TV Licence article Discussion

Cornucopia

Thunderballs wrote: »

If you are stupid enough to let someone into your house who hasnt a warrant asking you about your TV viewing habbits, you deserve all you get.

These "Goons" lie and threaten when all you need to is tell them to leave.

As soon as they start lying, it becomes a bit trickier, I think. That's especially true if you are only 90% sure (or less) that you can tell them to leave.

If you were ever to have a warrant... You would only need to not have a TV showing live broadcasts on when they were there !

Err... no. The whole point is that the Warrant is to enable them to search for, test and examine TV receivers. The purpose being to determine whether its likely that they have been/could be used to receive TV broadcasts.

boatman

Why don't the BBC block iplayer for non license holders or shut it down?

cw18

I don't think they'd be popular if they shut it down (even with licence payers), but I would have thought they could put it behind a subscription wall (possibly with licence number as your password).

But the licence rules currently enable those of us who are LLF to watch (after the event) is we want to - I seem to be an odditiy in that I rarely even use catch-up

jill656

moonrakerz wrote: »

The article lays down the requirements for owning a licence very clearly, however the organisation (a company called Capita) which the BBC employs to maximise revenue from TV licences uses some rather heavy handed tactics in following its remit.

TV Licensing treats everyone who does not have a licence, for perfectly legal reasons or otherwise, as a criminal. Their current TV advert says, very menacingly, "we have a record of every house without a TV licence". The DVLA don't put out adverts saying "we have a record of every house without a driving licence". TV Licensing seem to turn the basic premise of English (and Scottish!) Law on its head, by saying that you are guilty until you prove your innocence.
Employees of TV Licensing have no legal powers whatsoever. Despite this they send out threatening letters referring to their "officers" and threats to interview you i.a.w. The Police & Criminal Evidence Act, it is all bluster. Some of it is almost libellous.
They have no right of entry to your house, you do not have to speak to them, if you tell them to leave your property, they must do so.
Remember - they have to prove that you are acting illegally - you don't have to prove to them that you are not. You do not have to give a reason for not having a TV licence either.

If you should have a licence buy one ! but don't put up with the bullying tactics of TV Licensing if you don't need one.

I know I might appear thick, but what does live tv mean if i only watch the freeview channels, such as itvbe, tru tv and the such do i need a license, i never watch bbc apart from bbc3 sometimes.

cw18

jill656 wrote: »

I know I might appear thick, but what does live tv mean if i only watch the freeview channels, such as itvbe, tru tv and the such do i need a license, i never watch bbc apart from bbc3 sometimes.

Live TV is a show that can be seen by in more than one home by switching to the same channel at the same time.

I suspect that ALL freeview channels fall into that category, as there were no catch-up ones on it when I used to have the service.

The licence is not to watch BBC channels, it's to watch Live TV.

Cornucopia

jill656 wrote: »

I know I might appear thick, but what does live tv mean if i only watch the freeview channels, such as itvbe, tru tv and the such do i need a license, i never watch bbc apart from bbc3 sometimes.

As has already been stated, "live TV" is an unhelpful term.

If you are watching or recording conventional UK TV channels as they are broadcast (whether BBC, C4 or commercial), you need a TV Licence. It doesn't matter whether the channels are received by Freeview, Satellite, Cable or Internet. Nor does it matter what you use to view them.

"BBC3 sometimes" requires a Licence.

If you only watch catch-up or video-on-demand, you do not need a Licence.

PippaS

Thank you Cornucopia.... Further gen on my dilemna: I need to know about the "Amazon Fire TV Sticks" in particular. IF I had a TV unit with a USB slot, and bought one of these Amazon things, and used with my broadband - would I need a TV license to watch catch up? I have NO interest in "live" broadcast! Any ideas? Anyone? I know everyone says live or not live, but I have seen some stuff on internet that implies even the Amazon stick thing would incur the liability to have a license.... !! THANK YOU ALL!

Tofu_eater

It says in the MSE article 'save £96.50 a year by only watching your TV in black and white!' .....are you serious??Who's going to want to do that?

cw18

PippaS wrote: »

I know everyone says live or not live, but I have seen some stuff on internet that implies even the Amazon stick thing would incur the liability to have a license.... !!

If you only watch catch-up, then no you don't need one.

However, I consider it dangerous to have anything connected that allows live TV to be viewed as (should they get a search warrant and find you have this connected) they have a much stronger case against you for licence fee avoidance.

I had a Sky Now account for a while (free trial), and their site clearly states that as long as you stay off the live channels you don't need a licence.

Cornucopia

In this respect, Chromecast is a better choice - because the User Interface is on your phone, tablet or laptop, meaning that the TVL doorsteppers have no rights over it, even with a Search Warrant.

Unfortunately, this is one of the consequences of the Licence Fee being out-of-date - the rules are getting a bit tatty round the edges.

The other option, of course, is to ask TV Licensing. I rate their call centre no better than 6 out of 10 for knowing what they are talking about, but it would still be interesting to know.