Television Licence Fee

[Norkie]

Renewed our TV licence last week, £175.00 or thereabouts.

What’s the movie on this afternoon?

Kelly’s Heroes! Then Where Eagles Dare!

I don’t know the answer to the perennial question but what direction should the BBC take? How should the corporation be funded? It is a tax in effect isn’t it?

In truth we don’t watch the BBC very much, if we do it’s iPlayer. I listen to radio 2 when I’m in my work shop. Am I getting value for money?

 

[lindsay]

I did the BBC's user survey recently. It didn't offer much insight but I think they are well aware that they need a different funding model, and also apparently there is an HMG intention to switch off terrestrial tv by 2035 so that it is all delivered by streaming. I think that might indicate a direction of travel for funding: a subscription which may be subsidised depending on content perhaps?

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

...so that it is all delivered by streaming.

I don't think that will be a good thing.

We need a free to air public service system such as the BBC. An idea mentioned in the 1980s was to drop the licence fee and put the funding of the BBC on the shoulders of the advertising industry via a levy. Needless to say, the few advertising channels in business at the time weren't happy with the idea. Now, with the many advertising channels, such a levy would be both practical and sensible. The quid pro quo could be to restrict the BBC to more "serious" material and leave the soaps and sports material to the advertising channels.

 

[Mr Bump]

yep opted out of that about 3 years ago, just use a few free apps and you tube for my telly now and a few streaming sites.

 

[munch]

I did the BBC's user survey recently. It didn't offer much insight but I think they are well aware that they need a different funding model, and also apparently there is an HMG intention to switch off terrestrial tv by 2035 so that it is all delivered by streaming. I think that might indicate a direction of travel for funding: a subscription which may be subsidised depending on content perhaps?

Not the best of surveys, to be honest. Not sure what it will achieve.

 

[ecoleman]

They can fund themselves just like all other channels.

 

[ProggyMat]

They can fund themselves just like all other channels.

That's easier said than done, I think... the problem being it would require revenue from viewer subscriptions and/or commercial advertising, and possibly external investors with their own agendas. That's how the other channels do it... and the need to attract, secure and maintain any - or, more likely, all three - of these revenue streams could seriously influence programming and risk introducing greater bias. For all its faults, two things the BBC has going for it are that it's not generally beholden to commercial organisations, and - despite claims to the contrary - it's relatively neutral (or tries to be, at least).

 

[ecoleman]

That's easier said than done, I think... the problem being it would require revenue from viewer subscriptions and/or commercial advertising, and possibly external investors with their own agendas. That's how the other channels do it... and the need to attract, secure and maintain any - or, more likely, all three - of these revenue streams could seriously influence programming and risk introducing greater bias. For all its faults, two things the BBC has going for it are that it's not generally beholden to commercial organisations, and - despite claims to the contrary - it's relatively neutral (or tries to be, at least).

Then they can disappear for all I care. I’m not going to fund them. I find their content to be utterly crap and they are far from neutral. If as you say they are trying to be, they are not trying hard enough.

I really don’t know why some people worship things like the BBC and the NHS. Both are no longer fit for purpose

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I really don’t know why some people worship things like the BBC and the NHS. Both are no longer fit for purpose

I don't think it's about "worshipping" the BBC, it's about the realisation that freedom of expression is under attack everywhere in the guise of "supporting" free speech, as in the case of Connolly.

The BBC provides one of the few neutral news platforms left in Britain. Too many other sources of information are partisan in one direction or other, which I think cannot be good for the body politic.

 

[ProggyMat]

Then they can disappear for all I care. I’m not going to fund them. I find their content to be utterly crap and they are far from neutral. If as you say they are trying to be, they are not trying hard enough.

I really don’t know why some people worship things like the BBC and the NHS. Both are no longer fit for purpose

It's not just me. Media bias analysis and monitoring sites routinely rate BBC's news as highly factual and largely neutral, with a minimal left-of-centre bias. Individual presenters and documentary programmes can be biased and opinionated at times, which might be frustrating if any bias is contrary to our own leanings - but as the monitoring sites confirm, it generally balances out to an almost-neutral result. For that reason - and the lack of advertising - I'm willing (if not exactly delighted) to keep paying the license fee whilst that funding model persists. It's certainly not for the "entertainment" content...

I don't think it's about "worshipping" the BBC, it's about the realisation that freedom of expression is under attack everywhere in the guise of "supporting" free speech, as in the case of Connolly.

