The BBC’s tactics: intimidation and extortion?
I walk in from a fun and tiring few days at BarCampLondon2 to be greeted with an anonymous letter addressed to "The Legal Occupier". I open it and find yet another threatening letter from the BBC.
It reads (emphasis mine):
Official Warning - This Property Is Unlicensed
You are hereby notified that we have authorised officers from our Enforcement Division to visit your home and interview you under caution, as our records show there is still no TV License at this address and as yet we have received no response to previous communications from you.
Your statement will be taken in compliance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984*, and is the first step in our action to prosecute if we find evidence that you watch or record television without a valid license.
I feel it is my duty to inform you that if found guilty, you could receive a maximum fine of £1000, and your name will be added to our National Enforcement Database. We take this offense very seriously and last month alone we caught 21,718 people.
To avoid an appearance in court before a magistrate I would strongly advise you to call 0870 241 7204 or buy a TV License online at www.tvlicensing.co.uk.
Yours faithfully,
John Robinson
Regional Enforcement ManagerPlease see reverse for important TV Licensing Information, including exclusions and how to pay. A TV License currently costs £131.50 for colour and £44 for black and white.
* In Scotland, interviews and cautions are made in line with Scottish criminal law.
. . . If you buy your TV License now, you don't need to call us.
For those of you who don't live in the UK, here's a little background:
The BBC is funded by TV License fees paid by anyone in the UK who watches television. They don't have to watch the BBC but have to pay this license fee in any case. Although it is called a "fee", since you have to pay it regardless of whether you receive the service, it is actually a tax and was recently officially acknowledged as a tax.
So, my initial gripe is that by calling it a "fee", they are misrepresenting something that is a tax. But it doesn't end there by a long shot.
You see, since the BBC doesn't want to have its lovely image tarnished, it set up a separate entity called TV Licensing to deal with gathering this tax. The correspondence and advertising that TV Licensing spews out does not contain any references to the BBC but their website makes the relationship clear. So, let's understand that TV Licensing is the BBC and in the rest of this post, I will simply refer to the BBC.
If you live in London (and other parts of the UK, I'm sure), you have no doubt seen the threatening advertising that the BBC adorns billboards and Underground walls with. (One ad reads: "We have a list of every unlicensed address in Britain. Don't believe us? Fine.")
Understand what this is: It is the BBC subjecting a mass of the citizenry -- the very public that pays for it on a daily basis -- to a nasty campaign of fear, intimidation and threats.
Why should I have to read this crap on my way to work or when heading out for a movie? What right do these people have to threaten us on a daily basis? If you were to go out and threaten a single person, it's more than likely that they would complain to the police. What about threatening a carriage full of people or a whole train of people with ads? How is this even allowed?
The BBC puts out these nasty, threatening ads under the name of TV Licensing because it doesn't want its own image to be identified with them. Well I hope that that's going to get increasingly more difficult in our so-called information age and I will sure as hell do whatever I can to make sure that people connect the dots.
So in my title I asked whether the BBC employs extortion. That would be a very strong accusation to make, considering that extortion is illegal. It is my belief that the letter I was sent, reproduced above, is all the evidence you need to see that the BBC, under the name of TV Licensing, are engaging in extortion. The letter states that in order "[t]o avoid an appearance in court before a magistrate" I must either call an 0870 number or buy a TV License.
Let's review the definition of extortion for a moment:
Extortion (n): the practice of obtaining something, esp. money, through force or threats - New Oxford American Dictionary, Second Edition
The BBC's letter threatens me that either I buy a TV License (pay them money) or I call a premium rate number (pay them money) to inform them that I don't have to buy a license or that I will risk "an appearance in court before a magistrate".
Either way, using a threat, the BBC gets money: either from the TV License or from their cut of the premium-rate 0870 number (According to a BBC spokesman: "the national rate numbers help TV Licensing to keep the costs of collection down and maximise licence fee revenue".)
What was the definition of extortion, again?
