TV licences: 400,000 don't have one, but do you know the law?

[Deleted User]

Nilrem wrote: »

I wish I'd taken a screen shot, as when youtube removes stuff due to copyright or similar reasons it normally states that.

The link is still there, but it's the one posted earlier which states "Removed by user", not the one you quoted.
Here it is if you still want the screenshot
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IGY8V0Q4_A&feature=youtu.be

System

Nilrem wrote: »

When I clicked the link the other day it had a "removed by user" note.
I wish I'd taken a screen shot, as when youtube removes stuff due to copyright or similar reasons it normally states that.

The original was removed because of your pals at the BBC but he put another version up

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PYM9nz-wu28

Thanks Capita/BBC/TV Licensing overzealousness it made a good story

http://biasedbbc.org/blog/2013/06/25/tv-licensing-gets-anti-licensing-vid-removed-from-youtube/

sja75

The reality is having a TV licence is not a lawful requirement, it statutory.

System

Kurtis_Blue wrote: »

So statutory legislation is not law, interesting, please expand.
Can I also ask where you received your legal education?

Here, this shows how impotent your BBC friends really are

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRQTkOk__48

System

Kurtis_Blue wrote: »

Er, Sorry think you've gone of on a bit of a tangent.

1. Im not sure I was asking you anything.

2. That post doesn't answer any of the questions I posed.

3. Only friend I have at the BBC is a camera man called Dave, fairly sure he isn't impotent he has three kids....although he has done a fair few night shifts...

So all in all a very strange post from you. :huh:

It says everything, your BBC friends who tried abusing the law to harass those people couldn't do anything. It also shows your BBC friends must have committed perjury in order to get that Search Warrant because they clearly had no evidence that the law was being broken. Now for you to keep defending them here and on other forums should open peoples eyes too!

System

As I've said the video shows the Police Officer doesn't agree with your view either, you loving the BBC know more than him though don't ya.

You don't know how happy I am knowing I've not given the BBC a single penny, ever.

I'll leave you to carry on spamming now

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

Here is one for he BBC lovers amongst you.
http://tv-licensing.blogspot.co.uk/p/free-book.html

Just think if Crapita emply 200 Tv Tax Inspectors, and each visited 4 households a day it would take over a year for him to visit you. Now if everyone legally did not watch live TV, their he TV Tax Inspectors would be so over worked, the TV Tax woud be stopped.

I doubt very much they have 200 inspectors!

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

Actually. I did not realise that BBC Tax collecters are on commission to sell the TV Tax!

anna7_2

Reue wrote: »

The law states you need a licence if you 'install a device for the purpose of receiving live (or near-live) broadcasts'.

Regardless of whether you actually use that device for viewing the program, you would have still installed a device to receive (and then delay) it.

hi all,
I have some questions: if they knock on the door but no one ever answers, what can they do? If one pays rent where they live, can they get a search warrant and come in when the tenants are not there e.g. at work??
Also, they say that you only need a license if you watch "live" tv. Well, if one has a tv and allows the inspector to come in, how is the inspector going to know if you ACTUALLY WATCH live tv?? If one has a tv and a provider company, they will have tivo or other equipment. Even if one watches only catch-up tv how are they going to prove they don't watch live tv since they have all the equipment?? Just by seeing the equipment the inspector will say the person watches live tv, just because they have the equipment to get it, even if they only watch catch-up in fact. How is he going to know if the computer is used or not to watch live tv? is he going to switch on the computer and look inside for software?? they say "...if the equipment is installed with the intention to watch live tv"......How can they establish the "intention"? or do they use the word "intention" to include anyone with equipment which make watching live tv possible?? in which case a person who has the equipment but only watches catch-up should never allow them into their home. If they are not allowed in, how can they possibly know what one is watching?? we all know by now that they don't have detector technology. And since people are paying to e.g. get a tv/internet/phone package with a company and they pay for it every month, why should they have to pay a license fee on top of that? it's essentially paying twice for the same thing, just to be able to watch, which is ridiculous. At least, when you pay the provider company you pay for a service they provide you, you don't pay money for nothing to a corporation that you don't want to support.

[Deleted User]

anna7 wrote: »

if they knock on the door but no one ever answers, what can they do?

Pretty much nothing.

If one pays rent where they live, can they get a search warrant and come in when the tenants are not there e.g. at work??

Legally yes, but they have a policy of not forcing entry.

Even if one watches only catch-up tv how are they going to prove they don't watch live tv since they have all the equipment??

You don't need to prove you aren't breaking the law.

It's for them, to prove you are.

is he going to switch on the computer and look inside for software??

Assuming your computer is passworded, then he can't.

in which case a person who has the equipment but only watches catch-up should never allow them into their home.

My advice would be, don't let them in, whether you watch catch up or not, and indeed, even if you possess no electrical equipment at all.

If they are not allowed in, how can they possibly know what one is watching??

They can't.

And since people are paying to e.g. get a tv/internet/phone package with a company and they pay for it every month, why should they have to pay a license fee on top of that?

Because it's a legal requirement.