How To Legally Stop Paying Your Tv Licence!

Cornucopia

The licence is a licence to watch broadcast TV. Therefore, if you don't want to pay it, don't watch broadcast TV - it really is that simple, and totally legal.

If you want video entertainment that does not involve broadcast TV, you can still use:-

- Prerecorded media: DVDs, Bluray, etc.
- Commercial Film streaming: Netflix, Lovefilm
- Catchup services like iPlayer, ITV Player, 4OD
- Video games

mickaveli2001

Dave1972 wrote: »

If you subscribe to another TV provider then you're basically screwed as they know you are operating a TV and will have you in court quicker than you can scream "fascists!"

Not true Dave.. The rest of your post is good however that info from you is false and dangerous. They have no way of knowing if you operate a TV simply by having Sky or Virgin in your home.

They can't just phone up virgin and ask if you receive a TV service from them (due to data protection) and they can't obtain the proof necessary to provide to authorities in order to gain that information because there is no "unlawful" criminal offense taking place, and there is no hard evidence to suggest that you may be watching TV in the first place.

Under the freedom of information act, it was revealed that absolutely no conviction has ever came about as the result of information being given up by network providers, none!

They can "suspect" from a large Satellite dish on the side of your house but again, suspicion alone isn't enough to warrant further action

Cornucopia

The truth is slightly more complex.

In a FOI response, the BBC confirmed that TVL do receive membership data - but only from BT Vision. The other Pay TV providers currently do not send it, and the BBC has not challenged their decision not to.

(The liability arises under the Dealer notification rules - Sky & VM both supply STBs, which are TV receivers).

mickaveli2001

As soon as any of those providers were to send my data, I would sue them on breaching their contract terms. The current contract I have with one clearly states the data protection part.

Beetlemama

I don't know, but I don't think it's worth hiding or keeping the curtains closed so no one knows I have a tv set, just stick it on DD and you barely notice it going out. If I had to find over a hundred quid at once I'd struggle but I don't.

This fight's too hard for me

mickaveli2001

I understand completely beetlemama. I too felt like that. But then one day I got up and thought enough was enough. This is why around 74% of what we earn is taxed because they have made us feel it far easier to just "pay up" and "shut up". I have moved my TV to a convenient location, where it can't be viewed by people coming to our front door. But this is the hassle you get when you try to stand up for what is right.

Once you factor in the upcoming minimum alcohol pricing, privatized areas of health care, and other increases and scheme's, it'll not be long before 80% of what we earn is taxed, and we just sit and let it happen. That's why they got away with the expenses scandal and are still doing it. This is why they dipped into the pension pot, and are still doing it with plans to increase the theft (Eg: mandatory pension payments for everyone who works) and this is why they get away with it all because no one wants to do anything. People like to criticize, but they know I'm right

If we continue to let it happen, how far will it go? What kind of environment are we going to leave for our children? That was the wake up call for me

Cornucopia

mickaveli2001 wrote: »

As soon as any of those providers were to send my data, I would sue them on breaching their contract terms. The current contract I have with one clearly states the data protection part.

IANAL, but I suspect you would get nowhere with that. The DPA automatically excludes statutory requirements, and the dealer notification requirements are statutory.

If anything, I think the BBC is being weak and hypocritical in its dealings with Sky & VM. How can they justify not pursuing a legal requirement to provide data about potential evaders, and then ruthlessly (unlawfully?) pursue innocent citizens instead?

mickaveli2001

I think it's down to money and the wastage involved. Even having Virgin or Sky equipment doesn't prove that you are using the equipment.

You could in essence have a Virgin box, Telephone AND broadband router, and only use the broadband yet have taken the combined package because it works out cheaper with the larger discount applied to combined packages. I myself were cheaper getting more services one time than less. I know it sounds odd, but it does work out that way. So if people were to receive all items and are paying for a 12 month contract, then there is no way to tell if they are using the TV services or not.

I haven't used my land-line in my other property in over 16 months now (check answer messages), but I'm still paying for it even though technically I don't need it. Same as buying a DVD player. My parents bought one and had never used it in all the time they had it ever.

Cornucopia

mickaveli2001 wrote: »

I think it's down to money and the wastage involved. Even having Virgin or Sky equipment doesn't prove that you are using the equipment.

No. But I would have thought that Sky/VM subscribers without a licence was a better and legally more justifiable starting point for investigation than just everyone without a licence.

It also bothers me that individual citizens are being hassled by BBC/TVL whilst they let the big companies do what they like.

DaveAgain

Beetlemama wrote: »

I don't know, but I don't think it's worth hiding or keeping the curtains closed so no one knows I have a tv set, just stick it on DD and you barely notice it going out. If I had to find over a hundred quid at once I'd struggle but I don't.

This fight's too hard for me

Not surprising that some should feel this way. Moral cowardice is what gives tyrants their power. It's what makes their fight so easy.

Interesting earlier comment from mickaveli2001 informing us that private TV companies do not routinely inform the BBC of their customers. I didn't know that - but I'm happy to be reminded that we do still have the FOIA. Good stuff Mick.