TV License Clarification

[Deleted User]

silverwhistle wrote: »

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..

No effort needed at all to avoid it, no viewing or recording of live TV.... job done no money needs to part hands

[Deleted User]

FireWyrm wrote: »

since to obtain it, they must have provided 'proof' not just a statement

Actually, proof is not required for a SW.

They merely require "information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing ... that an offence under section 363 has been or is being committed"

What happens if you refuse to let them in even with a warrant?

Without a SW, nothing happens.

With a SW, you will likely get a summons for obstruction.

[Deleted User]

Buzby wrote: »

it is the judge who decides on 'the balance of probabilities'.

Balance of probabilities is for Civil Cases.

For Criminal Cases, it's proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Having a viable receiver that can be used is exactly the same, as the 'crime' is having installed valid receiving equipment

WRONG.

The offence (not crime) is watching/recording live TV.

Unlicensed possession is not an offence.

In evidence was the previous licence lapsed and no response to the TVL's enquiries.

Failing to respond to letters is not evidence of evasion.

[Deleted User]

silverwhistle wrote: »

but you seem to spend an awful lot of effort just to avoid paying a licence fee..

It's no effort art all, for me not to buy a TV Licence.