It is absolutely not to do with contract law. The TV licence is not a contract covered by civil law, as would be the case with, say, Netflix. The TV licence is actually a tax (technically a hypothecated tax as its revenue is intended to fund broadcasting). As such, the non-payment of a TV licence is covered by criminal law. If you don't have a TV licence when required you get summonsed to a magistrate's court (and they deal only in criminal matters) and you get fined. (In a civil court you only pay damages).

So be under no illusion, if you do get summonsed for non-payment, it is for a criminal offence and absolutely nothing at all to do with contract law.

The subject of de-criminalisation of non-payment of the TV licence fee is regularly raised in parliament, but the BBC are wholly opposed to the notion as it makes enforcement much more difficult and expensive.

In reply to a post by mixt:

I still don't really get it, unfortunately. Why the BBC thinks it is any different from the likes of Sky? Why are they above all other media companies? Why do the BBC have the apparent authority to legislate and charge for a TV license, yet all other companies employ a pay-per-view, subscription based policy for charging?

That's because the BBC is different. The BBC is the State Broadcaster. It means they are an arm of the government.

Now because we, supposedly, live in a liberal democracy with an independent press, the government keep the BBC at arms length. But that doesn't change the nature of what they are.

The BBC does not legislate for the TV licence, parliament does, because parliament is the body that has authority over taxation. The BBC make a pitch for how much they think they should get just like any other government department.

As a public service broadcaster, Channel 4 get some of the license fee too, as do ITV, I think.

In reply to a post by essdee:

As a public service broadcaster, Channel 4 get some of the license fee too

Unlike the BBC, Channel 4 receives no public funding. It is funded entirely by its own commercial activities.

Thank you for the correction. My memory on that point was clearly incorrect. Although, I do note that license fee funding for C4 was proposed but then withdrawn, which is probably where my error came from.

Thanks for the clarification, but this demonstrates the draconian society that is the UK corporation.

FYI, I do have a license (just to be clear on that). But, if I didn't have one....

Why is it a criminal offence? What loss or harm have I committed against anyone for not having one? Answer: nothing. What they will say is that this is more like a case of "fraud" - the loss or harm is viewing material that has taken money to produce, that I have not paid for. Notice I used the word money there? So under my line of thinking, that means this is a civil/contractual/commercial matter, nothing more.

No, but they will make it a criminal matter because that's just how they do things.

Assuming I would even attend court for non-payment (a summons is an invitation to their place of business, btw), a judge can jump and shout, throw a hissy fit in a magistrates court all they want, but I'll just stand there and go "please demonstrate why this is a criminal offence". "Because it's in our legislation, as passed by government" doesn't sell it to me, I'm afraid. I'll reply with "please demonstrate to me where I have agreed to be governed by his government". They'll answer "your birth certificate" and I'll say "created on behalf of my parents, wishing a contract to be established between my legal person and the state for the purposes of contracting with it. This doesn't show I agreed to be governed. Whose signature was on that documentation? Certainly not mine."

PS - I finally received an "invitation to contract" aka "invitation to vote" through the post, at the property I bought a few years ago. But interestingly, this time, it was no longer addressed to "The Occupier", but my legal person (legal name). I'm still going to do what I normally do with all this kind of correspondence and stamp it with red-ink with a label over the window citing "NO CONTRACT - RETURN TO SENDER", as I normally do. If they want to have a little discussion about my reason for doing this, I'm sure I'll get a knock at the door in due course. As far as I'm concerned, everything ever offered to you, through your letter box or otherwise, is an invitation to contract. The fact some government can just make up legislation as they wish, to benefit some top-cats, who just happen to deem that not owning a TV license is a criminal offence, is nothing more than a 4 letter word that will be censored here if I type it.

Oh, and let's not forget about the BBC's association with Jimmy Savile, and that entire can of worms, shall we?

Yeah, I have a problem with authority. But I live by common law principles. This is an authoritative government that wishes to control and monitor all individuals. All be it, not as badly as some other world governments, but that is what it is trying to do.

I wish them luck with that because they'll need a miracle to pull it off, and there will be a revolution before they manage it.

Edited by deleted (Fri 04-Mar-16 11:56:46)

It's a criminal offence because it is a tax. That's why the BBC don't want to be given responsibility for it, as it would then not be a tax, and non-payment would be a civil liability for which they would need to sue the "non-payer".

The TV licence was introduced in July 1946 by the then Labour Government, and has been retained by all subsequent governments. It's the current government that might give the responsibility to the BBC thus stopping it being a criminal offence. Somehow I feel that clashes with other parts of your post.

My rant goes beyond TV licensing Rob.

In terms of any taxes, where did I agree to pay any, at all? I do pay them, but read what I typed again...

Where did I personally agree to pay any of these taxes, at all, at any point?

I didn't, and I never have.

So by default, it you don't pay any of them, you're deemed a criminal. What loss or harm has been done to anyone by me not paying them? Nothing.

This was the point of my rant. It's a fundamental one.

Most will say that we all pay taxes because... "that's just how things are done around here". Aka the "5 monkeys in a cage" experiment. And this is the reasoning most people will use.

If you are summonsed to appear in a magistrates court and don't turn up, it's very simple.You will be fined in your absence. If you fail to pay the fine, then an arrest warrant will be issued, and, at the extreme, people can (and are - about 50 a year) jailed for not paying fines in such circumstances,

Also, challenging a magistrate to explain why this is a criminal offence will get people nowhere (or worse). Their job is to apply the law as written and according to how it has been interpreted.

Note, I've not arguing for or against the law, but law it is. Non-payment of a licence fee when it is due is a criminal offence because it is a tax, and an aggressively enforced one. Approximately 200,000 people a year are prosecuted a year for this.

Do you vote in any national or local elections?
Do you drive?
Are you or have you ever been married or in a civil partnership?

Edited by RobertoS (Fri 04-Mar-16 13:00:14)

Of course you haven't personally agreed to pay tax, you just happen to have been born into a society where you have no choice. Indeed, there has been no choice but to do so since people started settling into communities. In the early days it could have been tax in kind (we'll take 20% of your crops, or a cow) and a lot of it went to the

You are more fortunate that your ancestors back in medieval times, as most of those taxes went directly to enriching the aristocracy, local warlords, the church or others in power. A little of it might be returned by way of welfare (like some grudging help for the aged and infirm by the church), bu mostly it was a dead loss to the serfs. At least these days we get a say as to how taxes are raised and spent by way of parliamentary elections, imperfect as that process may be.

If you don't want to pay tax, then really your only option in this country is to become a monk, or a tramp, or follow some other role outside of the normal economic system. A.E. Bates managed to get Pop Larkin working in that mode in a rather more affluent manner, but I rather think that just a little bit of a fantasy.

Alternatively, hunt down a part of the world where tax isn't paid. Good luck with that, and in any event, if you do find such a place then be prepared to do without public services.

But back to the issue at hand. There are moves afoot to decriminalise the issue of not paying the TV licence and gradually transform the BBC to a (necessarily rather smaller) subsciption service. That is controversial, but if you wish to lend you support to that, there are many politicians and pressure groups supporting not to mention a few commercial rivals. You would, for instance, find yourself allied with Rupert Murdoch on this matter.