Jump to content

Talk:Television licensing in the United Kingdom/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Return of the anonynmous FOI advocates...

An anonymous IP has been attempting to add the following:

"An internal briefing note released by the BBC in response to a freedom of information request names the TV Licensing Blog as TV Licensing's "most prevalent activist"[1]"

There are a number of problems with this. Firstly, the cited source is a PDF of essentially raw internal e-mails running to 15 pages, so it is not immediately apparent where the claim is made (although it clarify the paranoia and mocking tone of one FOI requester), and after skimming it twice I can't see where the "most prevalent activist" claim appears. Secondly, the e-mails appear to be dated between September 2011 and August 2012 (there are not in date order), so even if the "most prevalent activist" claim is actually made, we don't know when or if it is supposedly still the case. Thirdly, this appears to be an attempt to add a link to "TV Licensing blogspot," even though it has long been established as an inappropriate link, it being a blog, and an abusive and potentially libellous one at that. Fourthly, as the link is to the PDF itself, we don't know the context of the FOI claim it is a response to, nor when it was made/answered. Lastly, and linked to the latter, I think we come back to the issue I highlighted previously, i.e. whether such a reliance on FOI requests for such minutiae is appropriate, or indeed an abuse of WP:OR and/or WP:FRINGE, since there is a very real possibility that anonymous editors are putting in FOI requests precisely so they can be cited here. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Having looked at the source there is a whole page (page 8), disclosed by the BBC on a TV Licensing branded slide, dedicated to the blog in question. It appears the blog sails close to wind, but no more so that TV Licensing letters I have seen! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.117.189 (talk) 10:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
So basically it just boils down to one person complaining the most. Nine hundred twitter followers is chickenfeed. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
The full context for the FOI request can be found here: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/bbc_monitoring_of_third_party_we#incoming-312027 The "most prevalent activist" claim appears on the page with a handwritten 6 at the top (it's the one turned on its side). Since the BBC itself has provided the information I can't see any reason not to use it. BTW who exactly has decided that TV Licensing blogspot is an 'inappropriate link?'. Also I don't think it can be said that this site is 'reliant' on FOI requests. There are plenty of references to official BBC sites in the article. In many ways it is better to use FOI requests than for example, quotes from newspapers, because at least they are genuine information from the BBC. 193.105.48.20 (talk) 10:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I am a regular reader of that blog and it is far more popular now than it was at the time that information was released by the BBC. I appreciate Nick, as a self-confessed fan of the BBC, you may have issues with people publishing an alternative viewpoint to your own, but Wikipedia is a broad church and should be receptive to cited information from whichever source. There is no doubt in my mind that that BBC disclosure document singles out the TV Licensing Blog for special attention. As you've quoted the "900 followers" bit, it is clear that you have seen that TV Licensing briefing note now. As for the blog being abusive and potentially libellous, you must have a different understanding of those terms than I do. I've just gone through his last 50 articles and not once have I seen anything written that isn't backed by evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.117.189 (talk) 12:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
It's a blog. Blogs aren't reliable sources. End of. On the issue of abuse, presumably "goon" and "harlot" are terms of endearment where you live? Nick Cooper (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
The wiki editor who added the item wasn't using the blog as a source. It was being referred to in the context of the monitoring of the internet by the BBC, which seems fair enough in my opinion. 195.194.15.1 (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Looking at it again I don't think that reverting the edit was appropriate. Reverting is mostly appropriate for vandalism, which is not the case here. I can't see anything wrong with quoting a BBC memo about TV Licensing procedures or linking to the blog which discusses TV Licensing especially as it is in the Opinion section. 195.194.15.1 (talk) 12:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Assess Quality of Article?

At present this article is 'Start Class'. My feeling is that it has improved over the last couple of years to at least 'C-class' if not 'B-class' Perhaps the time has come for it to be assessed?193.105.48.20 (talk) 10:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Enforcement Methods on the Channel Islands

Does anyone have any information on TVL visiting procedures and prosecutions on the Channel Islands? For some reason, although the information is given for the Isle of Man in the Ask Help Script https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/225306/response/571034/attach/3/RFI20141344%20Nath%20Disclosure%20Document%201.pdf (page 944), the equivalent section for Jersey and Guernsey has been "Redacted under section 31 (“law enforcement”) of the Freedom of Information Act". 195.194.15.4 (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