The BBC provides one of the few neutral news platforms left in Britain. Too many other sources of information are partisan in one direction or other, which I think cannot be good for the body politic.

Agreed. In fact, the BBC is amongst a small few proven largely-neutral news sources worldwide, never mind in Britain. For many years, its World Service on shortwave was the only dependable non-propagandist (or minimally so) news source available in numerous zones of conflict and oppression. It's a great pity that service was pared back so heavily...

 

[woof woof]

It's not just me. Media bias analysis and monitoring sites routinely rate BBC's news as highly factual and largely neutral, with a minimal left-of-centre bias.

I find that impossible to believe. I think it's important to get "news" from multiple outlets and to check souce material if possible and if doing that the bias and fake news on the beeb should be obvious. They are imo as a news organisation a disgrace far too often spreading misinformation, fake news and bias almost daily.

Thank God that these days the internet very often keeps receipts and media fake news can often easily be seen for what it is if people decide to not take output at face value and instead do some basic checking.

If monitoring sites see the beeb as highly factual I just don't trust monitoring sites, not without investigation of where they get their money from and who and what organisations are behind them.

PS. And then there's the stories and issues the beeb won't cover.

 

[ProggyMat]

I find that impossible to believe. I think it's important to get "news" from multiple outlets and to check souce material if possible and if doing that the bias and fake news on the beeb should be obvious. They are imo as a news organisation a disgrace far too often spreading misinformation, fake news and bias almost daily.

I agree with you on the use of multiple outlets, Alan, assuming we either stick to those that are reputedly neutral (or almost neutral), or a properly balanced mix of left-leaning, centrist and right-leaning sources. Many folks have a tendency to seek out, or place greater confidence in, news sources that are biased towards their own political leanings and cultural "norms" (hence why gutter press like the Daily Mail is so popular ). I know my own political leanings, but I want my news to be as factual and neutral as possible. I know that won't be the case 100% of the time, no matter how reputable and diligent the source(s), but - so far as possible - I don't want bias, and I certainly don't want bias that simply confirms my own.

I take my news from the BBC and Sky News UK, both of which score very well on media bias monitoring sites (Sky having become much more neutral - arguably, even more so than the Beeb - since Murdoch was taken out of the equation).

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bbc/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/sky-news/

Of course, there's the possibility that media bias monitoring sites are themselves biased (and the site I linked to above isn't without its critics)... so it's worth using more than one of those too. At some point, though, we have to use the information available to us and make a choice. My choices are BBC and Sky News UK, but if others don't trust that combination, it's fine with me

 

[ecoleman]

I take my news from the BBC and Sky News UK, both of which score very well on media bias monitoring sites

Of course, there's the possibility that media bias monitoring sites are themselves biased...

I think you've just proven that to be the case. The fact that they claim the BBC and Sky are both neutral says everything about them.

My choices are BBC and Sky News UK, but if others don't trust that combination, it's fine with me

and that's fine with me, but the current funding model still tries it's darnest to make me pay for it even though I don't watch it or trust any of it.

3-4 threatening letters a month from the BBC is my average. You pay for that.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Of course, there's the possibility that media bias monitoring sites are themselves biased... so it's worth using more than one of those too.

Back in the simpler times around the middle of the 1960s, our headmaster encouraged meetings in the sixth form common room at which we discussed current events. One comment that came out of those meetings and which has stuck in my head ever since, is...

The question is never "is someone lying?" or even "why are they lying?".
Your question should always be "is this lie more harmful than the other lies?"!​

It's not as cynical as naivity might suggest. We all tell lies and often we don't know that we are doing so. That's because we are taught to lie from early childhood and discouraged from examining and rejecting those lies. As has been said, so often: "c'est la vie".

 

[Steep]

The thing about BBC bias is to take note of what they do not report as much as the slant they put on what they do report. Scots have had a decade to see the truth of the BBC and are dumping the broadcaster in droves.

 

[ProggyMat]

I think you've just proven that to be the case. The fact that they claim the BBC and Sky are both neutral says everything about them.

If you only believe media bias sites that consistently support your own assessments and opinions of news sources, or don't use them at all and simply choose news sources for compatibility with your own personal ideas of neutrality, you'll end up consuming news that's biased towards your own leanings... and for many folks, that's exactly what they want. Each to their own. My chosen news sources may be biased - indeed, no outlet is 100% unbiased - but I've tried to take myself out of the equation and pick those that media monitoring sites claim are highly factual and largely centrist. That's about the best I can do for my own purposes. Regardless, I'm reasonably comfortable with my choices - in so far as I haven't found any better alternatives.