So what about my situation? Am I basking in the glimmering glory of the BBC every night, or watching some other TV channels and robbing this poor institution of a license fee? No. I haven't received a television signal in my home since I arrived in this country. I have two TV sets. One's a small one that I used to use a long time ago while editing video (it sits, unplugged, in the store room) and the other is a new 46" baby that I use solely for my Wii and XBox 360. If I ever get Sky HD, I'll be forced to pay the TV Tax (and I will) but until that day, it feels like the the BBC are wrongfully harassing me and trying to extort me for money (and, I can only assume, many others also).
There is an online petition to the Prime Minister to stop TV Licensing (the BBC) from harassing people who have no television (or who don't receive television signals on the TV sets) that I would strongly urge you to sign.
The worst thing is, these horrible tactics by the BBC are playing right into the hands of Rupert Murdoch and his media empire who would love nothing more than to see the BBC abolished. Well, let me tell you something, as much as I hate Murdoch, at least his media outlets do not outright threaten me and try to extort money from me (OK, they do their own brand of damage, some of it possibly far worse, but that's another story.)
To the BBC: Stop harassing and threatening the British public. If you're so proud of your despicable tactics, at least own up to them and issue your threats under your own brand instead of hiding behind the TV Licensing name. I, for one, am sick and tired of being seen as guilty until proven innocent and I am fed up with your constant abuse.
Surely this tactic employed by the BBC cannot be legal and allowed to continue?
Update: Read the stories of other people who have been threatened and intimidated by the BBC.
The The BBC’s tactics: intimidation and extortion? article by Aral Balkan, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0 UK: England License.
John Dowdell
That’s a hard situation, alright… you don’t have any choice about giving your labor to that media channel.
How does the “I only use it for the Wii” defense work? Can you get an exemption if you don’t use the broadcast tuner?
… hmm, if they went all-internet with a good rights-management system then there wouldn’t be that pressure to send letters like the one you received….
February 18th, 2007 at 9:31 pmaral
You do not need to buy a TV License if you do not watch broadcast television. Since I don’t watch broadcast television, I do not need a TV License. And I need the threats even less!
February 18th, 2007 at 9:41 pmJim
I agree, this behaviour stinks, it puts me in a bad mood every time I get one.
Fortunately, these letters are complete B*ll*cks, In 20 years of recieving them I’ve never had a knock on the door, and If you ignore them for long enough (think years) they eventually decide the property is unoccupied and stop sending them.
If there’s been a recent licence at a property and it expires, then the letters and threats get worse than the above, by the way.
Interestingly, I met a girl down the pub a few weeks ago who used to work for them.
February 18th, 2007 at 10:05 pmThey sacked her, guess why? For not having a tv licence. (Obvious disclaimer about hearing things down the pub applies here).
Nouto
What bothers me is that you can’t buy a DVD player in the UK without having to give your current address. Just because I’m buying a DVD player it doesn’t mean I automatically own a TV or that I’m receiving broadcast television.
February 18th, 2007 at 10:11 pmAl
Sadly the people who enforce this law were schooled by those that train our wonderful traffic wardens in London. As John mentions, I suspect the onus will be on you to prove that the tuner within your televsion isn’t used to receive their wonderful broadcasts.
Wikipedia, as usual, is a wealth of information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom
February 18th, 2007 at 10:15 pmDjole
We had same problem with our national TV some 10 years ago. There was ad campaign with some thing called “Swedish locator” (???) that locates unlicensed TV sets. It was huge failure so they found better way of forcing us to pay license. Now every month as part of electric bill we receive our TV license fee. If you don’t pay they just cut your power lines, and after that come to take stuff from your home. And even if you don’t use single watt that month you still have to pay TV fee. Or even if you own something like florist shop, you still have to pay for TV…
So consider yourself lucky, until some BBC executive gets idea like this.
PS.
February 19th, 2007 at 12:13 amFor me BBC died(more precise was killed) several years ago when they lost battle against British government
Keith Peters
In the UK, TV watches you.
February 19th, 2007 at 2:00 amKeith Peters
Amusingly enough, the very next item in my Google Reader list was this:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/17/death.television.reut/index.html
Here in the US, TV is free, and we literally watch it til we die. And then some.
