TV Licence article Discussion

Herbie21

DavidP24 wrote: »

How would THIS be enforced, will Capita assume you are guilty because you own a device?

As a stepping stone to the BBC subscription service, surely the LOGICAL way to make this work would be to put a LOGIN and PASSWORD in Iplayer, users can enter their TV Licence number into their BBC iPlayer account. That would immediately prepare the way for the subscription services.

I would urge John Whittingdale to use words like "considering" when making such daft statements, so you give yourself to make appropriate law.

Thinking about this plan logically, there surely can only be one way of 'policing' this and this would have to be by way of entering a password or more likely, a Licence number when using iPlayer. Mind you, even then, what is to stop me giving my licence number to friends or family.

The Culture Secretary's full Keynote speech can be read here and there are some further details that ave not been reported in the media:

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/culture-secretary-keynote-to-oxford-media-convention-2016

System

Cornucopia wrote: »

All these things are just about money, though. Where is the pressing social need for the State to regulate the watching of TV?

The whole argument is about money - there is no 'social need'

The BBC are just trying to get back the money that they lost with the change in pensioner licences, and I-player is the easiest way because the idea has already been floated so people are aware that it may happen.

After bringing in the subject of 'social need' I await the cries of woe from people claiming that this will be a tax on the poorest sector of the UK population.

System

Cornucopia wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/bills-and-utilities/tv/the-legal-way-to-avoid-paying-the-tv-licence-fee/


The Telegraph is reporting that the changes to the Licence have been finalised, and the result is that use of iPlayer will come under the Licence, but other catch-up services will not.

This, for me, is absolute common sense.

Which confirms that it is just a way of getting more money into BBC coffers and not bringing catch-up services in general under the licensing system

Cornucopia

!!!!!! wrote: »

Which confirms that it is just a way of getting more money into BBC coffers and not bringing catch-up services in general under the licensing system

There are at least 5 different takes on it, depending on your POV.

1. Yours.

2. That this is a stepping-stone to making the BBC a subscription service, and abolishing the Licence.

3. That it is a victory for common sense, which says that there is no pressing social need to Licence non-BBC catch-up, so why do it?

4. That the lobbying by ITV et al that including them would damage their businesses has worked.

5. That the widespread use of the somewhat inaccurate term "iPlayer Loophole" has achieved a hidden benefit.

Cornucopia

!!!!!! wrote: »

The whole argument is about money - there is no 'social need'

The BBC are just trying to get back the money that they lost with the change in pensioner licences, and I-player is the easiest way because the idea has already been floated so people are aware that it may happen.

After bringing in the subject of 'social need' I await the cries of woe from people claiming that this will be a tax on the poorest sector of the UK population.

I'm quite happy with this solution. In my experience, it was the pro-BBC people who kept on and on about the BBC's "universality", without recognising that (a) some people don't want it, (b) some of those people don't want to pay for it, and (c) being mere TV, there is no logical reason why those people should not get their way.

Government should, IMHO, always be looking for the lightest touch possible in order to achieve policy objectives, and I think this move fulfils that desire. Those who use the BBC will pay for it, and those who wish to continue to use the legitimate exemption (it's not a loophole) involving non-broadcast TV can do so - at least for 90%+ of the services involved.

The original proposal whereby ad-funded ITV catch-up would require a Licence, but BBC-half-owned Dave catch-up would not, was always a ridiculous non-starter in my opinion.

DaveyBoi1901

Hello

On the list of "Do I need a TV licence?", item number 16...
"You don't need a licence to watch programmes online first
Although the online broadcast is technically the first showing of the programme, you don't need a licence because it's not being shown online at the same time as it's being shown "live" on telly."
Does anyone know anything about how you get to see "first showing" of programs? Is there an online site for this or how does it work? I must admit its confused the heck out of me that one has.
Any help much appreciated.
Dave

DavidP24

As far as I remember that was just an experiment the BBC did to encourage online access to the BBC site.

Ironically a friend of mine was in California during the Elections last year, he watched live coverage and a little warning came up saying please confirm you have a TV license. Yes because in California the Crapita Goons could come calling!!

The amendments the Govt. are making will mean that if you watch any BBC content on any Device you will be liable to pay.

The implementation of this is flawed, are they going to have the Crapita goons search your Ipad when the FBI can't get into one of a dead terrorist or are we going to move to the assumption of guilt unless you prove you are innocent.

What about all the DVD and Blueray players that have a iPlayer client. Will that assume guilt even if there is no internet connection?

Watching the videos on YouTube the Crapita goons are as technically literate as a pensioner.

For now, all you need to think about is live broadcast and in future about catchup

So the best way to avoid a problem is to remove the possibility, remove Sat, Aerial connection.

Nuke any iPlayer client with something like Revo Uninstall which is more thorough.

I will still NEVER allow one of these bar tenders into my home, in fact my policy will remain the same, DO NOT ENGAGE them, do not answer the door, do not respond to fake threat letters and do not watch BBC content.

I do not have words for the way this makes me feel about the BBC except that I hope they get spliced up and turned into a subscription service with encryption so our civil liberties can be restored.

I hope the top heavy overspending management get theirs too.

LouBi

This is the first time I have gone on this forum, so I apologize if I am repeating a fact that has already been posted.


