Two-thirds of TV Licensing prosecutions at one London court targeted women Two-thirds of TV Licensing prosecutions in a London court were brought against women, according to an exclusive analysis of court data by The Register. We analysed three months of listings data from the City of London Magistrates’ Court in the UK. Of the 62 individual defendants who appeared in court charged with not paying …
Pardon me, but the BBC is CLEARLY biased. It is incredibly liberal leaning.
Right wing people complain vociferously about the BBC being left wing or "liberal". e.g. http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2016-10-03/bbc-should-admit-to-its-liberal-bias-and-introduce-a-right-wing-hour-to-radio-4-says-david-baddiel
Left wing people complain vociferously about the BBC being right wing. e.g. http://www.thecanary.co/2016/10/31/bbcs-bias-obvious-origin-groundbreaking-academic-just-brought-light-video/
Since both sides complain equally stridently, I can't help feeling that the BBC's balance must be about right.
That assumes a simple left - right model. It's perfectly feasible that the BBC could be economically statist and personally liberal or economically liberal and personally statist. Given it's a government corporation it's somewhat unlikely to be the latter and more probably the former with some personal statism sprinkled in here and there.
> Since both sides complain equally stridently
Seems logical. It reminds me of the quote (not sure from who) that goes something like "The thing about being in the middle of the road is that you'll get knocked down by traffic coming from both sides"
"Men are 22 times as likely as women to be imprisoned. We should do something to correct this imbalance."
Perhaps men should stop committing the majority of crime. 98% convicted rapists are men. Roughly 80% of those convicted of assault, burglary, robbery and domestic violence are male. Same for vehicular theft, vandalism and handling stolen property.
White collar crimes are a bit more equal, although men are usually more likely (60-40) to have been convicted off them. Embezzlement, fraud that sort of thing.
That women generally get lighter sentences is an issue, but it's not enough to explain the differences in prison population.
As for the telly licence convictions, partially due to women being less likely to tell a person at their door to fuck off. Which tends to be my default if they are trying to sell anything.
I've let the cops in when they ask nicely, without a court order, but only because I'd rather they didn't decide I was uncooperative.
"Because most courts refuse to accept that it's possible for a woman to rape a man."
The legal definition of rape is "penetration of the v*g*n*by the p*n*s". So, legally speaking, it really is impossible for a woman to rape a man (asterisked to avoid the draconian Internet filter where I work).
>>"Because most courts refuse to accept that it's possible for a woman to rape a man.
>The legal definition of rape is "penetration of the v*g*n*by the p*n*s". So, legally speaking, it really is impossible for a woman to rape a man (asterisked to avoid the draconian Internet filter where I work).
Yes, I seem to remember hearing about similar (my ex was a lawyer). Due to the definition, a lot of female/female rapes are not classed as rape but sexual assault, even if forced penetration occured.
> 98% convicted rapists are men.
It does make me wonder though, if women are incapable of rape due to missing the required equipment to rape (by legal definition), what on earth did the 2% non-men do to be convicted of rape? Or does that refer to those of a different "gender identity" in a male body?
"Assault by penetration"
Penalty: The offence is indictable only with maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
Code for Crown Prosecutors - considerations
This offence is in essence similar to rape and a prosecution is almost certainly required in the public interest.
DPP: Rape and Sexual Offences:
Chapter 2: Sexual Offences Act 2003 - Principal Offences, and
Sexual Offences Act 1956 - Most commonly charged offences
A giant pink elephant just walked past my window and suggested that women commit as many crimes as men but you don't see many female judges, so a quick sob and a quivering lip means the old duffers on the bench take pity on the miscreant and she gets let off.
Of course, this could never happen in the real world since we know there's no such thing as giant pink elephants and women are never drunk and disorderly, rude, offensive or violent, they never shoplift or pick pockets, never gouge people's eyes or crack someone's skull with a stiletto heel ...
> a quick sob and a quivering lip means the old duffers on the bench take pity on the miscreant and she gets let off
It's not just the old duffers on the bench. I was a juror in a drugs'n'guns case at the Bailey. The male perps were quickly banged up (and thoroughly deserved to be), but the 21-y-o, tasty totty was 'interviewed' in the detective's back seat for three-quarters of an hour, before going free.
