Watching TV on your PC or mobile phone? Get a licence!

SavingTom11

Interesting thread! What is the situation with watching DVD's on your PC or DVD/TV Player without a license, and out of interest what would the situation be to watching for example a tv program/movie that was downloaded from the internet ?

roddydogs

The first post by archna was quite clear and definitive, so why are people trying to wriggle through loopholes? do they expect the rest of us to subsidse their TV viewing?

bride-to-be_3

Of course its a tax!

The Gov just don't call it a tax cos then people will complain more. We are taxed on everything nowadays. Some taxes I think are fair and needed. But tv licence is a stealth (spelling?) tax which is really unfair. Its also a stupid tax because there is so much confusion about when/where it is needed or not.

But I agree, I like the fact there are no adverts. But I dont like paying for crap i.e. Eastenders.

JMartin

We got rid of our TV aerials last year and have a letter from TV Licensing stating that so long as we are not using our TV to receive broadcast signals then we don't need a licence. We have kept ours for DVDs and Games consoles.

It is very confusing on their site as to whether you must take the receiver out of the TV or not but a quick email clarified that you don't need to do anything to the TV...just remove all aerials.

When they come round to check on you you just have to be able to prove that you can't get a signal (sound too) on the TV.

As for whether it's a tax or not...it most definately is. They are directly funded by the government who decide year on year how much they are allowed to charge for a licence. And, it's the strangest marketing and sales tact I've ever seen. Having found out the lengths they will go to to make you pay even if you legally don't have to I am pleased to have taken a stand against them.

System

JMartin wrote: »

When they come round to check on you you just have to be able to prove that you can't get a signal (sound too) on the TV.

You do not have to prove ANYTHING. They have to prove that you are getting a signal and sound on your TV. As they have no right to enter your home without invitation or a warrant, they would find this very difficult to do from the doorstep (with the door closed).

JMartin

!!!!!! wrote: »

You do not have to prove ANYTHING. They have to prove that you are getting a signal and sound on your TV. As they have no right to enter your home without invitation or a warrant, they would find this very difficult to do from the doorstep (with the door closed).

If I have nothing to hide why would I not let them in???? As it happens they won't ever bother me because I live in the middle of nowhere but I am interested to know why you suggest that people don't spend that five minutes showing them that they are not breaking the law so as to avoid being harrassed, sometimes very publically.

rapido

. .

JMartin

I have it on good authority from an employee of TVLA (Capita) that the vans are empty.

I do think however that if you are watching broadcast television you should have a licence...people should not think it is ok to break the law simply because they don't agree with that law.

akadruid

JMartin wrote: »

If I have nothing to hide why would I not let them in???? As it happens they won't ever bother me because I live in the middle of nowhere but I am interested to know why you suggest that people don't spend that five minutes showing them that they are not breaking the law so as to avoid being harrassed, sometimes very publically.

The point is you should have the right not to be harrassed. We live in an area they clearly consider easy pickings, so we end up submitting to searches of our property on a regular basis. They arrive without warning during office hours, and it is not easy for people who are unsure of their rights to argue them down on the doorstep.

Then, in spite of regular searches, promises made on the phone and by letter, we still receive regular mailshots telling us that bailiffs will be coming our house, or that they will be taking us to court. (They never have, and the search people always go away content we don't watch tv)

We still don't want to watch TV but the way its going, we're going to be giving in soon and paying the protection money just to end the harrassment. £12/month is a lot of money for nothing, especially when you don't have a lot of spare money, but its looking more and more attractive.

JMartin

akadruid wrote: »

The point is you should have the right not to be harrassed. We live in an area they clearly consider easy pickings, so we end up submitting to searches of our property on a regular basis. They arrive without warning during office hours, and it is not easy for people who are unsure of their rights to argue them down on the doorstep.

Then, in spite of regular searches, promises made on the phone and by letter, we still receive regular mailshots telling us that bailiffs will be coming our house, or that they will be taking us to court. (They never have, and the search people always go away content we don't watch tv)

We still don't want to watch TV but the way its going, we're going to be giving in soon and paying the protection money just to end the harrassment. £12/month is a lot of money for nothing, especially when you don't have a lot of spare money, but its looking more and more attractive.

I see your point.

You should be able to write to them to tell them that they are not allowed on your property. There is only an implied right of access for services such as post, milk, newspapers, etc and this can be withdrawn by the householder at any time. After that I guess they are trespassing and you would be within your rights to call the police.

For what it's worth we also had to rid ourselves of the TV because we couldn't afford the licence fee. It is an awful lot of money for a bunch of repeats and people making a fool of themselves for their five minutes of fame.