Iplayer to need TV licence from 1/9/2016 - full fee required
Discussion
21TonyK said:
AJL308 said:
Terminator X said:
"Let's face it, not a single prosecution has ever been brought on the back of detection evidence."
Surely there is just a "who owns a TV" database vs a "who has a licence" database and chasing letters get generated from there?
TX.
TV sets aren't registered to people are addresses so there is no such list. Even if there was it would be meaningless as owning or possessing a TV is not a licensable activity. Surely there is just a "who owns a TV" database vs a "who has a licence" database and chasing letters get generated from there?
TX.
There is a list of addresses which are not licensed but that in its self proves nowt for the reason stated above.
Utterly mad, went to Richer Sounds instead.
(TV was for my sons Xbox BTW)
Even then, it didn't prove that you were actually in possession of one at any time after you walked out of the shop with it and at no time did it prove that you actually owned it or that it was at the address that you gave. In fact, I seem to think that it wasn't even an offence to give a false name and address so it was just a total waste of time.
CrutyRammers said:
FiF said:
If household usage is outside those conditions where a licence is required then good job, carry on. 153 thousand guilty verdicts a year say there are a lot where that wasn't the case for whatever reason.
I know it's not the point you were making, but I would question what good those actions have brought society.Another thing I'd question is how good a hearing do people get in court? Let's assume those figures are accurate, they are for England and Wales only btw. But TV licence cases comprise 10+% of defendants, yet take up 0.3% of court time, rubber stamping in bulk processing one assumes.
amusingduck said:
technodup said:
FiF said:
Presumably the 153,369 people prosecuted and found guilty under the version of the Wireless Telegraphy Act then in force in 2012, were also saying they did not need a licence, for whatever reason, yet the courts found differently. Similar numbers in 2013, about 3500 a week, over 10% of court cases apparently, alarmingly, about 90% of prosecutions result in a guilty verdict. So perhaps people can be forgiven for being sceptical over claims.
And I've always been skeptical over those claimed numbers. Are they an extension of the detector van myth? Does anyone know anybody who's been there?In Scotland last year 32 people went to court for no licence (so I'm not likely to know anyone). I smell bulls
t somewhere.I presume he gets that figure from here -
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
The figure is mentioned in the report, but the source for that figure is not accessible. The source is listed as
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa... - which doesn't work.
https://fullfact.org/news/do-tv-licence-offences-a...
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/criminal-...
Both of those are older than the MoJ linked response. Suppose we've all got different views as to the value of the claim of prosecution in the public interest.
Funk said:
It's been shown time and again that TVL goons aren't above fabricating evidence or getting people to sign a TVL178 form which wrongly-incriminates the person. The problem is that the courts take the word of Capita/TVL as gospel when in fact it's been shown to be anything but reliable.
Michael Shakespeare let TVL into his home to inspect his equipment and filmed the whole thing. He uploaded it to Youtube. TVL said that he'd been caught watching a live signal when the goon visited and used Shakespeare's own video as evidence. They pointed out that BBC's 'The One Show' could be seen playing on the video.
Shakespeare was then able to show that the video submitted by TVL had been doctored by them. How? The part of The One Show they had digitally inserted into his video hadn't aired at the time the inspection was carried out. Let that sink in for a mo - TVL fabricated evidence and took a man to court over it, initially winning.
Shakespeare fought back, taking it to the Crown Court and winning on appeal. The conviction was overturned and TVL were instructed to pay Shakespeare's costs. What concerns me more is that no-one at TVL was ever brought to court for attempting to pervert the course of justice.
Make no mistake; TVL will play dirty in order to get a 'win'.
What the fMichael Shakespeare let TVL into his home to inspect his equipment and filmed the whole thing. He uploaded it to Youtube. TVL said that he'd been caught watching a live signal when the goon visited and used Shakespeare's own video as evidence. They pointed out that BBC's 'The One Show' could be seen playing on the video.
Shakespeare was then able to show that the video submitted by TVL had been doctored by them. How? The part of The One Show they had digitally inserted into his video hadn't aired at the time the inspection was carried out. Let that sink in for a mo - TVL fabricated evidence and took a man to court over it, initially winning.
Shakespeare fought back, taking it to the Crown Court and winning on appeal. The conviction was overturned and TVL were instructed to pay Shakespeare's costs. What concerns me more is that no-one at TVL was ever brought to court for attempting to pervert the course of justice.
Make no mistake; TVL will play dirty in order to get a 'win'.
k?!amusingduck said:
What the fk?!
Tip of the icebergk?!How about being prosecuted and found guilty without even knowing while being completely innocent and within the law as the house had a valid tv license
MONICA Monni, 35, of Vale Road, Colwick, has been fined £200 by magistrates in Nottingham. She used a television without a licence at her address last July. She is further required to pay a victim surcharge of £15 and costs of £60. The case was proved in her absence on January 22.
