Black & white TV license

Buzby

The screen is immaterial - it is the 'tuner' that decides. Back in the day, a business with a BBC B Micro and the teletext add-on was required to have a colour licence, simply because the tuner was colour capable (not that any picture was received). I am unaware of any B&W screen that is capable of receiving DVB without a STB. The STB receives colour, so a colour licence is required.

A better question would be how many prosecutions have there been for an incorrect licence type?

Swipe

Buzby wrote: »

The screen is immaterial - it is the 'tuner' that decides. Back in the day, a business with a BBC B Micro and the teletext add-on was required to have a colour licence, simply because the tuner was colour capable (not that any picture was received). I am unaware of any B&W screen that is capable of receiving DVB without a STB. The STB receives colour, so a colour licence is required.

A better question would be how many prosecutions have there been for an incorrect licence type?

Fair comment. It really does make no sense why is a B&W licence is still available for purchase if there's no legal way of using one for watching live broadcasts

GingerBob_3

Kurtis_Blue wrote: »

But how hard is it to say "yes my tv is B&W, thanks for checking. Have a nice day"

It's easy, but it's better if you say "yes, my tv is B&W, thanks for checking, now as of this moment WOIRA applies to you, so get the f*** off my property and don't ever come back".

Kurtis_Blue

Buzby wrote: »

The screen is immaterial - it is the 'tuner' that decides. I am unaware of any B&W screen that is capable of receiving DVB without a STB. The STB receives colour, so a colour licence is required.

I can see no evidence of this at all, can you reference your source?

Because the facts seem to be exactly the opposite of what you suggest:

TV licencing state:
A black and white TV Licence does not cover the use of colour TV receiving equipment, such as a digital box. The only exception is if it's only used with a black and white TV set and the equipment can’t record TV.

Buzby

I have already stated the source - the Communications Act 2003 is the defining legislation, nothing else. What TV Licencing may state is their 'interpretation' of the Act, and to be honest is both illogical, at times perverse and with no basis in fact.

In the instance you mention, the STB has a colour tuner and requires a colour licence. The fact the TV display is B&W is erroneous - as they already stated it is the ability to 'receive' NOT the ability to 'vew'.

The licence legalises the reception of broadcasts by any and all equipment. What they (TVL) state is nonsense, and does not form the basis of the Act. It is available here:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/contents

The section on licencing is in Part 4.

Kurtis_Blue

Buzby wrote: »

I have already stated the source - the Communications Act 2003 is the defining legislation, nothing else. What TV Licencing may state is their 'interpretation' of the Act, and to be honest is both illogical, at times perverse and with no basis in fact.

In the instance you mention, the STB has a colour tuner and requires a colour licence. The fact the TV display is B&W is erroneous - as they already stated it is the ability to 'receive' NOT the ability to 'vew'.

The licence legalises the reception of broadcasts by any and all equipment. What they (TVL) state is nonsense, and does not form the basis of the Act. It is available here:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/contents

The section on licencing is in Part 4.

You don't seem to be aware of the basis of anything that you are stating. Ever.

The communications act states nothing at all that ties in with your assertions.

It actually very clearly states:

"(1)A licence for the purposes of section 363 (“a TV licence”)—
(a)may be issued by the BBC subject to such restrictions and conditions as the BBC think fit;


(2)The matters to which the restrictions and conditions subject to which a TV licence may be issued may relate include, in particular—
(a)the description of television receivers that may be installed and used under the licence;
"

The Communications act does NOT state what a B&W TVL covers and clearly states it is up to the BBC to do so, and they have.

So the the statements by TV licencing are very clearly binding.

Buzby

Insults again? Change the record, your credibility is fading rapidly.

In your dreams perhaps - I did NOT say anywhere what a B&W TVL covers, because it remains an irrelevance. If it can be proved the receiving equipment is colour capable, then a colour licence is required. This is indeed referred to within the terms of legistlation - indeed, the BBC is not the final arbiter, it is the Act of Parliament, and that is interpretated by the courts. You're not seriously suggesting that a man from the BBC will come to court and defend his position are you?

The BBC and TVL can only offer 'advice' not lay down the law, as you appreat to believe. Spend a little time in court watching real TVL cases to see just how precarious this 'advixe' really is. I only failled twice (as a friend of the defence) in multiple cases where Crapita's solicitor got it ll completely wrong, The 2003 Act was the difiner. As to the issue of watching on-line, this 'as live' requirement where the BBC suggest a program is not deemed time-shifted unless it is 15 minutes at variance with the original terrestrial transmission. This doesn't appear in the act, and is promoted as 'fact' but is so easily challenged as other things they forgot about. A programme that is made available online prior to its terrestrial transmission (as many now are) lose this so-called protection.

By all means, be respectful to your licencing superiors and feel you should apandon hope at challenging, but I've no interest in your glee club. TVL cannot in themselves prosecure, it is the CPS and PF that do - and interestingly, for anything that isn't a slam dunk admission, if there is any possibility of the defendant opting for court to promote their defence, just watch how the house of cards falls.

The BBC's rules are binding on the BBC and their agents, until they invent a few more. Do you know how many folk in Scotland have been put in prison for licence transgressions. Not one. Nilch, nada.

Just as they make it up as they go along, the same is true of how they can catch you out. They prefer to have you watching the screen when they call at unlicenced premises, but do not need to. Ownership of the receiver is proof enough, this is stipulated within the 2003 act, but I can find no cases where this was used. You have to ask yourself why? Is it harder to obtain a conviction, or is it a mis-steer as they don't want to have questions asked about 'detecting' unlicenced sets since the demise of the PO's van fleet?

Currently - the process is to assume each and every address has a TV, and if there's no licence, pursue the householder to find it. Checking whether it is B&W or Colour is still an irrelevance, and it must be due to there being no publicised cases of someone having a B&W licence whilst viewing colour.

This would mean the viewer is unlicenced for the type of transmissions received, but it is much more profitable to pursue those who have none.

Cornucopia

Buzby wrote: »

TVL cannot in themselves prosecure, it is the CPS ... that do

Wrong.

TVL prosecute in England, Wales and NI.