TV Licence article Discussion

OnoriaGlossop

The article says: "Everyone who no longer requires a TV licence....needs to fill out a No Licence Needed declaration form"

I have not required a licence for about 20 years as I *shock horror* have no interest in TV. I don't own a TV. My laptop / internet / Youtube is all I need. I'm acutely aware that I cannot watch LIVE broadcasts, even on my laptop - I have no need to and no interest in doing so.

I have recently moved (well am in the middle of moving, not yet fully moved in, only a few boxes so far) and so the previous owner moving out has sparked a generic letter to be sent from TV licencing to my new address, threatening me with £1000 fines and all that nonsense if I don't get a licence!

So am I even required to let them know that I "No longer need a licence" if I have never actually needed one in the first place? This is what's confusing me!

cw18

There seem to be many on here who say have no contact with them, and ignore these letters

But I personally would let them know you don't need. I have to fill in a declaration to say I still don't need every 2 years, so I'd just see it as the next of those being brought forward. I've been LLF for almost 5 years now, and haven't had any hassle (or visits) at all - unless you count the letters asking me if I now need one either because I bought a new TV (for DVD watching, and they no longer get notifications of such purchases) or because it's 2 years since they last asked me.

Cornucopia

OnoriaGlossop wrote: »

The article says: "Everyone who no longer requires a TV licence....needs to fill out a No Licence Needed declaration form"

I wouldn't get too hung up either on the sentiment or the wording, since both are technically wrong.

There is NEVER a legal requirement for legally Licence Free people to inform TV Licensing, and what purpose would it serve, anyway?

The "no longer requires" bit is meaningless.

It's a shame that MSE did not add this detail to their article: there is a difference between what TVL want and what is required in law.

Obviously, anyone is capable of reading or disregarding web content or putting unwanted post into the bin. Where it starts to get more serious is the misinformation around "home visits". This term in itself is something of a euphemism. Two of the reasons why TVL want LLF people to register with them are (a) to create the pretence that you are involved in some kind of official process, and (b) so that they have your name to use and abuse later.

So am I even required to let them know that I "No longer need a licence" if I have never actually needed one in the first place? This is what's confusing me!

No. You are not REQUIRED to tell them anything. You could CHOOSE to tell them, if you wish. Personally, I would want them to tell me the exact legal and practical context for my interaction with them, and ideally for them to agree never to mis-state the truth to me again. However, they won't do this, and I would therefore not wish to do business with them on that one-sided (and possibly unlawful) basis.

Also, I would want to know what they wanted to do with my data, and be assured that it was being stored and processed for a lawful and legitimate purpose, as is my right under the Data Protection Act.

The bottom line is that there is no benefit to communicating with them except on your terms, and they have no right and no moral or legal authority to say anything else.

[Deleted User]

OnoriaGlossop wrote: »

So am I even required to let them know that I "No longer need a licence" if I have never actually needed one in the first place?

You're not required to let them know, even if you have, previously, required one.

[Deleted User]

cw18 wrote: »

I have to fill in a declaration to say I still don't need every 2 years,

You don't HAVE to do anything of the sort.

Cornucopia

cw18 wrote: »

There seem to be many on here who say have no contact with them, and ignore these letters

I sense the implication in your comment that some kind of dogma or agenda is being brought to bear on this topic, or at least the advice is not the best advice, taking into account all the considerations.

I can assure you that ignoring TV Licensing is good advice, for the reasons discussed in my previous post, and many, many more.

Personally speaking, I don't feel driven by dogma. Everything I think and know about TV Licensing is driven by them - mainly by their unique take on the Law. Most organisations operate within contract law, perhaps underpinned with an industry-specific code of regulations, and ultimately by Legislation. They may also engage in some behaviours that are simply freedoms under the Law, but it's rarely significant.

TV Licensing is almost all exploitation of general freedoms. Apart from the general problem with this that virtually nothing that they do then legally requires our participation, and apart from the fact that they persistently misrepresent their whims as official requirements, the really serious issue is that it is unlawful for a Public Authority to interfere with our privacy and that of our homes without explicit legislation (or similar regulations). TVL does not have any of this(*). We should not be tolerant of this situation, and we only have ourselves to blame if we are.

(*) Not only do they not have it, but they claim they do, and when challenged refuse to provide proof, instead choosing to hide behind legal privilege. This is not normal behaviour for a reputable organisation.

pennylonglane

Agree with freedom of choice - one of those choices being to watch broadcasting without constant adverts. Also, BBC would not exist if everyone elected to avoid the licence fee - is that what we really want? Every other form of media is influenced to some degree by its paymasters ie large corporations paying its advertising fees. We already have that in print media, lets keep at least some TV channels independent.

Cornucopia

That is what is being suggested - the right (governed by broadcast licence conditions) to choose between an ad-funded commercial media or a subscription-funded "new" BBC without ads. For me, I'd go even further and offer the public the choice between an ad-funded version of the BBC and a subscription-funded version running side-by-side. That would be the optimum "choice" choice for me, and would also get over the little difficulty of the Freeview spec having been downgraded by Greg Dyke when he was in charge of the BBC.

I think the "No Choice" argument is a curious one. It seems to come down to being concerned about a certain proportion of the population either not wanting or not being able to afford the BBC. Which is kind of the point.

If you think that the BBC is not influenced by its funding method more than (say) Channel 4, I think you are being naive. I would also say that people are inclined to grossly over-estimate the effect of advertising both on broadcasters/the Press and on themselves. Do you really feel compelled to go out and buy everything you see advertised?

The true issue of press political alignment is about a combination of the political beliefs of rich owners combined with the expectations of the readers. You don't get the Daily Mail (or The Guardian) any other way.

Lewie

penny, you advocate freedom of choice.
Those that don't want to fund the BBC don't have that freedom.
Even if they don't watch the BBC they still have to hand over their hard earned to fund these crooks.
The only way to get true freedom of choice is to have subscriptions.
BTW, the BBC already advertise.
The National Lottery is a profit making organisation which is advertised freely and often by the BBC.
Why is it allowed?

[Deleted User]

pennylonglane wrote: »

Also, BBC would not exist if everyone elected to avoid the licence fee

Unless they moved to an alternative method of funding.

Lewie wrote: »

Even if they don't watch the BBC they still have to hand over their hard earned to fund these crooks.

They don't if, like me, they don't watch/record any live TV.