TV Licence article Discussion

Cornucopia

jaemac wrote: »

You say you don't need a licence if you don't watch or record live television but where does the onus of proof lie? I would like to buy a tv/dvd set just to watch DVD's but I live in a housing association flat with a communal aerial: It is extremely difficult to prove a negative.

At the moment I believe it is up to the authorities to prove that someone is actually guilty of watching but how do they prove it? And if the offence is decriminalised as some people would like and becomes a civil offence will the onus be on the person to prove that they weren't watching?

Also even if you let them know you don't have a set and are not watching illegally they bombard you with threatening letters and bullying tactics.

Just curious as I can watch the dvd's on my laptop but it's not so convenient.

As previously discussed, the majority of TVL cases are based upon confession evidence given by householders against themselves (though the degree to which they understand that they are giving such information is open to question).

Even in the minority of cases where there isn't a confession, there isn't physical evidence, either. Typically these cases are based upon the word of a member of TVL staff that they saw evasion taking place.

I don't believe that either of these approaches are acceptable, and I do not understand why the BBC and the Courts deem it to be in the interests of justice to operate like this.

I'd also add that as someone who has no need of a Licence, it is not my fault if BBC/TVL finds it difficult or expensive to detect evasion. I have no obligation to assist them in their work, especially if that puts me under scrutiny or if there is any question of me illustrating or claiming my innocence in a legally unnecessary way.

I would recommend that people do not tolerate this behaviour by BBC/TVL, both as a matter of principle and for their protection and that of their households.

cw18

There are 3 TV sets in my house (one rarely used but connected to a DVD player, one used for DVDs and very occasional Netflix viewing, one as a computer and xBox monitor and for Netflix), but none of them are attached to a working aerial. My aerial actually had cables into each room via a wall socket, so I removed the cable from the wall sockets to the sets (as well as partially disabling the aerial). With no coaxial cable in the room they'd have a job trying to prove we watch live TV on any of them via an aerial.

DavidP24

@Poetical spirit

@onus of proof

You should NOT believe a WORD the Capita Goons say, they will lie about their rights to enter your home, they will try to get you to incriminate yourself and they lie to Courts (saying they have seen a TV transmitting Live in order to obtain a warrant).

So first things first, do not answer the door to them, this is by far the easiest way to get rid of them and it costs them more to make repeat visits.

If you do decide to answer the door they will not identify themselves, instead they start with their script "are you the occupier?", if you ask them who they are (Energy company, Charity or whatever) they repeat more sternly "ARE YOU the occupier?"

So the first thing to do is start filming them with your mobile (it annoys some, others will go at that stage). It is your property and you are within your rights.

Then ask for ID, video or photo their ID so that if you need to complain about their conduct you have their details.

You are not under ANY obligation to answer their questions, nor to tell them your name, you can even charge them £1000 to enter.

So their stage one is to try to identify your name or get you to confirm it is what they think it is, then they want to try and get you to admit you watch TV and that you do not have a license. They may ask if you watch the NEWS or even if you download stuff.

My advice is to tell these little hitlers to Foxtrot Oscar.

Their next trick is to try and look through the window or behind you because if they see a TV they can get a warrant to come in and check whether your equipment can recieve live TV.

In the event that is has got that far they have to prove that equipment in the state they find it in is capable of receiving live TV (without them plugging in cables etc).

You can see on YouTube that these despicable sods have even tried to reconnect aerials and scarts to try to make someone guilty. This is akin to having a policeman come in and plant drugs.

If you have no intention of watching LIVE TV my advice is to remove the Tuner module from the TV or get a TV with an Analog tuner. If you Google the model of your TV you will probably find a video on YouTube on how to change the tuner module, it is usually a small PCB or silver box that is easily removed. Remove any Satellite or Freeview boxes or cut the Aerial or Sat cables so they can't even reach the TV.

