in August of 2020, meaning pensioners have to start paying £159 a year to watch the BBC.
But hey, Dorries has frozen that cost for two years and started a "discussion" about what to do in the future. You should be happy with that.
The cost of living crisis is about to impact people across the UK, with household energy bills expected to increase by 50% from April as the price cap is set for review.
Who has the ability to do something about a massive increase in energy prices? The Tory government, but maybe they have other things to think about ...
The Tories also Universal Credit by £1040 per year which makes it as rich as a Tory donor to suggest that this party is looking out for the poorest across the UK.
National Insurance payments will also increase in April, something the Tories promised they wouldn't do in their 2019 manifesto, but we've learned not trust a word of those.
So thanks for the extra £21 Nadine, but we all know what you're really doing and it's not subtle.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19857037.nadine-dorries-dizzying-spin-cycle-bbc-licence-fee-freeze/
Tim Davie, 54, reportedly told employees that the licence fee settlement, which will see the fee frozen at £159 for two years, would require the BBC to rethink its operational structure.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10421027/BBC-director-general-Tim-Davie-warns-staff-job-cuts-freezing-licence-fee.html
Tory MPs have accused the BBC's Director General Tim Davie of seeking to underplay concerns about the Corporation's impartiality in an interview with BBC Radio 4 last week.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10430759/Take-bias-seriously-MPs-tell-BBC-boss.html
Slash stars' and bosses' bloated pay packets, scrap CBBC, axe Radio 1 Xtra and stop wasting cash on taxis and hotels: How the Beeb can save £285m at a stroke, writes ROSS CLARK
ROSS CLARK: In fact, there is an easy way to cut £285 m from the BBC's budget: just carry on doing what it did last year when Covid stopped or delayed the making of some series.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10430783/ROSS-CLARK-Slash-bloated-pay-axe-Radio-1-Xtra-Beeb-save-285m-stroke.html
His solution for Budget cuts? Simple. Get rid of anything he doesn't like. And reduce salaries of anyone he doesn't like. Moron.
Why do people always trot out this "people shouldn't earn more than the PM" nonsense? For the job a PM is supposed to do, the pay is rubbish. That is probably why we get such rubbish PMs, who need to go cap in hand for just about everything. Or resign and get far more money working for some sleazy get.
How many Daily Mail Executives earn more than the PM? Lots.
And journalists give even the BBC more than a run for their money in relation to expenses and becoming increasingly irrelevant in the modern age.
I think it is stupid to leave the BBC in limbo.
The Government needs to come up with an acceptable alternative plan asap, and maybe give the BBC 10 years notice before implementing the change.
That would at least give them time to adapt.
On what basis do this Government believe that they have already won the next election?
Right now, that is looking increasingly unlikely. But Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries being in their respective roles looks even less likely.
All they are doing at present is creating uncertainty.
@HAYSIE
"Upon the expiry of the first charter, it was renewed with a replacement charter – a process that has continued ever since. It, and each subsequent royal charter, was initially for a period for ten years, except for the charter from 1947 to 1952, which ran for five years, and the charter from 2006 to 2017, which ran for eleven years. However, several charters were extended in duration, including 1947 (six months), 1952 (two years), and 1964 (two extensions totalling five years).
The most recent charter took effect on 1 January 2017 and will run until 31 December 2027."
Source;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Charter
Agree the new plan by then.
Renew the charter on 2028 for the last time.
No changes to the funding until the end of the 2028 charter.
Implement the new plan in 2038.
I will be long gone by then.
This would give the BBC an opportunity to develop a new business model.
I am not a great fan of loads of adverts interrupting programmes.
I would be happy with programme sponsors, where the sponsor got 30 seconds at the start, and that was it, end of.
Some of the BBC programmes would rake in millions from sponsors.
Product placement seems to be a thing.
Good advertising without interruptions.
Phil Mitchell has to drink Stella in the Queen Vic, Danny Dyer wears Nike trainers, half a dozen of them wear Levi jeans.
More millions?
Product placement? Most unlikely. It goes against the way TV is heading, and would be totally against the ethos of the BBC.
We are likely to end up having to pay for "additional services" on the Red button. Much like Britbox. Which will probably mean the end of all free-to-air sport on the BBC
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/bbc-boss-takes-swipe-at-nadine-dorries-over-bbc-funding/ar-AATax04?ocid=msedgntp