Freedom from TV license oppression
Discussion
Stopped paying for a TV license over a year ago. I own a TV but only watch downloaded movies etc on it. For the last 5 years I've not watched any live broadcasts, save for the London Olympics and therefore paid that year. I've not heard from TV Licensing for 9 months now so expect a visit/more threatening letters soon. 
Cheese Mechanic said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
How tight can you get! Watching the programmes and getting other people to pay for it.
Why do people like you expect others to pay for/subsidise their entertainment? Incidentally, you do not need a "license" to watch catch up services.
AA999 said:
The crapita goons claim the law only requires the "ability to watch live TV" and continue to harass the home owner.
"You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder"They are trying to get him under the use of devices, even if he is not watching live TV
Cotty said:
That's the problem, if you have a computer be it laptop or PC you are capable of watching live broadcasts. To them if you have the ability then you need a licence.
That's not true though:http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one...
"The law states that you need to be covered by a TV Licence if you watch or record television programmes, on any device, as they're being shown on TV. This includes TVs, computers, mobile phones, games consoles, digital boxes and Blu-ray/DVD/VHS recorders.
You don't need a licence if you don't use any of these devices to watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV - for example, if you use your TV only to watch DVDs or play video games, or you only watch ‘catch up’ services like BBC iPlayer or 4oD."
Simply owning a device capable of watching live broadcasts is not sufficient to require you to have a TV licence.
Cotty said:
AA999 said:
The crapita goons claim the law only requires the "ability to watch live TV" and continue to harass the home owner.
"You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder"They are trying to get him under the use of devices, even if he is not watching live TV
The law states it is the action of watching live TV that requires the licence not the ability to do so.
As the guy in the video mentions, he has knives in his kitchen drawer, but that does not mean he is guilty of committing a murder.
The police in the video are the most disturbing in my opinion. We sort of know that the crapita goons are there to generate money and to catch people out, but the police are supposed to be neutral and to uphold the law. In this case they simply did not.
Keeping in mind that this may only be one of a number of cases where this police/crapita collusion may have taken place.
I do wonder if the guy in the video was able to get the case thrown out of court before he was inconvenienced at the expense of crapita by the whole process.
Cotty said:
AA999 said:
The crapita goons claim the law only requires the "ability to watch live TV" and continue to harass the home owner.
"You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder"They are trying to get him under the use of devices, even if he is not watching live TV
DonkeyApple said:
So your concern is in regards to how the BBC is funded. Nothing to do with the license for watching live broadcast TV?
If the BBC were privately funded there would be no support for the continuation of the licence. I believe all TV stations should be commercially independent and privately funded.egomeister said:
trashbat said:
o the declaration and they'll stop for at least a year. A visit might be scheduled though, but it may be anyway.
https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/no-licence-needed/
Why should you have to inform them of anything? Last time I checked using a TV was a service that is opted into not out of?https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/no-licence-needed/
I've told them once that I don't require a licence and that should be the end of it. They spend £5m a year sending the threatening letters. If any other private company sent what Capita do, it would be illegal.
10 Pence Short said:
DonkeyApple said:
So your concern is in regards to how the BBC is funded. Nothing to do with the license for watching live broadcast TV?
If the BBC were privately funded there would be no support for the continuation of the licence. I believe all TV stations should be commercially independent and privately funded.The real key is that as news and sporting events move to web only and all shows are on demand then the license will be moot.
DonkeyApple said:
Cheese Mechanic said:
DonkeyApple said:
Funded by part of it, yes.
But what else?
This is from the BBC website under the heading of what the TV tax pays for. But what else?
"television channels, radio stations and online spaces where audiences can find it – is paid for by the licence fee, allowing BBC's UK services to remain free of advertisements and independent of shareholder and political interest."
This one phrase shows how far they are up themselves , free of political interest? Taking the piss, they do not even try to cover up their leftist bias these days,and when pushed enough go so far as to admit it themselves , the bung they get from the EU ensures they also are in a land beyond criticism when it comes to BBC reporting.