3-4 threatening letters a month from the BBC is my average. You pay for that.

All the fees and/or taxes I pay for any and every public service incorporate an element of compensation for non-payment by others. I can't fix that, so I choose not to worry about it...

 

[woof woof]

I agree with you on the use of multiple outlets, Alan, assuming we either stick to those that are reputedly neutral (or almost neutral), or a properly balanced mix of left-leaning, centrist and right-leaning sources. Many folks have a tendency to seek out, or place greater confidence in, news sources that are biased towards their own political leanings and cultural "norms" (hence why gutter press like the Daily Mail is so popular ). I know my own political leanings, but I want my news to be as factual and neutral as possible. I know that won't be the case 100% of the time, no matter how reputable and diligent the source(s), but - so far as possible - I don't want bias, and I certainly don't want bias that simply confirms my own.

I take my news from the BBC and Sky News UK, both of which score very well on media bias monitoring sites (Sky having become much more neutral - arguably, even more so than the Beeb - since Murdoch was taken out of the equation).

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bbc/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/sky-news/

Of course, there's the possibility that media bias monitoring sites are themselves biased (and the site I linked to above isn't without its critics)... so it's worth using more than one of those too. At some point, though, we have to use the information available to us and make a choice. My choices are BBC and Sky News UK, but if others don't trust that combination, it's fine with me

You don't have to stick to neutral outlets but what you need to do these days is try and get a balance and further question everything and if possible find the source material which is far too often edited and misrepresented by legacy mainstream media. Do your research and you may find the beeb and Sky news wanting. They are both imo a disgrace.

 

[ProggyMat]

Scots have had a decade to see the truth of the BBC and are dumping the broadcaster in droves.

The problem is, "the truth" as each of us sees it is typically an interpretation based on personal opinions and biases. We tend to conflate facts and feelings, even if we try not to (and I'm sure I'm as guilty of this as the next man). Your "truth of the BBC" and mine (and the variety of "truths" believed by a wide range of Scots and everyone else) are probably different, and almost certainly influenced to some extent by our own feelings and opinions. The unadulterated truth - just pure facts and nothing else - is, I'm sure, quite difficult to establish...

 

[ProggyMat]

Do your research and you may find the beeb and Sky news wanting. They are both imo a disgrace.

I have, and as I mentioned previously, I'm comfortable with my choices. They're far from perfect, I know that - but for my own purposes I've not found anything better... and two news sources - one state, one commercial - is ample for me. If I have suspicions over a particular news item from time-to-time, and want to dig deeper using other sources, I'll do that as and when necessary - but otherwise, two is enough. There's only so much time and emotion I'm prepared to invest in news and current affairs.

I don't judge anyone else's choices for news (well, except perhaps for the tabloids ), and I'm sure you have your reasons for disliking the BBC and Sky News. I'm just stating what works for me and why

 

[Steep]

The problem is, "the truth" as each of us sees it is typically an interpretation based on personal opinions and biases. We tend to conflate facts and feelings, even if we try not to (and I'm sure I'm as guilty of this as the next man). Your "truth of the BBC" and mine (and the variety of "truths" believed by a wide range of Scots and everyone else) are probably different, and almost certainly influenced to some extent by our own feelings and opinions. The unadulterated truth - just pure facts and nothing else - is, I'm sure, quite difficult to establish...

BBC content has been monitored and scrutinised closely since 2014 here and I can assure you they are very far from unbiased. People forget that the BBC is the 'State' broadcaster not the people's broadcaster.

 

[ProggyMat]

BBC content has been monitored and scrutinised closely since 2014 here and I can assure you they are very far from unbiased. People forget that the BBC is the 'State' broadcaster not the people's broadcaster.

If you're willing to share the sources and/or data for the monitoring and scrutiny, I'd be interested in that and would appreciate it. I'm genuinely open to reviewing my choice of news providers if evidence of consistent bias comes from sources that are themselves reputable and neutral...

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I'm genuinely open to reviewing my choice of news providers if evidence of consistent bias comes from sources that are themselves reputable and neutral...

As you have no doubt noticed, such open mindedness is not welcomed by all.