You can see on YouTube that some people have just tied back the aerial and/or SAT cable so that equipment can't receive live tv. If you have a computer they have to prove that in the state they find it is receiving live TV. They DO NOT have the right to read your email or rummage around your hard disk, the warrant is very clear, they may only check for live tv connection. NOR can they seize your equipment, only inspect it. Do not answer any questions they may ask whilst they inspect your kit.

The morons they send around find it difficult to operate a remote control, you should NOT leave them to do what they want because they can't be trusted. You can if you want operate your TV to show them that your TV does not receive live channels.

If you want to watch catchup TV, remove the tuner, freeview kit and any satellite boxes, then order a NowTV box from Sky for £10. Do not be fooled by the Sky Website, you are NOT obliged to subscribe to any pay per view channels (if you did you WOULD need a licence for PPV). The NowTV device is a rebadged Roku box, without a subscription it can only display catch up TV.

I have had these idiots come around a few times after they send their letters, letters that are deliberately misleading. I then enjoy not buzzing them in, they can't even post a card as our block is sealed to avoid junk mail.

CAPITA is an organisation that behaves in an underhand way, that is why I will not make their life easy. BTW they do NOT have vans or high tech handheld equipment, all they have is a database, when someone moves and they are informed the old address is flagged for a visit, it is that simple. Then they lie and deceive you to try and obtain access to your home so they can fine you and give you a criminal record if you can't pay the fine.

Even when you pay for 30 minutes holding on their premium rate line to call them to tell them you do not have a TV they harass you, in fact calling them will also spark a visit, look on YouTube for examples, or Google online for their memos. Even when they have established you have no TV they come back before 2 years, more like 3 to 4 months.

Why should we be harassed by these swines?

If you watch live tv, pay TV or satellite GET A LICENCE otherwise no way.

I am disgusted by the planned legislation to make us have to pay for a tv license even if we do not watch live TV, Capita have shown themselves to be an underhand organisation of thugs and goons.

With these new changes we will lose the freedom of the privacy of our home and be forced to pay for something we do not use.

I love the BBC as an organisation and British institution even though it is top heavy with management, I just happen to have changed my lifestyle some years ago and I no longer watch live TV or much TV at all (I use Plex.tv to watch my own library).

I paid a TV license for years after I got rid of the TV because I love the BBC but when I had a problem with my direct debit and Capita screwed up, I send them money on the same mandate for 12 months and they sent the cheques back. I spent a fortune on the phone trying to sort it out and then thought

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, why am I putting up with this dung when I do not even have to pay

This planned legislation to make us pay even if we do not watch LiveTV is a step top far, if this legislation goes ahead I will campaign for abolition of the TV license, but that is exactly what this Con Government wants.

So I urge someone to setup a campaign to leave things as they are and not bring in any new legislation. Let your MP know that you want that part of legislation rejected.

As for the BBC Execs, I suggest you sack Capita and bring in someone who can behave properly.

Zapito

The law needs to be changed so that anyone owning equipment with the capability of receiving TV (including iPlayer and other catch-up services) is required to be covered by a licence. That would make it much fairer, and allow anyone who refuses to live their lives in 21st century style to opt out. IE only those who have no TV, no computers, no smart phones, no tablets would be able to opt out, the rest of us would all have to pay. That would be about as fair as could be achieved.

cw18

Why should I have to pay for a service I don't use? That's like saying someone with a private water supply still has to pay United Utilities (or whoever it is in their area).

Mr_Marmite

OK. How about the £150 a year you pay for TV whether or not you even have a TV? YOU are doing just that.

Advertising on TV has to be paid for and that money has to come from somewhere. The only place it can come from is a part of what the company charges for its goods/services.

Its the same for a business-to-business company, just removed one or more step from the people ultimate payers - us schmucks.

I did a Google search and found the UK annual TV adverting revenue and the number of households. One divided by the other gives about £150 a year. That's totally irrespective of whether you have a TV or not.

Think about how commercial TV is funded and from whdre the money flows. You may think the TV licence is unfair. Commercial funded TV is far far worse.

