TV Tax

culpepper

We also don't have a license as we watch no live broadcasts.
Why would that be deemed leeching from those that do?
TV is not a human right ,it is a form of entertainment after all.
I don't drink alcohol either so I am not paying tax on booze,I don't smoke so I am not paying tax on ciggies but those that do ,choose to do so and that is fine by me.
As for taxing the WWW ,almost everything that is viewed on the internet includes advertising which the web site owners have been paid for ,they in turn pay for their website hosting and I pay for my internet access,just like everyone else.
Before people had TV,they would go out to watch shows at the music hall or where ever. No one thought that if a person didn't go ,they should still pay for the show anyway...

Buzby

Cornucopia wrote: »

No. This is not how it works, at all.

My source is the Communcations Act 2000 (the definitive legislation). What is yours?

As I've also bee to court to see the process first hand, I'd be interested in why you think it 'doesn't work' that way.

cajef

Buzby wrote: »

The licence allows you to receive terrestrial TV transmissions there is no requirement in Law for you to watch them. If you have a capable set, then you have to prove to a judge you hadn't been watching - which can be risky if you are not believed.

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/what-if-a-tv-licence-is-not-needed-top12/

Buzby wrote: »

My source is the Communcations Act 2000 (the definitive legislation).What is yours?

I'd be interested in why you think it 'doesn't work' that way.

Where in the communications act does it say that if you go to court you have to prove to a judge that if you have a capable set you were not watching live broadcasts.

Because the law of this land is that someone is innocent until proved guilty, it is up to them to prove you have been watching or recording live broadcasts, not up to you to prove you have not.

Cornucopia

Buzby wrote: »

My source is the Communcations Act 2000 (the definitive legislation). What is yours?

I agree with cajef, and would add this...

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/692/contents/made

The crux of it is "installed or used for the purpose" and despite that sounding like installation alone could constitute an offence, that is not how TVL operate in practice. I guess "installed ... for the purpose" legally requires both the installation and the purpose to be established, and is therefore little different from "use".

As I've also bee to court to see the process first hand, I'd be interested in why you think it 'doesn't work' that way.

In practice, most TVL defendants already have a documented confession against them before they get to court, so there is no requirement to examine physical evidence of evasion, and none is typically gathered or presented.

When you went to court, did you actually see any discussion of physical evidence of evasion? That would be interesting, but highly unusual.

AllSpent

Cornucopia wrote: »

No - the onus will be on them to prove the allegation, just as it is with pretty much every other part of UK law.

cajef wrote: »

Because the law of this land is that someone is innocent until proved guilty, it is up to them to prove you have been watching or recording live broadcasts, not up to you to prove you have not.

Otherwise known as the, "burden of proof."

Interesting thread.

Timalay

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth wrote: »

Do not believe the TV Tax myths perpetuated by the Bolshevik Broadcasting Commisariat.

Again, the BBC do not set up the TV licence. If funds part of it yes.

Nilrem

Timalay wrote: »

Again, the BBC do not set up the TV licence. If funds part of it yes.

Yarp, the BBC don't impose the legislation, yes they receive much of the money from it, and are charged with collecting it, but that is the will of parliament (who have in the past done things with the TVL the BBC have argued against*).

The BBC can and do argue for increases in the TVL to cover funding the public service, but it's the ministry for culture (or whatever it's called) who actually set the rate, and decide the guidelines for how it's collected.

And given the method of collection etc basically hasn't changed since the 50's (even the "nasty letters", and "inspectors" are basically the same as the ones the GPO sent out), I suspect a lot of the venom directed at the BBC is misguided.

Especially the comments about it being Bolshevik etc as that suggests a specific political stance, something the BBC as an organisation isn't allowed to have.



*Such as when the BBC argued the excess funds that had been collected as part of the TVL specifically for the digital switch fund should be returned to TVL payers - the Government decided it better to use the money in a way that went against the reason it was collected.

Cornucopia

Nilrem wrote: »

Yarp, the BBC don't impose the legislation...

In fact, it's rather more complex and less healthy than that.

I have written confirmation from the Government Minister concerned that they (the Government) will not countenance any involvement/scrutiny/observation/interference with the BBC's operation of the Licence Fee regime.

This means that the normal democratic process (for protest/complaint) is suspended, or at least very much curtailed in this case.

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

Still no Jack Boots from the Bolshevik Broadcast Commissariat.

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

Dexters_Indignation wrote: »

Was it the report...

Was it the weather...

Was it this?

The sun where I was based, was banned a long time before that cover!