No TV Licence

[Alex321]

To be fair on @Electric_Andy the rules are that obfuscated, and buried deep within the TV licencing website it's easy to get confused.

It is, but he has asked the question, and had it answered already.

Livestreams on platforms like YouTube or Discord are not included as needing a licence, unless they are being broadcast as part of a TV programme. That's a confusing but as what is a TV programme?

This is where it gets really obfuscated and buried
Section 263 - Interpretation of Part 3 contains

“television programme service” means any of the following—
(a) a television broadcasting service;
(b) a television licensable content service;
(c) a digital television programme service;
(d) a restricted television service;

“television broadcasting service” means (subject to subsection (4)) a service [F11(or a dissociable section of a service)] which—
(a) consists in a service of television programmes provided with a view to its being broadcast (whether in digital or in analogue form);
(b) is provided so as to be available for reception by members of the public; and
(c) is not—
(i) a restricted television service;
(ii) a television multiplex service;
(iii) a service provided under the authority of a licence under Part 1 of the 1990 Act to provide a television licensable content service; or
(iv) a service provided under the authority of a licence under Part 1 of the 1996 Act to provide a digital television programme service;

“television licensable content service” has the meaning given by section 232 of this Act;

“digital television programme service” means a digital programme service within the meaning given by section 1(4) of the 1996 Act for the purposes of Part 1 of that Act;

In section 405 (general interpretation), we have

“television programme” means any programme (with or without sounds) which—
(a) is produced wholly or partly to be seen on television; and
(b) consists of moving or still images or of legible text or of a combination of those things;

I think it is para (a) of that which lets out Youtube and Discord, but catches you watching things like live streams on Amazon Prime or other similar producers.

I used to watch streams of things like the recent video game awards 2025, but because it was also available on Prime this year and TV licensing says you do need a licence to watch Prime live I didn't watch it this year. That's despite it being an american show that gets no licence fee funding, yet TV licencing still insists I need one. It was also not also being broadcast on any British TV channel.

None of the channels outside the BBC family get any funding from the licence, regardless of nationality. And it has always been true that you needed a licence to receive any TV, regardless of where it was broadcast.

 

[Emanresu]

Has anyone mentioned what happens to the monies that the fines generate?

There are about 350,000 private prosecutions each year covering TV, Rail, RSPCA and other private companies that still have government-style ability to prosecute*. There are no separate numbers for TV Licencing. However the monies collected go to the courts and not the prosecutors so it actually costs a lot of money to take people to magistrates court. Any conviction is simply for the PR benefit to dissuade people from not paying for the licence. It's also why the cheaper threatening letters get sent out. Lawyers cost.

*This is why a lot of people like me get annoyed that this practice still exists and the prosecutions should be in County Court (under different laws) rather than the Magistrates.

 

[Alex321]

There are about 350,000 private prosecutions each year covering TV, Rail, RSPCA and other private companies that still have government-style ability to prosecute*. .
<snip>
*This is why a lot of people like me get annoyed that this practice still exists and the prosecutions should be in County Court (under different laws) rather than the Magistrates.

That makes no sense. You are annoyed about it happening, with the reason being that it happens?

But why are you annoyed? What is wrong with these organisations bringing private prosecutions? And why, given that the penalties are imposable by magistrates courts, should the prosecutions be under a different court - a civil court even though they are criminal offences?

 

[Emanresu]

That makes no sense. You are annoyed about it happening, with the reason being that it happens?

But why are you annoyed? What is wrong with these organisations bringing private prosecutions? And why, given that the penalties are imposable by magistrates courts, should the prosecutions be under a different court - a civil court even though they are criminal offences?

Basic answer without going into the realms of jurisprudence. Private companies should not be able to apply criminal sanction to a private individual. If they have a beef, take it to a civil court.

 

[Alex321]

Basic answer without going into the realms of jurisprudence. Private companies should not be able to apply criminal sanction to a private individual. If they have a beef, take it to a civil court.

But in all those cases, it is criminal law, which the "private" companies are responsible for enforcing.

It isn't the same as a general private company suing you for causing them damage.

You seem to be suggesting here that cruelty to animals shouldn't be a criminal offence. Or of course, TV licence evasion. Or train fare evasion.

 

[Hover Fly]

Basic answer without going into the realms of jurisprudence. Private companies should not be able to apply criminal sanction to a private individual. If they have a beef, take it to a civil court.

Subject to certain provisos, anyone can bring a private prosecution. Difficult and complicated, yes, but it has been done when CPS has dropped a case.

 

[Alex321]

Subject to certain provisos, anyone can bring a private prosecution. Difficult and complicated, yes, but it has been done when CPS has dropped a case.

Though if the CPS deem it to be "not in the public interest", they can take it over and then drop it.

 

[mjr]

None of the channels outside the BBC family get any funding from the licence, regardless of nationality.

Isn't S4C still funded by the licence fee, then?