My daughter is disabled and lives in supported living accommodation with 2 other disabled people. When they moved in they bought a TV license between them. A year down the line they had a visit from a rather unpleasant person who insisted that the support worker sign them all up individually for licenses as well as they had TV's in their bedrooms so they were breaking the law. She had to do it there and then. Apparently because they each have individual lease agreements with the company that runs the home they have to have individual TV licenses as well as paying for the TV for the living room. So the BBC are getting four lots of money from this one house of autistic, disabled people. My daughter does not watch the TV in her room so we tried removing it. This caused all sorts of problems as she got very upset as she couldn't understand where it had gone because of her autism. So we had to return it.


This is taking advantage of the most needy as far as I am concerned.

Cornucopia

LouBi wrote: »

My daughter is disabled and lives in supported living accommodation with 2 other disabled people. When they moved in they bought a TV license between them. A year down the line they had a visit from a rather unpleasant person who insisted that the support worker sign them all up individually for licenses as well as they had TV's in their bedrooms so they were breaking the law.

Sadly, the TVL sales staff have a poor reputation for dealing with vulnerable people - indeed they make up a sizeable proportion of the people who are subsequently prosecuted (following a "visit").

She had to do it there and then

This is only true to the extent that the TVL person wanted to secure his commission. If she didn't need a Licence, she didn't need one, and the TVL person had no business selling her one.

The rules for this kind of supported accommodation are complicated, so it's well worth having a read of the TVL webpage, if you haven't already seen it:-

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/for-your-home/care-home-residents-aud4

My daughter does not watch the TV in her room so we tried removing it...

You do not need to physically remove the TV in order for your daughter not to need a Licence. If she never watches it, simply detune it and remove the aerial lead, and that is more than enough. You could also remove the mains lead, the remote control and/or the fuse from the plug, to prevent anyone else bringing it back into action.

I think in the circumstances, I would be writing to the BBC insisting that their staff do not speak to your daughter without you or someone else present. Depending on how capable she is in dealing with this kind of thing, you could possibly link this instruction to the Equality Act.

I also think you should be able to get the Licence cancelled and a refund of payments made to date (assuming this all happened within the last couple of years).

DavidP24

LouBi wrote: »

This is the first time I have gone on this forum, so I apologize if I am repeating a fact that has already been posted.

My daughter is disabled and lives in supported living accommodation with 2 other disabled people. When they moved in they bought a TV license between them. A year down the line they had a visit from a rather unpleasant person who insisted that the support worker sign them all up individually for licenses as well as they had TV's in their bedrooms so they were breaking the law. She had to do it there and then. Apparently because they each have individual lease agreements with the company that runs the home they have to have individual TV licenses as well as paying for the TV for the living room. So the BBC are getting four lots of money from this one house of autistic, disabled people. My daughter does not watch the TV in her room so we tried removing it. This caused all sorts of problems as she got very upset as she couldn't understand where it had gone because of her autism. So we had to return it.


This is taking advantage of the most needy as far as I am concerned.

LouBi

That has got me really angry

I had a similar situation with a Crapita FACIST at a supported living accomodation of a friend.

The chap was particularly nasty, he used to have free run of the place because the people than ran the place buzzed him in, he then banged loudly on people's doors and lied his way in saying he had a right to enter.

He tried this when I was there, I answered the door and he started his script in a loud barking voice "are you the occupier", I thought he was doing electrical testing of the appliances, I replied "what company are you from", he repeated even louder, "are you the occupier" and I responded "what organisation do you represent, again he barked the same question at which point I told him to get lost.

I then went to the management and told them how he was bullying and intimidating vulnerable people that live there. They checked the CCTV and agreed, all TVL staff are now banned, they can use the mail or leave cards at reception.

Now for your daughter

First off, he had no right of entry, you have to explain to all of the residents that they should not let ANYONE in without a prior appointment, tell them not to answer the door unless they are expecting someone and even then to answer it on a chain. If they say TV License tell them to go away.

He is right about the premises IF they each have a seperate tenancy agreement but often they will have a license which may be different because of shared areas. If they share living room and bathroom and have a Joint Tenancy Agreement (I.E. they are all party to the one agreement) then they do NOT need one per room. (you can ask the people that run it to re-prepare the lease/license on that basis)

On their site they only talk about what you need not what you do not need.

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/for-your-home

Even if you have a TV you only need a license if you watch it, moving back the Aerial wire, so it cannot receive channels or removing the tuner module will mean she will not need a license as the TV will not be capable of receiving live or even catchup TV.

I suggest you contact the Branch Officer of your local National Autistic Society brance and ask them to call TV Licensing on behalf of your daughter.

Removing the Tuner module is usually pretty easy, just make sure electricity is disconnected and you are grounded. It is usually a silver module attached to a main board, some just pull off, others have a cable you can discconect, or you could remove the fuse from the TV plus so it does not power on. This video shows how simple these devices are inside.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tS4sIpdajVw

If the place has a reception get the Crapita TVL people banned, the very least you should do is put in a formal complaint of the chap and ask on social media if anyone else has had similar experiences.

If so have them film him and share on YouTube..

He has NO right of Entry, you do not have to talk to him.

You can tell him to just go away.

I would formerly tell the TV Licensing that a license is NOT required and you want a refund, ask your MP to complain to the minister for culture media and sport on your daughters behalf. Ask them to put a question to Cameron to call off these DOGS!