TV Licence article Discussion

Cornucopia wrote: »

Amongst other things, TVL have no sense of humour or imagination, so I could actually see them taking this to Court, who, coincidentally tend to have no sense of humour or imagination.

To be fair to our court system, I don't particularly want them having a good sense of humour.

I certainly would want them to be up with the times and technologically savvy which I suspect isn't the case by and large from the judges and magistrates I know.

Nick_C wrote: »

I would rather the criminal justice system was not involved at all in the BBC gathering their funding. Apparently, 10% of court cases are TV licence evasion - 180,000 a year. It would be far better if the BBC collected it's income in the same way as it's competitors. Either by subscription (preferred) or through advertising (no longer effective really).

Indeed, and it's only that small a number because BBC-TVL let off half the people they "catch". I imagine it's probably the people who buy a Licence without too much fuss, but even so I'm not sure if that's really what's meant by a "public interest test" on prosecutions.

If they prosecuted everyone, that would be up to 400,000 cases per year - 20%+ of all Magistrates Court cases.

The cases are worked on a Sausage Factory basis - 100-200 cases per session over 2-3 hours. Most defendants do not appear, and they are found guilty in their absence. Because they do not appear, there is no consideration of the evidence against them - their loss is automatic.

Also, nearly three-quarters of these defendants are women, which is quite unprecedented in our legal system. Although the BBC say that there are no gender biases, I can't help the suspicion that there must be to arrive at this figure. I don't buy the idea that women are more likely to be at home when TVL call, partly because the gender imbalance has increased significantly over the past 10 years from the more plausible 45% (men):55% (women).

It's (even more) all a bit of a mess.

I managed to get a bargain telly earlier this week (Linsar 65" 4K LED) for £424 and it came with a free Roku Streaming Stick+.

I have the streaming stick in my telly and only have the Netflix and Amazon apps installed. Do I need to buy a TV Licence because I own the stick and have it installed even though I don't have any live TV apps installed?

I don't watch live telly at all, I tend to download anything I want to watch after it has been on via BitTorrent sites so I'm guessing I don't need a TV Licence for that either because it isn't live TV and I haven't recorded it live? I know that I don't need a TV Licence for ITV and C4 catch-up stuff and I only need a TV Licence if I use iPlayer, so I don't use it. Me watching BBC programmes that have been recorded by someone else should be okay, shouldn't it..?

Thanks in advance for any help!

Okay, thanks for that. Very much appreciated. I guess the golden rule is not to bother answering the door if they ever come round, I don't answer my door unless I'm expecting someone so that shouldn't be a problem.

I've also seen a few videos on YouTube where they try and do someone for obstruction for not cooperating which is quite worrying.

Sorry for all the questions and thanks for your help! Can I attach an aerial to my telly just to listen to radio stations as long as I don't watch live television? Or will having an aerial connected, regardless of whether I watch live television or not, be an offence?

I suffer from severe anxiety and severe depression so I'm getting a bit stressed out by this. The TV Licence people must have my name and address now because I had my television delivered so I'm getting a bit worried by it all now.