watching TV on the computer no need to pay

converse

weegie.geek wrote: »

Seems true from what the website says, but it's horrendously unfair to charge someone who's watching RTL or whatever. I haven't dug too deep so I'm not 100% sure on the law here.

I wonder what'd happen if it went to court? I'd like to see a decision made in court either way. I'd like to see how they'd justify enforcing a tv license that only pays for UK channels (and not even all of them) when the person breaking the law wasn't watching any UK channels.

With there being so much choice these days in terms of programming and the providers of that programming, they really need to reform the laws. Far too many things that don't make sense.

I guess it'd come down to how you prove you don't actually watch BBC and other channels, they would argue you have a TV capable of receiving them, therefore from time to time you must watch them, and how could you prove otherwise - surely impossible?

They hounded me for 3 years for a second home with no TV, sending threatening letters indicating inspector visits and court action, despite me telephoning and writing to them regularly to say I didn't have a TV at the property.

And if they do this on a house without a TV, I wonder how they'd behave on a house with a TV, but owner who claims they don't watch the BBC....

(Personally I don't wonder, I know exactly what'd they'd do, you'd never be left in peace.)

Anyway from my perspective the BBC produce a lot better programming that the raft of garbage on digital, so I'm happy to pay.

cajef

CHR15 wrote: »

As many times as it takes for the message to get back to you and your kind that it just aint gonna happen! no matter how well you think you know the law.

Just because someone points out you are wrong you have to resort to insults,You and your kind' whatever that is supposed to mean, and just what 'aint gonna happen?'.

The fact remains that your statement that 'if you own a telly you need a licence or face a fine' is incorrect and giving people incorrect advice on a public forum is hardly helpful.

weegie.geek

CHR15 wrote: »

I am happily a member of the group on the receiving end of Weegie.geek's insults.

Whether you like it or not you appear to be an idiot. I didn't single anyone out, just the people who pop up every time to spout lies about the NEED to own a license if you own a TV. You're wrong, and presenting yourself as right, even though evidence has been provided to prove you wrong, therefore you're an idiot.

I find the notion that a simple call to say you only use your TV to play games on and watch DVD's will get your off paying the License Fee completely ludicrous.

Me too. It's usually more difficult than that, since they can't imagine a world in which people don't spend hours a day in front of their telly. Not that there's anything wrong with that, some of us just don't.

I don't much care for the loopholes people think they can play on.

Ah, it's a loophole now, not being willing to pay for something you don't use, and that's of no use to you, and that you've no legal obligation to pay for?

Im my most humble opinion, those exceptions probably only exist to allow playgroups or communial areas/ schools etc to show DVD's/games etc and not pay a license fee.

Your opinion?

I think weegie should stop insulting posters and try it out. You'd be laughed out of court!

I very much doubt it'd get to court. I'd truly love the chance though.

If you own a Telly, you need a license or face a fine.

Doesn't sound like an opinion to me.

CHR15 wrote: »

As many times as it takes for the message to get back to you and your kind that it just aint gonna happen! no matter how well you think you know the law.

You and your kind? And that's not insulting?

It's not about thinking we know the law, it's knowing we know the law. The TVLA website makes it pretty clear. It's fools like you who keep spouting this nonsense and arguing with people who are 100% correct.

I try not to pass off opinion as fact. I try not to talk nonsense about stuff I clearly don't know about. Try it sometime?

Don't much care for links describing exceptional cases.

If you search you'll find that a similar question comes up every week or two. There are usually people who refuse to accept that it's possibly to own a television and not need a license.

Those are the idiots I'm talking about. You appear to be one of them. Not watching television is hardly an exceptional case.

I know plenty of people who don't watch TV. Mostly students, but not all of them.

People being misinformed is one thing, and after all the deliberate misinformation and bullying by the TVLA i'm not surprised that there are people who genuinely believe that television ownership alone requires you to own a license. These are the same people who believe there are detector vans.

Right now I don't even own a TV, but I'm considering getting an HDTV to watch films and stuff on. I doubt the TVLA will pester me, since it's been years since they did (and back then we DID have a license, it was just in my flatmate's name) but if they do I'll let them waste as much time as they want trying to make me buy a license.

If I DID watch TV and DID own a license I'd be furious at how much money was spent trying to get people who don't need a license to buy one.

weegie.geek

converse wrote: »

I guess it'd come down to how you prove you don't actually watch BBC and other channels, they would argue you have a TV capable of receiving them, therefore from time to time you must watch them, and how could you prove otherwise - surely impossible?

Neither you nor they can prove it either way, it's true. I'm not sure how they'd play it if it was taken to court, but surely the onus would be on them to prove wrongdoing? If there's no evidence I don't see how they could possibly win a court case.

They hounded me for 3 years for a second home with no TV, sending threatening letters indicating inspector visits and court action, despite me telephoning and writing to them regularly to say I didn't have a TV at the property.