Indeed, facts are much derided by those who don't like the wrong types of facts on the line.

 

[ProggyMat]

As you have no doubt noticed, such open mindedness is not welcomed by all.

Indeed, facts are much derided by those who don't like the wrong types of facts on the line.

It's all good . I enjoy a healthy debate, especially when differing claims and views are supported by evidence. I'm always eager to be educated, and willing to change my position in light of reliable information. I'm unlikely to be swayed by opinion alone, but I'll give even that a fair chance if it's logical, plausible and well-presented

 

[Steep]

If you're willing to share the sources and/or data for the monitoring and scrutiny, I'd be interested in that and would appreciate it. I'm genuinely open to reviewing my choice of news providers if evidence of consistent bias comes from sources that are themselves reputable and neutral...

Not asking for much are you? What constitutes a reputation that you would accept? Who decides the reputation of those who judge the reputation of others?

You could do your own examination of course, with reference to the BBC simply access the news broadcasts from the different regions to see how they handle each story. Which stories they cover, which they choose not to. Listen to the different phone in shows to see what subjects they cover and who gets through on the phone. So many ways you could do this without hsaving to rely on anyone elses opinions.

 

[Eucris]

People believe what they want to believe, and truth has nothing to do with it.

 

[ProggyMat]

Not asking for much are you? What constitutes a reputation that you would accept? Who decides the reputation of those who judge the reputation of others?

My apologies, Hugh - I don't mean to be difficult. I'm sincerely interested in the monitoring and scrutinising you referenced, because the findings clearly differ from those of the media monitoring sites I typically rely on (one of which - Media Bias Fact Check - I posted links to earlier). I'm not asking for the source(s) to put you on the spot, but because I might actually learn something and possibly revise my choice of news providers (and even monitoring sites) as a result. That's information I can use and would appreciate.

As for reputation, what I mean is that an amateur monitoring source, one with clear political leanings, and/or one that doesn't share its analysis methodology, is of far less value (to me) than one that's well-established, transparent, and generally thought of by the wider community as neutral. For example, if you point to an SNP-sponsored body that claims the BBC is biased against Scotland's independence, that wouldn't surprise me in the slightest - but nor would it be particularly trustworthy, as there's clear political bias and motive to the claim. If, however, the same claim is made by a well-known and typically neutral monitoring service (ideally with evidence of its findings), that's far more credible (to me).

If you can't cite the source(s) previously referenced, that's fine - but it would help, given the nature of the claim. Otherwise, with respect, it's just an opinion... and on that note:

You could do your own examination of course, with reference to the BBC simply access the news broadcasts from the different regions to see how they handle each story. Which stories they cover, which they choose not to. Listen to the different phone in shows to see what subjects they cover and who gets through on the phone. So many ways you could do this without hsaving to rely on anyone elses opinions.

I never rely on opinions or assurances, hence why I requested your monitoring source - as they typically perform some degree of analysis (and share their methodology) rather than merely stating opinions. I have my own views (both positive and negative) of the BBC and Sky News UK, and whilst - as I mentioned in an earlier post - individual presenters and programmes may occasionally be biased (for which acknowledgements, corrections and apologies are sometimes issued, sometimes not), on balance I find them to be fairly neutral. More importantly, the media bias monitoring sites I use also find them to be fairly neutral (and highly factual) - and that's why I'd be really interested if you have a credible source or sources that challenge those findings.

The problem with performing my own examination (though you could say I've been doing that for most of my adult, news-consuming life) is that it introduces my own biases, interpretations and subjectivity into the equation, and I don't want that. What I deem to be neutral probably isn't, because - however slight - I'm biased. Over many years I've read, listened to and watched many different news sources - but it's only in the last decade or so that I've been careful to choose only those that are (according to the monitoring sites I use) relatively neutral, even if their coverage sometimes jars with my own rather mild leanings.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Not asking for much are you?

I think you're right, he's not asking much.

One reasonably reliable information source for such information is...

Full Fact

Not sure what to believe? Full Fact checks the claims you see online and in the news, helping you spot misinformation and get the facts that matter.

fullfact.org

 

[ProggyMat]

One reasonably reliable information source for such information is...

Full Fact

Not sure what to believe? Full Fact checks the claims you see online and in the news, helping you spot misinformation and get the facts that matter.

fullfact.org

Thanks for that, Andrew. As it happens, I already use that, Snopes and a couple of others for fact-checking when something doesn't pass the sniff test .

