One thing I do object to with the tv licence fee in paying for it regularly by direct debit, is that they make me pay for my next year's licence fee early, taking payments for it before that year has even begun!
As for paying money... well... so far the good old TV Licence fee money has been paid to ME because of the criminal activities of BBC/TVL 'Enforcers'. God... how the BBC hates to be reminded of that one!
I very much doubt that TV licence money has been paid to you Paddy (assuming the BBC run the outsourcing contract in similar ways to other contracts of theirs that I do know about). Athough I'm very glad to hear that you've dented Capita's profits , if they haven't met their service levels (assuming that your incident was post 2002, else of course it would have been Consignia's profits). I just substitute Capita for all your references to BBC/TVLA and it really makes me laugh - maybe because I work for one of their competitors
And we don't go round giving £1m donations to the Labour party.....
Even as I sit here getting on with stuff entirely unconnected with BBC/TVL, I can assure you that there are processes running that are using up the BBC's revenue. Even if I go away for a whole month, I can assure you that BBC staff will be wasting their time, energy and revenue while they run themselves ragged. One email can keep them running round in ever-decreasing circles for weeks. The silly thing is, they could have avoided this years ago, and I DID give them the option. You have no idea how much internal hassle a single phone call to the Police can cause the BBC, and there are folks in that organisation still walking round with their arses in slings!
I pay the licence fee and believe it is good value for money to cover all the Radio, Web and TV I use. It tends to be of a good quality, trustworthy, and no adverts. In fact just this morning on my way to work, I was listening to Stephen Fry's podcast regarding the BBC and the future of broadcasting, and his is an argument to which I subscribe (and he really does seem to take in most angles on the matter).
Now I know that the Web and Radio does not by law require a licence, but the funding of this service comes from the same pot and I'm happy to put in for that. It is interesting that when citing news items in this (and other threads) most people use the BBC as a source.
It is clear that Paddy has been victimised in this matter and that is wrong. As has been pointed out before, "TV Licensing" is a trading name used by companies contracted by the BBC to administer the collection of television licence fees and enforcement of the television licensing system, and it slightly jars that the BBC has such an intimate ownership of those who collect its revenue in this manner. The TV licensing annual review for last year makes for interesting reading, including cost savings, increased collection revenues, statistics on the cost of licences in other EU states (we are not alone in believing a licence fee is there to fund such broadcasting), and uses some research to state:
"Last year, over 40% of people who claimed not to have a television were found to be using one, and therefore required a licence, when we entered the premises."
This leads me to think that as I am paying for the services and there is such a high percentage of people who are lying and so avoiding paying the fee, they ought to be pursued. Again, they have been overwhelmingly heavy handed (and wrong) in the case of Paddy, but a lot of people are still watching and avoiding the fee as per the recent (BBC - other news providers are available) article here; without catching these people that is 200,000 licence fees lost, which is a bit of a dent in the pocket. Without the deterent, more people could try to avoid the fee.
Suffice it to say I shall not be subscribing to Paddy's TV licence fee avoidance tips. There are so very few things in life these days that seem to be worth the money.
Causes a loss of BBC revenue, wasted BBC staff time, costs the TV Licence fee payer money, and here's the rub... the question NEVER receives a satisfactory answer!
Paddy, that is a combination of the brand name protection and oddities of the internet and domain name allocation. It is probably even cheaper than finding someone has used the domain and then try a case against them to undo the damage to the brand.
I remember lots of computerese workaround the Socialist Worker groups used to use against the so called Poll Tax, in a bid to stall or try to avoid it. You'll always get these people who seem to get their kicks in this manner, although back then they didn't necessarily delight in writing to the paper about it (no real public internet back then!)
Anyway, apart from the obvious stand off you have with the BBC, and perhaps some radio you listen to and BBC news on line you read, what problem is it to you how such money is spent?
But Martin... the BBC has lost twice over haven't they?
