TV Licence article Discussion

Cornucopia

Paul_Moran said:

Cornucopia said:

Paul_Moran said:

Thorough, definitely. Overkill, some might say, but IMO these are the minimum necessary changes to demonstrate to TV Licensing, should they visit me, that I do not watch live TV, or use BBC iPlayer. (Not on my TVs, anyway. For PCs, and for some of my Blu-ray players with non-removable apps, they'll just have to take my word for it.)

Okay.   They don't really do that kind of technical inspection these days - it's too hard to cover to all the possible models of AV equipment and guarantee not to break anything.   They rely on questioning people in a way that may not respect their legal rights.   

That explains the 39 minute conversation. I was asked questions about the devices I owned that were capable of receiving live TV broadcasts, and my viewing (or non-viewing) habits, and how many other people lived in my house (none, in fact). These all seemed relevant questions, and I did not feel that my legal rights had been infringed.  

 
You mean on the phone?   That wasn't an Interview under Caution, and couldn't have led to you being prosecuted.    You didn't have any particular legal rights in that context, and none were infringed.

I was referring to TVL doorstepping.

Cornucopia

Paul_Moran said:

JSmithy45AD said:

Paul_Moran said:

Thorough, definitely. Overkill, some might say, but IMO these are the minimum necessary changes to demonstrate to TV Licensing, should they visit me, that I do not watch live TV, or use BBC iPlayer. (Not on my TVs, anyway. For PCs, and for some of my Blu-ray players with non-removable apps, they'll just have to take my word for it.)

My distrust of Wi-Fi on TV goes back about 11 years, when I was setting up a new Panasonic 65" plasma screen TV. I clicked on the video messaging app - Skype, probably - and up popped a camera from the back of the TV! I pushed it back in PDQ, and probably disabled the app. But it made me realise that an open Wi-Fi connection, unprotected by the VPN and disk encryption that I use on my PCs, was not something I wanted in my living room, or anywhere else in the house. I don't have a home network (and no future plans for one) and I have never used commercial on-demand services (no future plans for them, either), so it was any easy decision to simply turn off the Wi-Fi connection. I've followed that policy with all my subsequent smart TV purchases: I set up a Wi-Fi connection to make sure it works, then disable it, perhaps turning it on occasionally to check for updates. More recent events have only reinforced my policy. You may remember the fuss, a few years back, when Which? investigations revealed that smart TVs were collecting viewer data and passing it back to manufacturers.

Would it not be easier to just sell the TV's then if you don't watch anything?

BTW, you don't have to demonstrate anything to TV Licensing at all, if they knock on your door you can simply close it again without speaking a word.

Imagine you were a TV Licensing inspector and someone closed the door in your face. You might be annoyed enough to come back with a warrant.

They can't and don't just "get" a warrant, though.   They need to show reasonable suspicion of an offence to a Magistrate.   There are no TVL warrants in Scotland, and only a tiny number in England & Wales.  

One of the fundamental issues with TVL is that we aren't required to prove anything to them, say anything to them or even allow them access to premises in their normal doorstep activity.    But even facing those challenges, they only get a few Warrants per year (probably just enough to claim they do).

Watchkeeper

The problem the BBC has is that it needs a named person to prosecute, but it has no powers to compel anyone to give their name. "You do not have to say anything ..." is excellent advice and should be accepted.