TV License Clarification

Buzby

Fruit_and_Nut_Case wrote: »

Heinz has already answered but I'm wondering why you feel the need for clarification. I thought it was quite clear but a significant number of people still seem to be confused, judging by the number of threads here.

Because that is not what the law states. You have the tools to view, therefore if challenged you need to have a judge believe you. Proving a negative is always difficult. Read the Communications Act for more.

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

Buzby wrote: »

This is a criminal process - whilst TVL may assert their belief when the cards are down, it is the[STRIKE] judge [/STRIKE] Magistrate who decides on 'the balance of probabilities'. You certainly do not need to be seen viewing, but it helps.

Just as someone walking down a a street at 2am carrying a crowbar can be successfully prosecuted for 'going equipped' if the police are suspicious.[STRIKE] Having a viable receiver that can be used is exactly the same, as the 'crime' is having installed valid receiving equipment (see the Communications Act for the precise wording). [/STRIKE] See TV Licencing website for a complete interpration of this point.

I have been in court where two defendants lost, as the judge did not believe their protestations of innocence that the LCD set in the lounge only played DVD's. In evidence was the previous licence lapsed and no response to the TVLs enquiries.
I will remark on ignorance in my post below

As to the warrant - they have the proof - the installation of a receiver is 'reasonable cause'. If it has no capability to receive, there is not. [STRIKE]Refusal to admit prior to the issuing of a warrant [/STRIKE] The TV Tax collector is not a magician with special powers. He can request entry. This can be refused. To obtain a warrant, he needs evidience that a crime is being commited. Just seeing a Monitor in the window, is not evidence, as it may be switched off.

Explained any (unspecified) discount would be up to the dealer principal and forthcoming when placing an order. not an issue - but is not a requirement either - of the cases I witnessed in court 80% had no warrants for access issued.

Ignorance of the TV Tax Collectors is the main weapon the BBC has in collecting its tax.. Since we went TV Tax Free, legally, on March 31st 2013, my wife has been visited, during the day. She remained silent. If you check the number of prosecutions each year, you will find the majority are female, often caught blissfully unaware during the day. There are no figures for confessions and signing up on the doorstep.

There is also talk on this thread as to why the information on the law, and the need to have no licence is bured, or hard to find. The BBC is not going to tell people they do not need a licence. In fact, currently through its vast media gauntlet, it is informing people of the way to pay and collect their licence. No mention is made that you are only obliged to pay the tax if you watch or recod TV programmes as they are being broadcast

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

Buzby wrote: »

[STRIKE]Because that is not what the law states.[/STRIKE]The TV Tax Collector enforce the law as I state below [STRIKE]You have the tools to view[/STRIKE], Buzby has a Computer, therefor every computer needs a TV Licence? therefore if challenged you need to have a [STRIKE]judge believe you[/STRIKE]. You plead Not Guilty Proving a negative is always difficult. [STRIKE]Read the Communications Act for more[/STRIKE] Read the TV Tax Collectors Website, as they have interpretated this law and enforce. Without the TV Tax Collector, this law is not enforceable!.

From TV Licensing

You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast.

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/

[Deleted User]

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth wrote: »

. No mention is made that you are only obliged to pay the tax if you watch or recod TV programmes as they are being broadcast

Perhaps this needs to be "clarified" (for the umpteenth time)?

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth_back_in_post_#1_of_this_thread wrote: »

It is time we clarified the position to watch TV Free of the License Fee,

Cornucopia

Not another ill-informed Licence Fee thread?

Here are a few facts-

- You only need a licence if you Watch or Record TV broadcasts. ie. programmes transmitted to you and the rest of the UK at the same time.

- You do not need a licence if you only watch non-broadcast material such as DVDs, film services or Catch-up services.

- TVL staff have no special authority, and are not "officers" or "inspectors". TVL is not a Government agency, nor is it called "TVLA".

- The majority of evaders are convicted through their own confessions. There is a smaller group convicted by the statement of TVL staff. In neither case is physical evidence of evasion presented to the Court.

- Most evaders do not turn up at court, and are therefore found guilty in their absence. In this situation, the evidence is subject to little or no scrutiny.

- The average fine is about £140. Though there are costs on top of this.

- In a Magistrates court, the burden of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt".

- LF evasion is one of the few offences where women defendants outnumber men.

- No one is under any obligation to cooperate with TVL (except in the specific situation with a Search Warrant - although these are very, very rare). However, if your case is contested in Court, communication with TVL may be introduced into evidence.

- The definition of a "TV Receiver" is not in the Communications Act, but in the "Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004 S.9". The definition is intrinsically linked to using the device to Watch or Record broadcasts.

I have recently been through a lengthy complaints process about Licence Fee enforcement. The BBC Trust has agreed two technical legal changes which should help the process achieve a greater degree of transparency.

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Perhaps this needs to be "clarified" (for the umpteenth time)?

Correct.

While there are some still passing misinformation on, some of us stand up to these tax Collectors for what they are.

Also keeps this topic top of the pile, so the news spreads.

almillar

Blackbeard
This:

Unlimited broadband is £5 from a 10gb limit!

Is nonsense - read it again. Is it unlimited or a 10GB limit (which is not much TV)?

Nilrem

almillar wrote: »

Blackbeard
This:

Is nonsense - read it again. Is it unlimited or a 10GB limit (which is not much TV)?

All of what, 5-10 hours at a half decent quality:) (and completely ignores the requirement to have a working landline at usually another £10-14)

Cornucopia

Broadband is only getting cheaper and better.

All of Talktalk's BB packages are now unlimited usage, for example, and they start at £2.50 pm + line rental.

If you had to choose broadband + Catch-up TV or a TV Licence, the Broadband must be better VFM by a mile.

silverwhistle

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth wrote: »

If you check the number of prosecutions each year, you will find the majority are female, often caught blissfully unaware during the day. There are no figures for confessions and signing up on the doorstep.

You make it sound like they _were_ watching TV, in which case they would be liable.

I haven't got a TV, have never even owned a colour TV although I'm in my 50s, nor do I bother with catch-up services; but you seem to spend an awful lot of effort just to avoid paying a licence fee..