TV Licence article Discussion

Nick_C

Mistral001 wrote: »

Pedant mode also on. When I mentioned "receiver" I was referring to a television receiver receiving broadcasts from the air.

I am of a generation when a "receiver" meant just that. And also when the GPO would enforce TV Licencing.

I also remember when the GPO would sell you a wireless license or a dog license, and was the only telephone provider (unless you lived in Hull). But times change. The BBC became responsible for TV licensing in 1991. The Post Office stopped selling TV licenses in 2006.

Mistral001

Nick_C wrote: »

I also remember when the GPO would sell you a wireless license or a dog license, and was the only telephone provider (unless you lived in Hull). But times change. The BBC became responsible for TV licensing in 1991. The Post Office stopped selling TV licenses in 2006.

I once new a guy who worked for the GPO. Part of his duties was working on the detector vans. They really did detect when TV receiver was on despite stories to the contrary. The equipment in the detector van could detect, from a distance, the electromagnetic waves the high voltage transformer of TV sets gave off. This detection could not be used in evidence, it just pointed out which houses had a switched on TV set. He said he did not like the work as the savvy guys would refuse entry to the officer calling at their door and get a TV licence the next day while the little old ladies would let the officer in to get the evidence they needed for a conviction.

Cornucopia

Mistral001 wrote: »

Well that is a surprise. Looks like the BBC is in control of what everybody can legally watch on their TV receiver, whether it be BBC or ITV or whatever channel. That surely has to change. Little wonder this only in the small print. Thanks for pointing it out.

The BBC is the responsible agency for the administration of TV Licences. The policy and database are the property of the BBC. The more practical elements of the process are handled by various outsourcers, of whom the largest and most critical is Capita. The actual legal responsibility for enforcement is difficult to pin down, as the legislation doesn't mention enforcement other than in the context of electronic detection and rarely used warrants.

This is the way it has been since 1991, and although it raises some serious questions including some conflicts of interest, it remains as yet unchallenged in any meaningful way.

The rules as to who can watch what are set by government, although as in the case of the change to the licensing of iPlayer in 2016, the BBC can and does lobby for change.

cw18

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

Today sees me reach 10 years LLF. :j

I'm exactly a year behind you

staffsuk

So over the last 3-4 months I have watched hardly any live TV, maybe 4 hours in total. I’ve gravitated toward watching content that interests me on YT (no live streams though).

I’m now in a situation where I seriously begrudge having to pay £154.50 for the few hours live TV I have watched, and I am quite sure I can now go without live TV and BBC iPlayer altogether.

Now I have read on this & other platforms that goons have in some cases acted fraudulently. This is now my main concern. Given the goons arrive alone at your premises, and there is no third party to prove otherwise, what’s to stop these goons just lying to the courts / police with any ‘evidence’ they have collected? Their word against yours and no other party to counter their 'evidence'?

oldernonethewiser

staffsuk wrote: »

So over the last 3-4 months I have watched hardly any live TV, maybe 4 hours in total. I’ve gravitated toward watching content that interests me on YT (no live streams though).

I’m now in a situation where I seriously begrudge having to pay £154.50 for the few hours live TV I have watched, and I am quite sure I can now go without live TV and BBC iPlayer altogether.

Now I have read on this & other platforms that goons have in some cases acted fraudulently. This is now my main concern. Given the goons arrive alone at your premises, and there is no third party to prove otherwise, what’s to stop these goons just lying to the courts / police with any ‘evidence’ they have collected? Their word against yours and no other party to counter their 'evidence'?

If you want, when you answer the door make sure you are doing so while recording on some sort of device, eg smartphone.


Once they identify themselves then no need to engage with them in any way, just shut the door, hang up your entry system or whichever method is appropriate.



If you are happy not to watch TV or use the iPlayer, as you suggest, then ditch the licence.

Cornucopia

staffsuk wrote: »

So over the last 3-4 months I have watched hardly any live TV, maybe 4 hours in total. I’ve gravitated toward watching content that interests me on YT (no live streams though).

You can watch live YT streams as long as they are not streams of TV Broadcast channels (the most obvious being Sky News).

I’m now in a situation where I seriously begrudge having to pay £154.50 for the few hours live TV I have watched, and I am quite sure I can now go without live TV and BBC iPlayer altogether.

Now I have read on this & other platforms that goons have in some cases acted fraudulently. This is now my main concern. Given the goons arrive alone at your premises, and there is no third party to prove otherwise, what’s to stop these goons just lying to the courts / police with any ‘evidence’ they have collected? Their word against yours and no other party prove otherwise?

The TV Licensing Interview under Caution process has some "history" to it, and there have indeed been some very questionable prosecutions.

More recently, they do seem to have cleaned up their act somewhat and there isn't the large volume of complaints on social media that there used to be. Quite what they are doing, I don't know. The overall number of prosecutions is reduced, though, so perhaps they are concentrating on only the most obvious cases.

Under the PACE rules you do not have to submit to TVL's interview process. Simply say you decline, and there isn't a great deal they can do. You can also decline in advance by letter, which I have personally found to be very effective.

Alternatively just don't answer the door to them (again there is nothing they can do). The number of TVL warrants is so tiny that a legally-compliant household is extremely unlikely to be targeted, especially if they never speak to TVL staff on the doorstep.

FreeBear

Cornucopia wrote: »

Alternatively just don't answer the door to them (again there is nothing they can do). The number of TVL warrants is so tiny that a legally-compliant household is extremely unlikely to be targeted, especially if they never speak to TVL staff on the doorstep.

If you do open the door, refuse to answer any/all questions including confirming your name - Without a name, the can't take you to court. And never, ever allow them in regardless of what reason they give.

robatwork

FreeBear wrote: »

If you do open the door, refuse to answer any/all questions including confirming your name - Without a name, the can't take you to court. And never, ever allow them in regardless of what reason they give.

I fully understand your position.

However if you are fully legally compliant and not needing a licence, there can be no disadvantage to confirming your name.

Indeed if you confirm name and state you aren't watching live TV or iplayer etc, and are fully cognisant with the requirements of a licence, then politely say goodbye and close the door, you'll come across less arrogant and perhaps be removed from the "hassle" register more quickly.

Mistral001

Just a word of caution. There is a forum on this site about parking charges. About five or six years ago many posters advised people to ignore parking charges. Some people took that advice and other similar advice they got from "friends" and as a result ended up having to pay out a lot of money and spend a lot of time in courts fighting cases they did not win.

Only take advice from people who you know and can 100% trust or are a professional such as a lawyer.

Note the parking charges went through the Civil Courts. TV Licence evasion goes through the Criminal Courts.