TV Licensing Blog etc

I've partially reinstated the mention of TV Licensing Blog. Out of deference to Nick Cooper I have not included a link to the site (although I don't see any harm in it myself) and I have put in the reference to the original request to get the context. I think the quote is noteworthy in that it indicates the very detailed and specific sort of monitoring that the BBC carries out on these sort of sites ie. it is not just the case of guaging the general feeling out on the web regarding the TV Licence. The quote also draws attention to the monitoring of Twitter. I've also mentioned the monitoring of Facebook with another reference. I hope this will keep everyone happy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.105.48.20 (talk) 10:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The TV Licensing Blog published an interesting article the other day, where they highlighted the fact that one of their readers had successfully sued TV Licensing for the costs he incurred wasting time dealing with their letters. Article is here: http://tv-licensing.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/tv-licensing-where-theres-muck-theres.html
The blog has stored all of the original documentation in a folder, which they link to from the article so it seems authentic and newsworthy to me. It is clear that the claimant's success is a direct result of information he read on the TV Licensing Blog, who have invested considerable time in researching the article. It is the TV Licensing Blog's story, but the case had also been mentioned in The Times (piece called "Licence enforcers pay £150 to man with no TV", page 41, Sat 8th November) and Nick Abbot's LBC radio show (broadcast on Sat, 8th November 2014). Personally I think it's a very important development, so should it be mentioned somewhere in the Wiki article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.135.63 (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
People's personal hobby horse blogs are not acceptable sources. End of. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Although you could use the Times Newspaper as a reference. Something along the lines of 'According to the the Times Newspaper .......' and then reference the date or publication, page etc.193.105.48.20 (talk) 10:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
In a recent FOI response, the BBC has accepted the validity of the above story (ie of TVL being sued)and the documents displayed in the Blog. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/tv_licensing_successfully_sued#comment-56877 The BBC also offers the additional information that: 'please be advised that in this case a judgement was entered in default simply because legal documents were redirected to the wrong office. No legal issues were considered by the court and this judgement does not set a precedent. Of the small number of previous cases which have been brought on similar grounds, none have been successful.' 193.105.48.20 (talk) 11:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not the BBC respect "WOIRA" requests

I had some discussion with Pictsidhe about this on my talk page. It may be of interest to other editors. GoddersUK (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I read the discussion. Note that the BBC's policy as regards WOIRA is summarised in Chapter 4 Section 7 of the Visiting Procedures. I quote: 'Withdrawn implied rights of access must be respected by TV Licensing since EOs would be committing trespass if they visited the address after the right of access had been withdrawn.' It also says that the EO should update the records and that Customer Relations should correspond to the person making the request to confirm the WOIRA. There are references on the web to WOIRA requests being ignored but they seem to be in blogs and similar websites so they're not really usable in the article. 195.194.15.4 (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Television licensing in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Television licensing in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Television and the royals

I wonder if government officials are exempt from getting a licence. 173.86.6.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

There is certainly no exemption for "government officials," but Her Majesty would clearly be age-exempt, anyway. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


Tax

Article stated that the licence fee is a tax in two separate locations, both sourced and cited. I reviewed the source and it actually says the opposite - that it is not a tax, so I have removed the unsourced assertions. 87.82.49.130 (talk) 09:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Have reinstated both deleted sections with sources First source is a House of Lords Select Committee report that states that: "in January 2006 the Office of National Statistics re-classified the licence fee as a tax". The Committee response: "the decision means that from now on the licence fee will be recognised as a form of hypothecated taxation." Further down the report says: "The reclassification of the licence fee as a tax, and of the BBC as a central government body, could therefore have significant implications for the BBC’s independence." Para 28 says: "The licence fee is now classified as a tax and we note that for the first time the Government have started to use it as such. They are using it to cover costs that should be covered by general taxation, in particular the costs of providing targeted help with digital switchover." Readf paras 22-33 for the details.
The second source is a note from the House of Commons Library regarding Hypothecated Taxation. The relevent quotes here are: "'Hypothecation' means earmarking tax revenues for specific, identified purposes.'Pure hypothecation' would see spending on a particular programme linked directly to the revenue raised by a particular tax or set of taxes: the licence fund used to finance the BBC is perhaps the best example of this". Also: "Even in Britain, the BBC licence fee has managed to sustain a quality public service for nearly 70 years. Although both of these forms of hypothecated taxes have had their problems, they are not more troublesome than other taxes...."195.194.15.5 (talk) 10:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
The Select Committe report discusses the Office if National Statistics reclassifying the Licence Fee as a tax, but the report strongly disagrees with that reclassification. The ONS makign the reclassification for its own calculation purposes does not "officially" make it so. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually the Committee does not strongly agree with the re-classification - it just points out a possible drawback. The Committee says: "the decision means that from now on the licence fee will be recognised as a form of hypothecated taxation." I have added a small section about the re-classification on the grounds that it is relevant to the article, truthful and backed by reliable sources. The aim of Wikipedia should be to provide information.195.194.15.5 (talk) 12:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Availability of new black-and-white sets?

