TV license

System

forgotmyname wrote: »

I was curious on whether you had to disconnect the cables or detune the channels etc.

offence to install or use?

You missed the really important condition - to watch or record live transmissions.

It is that bit that creates the offence when coupled with install or use. The action AND the condition create the offence not just the action alone.

Kurtis_Blue

A Television set installed with a TV aerial feed and tuned to view live TVs is a TV installed for the purpose of viewing Live TV, would be difficult to argue other wise.

Unless anyone has a case showing where the action of viewing was required before an offence occurred, because I haven't seen any. I have however seen people taken to court with just the installed TV and no proven viewing.

I dont think I would be showing any "inspector" an installed TV stating I didn't watch it.

System

Kurtis_Blue wrote: »

A Television set installed with a TV aerial feed and tuned to view live TVs is a TV installed for the purpose of viewing Live TV, would be difficult to argue other wise.

Unless anyone has a case showing where the action of viewing was required before an offence occurred, because I haven't seen any. I have however seen people taken to court with just the installed TV and no proven viewing.

I dont think I would be showing any "inspector" an installed TV stating I didn't watch it.

Can you show a case where somebody has been convicted purely on the fact that a TV is present with power and aerial lead connected with NO other supporting evidence?

No?

Thought so.


Normally people end up in court because they open their big mouth and say something that they shouldn't. Since the 'inspector' aka NMW Capita employee doesn't get over the threshold they never normally see the TV

Kurtis_Blue

!!!!!! wrote: »

Can you show a case where somebody has been convicted purely on the fact that a TV is present with power and aerial lead connected with NO other supporting evidence?

No?

Thought so.

Very strange way to communicate.

Lots of people have been taken to court when inspectors have seen a TV installed and tuned in. Just a quick search on these forums shows that.
I wouldn't be 100% happy to and explain to a magistrate what reason I had for having a TV installed and tuned in if not for the purpose of viewing live TV.

But I'm always happy to learn new information, so if you have any cases to back up your assertions I would love to read it.

Utherwise it would still be prudent to detune or uninstall a TV if you have no licence certainly easier than having your day in court.
Especially as they will not be viewing it any way.

The_Groat_Counter

HappyMJ wrote: »

Don't pay monthly...

Pay quarterly in advance. Make 2 payments to cover 6 months and cancel the direct debit. It will cost you £2.50 more than paying the whole lot in advance and applying for a refund but it's so much less hassle that it's well worth it.

This is how to do it (likewise for 9 months) - but best to inform TV Licensing too as well as cancelling the Direct Debit with your bank.

The_Groat_Counter

NeverInDebt wrote: »

I cancelled mine on Saturday ...

I have netflix, nowtv, bluray player, xbox

Worth noting that with Now TV, as well as all the on-demand stuff it's possible to watch some channels 'live' (i.e. as broadcast) - if you wish to stay within the law, then if you don't have a TV Licence you should avoid doing this.

System

Kurtis_Blue wrote: »

Lots of people have been taken to court when inspectors have seen a TV installed and tuned in..

Precisely. They have seen a TV showing a live broadcast. As I said the fact that the TV has both mains and aerial connected is not sufficient. They must either see it showing live TV or the occupier opens their mouth and drops themselves in it.

They can not assume anything. This is a criminal offence so they need to have positive evidence of some sort to stand a chance of successful prosecution. Assumption is not sufficient

Cornucopia

This is always a controversial topic. The true situation based on 100s of live TVL cases is this:-

The essence of the offence is "watching or recording TV broadcasts" i.e. over the air/cable/statellite, or via a live internet stream. However, not only is that an imperfect re-wording of the Law (by TVL), but there is also a legal precedent called "Rudd" that begins to introduce capability to receive as a factor. The capability issue applies only to AV/TV equipment - not to computing equipment.

In most cases, the TVL person never sees a TV showing broadcasts, nor do they examine the equipment in relevant detail. They don't need to - they simply capture the householder's confession on their paper form, and away they go (with warm thoughts of their commission payment). In my experience, that confession can be what the law requires: a genuine act of contrition in full knowledge of rights and consequences, but it is typically way, way less. There have even been prosecutions of TVL staff for fabricating entire batches of interview forms, never having even met the householders concerned.

In short, it is a mess. One that the BBC knows about (not least because I have told them) but chooses not to fix.

!!!!!! wrote: »

They can not assume anything. This is a criminal offence so they need to have positive evidence of some sort to stand a chance of successful prosecution. Assumption is not sufficient

Sadly, this is way short of the truth in the cases I have seen. Not only do TVL assume, but they cajole, coerce, intimidate, exaggerate, mislead, undermine people's rights, put incriminating words into people's mouths, offer unlawful incentives and, if all else fails, fabricate as well.

Not only that, but the Courts are not the finely honed purveyors of beautifully balanced justice that you may imagine. For a start, they accept 200,000 cases of TV Licence evasion every year, where there is no physical evidence of evasion - but then they treat those cases like speed camera cases and assume that they are procedurally and evidentially simple, when they are not. Then they expect defendants to mount their own defences against TVL's barrister-standard presenters. Then they tend to take TVL staff's word as being more credible than defendants' words. Finally, they are content to find 90%+ of TVL defendants guilty in their absence, usually without examining the merits of the TVL case.

Did I say it was a mess...? I believe I did.

The_Groat_Counter

Cornucopia wrote: »

...
In short, it is a mess. One that the BBC knows about (not least because I have told them) but chooses not to fix.
...

The whole TV licence situation is becoming outdated, not least because of technological changes.

I'd go down the French route of collecting a licence fee alongside the taxe d’habitation - basically the council tax. In France I think the licence fee is payable if you have anything capable of viewing audio-visual stuff, e.g. DVD player, projector etc. Not sure if it covers computers yet, though that was certainly proposed a few years back and it makes a fair bit of sense for them to be included (along with tablets, smartphones etc).

I'd suggest collecting it from every household regardless, as a kind of TV/radio/multimedia licence. I guess that would stuff those who don't watch or listen to anything, and don't look at anything on the BBC website or BBC apps.

Whatever happens, I think going down the route of making the BBC a subscription service would be a bad idea.

NeverInDebt

Thanks I am aware of that. but my tv viewing isnt at all set according to the schedules. I only ever watch tv (films, or a program) when it isnt live anyway. For instance last night watched a film on netflix followed at around 11pm Gold rush series 6

The_Groat_Counter wrote: »

Worth noting that with Now TV, as well as all the on-demand stuff it's possible to watch some channels 'live' (i.e. as broadcast) - if you wish to stay within the law, then if you don't have a TV Licence you should avoid doing this.