TV Licensing - Do I Need to Remove Antenna Cables from room?

[Deleted User]

Cornucopia said:

If you already have reasonable broadband, like most of us here will, then the additional cost of viewing commercial catch-up services from ITV, C4, C5 and UKTV is £0. You can't get better value than that.

Precisely. Until last year, I watched one Channel 4 programme per week, for about six months of the year (as that show has now finished, I now watch no programmes at all), so why would I pay £154-50 per year, to watch 12 hours of programming, when I can get it for free, on All4 catch-up?

[Deleted User]

House_Martin said:

I can tape what I want for £0

You can tape catch-up?

[Deleted User]

House_Martin said:

Cornucopia is the guy to answer that about BBC subscriptions but possibly if that happened then ITV would follow suit and we would all end up paying more.

Every channel in the world could go subscription, and it wouldn't cost me a penny more than I currently pay, ie. £0-00.

[Deleted User]

House_Martin said:

Hopefully the BBC can find a way to trap the fiddlers without contravening their "human rights " lol

You think people's human rights are something to laugh about?

[Deleted User]

House_Martin said:

I marvel about how many people are dragged to a Magistrates for tv licence fiddling (14500 a year approx ) to , hopefully get a criminal record due to the excellent hard working Capita men.

14,500 doesn't seem very much, considering there are over 4 million unlicensed addresses in the UK.
Maybe it's because, many of the unlicensed addresses are in fact LLF.

[Deleted User]

Cornucopia said:

According to BBC figures (which have some caveats) they estimate "evasion" to be as high as 7%, or around 1.9m households.

Even based on those (estimated) figures, more than half of unlicensed addresses are LLF.

[Deleted User]

Cornucopia said:
Also "Bluster" means something quite specific - which is essentially glossing over legal details to obtain an unfair advantage using misleading, overbearing or ambiguous language

Like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yb-ygimvRkA

[Deleted User]

House_Martin said:

Personally I think you should drop the word "legal " from the moniker and just make it LF.

Why? LF and LLF describe a category and a subcategory.

LF describes an address which does not have a TV Licence, and LLF describes an address which does not have a TV Licence, because they do not legally require one.

[Deleted User]

House_Martin said:

and that is a fact that already 1.9 million are taking advantage of.

It's not a fact, because the figure of 1.9 million is, by the BBC's own admission, the ESTIMATED evasion rate.

Cornucopia

Bedsit_Bob said:

Cornucopia said:
Also "Bluster" means something quite specific - which is essentially glossing over legal details to obtain an unfair advantage using misleading, overbearing or ambiguous language

Like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yb-ygimvRkA

It's a good clip, and it illustrates many of the issues that people have with TV Licensing's approach.

From a purely technical POV, I would say that this approach falls short of the principle of implied right of access - which is that a visitor states their business and allows the householder discretion over whether the conversation continues.   Without that implied right, he is trespassing.   He is also trespassing when he remains on the property after being invited to leave.  

I can understand the gambit in that TV Licensing staff no doubt get short shrift at some/many addresses as soon as they announce where they are from.   However, the inflexibility of the approach is clear to see in that video, where TVL denied themselves the opportunity to engage with a resident of an address "of interest" by being dogmatic.   I don't buy the Data Protection excuse - I think this is just bluster.