Fined £275 for watching YOUTUBE

[Deleted User]

Always assuming your ISP knows who you are.

neilmcl

SEE wrote: »

My letter states:

Notice of fine and collection order

Offences and penalties

Offences and impositions 1/Use a television set without a licence
Fine 200.00
Victim Sur 15.00
Costs 60.00

So in the letter I sent them where they clearly STATED if you cannot attend the court fill this in and post whether guilty, or innocent and give any circumstances. They ignored it? I also told them in the letter that what was written by TV guy was lies and they ignore it? And you're all telling me I deserve it because I couldn't go in person?

Rather than ignore it they discounted your claim because you provided no evidence! You don't attend court, provide no evidence to the contrary, of course you're going to be found guilty.

DCodd

goater78 wrote: »

They can sack me for many reasons. Reason number 1 would be on this forum when I should be working

... ooo me too...:shhh::whistle:

fluffnutter

SEE wrote: »

I've just been fined £275 by the BBC for watching YOUTUBE. I had no idea you needed a TV licence for a computer to watch other peoples home made movies. I've also been told that you need a TV licence for a DVD player by the courts, but DVDs are purchased and paid for, why do people need to pay again? I'M STUNNED!

I know I should read the whole thread but... 1) the BBC doesn't fine anyone, 2) you don't need a licence to watch non-live telly and 3) you don't need a licence to watch DVDs.

In conclusion, the OP might well have been fined £275 but I bet it's not for the misdemeanors quoted above.

vax2002

LISTEN !!!!!!!

None of this is the slightest bit relevant.
You were given a contract to sign saying you admitted to watching a television set without a licence by the "inspector" and you signed it .
END OF ARGUMENT
END OF EXCUSES.

WelshBluebird

sekrapa wrote: »

I assume that if the OP has a stand alone DVD player and uses a TV to watch them, then he would still need a licence as a TV will have a tuner in to receive live broadcasts.

You assume wrong.

pcombo wrote: »

And you only get this message when you watch bbc channels live on bbc site.

you dont get this message when you watch a catchup program.

So i dont know what your trying to prove. Plus the problem here is youtube and that doesn't display anything like that.

So?
You don't need a licence to watch catchup programs or stuff on youtube, so why on earth would the sites have a warning about it?

SEE wrote: »

When I got my letter yesterday I called them and the payment office said you definitely need a licence for watching DVDs

That is definitely not the case and whoever you were talking to was lying through their teeth.

BlueAngelCV

vax2002 wrote: »

LISTEN !!!!!!!

None of this is the slightest bit relevant.
You were given a contract to sign saying you admitted to watching a television set without a licence by the "inspector" and you signed it .
END OF ARGUMENT
END OF EXCUSES.

I'm sorry maybe I'm missing something but where has it been established that the OP signed something admitting to watching TV without a licence?

Hermione_Granger

pcombo wrote: »

And you only get this message when you watch bbc channels live on bbc site.

you dont get this message when you watch a catchup program.

So i dont know what your trying to prove. Plus the problem here is youtube and that doesn't display anything like that.

All I was trying to show was that your comment

Its not like there is an acceptance box you need to tick to agree to watch anything

was incorrect.
There is an acceptance box when you want to watch live BBC TV.

shaun_from_Africa

neilmcl wrote: »

Rather than ignore it they discounted your claim because you provided no evidence! You don't attend court, provide no evidence to the contrary, of course you're going to be found guilty.

But in the UK the onus is normally on the prosecution to prove guilt and not for the accused to prove their innocence.
Unless some evidence was provided to show that the OP had watched live TV, what they did or did not provide to the court shouldn't have mattered.

zenmaster

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

But in the UK the onus is normally on the prosecution to prove guilt and not for the accused to prove their innocence.
Unless some evidence was provided to show that the OP had watched live TV, what they did or did not provide to the court shouldn't have mattered.

Or unless the defendant doesn't turn up.

Which is what happened in this case.