TV licencing

[technodup]

Devil2575 said:

Pip1968 said:

I cannot believe all the aggression and revolutionary type rhetoric.

I can. Some people are right tossers

We have in this country, a presumption of innocence in the eyes of the law.

EXCEPT in the case of BBC/TVL/Capita who assume the opposite. For some unexplained reason they are free to harass, harangue and doorstep perfectly law abiding citizens, all in the name of some crap TV shows.

There's nothing revolutionary about expecting a standard and long held legal position to be applied across the board.

[Devil2575]

technodup said:

Devil2575 said:

Pip1968 said:

I cannot believe all the aggression and revolutionary type rhetoric.

I can. Some people are right tossers

We have in this country, a presumption of innocence in the eyes of the law.

EXCEPT in the case of BBC/TVL/Capita who assume the opposite. For some unexplained reason they are free to harass, harangue and doorstep perfectly law abiding citizens, all in the name of some crap TV shows.

There's nothing revolutionary about expecting a standard and long held legal position to be applied across the board.

There's nothing wrong with having to fill out a short declaration that you don't have a TV and so avoiding any further contact.

[technodup]

Well done for completely missing the point.

[EV11NED]

Devil2575 said:

There's nothing wrong with having to fill out a short declaration that you don't have a TV and so avoiding any further contact.

Of course there is! They don't write to the registered keeper of a car to tell them they need to have a driving licence to the the car on the road. As said earlier, it is the complete absence of a presumption of innocence in their approach that is the aggravating factor.

[V8A*ndy]

Feck! Have you ever had to deal with HMRC

[mph1977]

EV11NED said:

Devil2575 said:

There's nothing wrong with having to fill out a short declaration that you don't have a TV and so avoiding any further contact.

Of course there is! They don't write to the registered keeper of a car to tell them they need to have a driving licence to the the car on the road. As said earlier, it is the complete absence of a presumption of innocence in their approach that is the aggravating factor.

but they do write to the RK with regard to VED

also the RK example is somewhat fallacious ...

[Corpulent Tosser]

Devil2575 said:

I can. Some people are right tossers

OY ! I'll have you know I pay my licence fee.

[Joeguard1990]

AH33 said:

Havent entered into correspondence with them since I moved in 5 years ago.

I've had letters to "the occupier". We have a TV but only for netflix/gaming. I'd have sent them a "no licence needed" letter but then they've got your name, and I saw a video of a guy who'd done exactly the same only to have them turn up for a "check".

They walked into his front room, opened his laptop and went to the iplayer site, showed him BBC1 and went "look, you CAN receive live TV". He ended up being prosecuted. No thanks.

The BBC needs to move to a subscription as soon as possible. I'm sure they would have no problems shifting their 3 decent shows.

Call bullst on that one. First of all he failed the 1st test and let them in. 2nd of all he failed the 2nd test and allowed them to use his equipment. Finally you don't need a TV license if you have the Internet.

[With these feet]

Joeguard1990 said:

Call bullst on that one. First of all he failed the 1st test and let them in. 2nd of all he failed the 2nd test and allowed them to use his equipment. Finally you don't need a TV license if you have the Internet.

If you can stream live tv on the internet you do.
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one...

[AH33]

With these feet said:

If you can stream live tv on the internet you do.
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one...

Yep, and that's where the grey area comes in. Anyone with an internet connection can watch live TV, but TVL say that you only need to have a Licence if you watch live TV as it is being broadcast. How could I prove I wasn't watching live TV on the net? How could they prove I was?

It's like saying your car is capable of doing 100mph, so we're doing you for speeding.

[eldar]

With these feet said:

If you can stream live tv on the internet you do.
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one...

Smartphone, anyone?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5MnyRZLd8A

[technodup]

AH33 said:

With these feet said:

If you can stream live tv on the internet you do.
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one...

Yep, and that's where the grey area comes in.

It's really not that grey. If you don't watch TV as it's broadcast you don't need a licence.

What they think about that or what equipment you own is neither here nor there.

[AH33]

technodup said:

t's really not that grey. If you don't watch TV as it's broadcast you don't need a licence.