@Solarflare
I think there are on average about 150,000 prosecutions a year for the telly tax. It's 10% of all prosecutions in the type of court where this thing is done apparently. It was a while since I saw the story but it's around those numbers as I recall.
So not a rather small number by any measure.
Perhaps I could have been clearer, but I was referring to El Reg's own figures:
"The Register analysed three months of listings data from the City of London Magistrates’ Court. Of the 62 individual defendants who appeared in court charged with not paying the TV Licence over that period, two-thirds – 42 – were female."
I wasn't using an annual or total figure or anything. 62 people is a small data set.
I'm having this argument with them at the moment and have received the "We're going to start investigation" letter which I promptly shoved in the bin, but only after noting that apparently the only way to "stop the investigation" was to buy a TV licence. Which is a pile of totally incorrect threatening boll**ks as I don't actually need one.
So... so far I've had one bloke round who I refused entry to. This was after he threatened that if I didn't let him in they would just send more people round. I replied with a reminder to him of my (and his) rights and a fanfare of "bring it on, you'll soon get the message" and that it would allow me to start to build a nice harrassment case against them. He sloped off.
As a civil collection agency, I categorically refuse to provide my personal details to them or tow their line, and I am very much looking forward to round 2.
Wrong sort of civil
It was uncivil letters that that made me decide not to every get a TV licence again. (Though I suspect I would have dropped it eventually anyway).
When the post office stopped selling licences, it became tricky to buy a monochrome licence. I tried several Paypoints (or whatever they are) and none could sell me a replacement. I was working away from home at the time and realised I didn't actually need one legally, the TV (b & w portable) was laying on its side unplugged and had been for months. (I was happy enough to pay because I used iPlayer a little, but certainly not enough to justify a colour licence).
I didn't bother renewing, and got a load of letters basically accusing me of being a criminal, they went in the bin, and I gave the TV to my parents for their caravan.
Had they sent a polite letter, I would have replied explaining the situation and asking where to buy a mono TV licence.
If anyone ever comes round (that was quite a few years ago, and I have heard nothing, the letters dried up after a couple of years). Then if they are civil, then I will explain the situation, but probably not let them in (unless the house actually happened to be tidy), if not they will get told to leave with no information.
"apparently the only way to "stop the investigation" was to buy a TV licence"
You can go on the TV licensing portal and tell them you don't need a licence. Worked for me - they didn't send any more letters after that - at least for the year or so before I had to get a licence again.
Our weekly local newspaper in Hertfordshire lists cases from the town's Magistrates Court. I noticed a long time ago that 75% or more prosecuted licence evaders were women, and I often wonder why this should be so.
Looks as though it may be a widespread phenomenon.
>Looks as though it may be a widespread phenomenon.
Imagine, you work for Crapita to "enforce" TV license and you have the choice paying a visit to one of these two:
1. Single woman
2. Heavy weight boxing champion
Which of the two would you pick ? Remember, you get commission. It is SO MUCH MORE easier to scare a woman with this crap.
From the petition by Caroline Lévesque-Bartlett
"It doesn't have to be this way:
- Canada, United States, Australia, Hong Kong, Luxembourg, Monaco and Spain don't have TV licence fees. Presumably its national TV is paid by taxes, in which case it's paid proportionally to each individual's income. "
Anyone who can't be arsed to research how these countries finance public broadcasting (even if they have to look it up on Wikipedia) and doesn't offer a solution is wasting our time.
She also seems to be suggesting that instead of those who watch paying, that everyone pays via taxation by the government. But in an earlier paragraph to the petition she says "The nature of the licence fee as a tax could lead to the BBC being manipulated by the government in power with the threat of withholding funds if information damaging to that government was made public" which is contradictory.
I don't watch TV in america, and I also don't watch TV in the UK.
I have no idea about the quality of either.
I also don't pay for either of them.
I do keep getting letters from some licencing agency suggesting that I really ought to give it a go though... maybe next year if I find the time.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