February 19th, 2007 at 2:02 amSteve
I’m with Jim,
At my office I receive one of these letters every few months, each time it’s in a slightly different envelope with a slightly different threat. A couple of years back I sent them a letter back saying it wasn’t residential property but the letters still arrive.
In a couple of years nobody has ever knocked on the door it’s just nonsense threats to scare old ladies really.
February 19th, 2007 at 3:08 amAndrew Davies
There’s a full selection of letters on this website
February 19th, 2007 at 6:02 amhttp://www.bbctvlicence.com
Like Steve says, lots of changing envelopes, colours and formats
Adedeji Olowe
Would a HD monitor without an integrated tuner count as a TV?
February 19th, 2007 at 8:18 amPeter Tilbrook
That is sooo bullshit. I only hope they don’t think of that for Australia’s “ABC” - maybe they do but not that blatently and not with such nastiness.
February 19th, 2007 at 9:44 amLarry
Same thing here in Ireland. RTE, our national broadcaster, are the culprits in our case. Huge fines and even prison sentences if you fail to pay. They keep upping the fee/tax every few years (without any noticeable increase in quality of programmes they produce) and now they want legislation to cover all forms of TV viewing, be that on your pc, mobile whatever.
February 19th, 2007 at 9:44 amNeil Middleton
You DO need a TV license if you don’t watch broadcast TV (after all, it’s a license to use a TV, as a fishing license allows you to fish.)
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/index.jsp
“You need a TV Licence to use any television receiving equipment such as a TV set, set-top boxes, video or DVD recorders, computers or mobile phones to watch or record TV programmes as they are being shown on TV.”
February 19th, 2007 at 10:26 amTink
When i get a sec im gonna come back here and do a decent comment, but for now, Neil you are incorrect.
“You DO need a TV license if you don’t watch broadcast TV”
You only need a license if you are using any equipement to
“watch or record TV programmes as they are being shown on TV”
if you aint watching or recording (i.e. like Aral just playing games) then you don’t need one.
So Adedeji, yes you would need one.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:54 amnouto
The TV Licence originally was set up to provide the BBC with a revenue that enabled it to be independent from the government (to at least some degree) and from commercial competition - both to support the BBC in providing high quality broadcasting that is not influenced by political views in power. Nice idea, though not so relevant in the 21st century anymore?
Regardless, as Djole pointed out, the BBC broke its promise to the British public when it failed to stand up against the government, and therefore it can be argued that it does not deserve the revenue it gets from the TV Licence.
But if the BBC cannot exist the way it had been, in what way can the values represented by the BBC survive or are they not relevant at all anymore?
February 19th, 2007 at 2:43 pmPaul Annett
I thought that you have to pay the TV licence if you own equipment which can receive a television signal. It’s not really fair, but that’s what I thought. In the years after I left university I had a television but literally watched one or two programmes a year, making each one very expensive.
February 19th, 2007 at 3:12 pmaral
You don’t need a license if you are not actually watching broadcast television. Basically, none of the channels on either of my TVs were ever even set to receive a TV signal. There’s no aerial connected, etc.
Neil, your analogy is incorrect. The correct analogy would be if the government required anyone who bought a fishing line to buy a fishing license. The analogy also doesn’t hold up well because a fishing line is pretty much useful only for one thing whereas a TV set can be used for purposes other than watching broadcast television.
In any case, it’s a horrible system that assumes that you are guilty until proven innocent and relies on intimidation, threats, and, in the case of this letter, what I believe is extortion. Based on these laurels alone, it shouldn’t be allowed to continue.
February 19th, 2007 at 4:37 pmChris
Wait a second, you mean you have to buy a friggin license to watch television?
February 19th, 2007 at 5:45 pmTalk about extortion, that is some serious shit!
Jason Cartwright
Disclaimer: I work for the BBC, but this is my personal view (one I held before I worked there, too)
The BBC represents incredibly good value for money and when compared to the outragously bias corporations. Fox News anybody? You only have to look at the partisan news channels in the states to see where this leads.
I know when I have kids I’ll be pleased that the BBC is there to produce Cbeebies and CBBC for them to watch - free of toy-pushing (surely the lowest of the low - advertising to the most impressionable).
