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

Cornucopia

Tom99 wrote: »

You do not need a licence nor do you need to remove any leads or cables.

I think we should be striving for best advice, here. So although I'm happy to admit that you do not legally have to remove cables, it remains a sensible precaution. That's especially true for larger households where some family members may not understand the situation, or may accidentally use the equipment for receiving broadcasts.

Many TVL cases are brought against someone who was somehow unsuspecting that they were committing an offence, and good advice online is the antidote to that.

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

The TV Tax Collectors are the biggest prosecutors of women in the UK.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/24/in-court-non-payment-tv-licence-television-desperate-cases
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2398973/TV-licence-Nearly-4-000-prosecutions-week-Critics-say-crackdown-clogging-courts.html


Time to Scrap the regressive TV Tax

Cornucopia

The current figures, IIRC are 185,000 cases in the Magistrates Courts in England, Wales and NI. 71% of TVL defendants are female, and of all cases with female defendants, 36% of them are for TV Licence evasion. It's quite unlike any other offence, and I simply do not believe that women Licence Evaders actually outnumber men by 5:2.

Given that much of the TVL enforcement approach involves bluff, bluster and bullying, I suspect that some women are more susceptible to that mistreatment than some men.

silverwhistle

There's a Phd in there for someone; it's an interesting statistic and I suspect you could be right, althoogh there could be an element of whoever is at home when they call.

Cornucopia

silverwhistle wrote: »

... althoogh there could be an element of whoever is at home when they call.

That's certainly a possible explanation, or part of one. However, it doesn't explain another statistic that I didn't post, which is that when I first became aware of the gender disparity (maybe 6 or 7 years ago), it stood at 55%:45% women to men.

Since then it has steadily increased year by year to reach the present figures - which is a rise of 29%. It's unlikely that such a steep rise could be explained by social change alone (even if it wasn't more likely that the social change concerned wasn't heading in the opposite direction).

silverwhistle

That is interesting, so plenty of meat for our Phd student! Even increasing inequality under Tory governments which coincides with the period you mention doesn't explain it. There do seem to be nastier, less empathic attitudes in the air and perhaps they are feeding off that in what they feel entitled to do (the bullying etc.).

Cornucopia

silverwhistle wrote: »

That is interesting, so plenty of meat for our Phd student! Even increasing inequality under Tory governments which coincides with the period you mention doesn't explain it. There do seem to be nastier, less empathic attitudes in the air and perhaps they are feeding off that in what they feel entitled to do (the bullying etc.).

I think that there are a variety of factors in effect. The main one (which explains the rapid increase in gender disparity) is that TVL have a policy of re-visiting people who were previously "caught" evading the Licence. So, if more women were originally caught, it's likely that more and more women would be caught on subsequent visits.

I also think that with single-person households, it's quite likely that a man will either ignore TVL at the door, or bid them a swift farewell, more than a woman might. (I don't know for sure, though).

For anyone who wants to know how to get rid of them in the most effective way possible (short of just ignoring them), it is: "Sorry, it's not convenient right now, can you call back at some other time?". That simple. I particularly like leaving the opportunity there for them to come back - that seems likely to achieve the opposite effect.

House_Martin

HWW wrote: »

Never let them in, "Not today thank you I do not deal with cold callers" sign & say nothing else, & shut the door. If the scum persist, it's Harassment & you can call the police to eject them.

Scum !! wow, a strong word for Captita to be described . Usually its the much milder "goons "
.Sorry but the "scum " are people who live off the backs of the honest payers claiming not to violate the licence rules ,thereby increasing my TV licence price
These "scum " are really stealing off me in the long run.
I have evidence with my own eyes, due to my unique job position, to know the truth about the licence thieves.
Let the "scum " have a quick glance at your televisual set up if want to be honest and above the law.Only the guilty IMO, will try and stop Capita from checking equipment and please don t come out with all that right to privacy excuse.
You re a Google user and an internet user,, so the privacy get-out has long been trashed as an excuse

HWW

House_Martin wrote: »

Scum !! wow, a strong word for Captita to be described . Usually its the much milder "goons "
.Sorry but the "scum " are people who live off the backs of the honest payers claiming not to violate the licence rules ,thereby increasing my TV licence price
These "scum " are really stealing off me in the long run.
I have evidence with my own eyes, due to my unique job position, to know the truth about the licence thieves.
Let the "scum " have a quick glance at your televisual set up if want to be honest and above the law.Only the guilty IMO, will try and stop Capita from checking equipment and please don t come out with all that right to privacy excuse.
You re a Google user and an internet user,, so the privacy get-out has long been trashed as an excuse

Scum, is a very accurate word to describe Capita - they persist in harassing some of the poorest in society, despite being censured by Parliament on several occasions. If you are defending Capita, because you work for them (& it very much sounds that you do) - you have my sympathy.
If I were in your shoes if that is the case, Job hunting would be a good idea.

silverwhistle

House_Martin wrote: »

.Only the guilty IMO, will try and stop Capita from checking equipment and please don t come out with all that right to privacy excuse.
You re a Google user and an internet user,, so the privacy get-out has long been trashed as an excuse

Well, the language used was not any I'd use myself, but some Capita operatives do have form, and they do work on a bonus system so some us draw our own conclusions.

You're entitled to your opinion but you do sound a bit like a Capita employee in the assumptions you are making that everybody has a TV. I'm (let us say) well over 50 (cough) and have never owned/possessed/used/hired or otherwise had a colour television (or watch TV). I know quite a number of friends/ex-colleagues etc. who don't have one.

I would really object to letting anybody into my house after I've told them I haven't got one. Do the operatives have CRBs, since as pointed out they could be dealing with potentially vulnerable people? I've needed an enhanced one for teaching adult evening classes so I don't see why not, and would need one if I were to ever take on a coaching role at my football club.

Privacy may be a lot more difficult to achieve these days but that doesn't mean I leave my front door open, or reveal too much on FB for that matter..