If anyone has any recommendations for media political bias analysis (other than Media Bias Fact Check), I'd be most grateful for links...

 

[Royal]

Not a fan. Not watched public TV in about 8 years.

 

[ancient_mariner]

It seems that those on the left view the BBC as right-wing, while those on the right see it as left-leaning. Overall it's probably balanced politically.

Al Jazeera is a good balance to the BBC, reporting those things the beeb overlooks, and from an only slightly westernised perspective.

 

[moggi1964]

Having lived in the USA for 11 years (2004-2015) I truly value how good the journalism and reporting is on the BBC. It's not perfect by any means and it will need to find a route to financing itself in this modern era.

 

[ecoleman]

All the fees and/or taxes I pay for any and every public service incorporate an element of compensation for non-payment by others. I can't fix that, so I choose not to worry about it...

What do you mean by Non-payment by others?

I don't watch the BBC or any other live TV so legally I don't have to pay them a penny. Yet they still waste millions every year chasing me and others like me who don't use their services and don't have to pay them.

Perhaps I should send out random invoices to random people demanding money for a service I don't supply them.

 

[ProggyMat]

What do you mean by Non-payment by others?

I mean that a good number of folks don't apply and pay for a TV license, whether legitimately or illegitimately. The cost of a TV license is - to some extent - a function of the funding requirements and the number of folks they expect to buy a license. The more people who choose not to buy one, the more expensive the license needs to be in order to generate the funding required.

I don't watch the BBC or any other live TV so legally I don't have to pay them a penny. Yet they still waste millions every year chasing me and others like me who don't use their services and don't have to pay them.

I don't know the respective numbers of people legitimately and illegitimately choosing not to buy a license, the costs of chasing them (justified or otherwise), the value of monies recovered, and whether the nett result is wasteful or not. I assume the licensing body wouldn't bother chasing if the costs consistently exceeded the value of recoveries, but if you have links to one or more sources that demonstrate otherwise, I'd be interested to read up on that.

Perhaps I should send out random invoices to random people demanding money for a service I don't supply them.

If TV Licensing routinely chases you and you've demonstrated you're not consuming any services within the license scope, then it does seem they're pretty inefficient (and I wouldn't be at all surprised by that).

I understand why you choose not to fund a service you don't use, and in the case of a TV license that's absolutely within your rights. On the other hand, assuming you pay various taxes as I do, we're funding all sorts of public services we don't necessarily use - and thank goodness we do, or they wouldn't exist for those who need them.

I strongly support the existence of a non-commercial UK state broadcasting service, for news and current affairs coverage if nothing else - and even if I didn't use it, I'd expect to contribute towards its funding through a license fee, taxes or some other revenue channel. It's a public service for the greater good, IMHO - but I accept not everyone feels the same.

 

[ecoleman]

If TV Licensing routinely chases you and you've demonstrated you're not consuming any services within the license scope, then it does seem they're pretty inefficient (and I wouldn't be at all surprised by that).

I haven't demonstrated anything to them, I don't have to demonstrate anything to them. I don't have to demonstrate that I don't use the services of any other company either.

I don't engage and if they come to my door they'll be told to foxtrot oscar.

I strongly support the existence of a non-commercial UK state broadcasting service, for news and current affairs coverage if nothing else - and even if I didn't use it, I'd expect to contribute towards its funding through a license fee, taxes or some other revenue channel. It's a public service for the greater good, IMHO - but I accept not everyone feels the same.

"State broadcasting" and "It's a public service for the greater good" really shouldn't sit well with anybody.

 

[ProggyMat]

I haven't demonstrated anything to them, I don't have to demonstrate anything to them. I don't have to demonstrate that I don't use the services of any other company either.

I don't engage and if they come to my door they'll be told to foxtrot oscar.

Fair enough.

If you can find those links on the wasted millions from TV license chasing, I'm still interested.

"State broadcasting" and "It's a public service for the greater good" really shouldn't sit well with anybody.

We'll just have to agree to disagree, Elliott...

 

[ecoleman]

If you can find those links on the wasted millions from TV license chasing, I'm still interested.

I don't really care. If you are really interested, you'll have to do your own research.

In 2023 it was reported that 2.8 million households no longer pay TV licence (it will be more now). Now you can do the maths on 2-3 threatening letters per month for each of those.