Then you have the website - which speaks for itself - millions of fast, ad-free pages of quality content.
February 19th, 2007 at 9:19 pmPaul Annett
As a new parent, I agree with Jason that CBeebies is worth the licence fee many times over. As for the BBC website - that’s available to licence fee payers and everyone else too so you’re in danger of opening a completely different can of worms there!
February 19th, 2007 at 10:16 pmaral
Hi Jason,
The issue here is not whether or not the BBC is worth it. It’s the tactics that they are using against the public — which include threats, intimidation and, in this case, what appears to be extortion. These tactics are unacceptable. They must know this themselves and this is why they hide behind the brand of “TV Licensing”.
Also, although that’s a completely different can of worms: it is entirely unfair that someone who does not watch BBC channels should have to pay the license fee. That’s like saying you have to pay for every movie in a cinema, not just the one you’re watching. But this is not the topic I’m raising in my post.
The BBC is harassing people without TV sets and people with TV sets who do not watch broadcast television on those sets. It has a “guilty until proven innocent” approach and uses tactics that are wholly unacceptable. These are the points I’m raising in my post and I see that you have not addressed these in your post.
I do not argue that the BBC puts out great shows. That does not excuse the fact that it uses threats, intimidation, harassment and, in the case of the letter I received, what appears to be extortion, in a planned campaign aimed against the British public.
I would love to hear what your thoughts are on these topics.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:26 amLEE
We pay for TV in the states too, it’s called cable, or satellite…or you enjoy an amazing 5 static ridden stations…but with all the crap & commercials you get on TV I’ve been considering buying an Apple TV and getting my shows from iTunes…
But yeah, those letters are quite offensive, especially for non-television users such as yourself Aral. It’s definitely in BBC’s best interest to soften them up, and be a bit more professional.
The police in the US often broadcast commercials which inform people that officers are going to be taking stronger anti-drink & driving measures, and the best of them are informative and entertaining, the “doom & gloom, almighty hand of the law” threatening approach isn’t nearly as effective, and typically only encites anti-police sentiments.
Crap, I didn’t realize the UK was burdened with Murdoc’s BS also!!! I thought Fox was only polluting a few corrupt minds over here! Apparently they’re a much larger enterprise than I imagined! Scary…
February 20th, 2007 at 8:41 amaral
Hey Lee,
Yeah, unfortunately Murdoch is global. He owns a large number of media outlets over here too (Sky, The Sun, etc.) and was instrumental in getting Tony Blair elected back in the day. Alongside him, Clear Channel are also over here, etc. I just don’t think that the British public is as aware of these issues as the American public is (we seem more aware of what’s going on in the US and unaware that the same stuff is going on here.)
February 20th, 2007 at 12:57 pmStefan Richter
Worse than this in Germany where you now have to pay for a TV AND *RADIO* license if and when you buy a PC or laptop with a tuner card.
I agree with Aral that the ‘enforcement’ tactics employed by the BBC are dispicable but the licensing fee is (at this moment in time) great value for money. On the other hand the amount of advertising on other channels such as ITV or C4 is nowhere near as bad as it is in Germany. There TV is almost unwatchable apart from the licensed channels.
Thanks to HD recorders/PVRs I no longer have to endure ads these days.
February 21st, 2007 at 6:29 pmpixeldiva
What’s worse than getting a letter threatening you for not having a licence you don’t need?
Getting the exact same letter when you actually *do* have the sodding licence, and phoned, two weeks hence, to transfer said licence to said property.
Grr.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:33 amJustin
As another blow-in from overseas I also found the whole TV licensing concept laughable, and the ridiculous extremes to which TV Licensing go to scare people appalling!
Discussing this issue with the natives, they generally leap to the defence of the BBC (Jason is a good example) and completely miss the point. The issue is not about the quality or usefulness of the BBC, but the backward, inefficient method of collecting funding for that organisation.
