TV Licence article Discussion

This is an interesting and useful thread. However, I find it very interesting that it's all effectively theoretical - everyone is *speculating* about what is and isn't, but there is absolutely no feedback from anyone with real practical experience of TVL actually taking action in court. There are two explanations of this - it may just happen that there are no people on here with that experience, or that TVL actually never takes any court action except in cases of extreme user stupidity when people actually admit to the offence.

But in the end, let's face it - the only thing that matters is not what you're allowed or not to watch, or whether TVL are allowed to send harassing letters or enter your home, but what they can actually DO. And this cannot be resolved by speculation or trying to read the law because it is always subject to interpretation by individual judges. So, only actual practical experience can shed any light on whether it's safe to avoid payingthe licence fee or not. Leaving aside the moral aspect of it... :beer:

mymedi wrote: »

This is an interesting and useful thread. However, I find it very interesting that it's all effectively theoretical - everyone is *speculating* about what is and isn't, but there is absolutely no feedback from anyone with real practical experience of TVL actually taking action in court.

I have plenty of practical experience of TVL taking other people to court.

There are two explanations of this - it may just happen that there are no people on here with that experience, or that TVL actually never takes any court action except in cases of extreme user stupidity when people actually admit to the offence.

As I said before, most people are prosecuted using their own confession (sometimes given knowingly, sometimes being led into it by TVL)

But in the end, let's face it - the only thing that matters is not what you're allowed or not to watch, or whether TVL are allowed to send harassing letters or enter your home, but what they can actually DO.

I think this does matter, because some people won't know the truth, and when the TVL bod turns up and demands entry, they won't know that they can say no. In other words, when a big organisation exploits people's ignorance of the law, the law might as well not exist in the first place.

And this cannot be resolved by speculation or trying to read the law because it is always subject to interpretation by individual judges. So, only actual practical experience can shed any light on whether it's safe to avoid payingthe licence fee or not. Leaving aside the moral aspect of it... :beer:

I am LLF (legally licence free) and others have posted here to say the same thing. In my case, I have made no secret of my opposition to the TVL/BBC - they therefore leave me alone.

Based on advice from the BBC and other people's experiences, I have a TV and use it with a media server box and my laptop to access iPlayer. I also use a PS/3 for 40D & ITV Player. According to BBC/TVL that is a legal setup without a licence (it's not capable of accessing the live streams, as it stands). But in the unlikely event that I let them in to my property to see it, it would be very much a guided tour, I would document it with a video camera and a witness, and I would have plenty of footage of the TVL staff member saying: "that's okay", and the like.

However, other people are not so lucky/so stroppy, and I am tired of seeing false prosecutions against innocent people. They may have been naive to give TVL a confession (though in some cases they didn't even do that). The whole thing is a national scandal and the only things that are preventing it from blowing up are the nation's devotion to the Beeb, and the relatively small numbers involved.

On the TV Licensing website it clearly says

"If you don’t watch or record television programmes as they are being shown on TV, on any device, you don’t need a TV Licence. Here’s how you can let us know."

which it then explands to

"The law states that you need to be covered by a TV Licence if you watch or record television programmes, on any device, as they're being shown on TV. This includes TVs, computers, mobile phones, games consoles, digital boxes and Blu-ray/DVD/VHS recorders. You don't need a licence if you don't use any of these devices to watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV - for example, if you use your TV only to watch DVDs or play video games, or you only watch ‘catch up’ services like BBC iPlayer or 4oD."


Not "If you don't own any equipment that's capable of receiving a signal"



I cancelled my licence on that basis, and they've been informed of 3 TV purchases I've made since then - and happily accepted a declaration from me that I still don't watch live TV and as such still don't need a licence. If I needed one for owning such equipment they'd have been on my doorstep within 2 weeks of my cancelling as that was when they got the first such notification......

Steve059 wrote: »

The Communications Act 2003 was out-of-date when it was drafted. Ten years on, it could do with a radical overhaul. But, the question is, would we like the result? I fear that any amendedment (this wouldn't need a new Act of Parliament, with all the unwanted attention this would create) would be like ICB's nightmare scenario.

However you cut it, there needs to be a boundary between TV and other video content. That's unless you do as other countries have done and either extend to Broadband, or to all video content - which I think would be unfair and would antagonise the public. .

I think our present boundary is fair and reflects the vast difference in user experience between a full Sky package and watching a few programmes via catch-up.

Like all regulations around tax, it's up to the individual to decide whether they wish to adjust their behaviour to avoid the tax or not.

Cornucopia wrote: »

I think this does matter, because some people won't know the truth, and when the TVL bod turns up and demands entry, they won't know that they can say no. In other words, when a big organisation exploits people's ignorance of the law, the law might as well not exist in the first place.

I fully agree with that which is why I did say that this thread was useful.
It is important to know where the boundaries are. But that is also exactly what I said in the end - what TVL can DO. Are they allowed to enter your home? Are they allowed to get a search warrant? What they would need to go to court.

So far the only thing that I've seen which addresses these questions is - they are not allowed to enter. Which seems to be the basis for everything else - without it they cannot obtain any reasonable cause for the warrant or anything else. And as such, presumably, if you ignore their letters and don't open the door, there is absolutely nothing they can do about it.

However, that statement from me is a speculation since I don't know. Have you heard of any cases where TVL obtained evidence without going into someone's home? Because that is easy to do - if you watch live TV via Internet, all they have to do is check your broadband provider's logs. However, they woud need reasonable cause for that...