Mass revolt as 2.8million claim they don't need to pay BBC licence fee

A record 2.84 million people now insist they are no longer obliged to fork out £159 for the annual charge because they don't watch BBC channels or any kind of live TV.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[lindsay]

Personally I think Public Service Broadcasting is a good thing and a service that should be at least in part state-funded, but independent. It should therefore probably only offer news and documentary content. The original BBC remit to "inform, educate and entertain" should be modified to just educate and inform. Probably by a subscription model that is underwritten by the state, eg £5/month but if only 25m households subscribe, the state pays the missing funds. Or something.
As to Elliott's pay/don't pay thing, remember that it's a tv reception licence and not a BBC subscription charge. So he's quite correct that he shouldn't pay if he doesn't operate a live tv reception device; on the other hand, it isn't unreasonable for OfCom to expect him to prove/confirm he does not operate such a device illegally (which is rather difficult but not impossible, by providing the equivalent of an affidavit the the effect in a simple letter stating the facts). But that's up to him.

 

[ProggyMat]

I don't really care. If you are really interested, you'll have to do your own research.

In 2023 it was reported that 2.8 million households no longer pay TV licence (it will be more now). Now you can do the maths on 2-3 threatening letters per month for each of those.

Mass revolt as 2.8million claim they don't need to pay BBC licence fee

A record 2.84 million people now insist they are no longer obliged to fork out £159 for the annual charge because they don't watch BBC channels or any kind of live TV.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Apparently, around 3.3 million households currently declare they don't need a TV license... but we don't know the cost for TV Licensing to send out letters, and carry out visits and enforcement actions; nor do we know the revenue generated through fines issued (up to £1,000 plus legal costs) and licenses taken out as a result of enforcement. As such, it's impossible to do the maths without those numbers... but it seems highly unlikely that TV Licensing would continue to perform activities that, year-on-year, cost more than they generate. It's possible, I suppose, but it just doesn't make sense.

Personally I think Public Service Broadcasting is a good thing and a service that should be at least in part state-funded, but independent. It should therefore probably only offer news and documentary content. The original BBC remit to "inform, educate and entertain" should be modified to just educate and inform. Probably by a subscription model that is underwritten by the state, eg £5/month but if only 25m households subscribe, the state pays the missing funds. Or something.
As to Elliott's pay/don't pay thing, remember that it's a tv reception licence and not a BBC subscription charge. So he's quite correct that he shouldn't pay if he doesn't operate a live tv reception device; on the other hand, it isn't unreasonable for OfCom to expect him to prove/confirm he does not operate such a device illegally (which is rather difficult but not impossible, by providing the equivalent of an affidavit the the effect in a simple letter stating the facts). But that's up to him.

Agreed on pretty much everything you've said here, Lindsay (especially the limitation to "educate and inform" with only news and documentary content). Just one small point of clarification - currently, a TV license is required for watching any live TV broadcasts (not just live events, but anything watched at the time of broadcast), whether they're received over the air or via streaming services, and whether they're "free to air" (such as BBC 1, ITV, Channel 4 etc.) or subscription-based (like Sky). It's also required for watching any content on BBC iPlayer...

 

[lindsay]

I would add that OfCom is a quango and not given to wasting money on non-revenue earning activity. They administer amateur radio licences and a number of years ago stopped charging £15/year for them as the cost of managing this was greater than the income it produced. Now they just have the website for self-service applications and amendments, and a generic call-centre service. It saves them money. On the other hand they make billions from usage fees and sale of radio spectrum to satellite and phone companies. Also, I imagine like HMRC, their letters are sent in order to encourage "behaviour modification" (an HMRC term) where threats etc push a proportion of people into paying even when they shouldn't have to.

 

[ecoleman]

So he's quite correct that he shouldn't pay if he doesn't operate a live tv reception device; on the other hand, it isn't unreasonable for OfCom to expect him to prove/confirm he does not operate such a device illegally (which is rather difficult but not impossible,

Not having a TC licence is a criminal matter, not a civil one. Therefore it is not for me to prove my innocence but for the BBC or Ofcom to prove me guilty.

I don't have a Ham radio. Should I also confirm that I do not operate one of these?
I don't fly a drone. Should I write the the CAA and inform them that I don't need a drone licence each year.
Should I write to the plot and tell them I don't have a firearm?
I don't have a pilots licence either, who should I inform that I don't fly a plane?