Read more at http://www.nottinghampost.com/latest-news-nottingh...
The mother-of-one was fined £200 by JPs for the offence back in 2013. She had been further required to pay a victim surcharge of £15 and costs of £60.
The case was proved in her absence but was later dropped.
Ms Monni, now of St Ann's, said: "I was never asked to pay a penny. The first I heard I heard of it was when someone Goggled my name!"
http://www.nottinghampost.com/st-ann-s-resident-cl...
Pesty said:
Tip of the iceberg
How about being prosecuted and found guilty without even knowing while being completely innocent and within the law as the house had a valid tv license
MONICA Monni, 35, of Vale Road, Colwick, has been fined £200 by magistrates in Nottingham. She used a television without a licence at her address last July. She is further required to pay a victim surcharge of £15 and costs of £60. The case was proved in her absence on January 22.
Read more at
The mother-of-one was fined £200 by JPs for the offence back in 2013. She had been further required to pay a victim surcharge of £15 and costs of £60.
The case was proved in her absence but was later dropped.
Ms Monni, now of St Ann's, said: "I was never asked to pay a penny. The first I heard I heard of it was when someone Goggled my name!"
How about being prosecuted and found guilty without even knowing while being completely innocent and within the law as the house had a valid tv license
MONICA Monni, 35, of Vale Road, Colwick, has been fined £200 by magistrates in Nottingham. She used a television without a licence at her address last July. She is further required to pay a victim surcharge of £15 and costs of £60. The case was proved in her absence on January 22.
Read more at
The mother-of-one was fined £200 by JPs for the offence back in 2013. She had been further required to pay a victim surcharge of £15 and costs of £60.
The case was proved in her absence but was later dropped.
Ms Monni, now of St Ann's, said: "I was never asked to pay a penny. The first I heard I heard of it was when someone Goggled my name!"
amusingduck said:
It seems like an awfully high number for something that's so difficult to prove.
It makes more sense why the number is so high now 
Atomic12C said:
Funk said:
Make no mistake; TVL will play dirty in order to get a 'win'.
That is just disgusting behaviour.I would also like to know why they were not prosecuted for attempted miscarriage of justice (Perjury). ?
Link to the SI which brought in the change. Sections 5 and 6 are the relevant ones.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/704/conten...
So, thinking about it laterally; as this only applies to Iplayer - a BBC service - this is the first time ever (that I'm aware of) that an element of TV licensing has been made "BBC" specific. Previously, it has always applied to every type of TV use, whether BBC or not. So, in reality, the BBC (or at least part of it) is now a subscription only service.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/704/conten...
So, thinking about it laterally; as this only applies to Iplayer - a BBC service - this is the first time ever (that I'm aware of) that an element of TV licensing has been made "BBC" specific. Previously, it has always applied to every type of TV use, whether BBC or not. So, in reality, the BBC (or at least part of it) is now a subscription only service.
The retailer was obliged to take an address, not to check it valid.AJL308 said:
Atomic12C said:
Funk said:
Make no mistake; TVL will play dirty in order to get a 'win'.
That is just disgusting behaviour.I would also like to know why they were not prosecuted for attempted miscarriage of justice (Perjury). ?
technodup said:
ot to mention the people who bought a TV, and a licence, then decided they no longer needed the licence as their viewing habits changed.
Who are those people? Are you really suggesting those people avoid all BBC TV channels, never listen to BBC radio and never use BBC online services?
I mean, really? For the sake of twelve quid each month?!
And let's not talk about the ones who think the BBC back book should be free...
Edinburger said:
technodup said:
ot to mention the people who bought a TV, and a licence, then decided they no longer needed the licence as their viewing habits changed.
Who are those people? Are you really suggesting those people avoid all BBC TV channels, never listen to BBC radio and never use BBC online services?
I mean, really? For the sake of twelve quid each month?!
And let's not talk about the ones who think the BBC back book should be free...
I don't pay for gas, electricity or water I don't use. I don't pay for petrol I don't use. I don't pay for food I don't eat. Why would I pay for TV I don't watch?
So far I've saved £870 (£3,270 if you include the ~£40/month I was paying for the Sky subscription too) which is not an inconsiderable sum of money.
Edited by Funk on Friday 9th September 11:10
Funk said:
Edinburger said:
technodup said:
ot to mention the people who bought a TV, and a licence, then decided they no longer needed the licence as their viewing habits changed.
Who are those people? Are you really suggesting those people avoid all BBC TV channels, never listen to BBC radio and never use BBC online services?
I mean, really? For the sake of twelve quid each month?!
And let's not talk about the ones who think the BBC back book should be free...