What they think about that or what equipment you own is neither here nor there.

My laptop can receive BBC1 but I dont watch any live TV, How can I prove to them that I don't?

[ALT F4]

technodup said:

What they think about that or what equipment you own is neither here nor there.

Unless they assume "suspicion" that you are watching live TV?

Doesn't this then lead on to an entry of premises warrant and further harassment?
Of course it then comes down to yourself to not turn on your TV and tune in to a live broadcast whilst they are there , but I would be interested in what level of evidence is required to take someone to court.

Does it require the person to incriminate themselves - or can they go to court on a simple "suspicion" ?

[With these feet]

AH33 said:

My laptop can receive BBC1 but I dont watch any live TV, How can I prove to them that I don't?

IP address?

[INWB]

AH33 said:

My laptop can receive BBC1 but I dont watch any live TV, How can I prove to them that I don't?

You don't have to prove anything. They have to prove or convince a judge that you do.

Update on my first post - the letter we received is because it is actually 2 and not one year ago that we got rid of the license. Wife phoned up and they have updated the records. 5 minute job done.

[technodup]

AH33 said:

technodup said:

t's really not that grey. If you don't watch TV as it's broadcast you don't need a licence.

What they think about that or what equipment you own is neither here nor there.

My laptop can receive BBC1 but I dont watch any live TV, How can I prove to them that I don't?

That's not something you have to prove.

They have to prove you do.

Either way this very point means the licence in its current form is basically dead. You think the next generation of 'payers' who are used to having everything instantly on their phones, paid for by advertising or the Netflix dip in, dip out model at best, and streamed or torrented illegally at worst are going to hand over £145 on demand every year to watch David Attenborough documentaries?

Can't see it.

[Red Devil]

Pip1968 said:

It has been 12 years since I went to the doctor or a hospital but am happy to pay for it in my taxes and NI.

You have just made the argument that the BBC should be funded from general taxation, just as has been the case in Australia for more than 40 years (1974).

Devil2575 said:

There's nothing wrong with having to fill out a short declaration that you don't have a TV and so avoiding anyfurther contact.

If only that were true. It won't stop you being doorstepped for a verification check - http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one... - and it only lasts for two years then the whole farrago starts over.

With these feet said:

Joeguard1990 said:

Call bullst on that one. First of all he failed the 1st test and let them in. 2nd of all he failed the 2nd test and allowed them to use his equipment. Finally you don't need a TV license if you have the Internet.

If you can stream live tv on the internet you do.
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one...

Utter rubbish. You only need one if you DO stream it, not if you DON'T. As the above link makes perfectly clear.
Are you one of Capita's doorsteppers? It's the sort of nonsense that they are not above trotting out.

As for the chap who is said to have been prosecuted, the BBC's hired help was the one using the equipment not him.
He must have made some admission under caution. He should have told the guy to leave his property forthwith.
See the rules of conduct for enquiry officers - http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-administeri...

The on-demand opt out is definitely going to be closed though. It's just a matter of when.

TV Licensing In Brief Spring 2016 page 2 said:

Earlier this month the Government confirmed an agreement had been reached on closing the iPlayer loophole “as soon as practicable.”
This means those watching any content on BBC iPlayer will require a TV Licence, not just - as now - if live TV is being watched.

. http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/ss/Satellite?blobcol=...

[technodup]

Red Devil said:

The on-demand opt out is definitely going to be closed though. It's just a matter of when.

TV Licensing In Brief Spring 2016 page 2 said:

Earlier this month the Government confirmed an agreement had been reached on closing the iPlayer loophole “as soon as practicable.”
This means those watching any content on BBC iPlayer will require a TV Licence, not just - as now - if live TV is being watched.

. http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/ss/Satellite?blobcol=...

It's taken them 10 years to start talking about it, I'll not hold my breath for anything happening.

They really should stop fannying about trying to deal with the symptoms and deal with the actual issue. That the extorted TV licence isn't fit for the 21st century.

[With these feet]

Sorry, I should have put if you watch live tv online, not if you can. My bad choice of words but the link was the important bit saying any form of watching TV live opens you up for a licence.