http://www.theguardian.com/politics...e-david-cameron-decriminalisation-non-payment BBC licence fee: Tories to try again to decriminalise non-payment David Cameron pledges to deliver party’s election manifesto in full as he chairs first Conservative-only cabinet since 1997 please log in to view this image The corporation’s headquarters in London. The BBC has said decriminalisation could cost it up to £200m a year and warned that channels may have to close as a result. Plans to decriminalise the non-payment of the BBC licence fee are to be revived by the government, Downing Street said as it mapped out part of David Cameron’s second-term agenda. As the prime minister chaired the first Conservative-only cabinet in 18 years, his spokesman said Cameron still favoured the proposal which could cost the corporation £200m a year. The changes could be introduced during the negotiations over the BBC’s next licence fee settlement which begins in April 2017. This would be led on the government side by John Whittingdale, the Thatcherite new culture secretary, who has previously expressed doubts about the licence fee’s long-term viability. Downing Street declined to fuel criticism of the BBC that followed Whittingdale’s appointment. The prime minister’s spokesman said simply that the BBC’s royal charter would be reviewed as planned next year. No 10 was keen to focus on the prime minister’s opening remarks to the cabinet, filmed by the TV cameras, in which Cameron said that his administration would deliver the party’s manifesto in full. He pledged to focus “on down-to-earth bread and butter issues we were elected to deliver on”. The prime minister showed his determination to deliver what is being described as “blue-collar Conservatism” by appointing MPs from modest backgrounds to senior posts. Robert Halfon, the MP for Harlow who campaigns on the cost of living, has been appointed as the Tory deputy chairman and as a minister in the Cabinet office. Sajid Javid, the son of a Pakistani-born bus driver, was promoted on Monday from his post of culture secretary to succeed Vince Cable as business secretary. On Tuesday morning, Javid ran into an immediate confrontation with trade union leaders after he said that he would prioritise changes to strike laws. The Tories pledged in their manifesto to change the law to ensure that at least half of the workforce vote in a strike ballot. In “essential services”, such as health, education, fire and transport, industrial action would have to be supported by at least 40% of those entitled to vote. The new business secretary told The World at One on BBC Radio 4: “That’s something we’ll give more detail on in the Queen’s speech, but it will be a priority. I think it’s also something that needs to be done. We need to update our strike laws and we’ve never hidden away from the changes we want to make.” Advertisement But Frances O’Grady, the TUC general secretary, said: “The government’s proposals on union ballots will make legal strikes close to impossible. Union negotiators will be left with no more power than Oliver Twist when he asked for more. After five years of falling living standards, the prospects for decent pay rises have just got a whole lot worse.” Oliver Letwin, the Cabinet office minister, laid out the beginnings of the government’s programme at the cabinet meeting. The prime minister also dusted down plans for a new communications bill and steps to tackle extremism within the UK, measures that had previously been blocked by the Tories’ former coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats. The decriminalisation of non-payment of the BBC licence fee will feature in the negotiations over the licence fee settlement. In February, peers narrowly voted that there should be no move to decriminalise the non-payment of the licence fee before 2017. The BBC has said decriminalisation could cost it up to £200m a year and warned that channels may have to be closed as a result. Last year, MPs backed plans to give the government the power to decriminalise the non-payment of the licence fee, which is £145.50 a year for a colour television. Licence fee evasion is an offence that can incur fines of up to £1,000 and result in a criminal record. However, in the House of Lords, a cross-party amendment preventing any change before the next licence fee settlement begins in April 2017 was approved by 178 to 175. Chris Bryant, the new shadow culture secretary, tweeted that he faces a “big job ahead fighting for public service BBC”. But the most recent report by the commons culture select committee in the last parliament, signed off by Whittingdale as its chairman, reached more nuanced conclusions on the licence fee than the culture secretary himself who has compared it to the poll tax. The committee concluded: “There currently appears to be no better alternative for funding the BBC in the near term other than a hypothecated tax or the licence fee.” The report added that the next charter renewal negotiations “should not rush profound changes such as the abolition of the licence fee model”. But it said that change would have to be introduced in the 2020s. “The principle of the licence fee in its current form is becoming harder and harder to sustain given changes in communications and media technology and services, and changing audience needs and behaviours. Given this is the case, we do not see a long-term future for the licence fee in its current form.”
Years ago mate. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2012-02-01a.826.3 Unless we know what his current opinion on the matter is that doesn't mean much other than he's made an idiotic decision in the past. As we all have.
So what WOULD happen if I don't pay my tv license if it's decriminalised? The fine would probably go up to counter balance the threat of non payment wouldn't it? Or am I just being silly?
Here is a chronological breakdown of his voting trends courtesy of "theyworkforyou.com" (for copyright purposes) http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/24870/justin_tomlinson/north_swindon/divisions?policy=6670 edit: If you click on "show all votes" at the bottom of the page it will expand them to all of the welfare votes
I think they'll make the BBC work more like the other channels and look into advertising space. I hope they do. If they still take the money but put it towards something of some use other than grossly overpaying TV presenters I have no complaints whatsoever.
I'm not sure about this, but has he said he would ditch the fine? Decriminalising it would not make it free of 'misdemeanour' status, and you could still be fined. I think what they're looking at is tightening up the definition of 'criminal'. However, I agree with you that advertising space is the future.
They have actually criticised the BBC, saying they were biased towards Labour, when in reality the exact opposite was true..
If it's being decriminalised then they wont be a fine mate, it will just be another household bill and a non-payment would adversely affect your credit rating and you would have the BBC chasing you for money owed, I think.
I think this is great. Now I'll refuse to pay for a service I very rarely use. BBC can get ****ed, start advertising instead of robbing people. ****s.
I think exactly the opposite, although their blatant bias towards the Tories in the election has made me question this belief..
I think non payment would be persued through the civil instead the criminal court ie County Court instead of Magistrates, The only addition would be the court costs. No fine as it would be classed as a debt. There`d be no criminal record but a county court judgment which could affect a credit rating. I`m wondering if the £200m loss they`re talking about is the fines but I wouldn`t have thought they`d have got that anyway so I`ve no idea what that`s about.
You really think people should be forced to pay for a service they don't want? I know people love it as it's a very British thing, I understand that, and you're more than welcome to help fund it if you think it's worth it but forcing a service on anybody is wrong morally and ethically imo. If I could opt out and have the channels and websites scrambled I'd be on the phone now but I can't do that so instead I'm forced to pay this and if I don't I'm the criminal? What a ****ing joke of an organisation it is.
Disclaimer...i did not write this. For those of you reciting the 'Tories defend the rich' argument, read this. It's worth it, I assure you. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100... If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this... The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay £1. The sixth would pay £3. The seventh would pay £7.. The eighth would pay £12. The ninth would pay £18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59. So, that's what they decided to do.. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay. And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving). The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% saving). The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28% saving). The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% saving). The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% saving). The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% saving). Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a pound out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got £10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a pound too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!" "That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I got only £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas (Thailand!) where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. Professor of Economics. For those who understand, no explanation is needed.For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
I first read that over 20 years ago and every few years it pops up as being attributed to a new author. Total fiction of course by presenting a compelling simplification of the economic logic with arithmetic to arrive at a predetermined conclusion
Weird how the left think the BBC are biased in favour of the Conservatives and the Tories think they are biased towards Labour. Imo they have always been pro Labour...