Edited by Cheese Mechanic on Wednesday 19th March 10:25
People seem to be ranting about the license fee when in fact they want to rant about the left wing bias of the BBC.
Very few people actually bother to read what the TV license is.
Let's say the BBC isn't funded by the license fee, let's say it is funded put of general taxation. So essentially the same as say VED, it's just a tax to do something. In the case of VED it is a tax to use certain vehicles on the roads but the roads are maintained and managed out of the collective purse. What is then the specific problem with paying a very modest fee to have live TV streamed into our homes?
Think of it more like buying a computer or laptop where you run Linux. Linux is free, but Microsoft write to you saying that as you have a computer it's inconceivable that you aren't running Windows. They insinuate you're a criminal, then say they need to come into your home and inspect your computer to make sure it's not running Windows. They snoop near your house, trying to see your screen through your window. When they knock on the door and ask all sorts of personal information about you, you tell them to go away. They then lie to a court to get permission to turn up with Police and a warrant to access your home.
Sound ludicrous? That's what Capita do for the BBC.
They also appear to have a vendetta against those who dare to stand up against them, many who've posted their experiences on YouTube seem to be targeted hardest out of spite. They like to cause confusion, misdirection and misinformation. They enjoy the illusion of power they appear to have, including cautioning people (since when can a private limited company issue cautions as if they are Police?).
Another interesting point; the law no longer requires retailers to take and supply information about TV purchases to TVL. Tesco have said they will voluntarily continue to provide that information! I would consider this a breach of the Data Protection Act - why is one limited company requesting information about you at point of purchase to give to another company when it it no longer legally required to do so?
Edited by Funk on Wednesday 19th March 12:45
oyster said:
It's no different than me paying for fire services even though I take more precautions to avoid fire. And no different than paying lots of taxes that go to the NHS even though I eat healthily, exercise lots and don't have a dangerous job.
Actually, totally wrong, Fire services, NHS etc are vital services, the BBC is just another media comapny. Funk said:
DonkeyApple said:
Cheese Mechanic said:
DonkeyApple said:
Funded by part of it, yes.
But what else?
This is from the BBC website under the heading of what the TV tax pays for. But what else?
"television channels, radio stations and online spaces where audiences can find it – is paid for by the licence fee, allowing BBC's UK services to remain free of advertisements and independent of shareholder and political interest."
This one phrase shows how far they are up themselves , free of political interest? Taking the piss, they do not even try to cover up their leftist bias these days,and when pushed enough go so far as to admit it themselves , the bung they get from the EU ensures they also are in a land beyond criticism when it comes to BBC reporting.
Edited by Cheese Mechanic on Wednesday 19th March 10:25
People seem to be ranting about the license fee when in fact they want to rant about the left wing bias of the BBC.
Very few people actually bother to read what the TV license is.
Let's say the BBC isn't funded by the license fee, let's say it is funded put of general taxation. So essentially the same as say VED, it's just a tax to do something. In the case of VED it is a tax to use certain vehicles on the roads but the roads are maintained and managed out of the collective purse. What is then the specific problem with paying a very modest fee to have live TV streamed into our homes?
Think of it more like buying a computer or laptop where you run Linux. Linux is free, but Microsoft write to you saying that as you have a computer it's inconceivable that you aren't running Windows. They insinuate you're a criminal, then say they need to come into your home and inspect your computer to make sure it's not running Windows. They snoop near your house, trying to see your screen through your window. When they knock on the door and ask all sorts of personal information about you, you tell them to go away. They then lie to a court to get permission to turn up with Police and a warrant to access your home.
Sound ludicrous? That's what Capita do for the BBC.