DavidP24

Zapito wrote: »

The law needs to be changed so that anyone owning equipment with the capability of receiving TV (including iPlayer and other catch-up services) is required to be covered by a licence. That would make it much fairer, and allow anyone who refuses to live their lives in 21st century style to opt out. IE only those who have no TV, no computers, no smart phones, no tablets would be able to opt out, the rest of us would all have to pay. That would be about as fair as could be achieved.

That would be NUTS

First, it is everybody, so is just another bloody tax.

Second, what is the purpose of the TV Licence, TO FUND THE BBC, why should the BBC get money because my kid has a mobile phone.

Perhaps in your world people who go to the cinema to see a movie should fund the BBC?

People can live their lives in any way that they want that does not prevent other members of society being harmed, whatever century they want.

There is VAT on chocolate biscuits but not plain buscuits, perhaps we should have inspectors checking whether you baked your own and you should pay.

If you want to be FAIR then move the BBC to a subscription only model, you use it you pay for it, THAT IS FAIR.

It is nuts that they use little hitlers in the UK to harass people but stream their content around the world for FREE, why should we pay for people in other countries to watch BBC NEWS or Sport.

As for protected content, not well secured, anyone with a VPN can watch BBC TV content around the world.

The BBC has the potential to rake in BILLIONS from overseas licensing of its huge library of content.

START WITH THAT, then cut the ridiculous layers of management in the BBC.

You can always tell when a public sector dept is overspending, just look at the jobs they advertise online, check the rate of pay for IT Contractors and project managers. Typically they pay over double the rate a private company does.

This is what happens when people spend OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY, like the Government spending £7bn on the houses of partliament, unthinkable for any organisation to spend that kind of money on what is effectively a workplace. Build them a new one (as was done for Scottish MP's) and make the HOP a heritage site.

What is FAIR is subscription, if that is what the BBC wants, then carry on with this UNFAIR route, it will be the beginning of the END, it will make people hate the BBC and then in response to public demand the licence will be scrapped and advertisement put in. BBC Radio will be sold off or take ads and the Government will have got what it wanted all along.

Zapito

Those people who say they only use catchup should still be required to pay licence because they are taking advantage of the services provided. So that's a whole bunch who need to be excluded from exemption. Plus I'm highly sceptical regarding those who claim never to watch TV, frankly i doubt it. Even those who claim they never watch BBC probably do from time to time. My guess is there are a load of cheats and liars who pretend they don't watch but actually do. Instead of those (few) who genuinely don't have anything to do with TV grumbling about enforcement, they should be grumbling about all the cheats and liars who are obviously gaming the system in order to get free viewing, as those people are bringing you (few) into disrepute.

KingGooner

DavidP24 wrote: »

@onus of proof

You should NOT believe a WORD the Capita Goons say, they will lie about their rights to enter your home, they will try to get you to incriminate yourself and they lie to Courts (saying they have seen a TV transmitting Live in order to obtain a warrant).

As for the BBC Execs, I suggest you sack Capita and bring in someone who can behave properly.

Capita are a third party company hired by TVL primarily to give the BBC Execs an excuse to say ... "it's not the BBC who is harassing .... etc.."
The second reason is that Capita are probably the cheapest of all these 3rd Party companies because they hire uneducated goons in the main and have had several "embarrassing" moments (check Google). They are frankly a useless company that I would be ashamed to say I worked for .... no let me say .... I would NOT work for them.
Basically, for the BBC execs, Capita are a "Get out of Jail Free Card" so they are unlikely to be fired any time soon.

cw18

Zapito wrote: »

Those people who say they only use catchup should still be required to pay licence because they are taking advantage of the services provided. So that's a whole bunch who need to be excluded from exemption.

Which is exactly what I believe the next change to requirements could be. But it shouldn't impact me as I don't watch catch-up either - purely DVDs with the odd foray into the world of Netflix for me.