Given that there would appear to be a definite market for them due to the lower license fee, are new black-and-white TV sets still available in the UK? Thanks! - knoodelhed (talk) 01:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


Maplin used to sell them back in 2013. Haven't seen any new ones on sale since then. 2A00:23C6:7F84:8E00:A814:6E1D:FD05:10E8 (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

They haven't been sold since the analogue TV signals were switched off in 2012. Actually for some time before then, and in preparation for it, dealers were only selling the flatscreen TVs with "Freeview" built in, and none of those were ever made as "black and white" versions.

RFC: Changes to over-75s licence fee

The consensus is to include the material. Suggestions that it might not happen should be included in the article if and only if the suggestions can be reliably sourced.

Cunard (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It has been announced that the TV licence concession for over-75s is to be abolished from 2020. This decision is widely reported by reliable sources. Given that its implementation is in the future, should it be included in this article, or omitted until 2020? Cnbrb (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

It should not be included until it actually happens or becomes a certainty (per WP:CRYSTAL). Although the change has been announced by the BBC, they no longer control collection of the licence fee as it has now become a tax collected by the government of which a portion is given to the BBC. In spite of what you may have read in the press, as with any tax, it is the government that have the final say over its implementation. The change is sufficiently controversial that there is much opposition. The current priministerial contenders are playing down the issue in order to avoid alienating potential supporters. To be included in the article, WP:CRYSTAL requires that the change must be 'almost certain'. The level of controversy and opposition is such that it is far from 'almost certain'. 109.152.226.245 (talk) 10:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
It should be included. The BBC takes complete control of the concession from April 2020 (see 2016 agreement between Government and BBC quoted in article). It has announced it will change the concession in June 2020. It has issued a decision document (https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/reports/consultation/age-related-tv-licence-policy) giving its reasons. It is uncontroversial to state the BBC's own plan about its own concession given that it has been openly announced by the BBC and has been commented on by numerous reliable sources. It should also be noted that WP:CRYSTAL refers to articles about future events. Here we are dealing with an article about TV licensing in the UK. Given that the BBC has, since 1991, been responsible for the TV licensing system in the UK, it is perfectly in order to include a mention of its plans for its own licence. In answer to another point by 109.152.226.245, the BBC has been responsible for collecting the licence fee since 1991. The reclassification of the fee as a tax in 2006, has not changed this.193.105.48.21 (talk) 09:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, include it, assuming there are reliable sources. But the fact that should be written about is that it has been announced, not that it will happen. I.e. in the style of it has been announced, that... and according to this policy <X> would happen. Like anonymous IP user already pointed out, we can't predict the future, but that does not mean we cannot report on planned future actions. Hecato (talk) 10:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
You have just made a case for its exclusion. You have stated that although it has been announced "not that it will happen" (your quote). WP:CRYSTAL prohibits its inclusion unless it is "almost certain to take place" (part of criterion No. 1). Your post suggests that you are not certain that it will take place, and indeed it is not certain as there is considerable opposition. 109.152.222.10 (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Simply mentioning that this change has been announced does not require any prediction about the future. The announcement has happened in the past. Cheers Hecato (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Include - This is directly and manifestly relevant to the article, and the information is obviously well sourced and notable. The suggestions of WP:CRYSTAL make little sense given the solidity and integrity of the sourcing - this is not idle commentary or prediction. The new policy has been announced and discussed and widely covered, making it inherently notable. Suggestions (from a single editor) that it might not happen, and therefore this material should not be included unless and until it does occur, is surely relying on the entirely UN-sourced personal predictions of an anonymous individual, in the absence of any reliable sources saying the same thing. (And even if such sources DID exist, that too would be notable and would similarly merit inclusion here.) It simply does not make sense to delete sensible, well-sourced and relevant information. Bonusballs (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your input. It's good to get some wider perspectives from other editors and, as always, far preferable to the confrontational approach. I didn't think it was particularly problematic, given the coverage.Cnbrb (talk) 11:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Include , mentioning the possibility it might not happen. The proposal has created a political stir, which should be covered here. Of course. Johnbod (talk) 03:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I don't have a source saying that it might not happen, but if the possibility of the announcement being reversed, it can always be added later. Cnbrb (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_5&oldid=1238596431"