tv licence

cx6

yes exactly - unless he permanently moves out and has his own permanent home

Jenni_D

What if he charges his phone via a battery booster pack, but that pack is plugged in to charge up? 😈

Cornucopia

Jenni_D said:

What if he charges his phone via a battery booster pack, but that pack is plugged in to charge up? 😈

Do I hear "test case"?

I think the original definition is that the device is powered by its own INTERNAL batteries, so an external power bank wouldn't be acceptable.

wild666

A friend once had a goon say that he would be charged with watching TV without a licence when he was charging his phone with an external power bank, not plugged into the mains, this was 2010, he was watching catch-up of the previous nights snooker on iPlayer on his phone and watching snooker on the phone whilst the power bank was connected to the phone. 

It didn't get to court has he took video of the goon getting in her car and sent it to TVL as a complaint plus you didn't need a licence for iPlayer back in 2010.

[Deleted User]

Jenni_D said:

What if he charges his phone via a battery booster pack, but that pack is plugged in to charge up? 😈

It's a silly rule isn't it. How on earth do they enforce that one!

Cornucopia

The whole question of what TV Licensing enforces is quite a complex one.

Basically, it boils down to a confrontation between TV Licensing staff and householders as to what aspects of the householders' behaviour might require a TV Licence.   The objective for TVL is to cast the net as widely as possible, with the aim of (a) selling more Licences, even to people who objectively don't need one, and (b) blustering their way through a conversation that they can then claim amounts to a confession to evasion.

They won't set out with the aim of enforcing use of portable equipment powered by powerbanks, but if their fishing expedition for evidence ends up there, they will go with it.  

wild666

There is two ways that a goon can see if you are watching live TV one is if you live in a terraced house with the door opening onto the street and they glance through your window, not deliberately, and see the TV set on with adverts showing and two you actually say you watch live TV to the goon. Having a satellite dish on the front of the property proves nothing. 

Saying you watch Coronation Street to the goon, they don't know if you are saying the live as shown episode or on catch-up after it's shown. Their assumption that it's the live as shown option is the mother of all F**K UPS 

Cornucopia

wild666 said:

... see the TV set on with adverts showing ...

Many of the commercial services show adverts as part of their video-on-demand offering, so ads are not necessarily indicative of watching scheduled broadcasts.

wild666

Cornucopia said:

wild666 said:

... see the TV set on with adverts showing ...

Many of the commercial services show adverts as part of their video-on-demand offering, so ads are not necessarily indicative of watching scheduled broadcasts.

But a goon might try it on saying the adverts were from a live as shown broadcast signal 

Cornucopia

wild666 said:

Cornucopia said:

wild666 said:

... see the TV set on with adverts showing ...

Many of the commercial services show adverts as part of their video-on-demand offering, so ads are not necessarily indicative of watching scheduled broadcasts.

But a goon might try it on saying the adverts were from a live as shown broadcast signal 

Some of them are going to try it on, whatever the circumstances - that's why they are there, and it's why they aren't properly supervised (for plausible deniability).

So, this becomes a "what if" within a bigger "what if".    They aren't supposed to look through windows, but "what if" they do?   The bigger picture around that is that all they will try to do is argue with you that it was evidence of evasion.   And you refuse to speak with them, as is your right.   If you can muster the will to utter some legally significant words then "I exercise my right to decline to be interviewed under caution" is pretty strong.

They aren't going to be able to use their subterfuge as evidence for some kind of escalation because that would involve either admitting that they broke the rules, or breaking further rules by lying about it.