First - They treated an innocent person as a criminal, so he retaliated by setting up a website telling the truth about the BBC. The BBC has egg on its face, and the website inspires people to take a stand, which costs the BBC money.
Second - The BBC has had to spend more money to stop people making similar websites, by trying to second-guess website addresses and register them in advance. The net result is that the BBC looks stupid and pathetic.
Could the BBC have avoided any of that?
Yes... simply by leaving innocent people alone!
The BBC's troubles are entirely self-inflicted, and I have no sympathy for them whatsoever, and I honestly believe that TV Licence fee payers are due a profound apology, if not a hefty refund.
With all due respect Paddy, do you know how outsourcing works? The people you talk to - whoever they worked for - would always identify themselves as working for the end client. Letters would be from the TVLA/BBC, email addresses would also be, business cards too, even when dealing with the police. To the outside world they would be the BBC/TVLA as you call them.
The BBC having chosen their contractor do carry the can publicly for their performance, but will have passed on financial/commercial risk to the private sector. If your grievance has been escalated to one of the very small number of BBC employees who work for the TVLA managing the contract then, in my experience, the contractor who employs these "enforcers" will be penalised even further where it hurts - in the pocket.
There's a nice glossy from Capita here explaining their contract with the BBC here. Note the boast of cutting evasion rates!
Edit: I spent a longtime composing this reply, because I had to do some work , but all the examples youve given Paddy in the last hour will IMO have cost the contractor money out of its profits, not affected the BBC's license revenue. The BBC gets all the bad press, but it has done since Thatcher moved the TVLA from the Treasury to the BBC in an attempt to make it more unpopular (and boy has she succeeded!).
"Hi Paddy, hope you're well. Could you nip into the studio for a broadcast?"
While at the same time treating me as a criminal, insulting me, threatening me, harassing me, demanding money from me, threatening to kick the door down, breaking the law on my doorstep, lying, covering up for lying... the list is endless!
So... is it any wonder that I set the Police on them... get paid compensation by them... have them banned from contacting me... and rub their faces in their own dirt and force-feed them their own poisonous vomit?
And people think the BBC are those 'nice' people who make Doctor Who!
And Paddy, I do believe that the BBC are the nice people that make Doctor Who, but there again I was harassed by the TVLA for the crime of not owning a TV in the 1980s when they were very much part of the Treasury. Transferring the TVLA to the BBC while it still effectively is run according to guidelines from the Treasury was very much a political act by my least favourite politician of all time.
The BBC is not really an organization set up to be a tax collector - more one that makes friendly requests for an interview. I call it a tax, because as I'm sure you're aware the money the TVLA raises goes in the first instance to the Treasury.
Tiredandweary, thanks for the information on the transfer from the Treasury to the BBC. I wasn't aware of that and it certainly explains their inherited rough tactics in collecting revenue. I shall endeavour to find the details of why and when it happened and it certainly adds to the rather teetering pile of woes I hold against that awful woman.
It is a shame that this forced merger has ended this way. An organisation should have a single message and brand, and this isn't happening here. I very much doubt that any of the producers, programme makers or BBC in general have anything to do whatsoever with the collection of revenues.
It is difficult for me to put myself in Paddy's place - clearly he has been harassed - but even then I'd like to think I could see the difference between the BBC the broadcaster and the BBC the revenue collector, especially with the news that it seemingly wasn't something they asked for but were forcibly given.
, if they haven't met their service levels (assuming that your incident was post 2002, else of course it would have been Consignia's profits). I just substitute Capita for all your references to BBC/TVLA and it really makes me laugh - maybe because I work for one of their competitors 
, but all the examples youve given Paddy in the last hour will IMO have cost the contractor money out of its profits, not affected the BBC's license revenue. The BBC gets all the bad press, but it has done since Thatcher moved the TVLA from the Treasury to the BBC in an attempt to make it more unpopular (and boy has she succeeded!). 
