No. The BBC is not an ‘offshoot’ of the government.
12 Likes
You are a bit out of date there, mate. That git George Osborne blackmailed the BBC into taking on the funding of the over-75s’ free licence, losing the liability from the govt purse, some 6 years ago. The BBC later had to water down eligibility for this.
11 Likes
I was hoping they had got the wrong kind of BBC.
5 Likes
Gideon Phucking Osboure; his parents named him so well.
4 Likes
Thank you for a genuine LOLTYC (laugh out loud 'til you choke). 
1 Like
I dont get the point of charging per-receiver. Why not just levy the tax over the entire population, the same way you’d do for any other government service? Then, you’d be able to eliminate all the enforcement positions.
1 Like
Well, showing up at the wrong place, and then eventually at the right place for a protest that doesn’t make any sense is very much “on brand” for the vaxx-holes.
Well, they did get more attention, but that attention was purely about them being idiots, so I’m not sure it worked out too well in their favor…
7 Likes
To start with, the BBC is NOT a
Why per receiver? It is very long-standing. If it the BBC were funded out of general taxation then it WOULD be an extension of government and open to regular and unpredictable changes in funding according to the whims and prejudices of each Chancellor / government. And subject to intolerable direct political pressure regarding its output.
What you appear not to get, I’m afraid - and with respect - is the entire ethos, structure, governance and history of the BBC and how it was constituted and operates NOT as an arm of government.
7 Likes
A pox upon the anti-vaxxers
5 Likes
The big studios are still in use. The concrete doughnut itself is mostly expensive flats. Not sure what is in the big White City buildings just down the road that used to house most of the BBC operation.
Television news and the like are now in New Broadcasting House, a lot of other stuff now comes from Media City in Salford.
4 Likes
I think we may have a confusion here between the common American usage of the word “government” (which, if I understand correctly, covers all organs of the state), and the common British usage (which refers solely to the executive branch, and often just to the current administration).
So the BBC is (I think) a government body in the American sense, but not in the British sense.
5 Likes
I get the ethos but the tradeoffs are too many. The idea of jack-booted TV Licensing roving the country in green detector vans, homing in on a violator, getting a search warrant, entering the person’s home-- all because they were watching TV.
Just do a general tax. It’s only an “arm of the government” if you think of it as a “arm of the government.” Otherwise, it’s just a TV station. There’s really no way to let it get general funds and still be insulated?
1 Like
No, it is not a government body - certainly not in the UK sense and I suspect not in the US sense (especially as implied by deltaecho and talk of general taxation).
The public sector is NOT the government - and I suspect this is probably true on both sides of the pond (but I may be mistaken re the US - and this may explain some USians incomprehension at the BBC’s governance and funding model).
4 Likes
SMH
16 Likes
TV detector vans have not been seen on the streets for many years.
It is not an arm of the government and whatever terminology you use (arm, offshoot, agent, service, etc.) does not make it so. Im afraid you really do not understand how critical this is to the BBC’s existence. That it is both not an arm of government and not fully exposed to market forces (having to compete with the Murdochs and Amazons of this world) is one of the main reasons why many right-wing fuckwits want to see its model destroyed.
The trade-offs are ok. Though increasingly under stress. But far from broken - yet.
If you do not get it, fine. There is plenty of source material to explain it. This is starting to derail the thread.
And BTW
What law authorises visiting officers to request access to my home? Can I refuse to let them in?
The Communications Act 2003 (opens in a new window) imposes an obligation on the BBC to issue TV Licences and collect the licence fee. The BBC must ensure that it fulfils its responsibility to the vast majority of households who pay their licence fee, by enforcing the law in respect of those who intentionally evade paying it. TV Licensing uses a range of activities to raise awareness about the requirement for a TV Licence, remind people to pay, inform them of ways to pay, and to deter people from evading the licence fee.
Visiting officers do not have any legal powers to enter your home without a search warrant granted by a magistrate (or sheriff in Scotland). They (like other members of the public) rely on an implied right in common law to call at a property as far as the door, while going about their lawful business and making their presence known. Visiting officers must explain to the occupier of the premises why they are visiting, be polite, courteous and fair, and abide by rules of conduct.
You have no obligation to grant entry to a visiting officer if you don’t wish to do so. If refused entry by the occupier, the visiting officer will leave the property. If visiting officers are refused access, then TV Licensing reserve the right to use other methods of detection.
Visiting officers may apply for authorisation to use detection equipment if they are refused entry on to premises. TV Licensing may also apply to a magistrate (or sheriff in Scotland) for a search warrant. However, this is only done as a last resort and when a senior manager and a legal adviser considers that there is good reason to believe that an offence has been committed.
https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-administering-the-licence-fee-AB20
(And yes, TV detector vans do exist, but are extremely rarely used and only when there is strong evidence, after house visits, that a set is being used deliberately and knowingly by a licence fee evader.)
7 Likes
I believe the average American would lump institutions within the “public sector” as part of “the government”. Or at the very least, “the state”.
But as @SheiffFatman said, I think it is difference of how the two countries perceive and use the term.
ETA - When I visited the UK, some of the most Orwellian threats I have seen where giant black and white “pay your TV tax - or else!” ads in the subway. This was nearly 20 years ago, though.
3 Likes
Aren’t there any very arms length organisations in the US?
There used to be many more in the UK. E.g. before privatisation many of the utility services (e.g. the ‘Water Board’, the ‘Gas Board’, the Post Office, etc.) were very much arms length with very limited capability for government ministers to interfere, other than to set broad governance structures and objectives.
These days there is a long UK list of both government and public sector bodies and most UKians would view most of them as non-governmental, even though they are funded by the government in MOST cases but not all.
Scroll down to the ‘414 agencies and other bodies’ or the ‘13 public corporations’.
4 Likes
Yes, it is weird and worrying how UKians have assented to being the most CCTV’d population in the world. We had more cameras per head than anyone else many years ago and I suspect may still. (China may be competing these days.)
ETA and having watched two BBC news programmes in a row (News at Ten and Newsnight (with no mention of the nuttters this post started out being about) while posting here, it is time for bed. G’night all.
4 Likes