Absolute waste of money, but such are the tactics. Plenty of people would just buy a license to save the hassle.

And if they do this on a house without a TV, I wonder how they'd behave on a house with a TV, but owner who claims they don't watch the BBC....

I've read some horror stories. Them turning up at your door several times a month. It's shameful.

(Personally I don't wonder, I know exactly what'd they'd do, you'd never be left in peace.)

I may have been lucky, but they didn't harass me after a while of being told I don't watch TV.

Anyway from my perspective the BBC produce a lot better programming that the raft of garbage on digital, so I'm happy to pay.

Absolutely, the BBC are by far the best content provider. I like some things on C4, some sitcoms like The IT Crowd and their documentaries, but not enough to spend £140 a year on it. I'd rather download the shows or wait and rent them on DVD.

I think for a family there's a lot more weight behind the argument of the TV license being worth it, but I don't watch cartoons or reality tv, soaps... 99% of shows that are on I have no interest in. There's good quality programming (even on BBC3 and 4, especially sitcoms and documentaries) but not enough that I'm interested in.

toofingers

when i went to uni you didn't need one (had an email from them) IF you watched by battery powered device only such as laptop. now it doesn't matter what you watch LIVE tv on you need a license. http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/index.jsp and type in "do I need a license"
Very Simple, anyone can do it?

EDIT: bite my tounge obviously not me http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/students.jsp#link1

CHR15

Bunch of rambling nonsense.

weegie - you have a tv like everyone else, stop talking rubbish.

The people who don't own a tv, don't own computers either.

This group of milly tants shouting all this lot remind me of those refusing to pay council tax.

weegie (or the rest of your lot), you are not going to change the World and relieve us all of having to pay to use our TV's no matter how high the soapbox.

Which one of you started this?

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/optoutBBC/

Flame away........

Marty_J

Is it really so hard to believe that there are people who don't watch live TV?

cajef

CHR15 wrote: »

Bunch of rambling nonsense.

Yep you are right that is just what your post is.

The people who don't own a tv, don't own computers either.

Where did that come from, it really does sound like you are in fantasy world of your own.

This group of milly tants shouting all this lot remind me of those refusing to pay council tax.

What has refusing to pay council tax got to do with TV licences, just for your information I pay mine, and as I watch live broadcasts I have no problem with paying for a TV licence.

If you cannot have an intelligent debate without insults and spouting inane rubbish don't bother.:rolleyes:

cajef

Marty_J wrote: »

Is it really so hard to believe that there are people who don't watch live TV?

I agree and they must be a very small minority, however there are some, a friend of mine does not even own a set, yet since moving into a new property two years ago he gets threatening letters despite having phoned them up, he does not even open them now.

weegie.geek

CHR15 wrote: »

Bunch of rambling nonsense.

weegie - you have a tv like everyone else, stop talking rubbish.

I haven't got a telly. I honestly haven't. I have no need for a telly, and I have no need to lie about it, why would I? Why is it so hard for you to believe there are people out there who don't own televisions?

The people who don't own a tv, don't own computers either.

Truly, you are the king of logic. Have a banana.

This group of milly tants shouting all this lot remind me of those refusing to pay council tax.

At least they're honest and call that a tax. I'm sure that some people have very valid reasons for disliking CT. Although not in recent years, I used to use the library a lot, and I do quite like my bins being emptied, so I have no problem with CT.

weegie (or the rest of your lot), you are not going to change the World and relieve us all of having to pay to use our TV's no matter how high the soapbox.

My lot? That would be the group of people who would prefer not to spend money unnecessarily? This site's about saving money by being more informed. You seem happy being ignorant, and happy to encourage other people to throw away £140 a year. With that kind of money they could buy themselves a nice new TV every few years.

A question was asked. An answer was given. Nobody's trying to change the world in any way other than trying to inform people. There will always be people like you who are happy to say that TV ownership means you NEED A LICENSE, when that's blatantly not true. Quite why you're so bent on everyone buying a license whether they need to or no, I've no idea. I'd rather people were informed and able to make that decision with the correct information available to them, not the half-truths and scaremongering "your lot" spout, so I answered the OP.

Then you came along talking crap, and that's all you've continued to do for the whole thread, passing off lies and nonsense as truth. I'm not interested in relieving you of having to pay your tv license.

If you don't watch TV then you're paying it for no reason whatsoever, but that's fine - if you want to throw away money then do so.

If you DO watch TV then of course you should pay your tv license. I don't, and never have, advocated people cheating the system and claiming not to watch TV when they do. I'm just stating the facts and the law, and attempting to inform people that the situation with regard to needing a license probably isn't what they (and the general public) think it is.

I'm not sure if you're a troll or if you genuinely believe you're right and that everyone owns a television and watches broadcast TV on it.

If TV is so embedded in your life that you can't possibly envision anyone else being able to live without it then you're probably getting your £140's worth, so good for you.