I don't pay for gas, electricity or water I don't use. I don't pay for petrol I don't use. I don't pay for food I don't eat. Why would I pay for TV I don't watch?
It's £12 per month. An absolute bargain. Life really is far too short to worry about it.
Edinburger said:
Funk said:
Edinburger said:
technodup said:
ot to mention the people who bought a TV, and a licence, then decided they no longer needed the licence as their viewing habits changed.
Who are those people? Are you really suggesting those people avoid all BBC TV channels, never listen to BBC radio and never use BBC online services?
I mean, really? For the sake of twelve quid each month?!
And let's not talk about the ones who think the BBC back book should be free...
I don't pay for gas, electricity or water I don't use. I don't pay for petrol I don't use. I don't pay for food I don't eat. Why would I pay for TV I don't watch?
It's £12 per month. An absolute bargain. Life really is far too short to worry about it.
I don't have much free time when at home to sit around watching somebody else's TV schedule, instead when I watch TV it is via Amazon Firestick and the youtube app along with other content that I can watch as and when I wish.
A few years ago I also noticed that we were paying for something that we could easily live without.
Times have changed a lot over the past decade with regards to how many of the younger generations are using their TV and how they have many alternatives to having to waiting for some pre-scheduled program to start and then sitting through adverts etc. etc.
I found that I mostly like to watch science programs, mainly physics. But the usual science stuff on BBC and other channels seemed to be few and far between and when it was shown it was at inconvenient times and also seemed to have mandatory man made climate change thrown in no matter what the original program's subject was.
I am also a bit politically 'charged' when it came to the thought of funding a left wing organisation that promoted leftist ideology without much balance.
So there was probably a 2nd element to my decision of doing away with TV licence thrown in for good measure.
I'm currently on the 5th year of not watching live broadcast TV at home - and I can truly say that it has not inconvenienced me at all.
The internet provides all the news content - which I get via smart phone, smart TV and Laptop. (don't have to use i-player at all).
When there is a sporting event on such as F1 I can easily pop over to parent's place whereby the old man enjoys the company in watching his favourite sport.
etc. etc.
If live broadcast TV rejuvenates itself in to something new and something that doesn't concentrate on promoting agendas, or content full of 'reality TV full of mouthy no-dignity individuals' then I may re-consider buying a TV licence as I may develop a desire to watch live broadcast TV again. But as it is at the moment - no chance.
Edinburger said:
Funk said:
Edinburger said:
technodup said:
ot to mention the people who bought a TV, and a licence, then decided they no longer needed the licence as their viewing habits changed.
Who are those people? Are you really suggesting those people avoid all BBC TV channels, never listen to BBC radio and never use BBC online services?
I mean, really? For the sake of twelve quid each month?!
And let's not talk about the ones who think the BBC back book should be free...
I don't pay for gas, electricity or water I don't use. I don't pay for petrol I don't use. I don't pay for food I don't eat. Why would I pay for TV I don't watch?
It's £12 per month. An absolute bargain. Life really is far too short to worry about it.
Since they've required a licence to watch iPlayer I no longer bother with that either. I don't listen to radio and I wouldn't get my news from the BBC. So no, I genuinely don't use any BBC services - even ones I'm not required to pay for such as radio.
I'm glad you think £12 a month is a bargain, I like that I've saved nearly a grand since I dropped the licence fee. Don't panic, I don't "worry" about it at all but I appreciate your concern for my well-being.
Atomic12C said:
I found that I mostly like to watch science programs, mainly physics. But the usual science stuff on BBC and other channels seemed to be few and far between and when it was shown it was at inconvenient times and also seemed to have mandatory man made climate change thrown in no matter what the original program's subject was.
<snip>
The internet provides all the news content - which I get via smart phone, smart TV and Laptop. (don't have to use i-player at all).
Completely agree with this too - I felt that very little of the BBC's content catered for me. I watch loads of science things on Youtube (such as Smarter Every Day, Veritasium, Vsauce etc) and plenty of car content all of which is 100x better than anything the BBC do.<snip>
The internet provides all the news content - which I get via smart phone, smart TV and Laptop. (don't have to use i-player at all).
Where I'll concede the BBC do still come up trumps is stuff like Planet Earth - and these can be bought as required on DVD/Blu-Ray etc - and you have to watch around the climate change message that unfortunately seems to permeate.
Edited by Funk on Friday 9th September 12:02
Funk said:
Where I'll concede the BBC do still come up trumps is stuff like Planet Earth - and these can be bought as required on DVD/Blu-Ray etc - and you have to watch around the climate change message that unfortunately seems to permeate.
I bought the Life series in case I wanted to watch anything like that. I don't need to pay £12 a month to do so. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Life-Collection-David-Att...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff