Had a Visit from TV Licence Man

oldgrumpygit

sniggings wrote: »

the letters they send out each month, make it quite clear that is the case.

They do seem to struggle with the concept that people may not watch TV, may only watch catch-up TV or that that their records may be wrong.

sniggings

oldgrumpygit wrote: »

They do seem to struggle with the concept that people may not watch TV, may only watch catch-up TV or that that their records may be wrong.

or that the house is empty or not even built yet lol

System

Cornucopia wrote: »

I don't really care what their politics are (if anything). Just that they aren't treating people fairly.

That's the point

prowla

Cornucopia wrote: »

I don't really care what their politics are (if anything). Just that they aren't treating people fairly.

It is perfectly fair and quite straightforward: if you want to watch broadcast TV at the time it is broadcast then you need a licence.

Live TV is not a right, not a fundamental requirement for life itself; it is simply a form of entertainment that you can opt in to enjoy. If you opt in it costs you a fee and if you don't then it doesn't.

(But actually, it's got me wondering - I virtually never watch it, and pretty much always watch from recordings (so I can skip the ads), so maybe I might have a re-think...)

System

prowla wrote: »

Live TV is not a right, not a fundamental requirement for life itself; it is simply a form of entertainment that you can opt in to enjoy. If you opt in it costs you a fee and if you don't then it doesn't.

Why should people be forced to fund other peoples entertainment though.

oldgrumpygit

Kurtis_Blue wrote: »

I see that now, probably best to preface your advice with a phrase such as "I rekon" then people will know that it is personal opinion rather than qualified advice.

But I never suggested any one buys a TV licence who did not need one, simply heed common sense and not have the TV channels tuned in when not needed, or even better buy a Radio, its cheaper and sounds better.

Many people give their opinion on a variety of subjects on this site, you are one of them. Do you preface your opinions with some sort of disclaimer?

You have your opinion I have mine. You believe yours to be correct as do I mine.

As I said to prove them they would need to be tested in court, an unlikely event I know.

As an aside I cannot listen to digital radio broadcasts through a radio as I do not get a decent signal so it is the internet or TV to listen to radio for me.

oldgrumpygit

TheWise1 wrote: »

Why should people be forced to fund other peoples entertainment though.

Not sure I understand this.

Who is being forced to fund other people's entertainment, and how?

oldgrumpygit

Kurtis_Blue wrote: »

Yes normally I provide evidence or preface it, or am more than happy to cede when incorrect, happened last year..........think it was around July.

But I haven't stated an opinion I have simply quoted the raw data and law as it stands, you think if you took it to court you could some how test this law in court and maybe win.

As I said good luck with that, but would have been best practice to state you had some untested thoughts on the matter than simply stating it as fact.

Especially with legal advice that could get those less enlightened into trouble.

I have quoted from the BBC and the TVL sites, which is the advice given to the general public.

I suspect that people looking for advice on the requirement for a television licence might look to these sites rather than seek out the Act you quoted. Not to say that some people wouldn't of course.

Even then my interpretation of the Act seems to be different from yours.

Are you a lawyer with knowledge of this area?

I freely admit I am not.

If you are then I bow to your superior knowledge and apologise for giving my opinion when you have dealt with real life cases that have proven what I say to be incorrect.

oldgrumpygit

Kurtis_Blue wrote: »

That's great, thanks.

No problem.

How many cases have you dealt with would you say where this defence has been tried and failed?

Has anyone actually managed to win one?

I only ask as I would have thought in the light of anyone trying to defend themselves using the reasons I outlined, i.e. following advice from the BBC and TVL, and then losing the case, that the pages containing that advice might have been removed by those companies.

sniggings

the number of people who use a TV to only listen to the radio and still have the channels tuned in and either are daft enough to invite a goon in for a search or have a warrant served on them would be so small, you will be waiting a long time for a test case.

Maybe give them a rang, tell them you are going licence free but still intend on tuning your set in to every channel, and invite them in for a search, my guess is they will take you up on it...oh make sure to post when the court case is as I for one would love to watch how it goes