 

[Alex321]

Isn't S4C still funded by the licence fee, then?

I said "outside the BBC family" quite deliberately, because S4C is still part of that family AIUI.

They are operationally and editorially independent, but the BBC provide a number of the programmes (Pobl y cwm is actually the longest running BBC soap opera), and a large chunk of the funding (via the licence fee), and S4C programmes are available on iPlayer.

 

[mjr]

I said "outside the BBC family" quite deliberately, because S4C is still part of that family AIUI.

They are operationally and editorially independent, but the BBC provide a number of the programmes (Pobl y cwm is actually the longest running BBC soap opera), and a large chunk of the funding (via the licence fee), and S4C programmes are available on iPlayer.

Right and then because BBC Studios and Worldwide make programmes for itv, itv is part of the BBC family too, while BBC is part of the itv family because itv studios (now renamed) make University Challenge for them. 😵‍💫 That's very odd.

 

[Alex321]

Right and then because BBC Studios and Worldwide make programmes for itv, itv is part of the BBC family too, while BBC is part of the itv family because itv studios (now renamed) make University Challenge for them. 😵‍💫 That's very odd.

No, selling programmes to another broadcaster doesn't make them part of the same family.

 

[mjr]

No, selling programmes to another broadcaster doesn't make them part of the same family.

Well, that's the only link between S4C and BBC. S4C gets its own smaller DCMS grant, not licence fee money from the BBC.

 

[Alex321]

Well, that's the only link between S4C and BBC. S4C gets its own smaller DCMS grant, not licence fee money from the BBC.

No it isn't.

First, the BBC disagree with you about t being a separate grant. They think S4C is partially funded from the licence fee.
Second, they have a strategic agreement for cooperation, with the BBC providing at least 520 hours per year of S4C content. While some BBC Studios content is bought by other broadcasters, that is not close to the same level of cooperation.

And S4C content is all available on iPlayer. No other broadcaster has that.

And they share the broadcasting centre in Cardiff.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/governance/s4c

 

[mjr]

No it isn't.

First, the BBC disagree with you about t being a separate grant. They think S4C is partially funded from the licence fee.

S4C is indeed partially funded from the licence fee, but it's still a separate DCMS grant to one to the BBC. You may be getting confused by the government letting licence fee collection out to the BBC Licence Fee Trust, who collect it under names like "TV Licensing Authority" which Capita and friends do much of the actual work/bullying for, as described in earlier posts. The income still goes into government funds and then DCMS uses it to fund grants to broadcasters.

You can see the grants in the DCMS accounts (figures are in £thousands):

Second, they have a strategic agreement for cooperation, with the BBC providing at least 520 hours per year of S4C content. While some BBC Studios content is bought by other broadcasters, that is not close to the same level of cooperation.

And S4C content is all available on iPlayer. No other broadcaster has that.

I expect BBC would host other Public Service Broadcasters if the price was right or it made sense to them. Broadcasters often make strategic agreements, whether that stops at cooperation or results in merger or takeover, but it doesn't make them the same corporate family until then.

And they share the broadcasting centre in Cardiff.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/governance/s4c

So they sublet some space. BBC Look East broadcasts from the central library building in Norwich, but that doesn't make them part of the Norfolk County Council family. S4C's HQ is in Carmarthen not the Cardiff studios. That's an even weaker argument than S4C being in "the BBC family" because BBC currently collects the licence fee that funds it.

So, I feel the only way that the original claim:

None of the channels outside the BBC family get any funding from the licence, regardless of nationality.

is true, is if you redefine the BBC family to include all channels funded by the licence fee, which seems rather circular and not what's generally seen as a family of companies.

 

[Alex321]

So, I feel the only way that the original claim:

is true, is if you redefine the BBC family to include all channels funded by the licence fee, which seems rather circular and not what's generally seen as a family of companies.

That is only one part of the reason.

What S4C themselves said, in 2021 (my bold) -
S4C Chief Executive, Owen Evans.

"As we move our headquarters to Yr Egin and partner with the BBC for our broadcast services, we are ensuring a successful end to S4C's transformation of its former headquarters at Parc Ty Glas.

"From now on the BBC will be responsible for S4C's broadcasting and distribution on television and online, as well as S4C's technical infrastructure. I would like to thank everyone who has worked diligently to ensure this successful transition."

Director of BBC Cymru Wales, Rhodri Talfan Davies said:

"Today sees S4C's playout go live from the BBC's new broadcast centre in Central Square and is testament to the hard work and dedication of teams from both broadcasters.

"This complex programme has been even more challenging as we continue to navigate the global pandemic and I'd like to thank all those involved in this significant collaboration for getting us to this important milestone."

S4C will continue to commission and schedule as usual and the channel's headquarters will remain at S4C's Yr Egin Centre, Carmarthen with an office also remaining in Caernarfon.

If you wanty to still say they aren't part of the same "Family", fine. But I suspect most people will think they are.