TV Licence article Discussion

sphagnum

It used to be the case that if you had any device "capable" of receiving a live broadcast then a licence was required.

adouglasmhor

sphagnum wrote: »

It used to be the case that if you had any device "capable" of receiving a live broadcast then a licence was required.

It really didn't. Though they would claim it was the case, they were lying.

adouglasmhor

cw18 wrote: »

I don't see why unless he didn't have a licence.

That's like saying you can't watch TV at a friends house when you're visiting !!

He didn't have a license, he was out she was watching telly drinking a cuppa, the TVL goons spoon fed her a confession, she signed it and ended up in court.

mathematics

The sooner that people realise that the BBC and TVL are a shower of crooks the better.

They have no right to enter your home, they can't take you to court without your name (never give them it) and they'll never get a search warrant without substantial evidence (and even then - how can they prove that you watch tv?).

As for their magical 'You are watching TV detectors'? Aye, right.

cw18

adouglasmhor wrote: »

He didn't have a license, he was out she was watching telly drinking a cuppa,

in which case she was breaking the law

the TVL goons spoon fed her a confession, she signed it and ended up in court.

no sympathy for her - or for anyone else who gets caught
if yo break the law you have to be prepared to take the consequences

Andynotvsince2003

moonrakerz. I have to say you are spot on! I too have had no desire to watch the mundane drivel they call fee paying live TV. When I visit friends I see the TV on and no one watching it; Ad that appear while in the middle of a programme; Ad's that shout and scream buy my product!; and the repeats are beyond belief...

My main point is that for 10 years they have bothered me to prove to them I am innocent of the law and to prove to them I'm not a criminal because I choose not to prove to them I don't need a license. Every 2 years even after full proof, you'd think by now 5 visits would be enough.. But again they send Electronically generated threatening letters.

I am strongly thinking of putting a case to court over harassment. Where in English, Scottish, Irish law do you need to prove your not doing something?

davehills

Firstly, I don't buy any of this "I have a telly and an aerial but don't watch live programmes" nonsense. I feel that if peeps choose to watch 'live' telly then they are morally obliged to pay the fee, regardless of whether you can "get away with it" or wiggle out of it due to a loophole. It's a bit like people who fiddle taxes or claim benefits they are not entitled to. If you owe it then you should pay it!

Secondly, I think that you can only stream programmes over two hours since they were broadcast. As I understand it viewing a programme less than two hours old is regarded as 'live' for which a licence is required. Before it's broadcast is OK too. Just not during the programme or two hours afterwards.

Also note that things like mobile phones need a TV licence if they are used for viewing 'live' TV or it is reasonably believed that the device will be used to watch 'live' TV.

Itsnotfair

In reply to CW18
Last year I cancelled my licence in March and took out a new licence in my wife's name in July when we returned to the UK. This was dated back to April. Please explain. The BBC are con men and use an address not a name to steal your money.

davehills

adouglasmhor wrote: »

It really didn't. Though they would claim it was the case, they were lying.

I believe Sphagnum is actually right, but this was before streaming and downloading came along to muddy the waters.

Once upon a time you needed a radio licence, too!

paul3569

I should not be paying TV licence cause i am only watching satellite programs, but the TV licensing company is bullying me to buy their licence. Does anyone knows what the law says in this situation.