Tv licence threat

[Deleted User]

giraffe69 wrote: »

Group 3 (I suspect bigger than Group 2)

Based on the BBC's own stats, it's the other way round.

System

I am surprised. I would have thought that the only statistics that BBC could produce that have any sort of accuracy would be the number of homes with a licence.
One other major problem is actually obtaining the total numbers of households/residences that would require a licence IF TV was watched legally.
Any assumption of the split of the remainder of the households either not requiring or intentionally unlicenced is pure conjecture on their part. Extrapolating from the number of people brought before the court would be highly inaccurate.

Any numbers produced by the BBC can therefore only be guesswork produced by statisticians working with insufficient data.

[Deleted User]

!!!!!! wrote: »

Any numbers produced by the BBC can therefore only be guesswork produced by statisticians working with insufficient data.

True, but if their estimated evasion figure was out by 50% (on the low side), it still wouldn't be more than half of unlicensed addresses.

SwimmerPete

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

No it can't.

The exemption only applies to a "dealer in television receivers".

Sorry - you are wrong. I did do contract repairs for a couple of local dealers, in my home workshop. I am not a "registered dealer" but I wasn't required to have a TV Licence. In fact the few remaining TV dealers no doubt farm out their repairs to freelance engineers as the cost of mantaining a repair department is sadly no longer viable. Aerial riggers/repairers have a small monitor TV to view satellite/Freeview feeds but they'll charge a few bob to come out. The problem doesn't affect me because I still have my home workshop although it's now only used for doing comms equipment and vintage radio repairs. In the UK radio/TV/electronics engineers aren't required to be "registered" by anyone let alone TV Licensing, including those engaged in maintaining transmitters which does require registration in some administrations - eg the US' FCC.

Setting up a Freeview box can be done by anyone, as long as a TV is only connected to view the menus, after which the TV must be immediately disconnected.

[Deleted User]

SwimmerPete wrote: »

Sorry - you are wrong.

Not according to the Communications Act, I'm not.

363 Licence required for use of TV receiver

(5) Subsection (1) is not contravened by anything done in the course of the business of a dealer in television receivers solely for one or more of the following purposes—

(a) installing a television receiver on delivery;

(b) demonstrating, testing or repairing a television receiver.

I am not a "registered dealer" but I wasn't required to have a TV Licence.

I don't recall saying anything about a registered dealer :huh:

Buzby

I had a Dealers Licence but they were abolished in the early 90's. as I recall, it cost 25p and lasted 5 years. They were and-written and pre dated the switch to computerisation. I believe that is when it ended, leading to the change in the comms act.

As to SwimmerPete's comment on the Sound Reception Licence being 'my version' of the law, is irrelevant - no only was I not referring to this, it isn't even an issue for a non-sighted person. They would certainly receive a free licence.

What most continue to harp on about is the definition of 'watching' yet fail to grasp under the act this is just one of the things you must not do. Installation of a receiver leaves the non-licence holder at risk (under the Act). As it is a crapita employee who will (usually) initiate the legal process, this is only so far as evidence gathering, and even when this is deficient, the judge will base his findings on the responses of the defendant - assuming they bother to turn up.

It is quite possible for the defendant to clarify to the judge that they do not view and explain the reasons why, for this to be believed and the case dismissed. Equally, I have seen cases where they were not believed with the judge stating the defence was not credible and dismissed it, fining the 'viewer'.

Not having the equipment (if you don't have a licence) remains the most effective way of avoiding the merest hint of a pending prosecution. Everything else is a risk, and as long as it remains part of criminal (not civil) law - this will never change.

[Deleted User]

Buzby wrote: »

it isn't even an issue for a non-sighted person. They would certainly receive a free licence.

No they wouldn't.

They would qualify for a 50% discount.