TV Licence article Discussion

[Deleted User]

The letters I receive however get ripped up and put in the bin without opening them.

And 9 times out of 10 the home visits have happened when I've been out or taking a nap. Only once did I answer the door to them (as I was expecting a courier) and I just told him I don't require one and closed the door. He walked off straight away. There is no need to stand arguing with them no matter how much you are right.

I never answer the door to unannounced door knockers any time of day or night so being able to open my door freely doesn't really bother me.

Cornucopia

Deleted_User wrote: »

There is no need to stand arguing with them no matter how much you are right.

It's everyone's prerogative to determine how they will handle such a situation. However, for me personally, I cannot "unknow" what I know about TV Licensing and about human rights. As far as I am concerned, they should not be doing what they are doing. On that basis, whilst I would always be polite, I can see how others might feel differently.

The thing about TV Licensing is that their operatives have no special legal powers. So when they turn up uninvited at your door, it is within the scope of your legal rights to verbally rebuke them, demand that they obey reasonable instructions if they wish to remain, and to use reasonable force to eject them if they do not leave when instructed. Presumably, BBC/TVL management know that that is the legal context, and yet they send them anyway, knowing that there is the possibility of them being abused with legal impunity. Anything that happens after that is the fault of BBC/TVL management, and no-one else.

IMHO. IANAL. etc. etc.

Sorry if this sounds a little extreme, but I believe passionately that public authorities must act with a commitment to social responsibility, the public interest and the law, and not wilfully abuse their positions by doing the opposite.

cw18

The only contact I have with TVL (having cancelled my licence on 31/12/2010) is the contact every 2 years (which actually arrives closer to every 22 months!) asking me to reconfirm that I don't need a licence. I got my latest email on 3rd April, but decided that this time I was going to wait until my previous declaration actually runs out. I then got a letter a couple of weeks later asking me to reconfirm as I hadn't responded to the email, and I've also ignored that until now. I should actually reconfirm tonight, but I'm leaving it until tomorrow morning to cheese them off / see if the day delay triggers another unnecessary letter

[Deleted User]

Deleted_User wrote: »

and apart from the standard threatogram in the post every month addressed to the legal occupier, and the odd home visit, maybe once a year, I've had no further dealings with them.

Same here, but I'm not convinced about the last part of your post.

I suspect the frequency of visits depends on the number of un-licensed addresses in the area.

Jacobyte

Hi I have a question about tv licence I own a house and TV licence and also rent a flat with no licence.I have a tv at the flat but only stream program or watch DVDs or downloads on it. At my house I have Virgin and also have Virgiin on the go on my tablet. I know I can watch live TV on my tablet using Virgin anywhere including friends houses that may not have a licence as I am covered by my licence from my house, but am I covered in the flat I rent. I am not intending to cast to tv?

cw18

Jacobyte wrote: »

I know I can watch live TV on my tablet using Virgin anywhere including friends houses that may not have a licence as I am covered by my licence from my house

You're only covered at friends houses that don't have a licence if your tablet is running on its battery. As soon as you plug it into the mains while watching you're not covered. I would imagine the same holds true for your rented flat.

Cornucopia

I had to post this for its entertainment value. These guys really mean well, but their video has facts and errors in pretty much equal measure. Their channel name doesn't help, either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vv2ZqZmC7u0&t=1s (contains adult language)

I particularly like the idea that TV detection is plausible now, but wasn't in the 1950s (because of improved computer literacy) where most people who believe that it was ever feasible would say it was the other way around.

[Deleted User]

"A small fee"?

That kinda depends on your income level.

For an unemployed person on £75 a week, it's anything but a small fee.

Cornucopia wrote: »

I particularly like the idea that TV detection is plausible now, but wasn't in the 1950s (because of improved computer literacy) where most people who believe that it was ever feasible would say it was the other way around.

Indeed. With LCD/LED/Plasma being pretty much the universal choice, TVs seldom have flyback transformers anymore.

RandomQ

It is a shame that someone who suggests they are spouting FACTS gets so much wrong.

The glaring ones for me was saying that every home that is CAPABLE requires a TV licence, when in fact it is only if you ACTUALLY watch ANY live TV or iPlayer that you NEED a TV Licence.

The other one that bothered me was suggested Blind people needed a TV Licence because they listen to the radio, there is no requirement for a licence to listen to the radio, whether you are blind or not.

A friend of mine got very angry with a BBC radio presenter for suggesting that listeners were being dishonest if they listened to BBC Radio without a TV Licence. He put in a complaint pointing out that it was a community service of the BBC and he told me that they upheld his complaint with an apology and said they would have a word with the presenter concerned.

I think that video may actually help TVL if people believe the capable and radio mistakes.

This BS about light escaping being used on a warrant shows how easily a Judge can be fooled by such BS, despite common sense.

This was their statement

5. A television display generates light at specific frequencies. Some of that light escapes through windows usually after being reflected from one or more walls in the room in which the television is situated. The optical detector in the detector van uses a large lens to collect that light and focus it on to an especially sensitive device, which converts fluctuating light signals into electrical signals, which can be electronically analysed. If a receiver is being used to watch broadcast programmes then a positive reading is returned. The device gives a confidence factor in percentage terms, which is determined by the strength of the signal received by the detection equipment and confirms whether or not the source of the signal is a “possible broadcast”.

This was brilliantly responded to here

http://tv-licensing.blogspot.com/2011/07/lifting-lid-on-tv-licensings-pandoras.html

and here is a response to the layest myths about wireless etc


https://medium.com/@adambanksdotcom/the-scandal-isnt-that-tv-detector-vans-are-going-to-intercept-your-wi-fi-ce0ac4fe1e82

RandomQ

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

"A small fee"?

That kinda depends on your income level.

For an unemployed person on £75 a week, it's anything but a small fee.

Exactly and I think to get that they have to be a certain age, isn't it about fifty something for under 30's?

The thing is you can get yourself a free TV, get netflix and not avail yourself of live TV or iPlayer.

This does not mean you are committing a crime or need to let the TVL Goons come in and poke around your kit.

It is actually anti competitive, I mean Sky can't turn up at your door and make threats with the backing of legislation to intimidate you.

It is time the BBC moved to pay to play a subscription model.