They also appear to have a vendetta against those who dare to stand up against them, many who've posted their experiences on YouTube seem to be targeted hardest out of spite. They like to cause confusion, misdirection and misinformation. They enjoy the illusion of power they appear to have, including cautioning people (since when can a private limited company issue cautions as if they are Police?).
Another interesting point; the law no longer requires retailers to take and supply information about TV purchases to TVL. Tesco have said they will voluntarily continue to provide that information! I would consider this a breach of the Data Protection Act - why is one limited company requesting information about you at point of purchase to give to another company?
Cheese Mechanic said:
Actually, totally wrong, Fire services, NHS etc are vital services, the BBC is just another media comapny.
True but it is a behemoth that inadvertently regulated the commercial broadcasters. You only need to look to the US to see the increase in ad time that is possible and the huge cost of choosing what stations to view. It also has an impact on how many hours the Peter Andresque banality is showing.
DonkeyApple said:
Exactly.
People seem to be ranting about the license fee when in fact they want to rant about the left wing bias of the BBC.
Actually, totally wrong.What fPeople seem to be ranting about the license fee when in fact they want to rant about the left wing bias of the BBC.
ks me off is being forced to pay for it if I have the cheek to watch any live broadcast TV channel. To me, they can be as biased as they like (because they are), but not with peoples money raised via extortion, effectively, taxpayers money , because that is what it is, a TV broadcast tax.The reason I have never, and never will pay for a TV "license." There is no reason, none whatsoever that the BBC should not go to a subscription based service, let people exercise freedom of choice.
What is even more absurd, is that if they did go subs, I would willingly pay a reasonable fee to receive BBC2 and 4. They are quite good, the vast majority of the rest is crap.
Cheese Mechanic said:
DonkeyApple said:
Exactly.
People seem to be ranting about the license fee when in fact they want to rant about the left wing bias of the BBC.
Actually, totally wrong.What fPeople seem to be ranting about the license fee when in fact they want to rant about the left wing bias of the BBC.
ks me off is being forced to pay for it if I have the cheek to watch any live broadcast TV channel. To me, they can be as biased as they like (because they are), but not with peoples money raised via extortion, effectively, taxpayers money , because that is what it is, a TV broadcast tax.The reason I have never, and never will pay for a TV "license." There is no reason, none whatsoever that the BBC should not go to a subscription based service, let people exercise freedom of choice.
What is even more absurd, is that if they did go subs, I would willingly pay a reasonable fee to receive BBC2 and 4. They are quite good, the vast majority of the rest is crap.
Cheese Mechanic said:
DonkeyApple said:
Exactly.
People seem to be ranting about the license fee when in fact they want to rant about the left wing bias of the BBC.
Actually, totally wrong.What fPeople seem to be ranting about the license fee when in fact they want to rant about the left wing bias of the BBC.
ks me off is being forced to pay for it if I have the cheek to watch any live broadcast TV channel. This makes it totally voluntary.
Personally, I have no need of a TV license. I do not watch live TV. I choose what I want to watch via on demand services. I have no issue watching something an hour later or the next day or week. I however pay for a license because my wife and children wish to watch shows as they are broadcast.
Funk said:
Think of it more like buying a computer or laptop where you run Linux. Linux is free, but Microsoft write to you saying that as you have a computer it's inconceivable that you aren't running Windows. They insinuate you're a criminal, then say they need to come into your home and inspect your computer to make sure it's not running Windows. They snoop near your house, trying to see your screen through your window. When they knock on the door and ask all sorts of personal information about you, you tell them to go away. They then lie to a court to get permission to turn up with Police and a warrant to access your home.
Sound ludicrous? That's what Capita do for the BBC.
This is the bit I don't get, why get a warrant to access the house. If you only need a licence to watch live TV what do they hope to achieve by gaining access, to catch you in the act. Sound ludicrous? That's what Capita do for the BBC.
If its to check whether you can receive a live signal. What is the point if the law only covers watching not having the ability to receive. So they check that you can receive but you are not actually watching.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff