TV Licence article Discussion

wymondham

Just came across this earlier in this thread... is it true?

"If your TV is set up to receive a live broadcast (ariel plugged in, channels tuned etc) then you'd be breaking the law if you don't have a license. "

getting more annoyed by the whole license thing as time goes on, especially you need a license to receive live broadcasts .... from another country!!

Zapito

Cornucopia wrote: »

Bear in mind, also, that the vast majority of TVL defendants do not turn up to Court, and are found guilty by default. We have no way to know how weak those cases might have been.

Fair enough to assume they are guilty then. Don't see the problem. If I was innocent of a charge I'd make darned sure I turned up to defend myself. Even if guilty I'd want to make my case for mitigation. If I were the "judge", as a point of principle I'd whack the maximum charge on those who can't even be bothered to turn up.

[Deleted User]

Zapito wrote: »

I would agree that monthly seems excessive, subject to circumstances (eg it might be reasonable for student accommodation). In most cases annually would probably be reasonable.

I certainly don't live in student accomodation, and monthly letters are pretty much tthe norm, for unlicensed addressess, to the point where they send in the region of 80 million letters per year.

I, personally, have received in excess of 60 such letters.

I'd have thought they'd need a warrant to compel you to allow a search.

They do, hence why I said "wanting" rather than "demanding", but they tend not to mention your right to refuse.

No, but if you displayed a lifestyle say that indicated you were using drugs, or living beyond any reasonable expectation of your means, etc, then that might well happen.

BBC/TVL don't have aany such indicators. Indeed, until the moment they knock your door, they know nothing abouut you.

And, let's not forget, we're not talking about drugs or armed robbery here.

We`re talking about a TV Licence!

So, for example, if you allowed the sound of live TV to get out through an open window

Which, since I don't watch TV (not even catchup), I don't.

Actually, though, it's not at all clear to me what is the purpose of them searching your home, since I don't see how that can tell them whether you are receiving live broadcasts <snip>

I agree, but it doesn't stop them wanting to.

Zapito

wymondham wrote: »

Just came across this earlier in this thread... is it true?

"If your TV is set up to receive a live broadcast (ariel plugged in, channels tuned etc) then you'd be breaking the law if you don't have a license. "

getting more annoyed by the whole license thing as time goes on, especially you need a license to receive live broadcasts .... from another country!!

How many times does this have to be said? It is the law. You can make your case to your MP to get it changed.

JJ_Egan

Can you point me towards that actual law please .
The one that says if its set-up plugged in etc .

Rather than if you actually watch live .

pineapple

Cornucopia wrote: »

Four reasons -


2. You may have a set-up like Sky which is always inconsistent with being legally Licence-free..

But is it?. I have Freesat from Sky so don't pay a subscription. When my previous television went to CRT heaven I considered giving up on TV alltogether.
However the Sky dish is on the roof. No way would I have gone to the expense of removing it.

cw18

wymondham wrote: »

Just came across this earlier in this thread... is it true?

"If your TV is set up to receive a live broadcast (ariel plugged in, channels tuned etc) then you'd be breaking the law if you don't have a license. "

Whilst you only seem to legally require to watch, I believe that if your equipment is set up as you describe you'd have a job to prove you don't. Simply remove the aerial (as I have).

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

I certainly don't live in student accomodation, and monthly letters are pretty much tthe norm, for unlicensed addressess, to the point where they send in the region of 80 million letters per year.

I, personally, have received in excess of 60 such letters.

In the almost 5 years since I cancelled I have only recieved 4 letters. 3 of those were because they were notified I'd bought a new TV (something that no longer happens), and the 4th was almost 2 years after the last of those - which I expected as they do say they will contact every 2 years. I anticipare my next in May/June of next year (ie. 2 years since that one).

pineapple

wymondham wrote: »

Just came across this earlier in this thread... is it true?

"If your TV is set up to receive a live broadcast (ariel plugged in, channels tuned etc) then you'd be breaking the law if you don't have a license. "

I'm a bit of a pedant so would naturally question authoritative statements from someone who can't even spell licence :rotfl:

cw18

pineapple wrote: »

But is it?. I have Freesat from Sky so son't pay a subscription. When my previous television went to CRT heaven I considered giving up on TV alltogether.
However the Sky dish is on the roof. No way would I have gone to the expense of removing it.

But if you don't gave the receiver box connected to the dish and/or TV (preferably connected to neither - and not even in the same room) you don't have a set-up that's a problem. Having the disk on your house may make it more likely that they come and knock on your door, but you should be able to quickly demonstrate to them (should you feel inclined to let them in) that you don't actually have a complete set-up.

pineapple

They would be welcome to look through the window for evidence of a connected TV but would need a warrant to come in and inspect - on a point of principle.