Former BBC News Presenter Martine Croxall Begins Discrimination Legal Action

Former BBC News presenter Martine Croxall is taking the national broadcaster to an Employment Tribunal over allegations of workplace discrimination.

Croxall, 55, joined the BBC in 1991 on a work experience placement with Radio Leicester. After several years touring the Corporation's local and regional newsrooms, she became a presenter on the national BBC News channel in 2001.

In recent years she has been a regular presenter on the BBC News channel, as well as being a stand-in presenter on the Corporation's flagship News at One and News at Six programmes.

Croxall was unceremoniously dumped from the airwaves in 2023, as part of the BBC's plans to restructure its news output. Croxall's departure coincided with that of several other very experienced, very talented, middle-aged presenters and reporters.

News has now emerged that the thirty-year veteran is taking the BBC to an Employment Tribunal, amid claims of sex and age discrimination. The case is listed at London Central Employment Tribunal on 1st May 2024.

Several of her co-workers - Karin Giannone, Geeta Guru-Murthy, Kasia Madera and Annita McVeigh - are also taking action against the BBC.

The BBC has form for discriminating against its female journalists.

In 2020 an Employment Tribunal ruled that the BBC had unlawfully discriminated against Samira Ahmed, who received a fraction of the pay of a male presenter, Jeremy Vine (insert expletives here), for doing a comparable job.

On the back of Ahmed's tribunal win, the BBC went into damage-limitation overdrive in an effort to stave off similar claims.

According to a BBC insider at the time: "They've spent a huge amount of money telling women they don't have a claim - but now they're approaching women as they head to tribunal and offering to make it go away."

Given the vast army of lawyers employed by the BBC it is remarkable the frequency with which the national broadcaster finds itself in legal hot water. They are, in the main, BBC lawyers cast in the same mould as Post Office lawyers - overpaid, undertalented, content to bypass due process and with a dubious interpretation of acting in the public interest.

I'm sure we'll be hearing a lot more about how the BBC uses public money to silence disgruntled employees over the next few days.

If you've found this article useful please consider liking us on Facebook, following us on Twitter or downloading our free ebook.

TV Licensing Website: No TV Declaration Difficulties

A significant proportion of non-viewers are having difficulties when it comes to declaring their No Licence Needed (NLN) status via the TV Licensing website.

A quick reminder that legally speaking anyone who does not require a TV licence is under no obligation whatsoever to confirm their situation to TV Licensing. TV Licensing Blog's position, for reasons discussed in an earlier article, is that people falling within this category should provide no information whatsoever to TV Licensing.

However, a significant proportion of legitimate non-viewers are naive enough to believe that if they make contact with TV Licensing and submit an NLN declaration they will be left alone to enjoy their legally-licence-free existance.

Many people do this via the official TV Licensing website, where some are having difficulty completing the initial screening questionnaire. The problem arises due to the wording of the questions, which begin by requiring negative answers and move onto requiring affirmative answers.

A legally-licence-free person, who has no legal need for a TV licence, should complete the questionnaire as follows:

In our view TV Licensing has worded these questions in a deliberately confusing manner in an effort to frustrate the cancellation process.

A lot of people pay the licence fee in the mistaken belief they have no other option. TV Licensing wants to make life as difficult as possible for anyone who can see the light at the end of the TV licence tunnel.

If you've found this article useful please consider liking us on Facebook, following us on Twitter or downloading our free ebook.

TV Licensing Outsmarted by Technology

A few days ago, as you may have heard on the grapevine, we broke the news that the BBC's secretive TV detection methods are failing to keep pace with advances in technology.

That's not our opinion - it is an observation made by the official surveillance regulator, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner's Office (IPCO), in its most recent report on the BBC's snooping powers.

According to the BBC's Annual Report for 2023/24, the Corporation spent £137 million on the administration and enforcement of the TV licence fee. That was an increase of £15 million on the previous year.

The BBC is spending a lot of public money chasing after TV licence fees, so it is a matter of legitimate public concern if its secretive, white-elephant technology is not up to scratch.

So what, exactly, are the technological challenges faced by the BBC as it attempts to enforce the TV licence fee?

The biggest challenge has been in a marked shift in viewer behaviour over the last decade or so.

A decade ago the vast majority of viewers turned on their television sets and settled down to enjoy their favourite programmes at their time of broadcast. This, so-called linear viewing, legally requires a TV licence.

However, the latest figures indicate that linear viewing now accounts for less than half of all viewing by UK adults. An increasing number are turning to non-linear, on-demand viewing, which allows them to enjoy their favourite programmes at a time of their own choosing and, crucially, without the legal need for a TV licence.

Non-linear platforms include:

• YouTube;
• My5;
• ITVX;
• Channel 4 On Demand;
• Netflix;
• Amazon Prime Instant Video;
• BBC iPlayer (requires a TV licence).

Generally speaking a TV licence is not required for non-linear, on-demand viewing. The only exception, where a TV licence is required, is for watching or downloading BBC on-demand programmes via the iPlayer.

Pretty much anything anyone could ever want to watch is available on-demand, without the legal need for a TV licence, via YouTube. An increasing number of viewers are getting all of their content from YouTube, with three-quarters of millennials tuning in there first. Much to the BBC's frustration YouTube includes many programmes ripped from the BBC iPlayer which, if viewed on that platform, would require a TV licence.

In the last decade there has also been a surge in the number of UK viewers subscribing to online streaming services like Netflix and Amazon Prime Instant Video (aff. link - use for 30 day free trial). The overwhelming majority of content on those platforms is available on-demand and without the legal need for a TV licence.

There are now around 17 million Netflix subscribers in the UK, which has increased by 50% in the last five years. Amazon Prime Instant Video has around 13 million UK subscribers, which represents an increase of 120% in the last five years. The annual cost of a standard Netflix subscription is £131.88, whereas the corresponding Amazon Prime Instant Video subscription is £71.88.

These on-demand services cost significantly less than the £169.50 annual TV licence fee. Furthermore, it has to be said that neither Netflix nor Amazon use the threat of criminal prosecution as an aid to subscriber retention.

Because an increasing number of viewers are turning to these platforms and using Smart TVs (aff. link) and online streaming devices (aff. link) for their viewing, there is far less opportunity for TV Licensing to catch evaders in the act.

In terms of enforcement these on-demand services are delivered via the internet instead of via the airwaves, so any attempts at TV detection are rendered ineffective. TV Licensing cannot snoop on people's private internet connections, because it lacks the capability to do so. Even if it had the capability, it would not have the legal authority to use such invasive methods of investigation. TV Licensing is not MI5 and does not have the full powers of the state at its fingertips, despite liking people to think otherwise.

Viewers now have a stark choice: Pay £169.50 for a TV licence because they feel compelled to; or pay considerably less for a subscription service because they want to. The BBC simply cannot compete with that, which is why it does everything possible to "persuade" people into paying the TV licence fee.

No wonder an increasing number of viewers are ditching the TV licence fee.

If you've found this article useful please consider liking us on Facebook, following us on Twitter or downloading our free ebook.

Further anti-BBC reading:

• Is The True Or Did You Hear It On The BBC?, by David Sedgwick (aff. link)
• The BBC: Myth of a Public Service, by Tom Mills (aff. link)