To explain that BBC gender pay row properlyJanuary 31, 2018 Tim WorstallFeminism5 CommentsWorking-class women jailed to pay for BBC feminists’ pay rise. Gudgeon. previousHmm, why’s that then?nextFemale logic, eh? 5 thoughts on “To explain that BBC gender pay row properly” Andrew C January 31, 2018 at 2:59 pm From that dreary diatribe of feminism on the Guardian… “Laura Bates Founder of the Everyday Sexism Project” For a fleeting, hopeful second I thought she might be a proponent. Bloke in North Dorset January 31, 2018 at 3:29 pm Lets not forget all those women sacrificed on the alter of the TV Licence so that those fearless workers at the BBC can get paid in the first place: Of the 184,595 people across the UK charged with non-payment of the TV Licence by Capita TV Licensing, 21,300 were found not guilty – and 90 people were jailed for failing to pay court-issued fines. The figure for charges includes out-of-court disposals. 140,000 of those charged were taken to court, where an astonishing 101,000 women were found guilty. TV Licence evasion cases used to be heard before magistrates’ courts, sitting with a panel of between one and three magistrates. But since Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service introduced the Single Justice system, they are now reviewed by a single magistrate reviewing the court papers, not in full court. (The defendant does have the option of appearing in court to contest their case before a panel of magistrates should they wish.) Although the number of women found guilty declined slightly – last year 107,000 were given a criminal record for failing to pay money to the BBC – as a proportion of the total number prosecuted, it was up by almost one percentage point, from 2015’s 70.8 per cent to 71.9 per cent. If any other law or tax affected women to the same extent the feminist warriors at the BBC and Guardian would all be at the barricades complaining about sexism and discrimination and demanding that the evil Tory tax be axed. john77 January 31, 2018 at 3:53 pm @ BiND Given the limited data it seems that only 17,700 men (or other “not-women”) were found guilty so the relevant statistic would be that women were 85% of those found guilty. If there was a man in the household, it is more likely that he would be charged since he doesn’t have the let-out clause “my wife made me do it” so one assumes that all (or virtually all) of the 101,000 women convicted were in households without adult males and below the age of 75. John Galt February 1, 2018 at 5:16 am Not quite BIND, the “TVL178 – Record of Interview Form” is the primary evidence used by TV licensing to obtain a prosecution. Redacted sample of TVL178 – Record of Interview Form This is the form that TV License Goons fill in when they visit a property and force themselves on the unsuspecting homeowner. Since they are primarily on the prowl during the day it is not the man of the house they are left talking to (who would probably have sent them away with at least a flea in his ear, if not a baseball bat), but a part-time or stay-at-home mum who is easily intimidated. I’m sure single female households make up some proportion of that number of women prosecuted, but I bet most of it will be mums at home during the day. The thing about the TVL178 is that it is signed by whomever answers the door, not the owner or renter of the house, not the council tax payer, just whoever opens the door. There have been examples where the TVL178 form has been signed by a non-resident (not aware of what they were committing the owner/renter of the property to), but TV Licensing doesn’t want you to know about it’s multitudinous failures so those cases (in fact almost all cases where the occupant turns up and wants to actively defend the case and challenge the TV licensing view of events are dropped on the day of the hearing. Bad PR for Auntie Beeb you see. Bloke in North Dorset February 1, 2018 at 9:48 am John G, Thanks for the explanation, but my main point still stands. In any other sphere of life if women were seen to be so discriminated against, no matter what the reason, the usual suspects at the Guardian and BBC would be mounting their outrage chariots. Leave a Reply Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.