It still boggles my mind that someone thought it made sense to fund an essential part of British society by enforcing and collecting a separate tax using men in vans and surveillance equipment and lists of residences with televisions. When 99 percent of people in this country DO watch television, does it not make sense to take funding directly out of the general tax pool, and allow the 1 percent of people who do not watch television to apply for an exemption?! To choose the alternative, and monitor compliance of 99 percent of people is stupidity and inefficiency on a breathtaking scale!
Those that may argue it somehow makes the BBC more independant probably do not know it is the government that sets the licence rate in the end anyway, and of course there’s nothing to stop legislation stating a certain percentage of tax dollars should go to the BBC.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:43 pmBilly Bob
Hi Aral,
Couple of points -
Firstly, as you say - in your case you don’t require a TV Licence. So I’d be interested to know how much effort you’ve made to let TV Licencing know of your situation?
I’ve gone periods without having a licence, sometimes for a few months for one reason or another, and it never reached the stage of receiving letters as aggressive as that. So if all you’ve done is repeatedly ignore letters over a long period of time, what do you expect? Them just to think ‘Oh well, we won’t bother then….’
If you don’t inform them of your situation, you can’t really expect them to stop trying to find out what your situation is. The letter clearly provides a number to call, presumably where you can simply advise them of your position.
Secondly - I think you’re being a little melodramatic about the whole extortion thing. Are people similarly exhorted if they withold income tax, on the principle that they don’t use a particular public service?
May 13th, 2007 at 9:08 amaral
Hi Billy Bob,
As I clearly mention in the blog post, the letter *only* includes an 0870 number by which you can inform them if you don’t need a license. I mentioned this in the blog post: That is a premium number. They are making a profit off of that number. That’s where the extortion comes in. They are basically saying, either pay us a small amount of money via the phone call or a larger amount of money via the TV License. There is no third option you can use to inform them without paying to use a premium number.
Of course, I won’t even get into how you’re guilty until proven innocent again.
May 13th, 2007 at 11:38 amRay J
I had a visit from the BBC’s TV Licensing thugs earlier this year. Two rather scruffy looking middle aged men appeared at my door one afternoon demanding to know who I was, do I have a telly, “we’re here to search your house” etc., Before they got any further I explained to them that I was not going to answer any of their questions as they have no ‘police powers’ whatsoever and have no more rights than any door-to-door salesman. “In fact” said I, “Hang on while I get my camera and I’ll take your photos so your faces can be displayed on a certain anti-TV Licensing website”. Well - before I could grab my camera the two of them leapt over my fence and ran off down the road! One of them shouted over his shoulder something about “That’s an invasion of my privacy!”. That’s rich, I thought, coming from a guy that makes a living bullying his way into strangers homes!!
Anyway, the moral is - You do NOT have to let the B*****ds into your house. The TVL (BBC) have absolutely no legal right to search your house without a search warrant (which they must apply for and are unlikely to be granted unless they have proof that television equipment is being used). As I said before, the gorillas they send round to intimidate you have no more rights than any door-to-door salesman (you wouldn’t dream of letting the ‘Avon lady’ snoop all around your home, would you?) You do not need to speak to these people AT ALL, don’t even tell them your name, it is none of their business! They are just there to try to screw you for money as part of the BBCs extortion racket!
ps., In reply to Billy Bob…
Why should we have to inform this TV company (BBC) that we do not use their service?? I don’t have to tell Sky that I’m not paying them because I don’t have Sky.
June 25th, 2007 at 9:08 pmcliff woodman
I remember a few yrs back reading on the net about a guy who kept ringing the bbc to ask then if they had a gun license as there is a fine involved if you own a gun without a license !
The thing I disagree with is why am i still watching the last of the summer wine on BBC1 at peak viewing time when it was made about 15 years ago ?? the BBC once produced some great comedy.. Dad’s Army, fawlty towers, It aint alf hot mum, Frank spencer (so old i can’t remember the name of the series!), Likley Lads, and many many more …..What classics have they come up with in the last five years ???
About 2 or 3 ????
I don’t see why I shoud pay for the constant repeats (oh no ..another dose of fools and horses) when I actually helped pay for the making of that with my licence fee from 10 years ago !!
September 12th, 2007 at 4:03 am