Iplayer to need TV licence from 1/9/2016 - full fee required
Discussion
Toaster said:
CrutyRammers said:
Not maybe "just" as a monitor, but for use with both pcs/xbox, or just consoles, and never to watch telly, certainly. I have one myself for just this purpose which has never seen a minute of tv.Amazing isn't it? There's a whole world of people out there who do things you don't understand.
Probably a whole world of people out there who also don't understand what they do 
But I bet you also have a TV that you do watch TV channels on.Calling CR a liar and saying he MUST be watching live TV is just ridiculous.
Only TV service I have is Netflix running through my Xbox, sometimes go weeks without even putting that on. My flat doesn't have any aerial or sat dish and I haven't had any form of live broadcast TV at home for 6-7 years, don't need it. Several mates are the same. Switch on TV and complain there's nothing you what to watch right now? Or watch what you want, when you want.
It's not anything against the BBC, more just that on demand services are miles more useful.
It's not anything against the BBC, more just that on demand services are miles more useful.
Funk said:
Toaster said:
CrutyRammers said:
Not maybe "just" as a monitor, but for use with both pcs/xbox, or just consoles, and never to watch telly, certainly. I have one myself for just this purpose which has never seen a minute of tv.Amazing isn't it? There's a whole world of people out there who do things you don't understand.
Probably a whole world of people out there who also don't understand what they do But I bet you also have a TV that you do watch TV channels on.Calling CR a liar and saying he MUST be watching live TV is just ridiculous.
Do tell where did I say CR is a Liar? I also did not say must, I said I bet (which assumes I could be wrong) and regarding your comment about Live broadcast it infers you watch catch up.
FiF said:
I also am not convinced by the many who say they watch absolutely no live broadcasts or whatever the current restrictions are in order to justify themselves not having a licence. I'm sure there are some who rigidly stick to it, maybe they're a bit ocd or other reason, but it's my opinion, right or wrong, that a significant proportion don't religiously stick to the law.
what a strange opinion. Why do you assume people have to "stick to it", as though they're depriving themselves to prove a point. I have no aerial and no sky/virgin either. Computer/Phone and Games Consoles provide better entertainment for me than live telly. Nothing would change for me if they forced everybody to have a TV licence whether they use it or not (except i'd be out by £145 a year).amusingduck said:
what a strange opinion. Why do you assume people have to "stick to it", as though they're depriving themselves to prove a point. I have no aerial and no sky/virgin either. Computer/Phone and Games Consoles provide better entertainment for me than live telly. Nothing would change for me if they forced everybody to have a TV licence whether they use it or not (except i'd be out by £145 a year).It's funny when people come in my house and can't get over how there's no TV in the corner. There's no space, what with the decks and couple of thousand records. Everything else I need is on the laptop and/or tablet. But they just don't get it. "But you've not got a telly?"
technodup said:
Toaster said:
assuming he has a family.
I said I bet (which assumes I could be wrong)
Quite a lot of assumptions... it definitely comes across that you think everyone with no requirement for a licence is a liar.I said I bet (which assumes I could be wrong)
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.
Nevertheless it's completely legal not to have a licence, that's accepted, but there are certain rules which apply, and if followed or "stuck to" then everything is fine and dandy, and it must be irritating to be asked to prove innocence. Let's face it, not a single prosecution has ever been brought on the back of detection evidence. If however, as with the 153 thousand found guilty, don't stick your the rules and expect a reaming.
The other thing that's irritating is the constant assertion by the non licence holders is that they're the up to date cool kids on the block and licence payers are stuck in the generational time warp of sitting round with the family waiting for something to come on, plus they usually throw a few insults in for good measure like brain dead, or unthinking, or watching some decidedly unhip programming. I very rarely watch anything live, Olympics was an exception, can't think of another one offhand. However do watch stuff streamed Netflix, and the various catchup services, using tablet, laptop and TV. However there is an element which is recorded live, simply for convenience and stuff on iplayer, therefore a licence is needed and no problem paying for it. Furthermore it covers anyone in the family or visitors who may not be so minded to watch streaming or catch up services. It may well be that in a couple of decades things are completely different, certainly the current funding model needs radical reform, but for now it's what we've got, right or wrong.
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.
Nevertheless it's completely legal not to have a licence, that's accepted, but there are certain rules which apply, and if followed or "stuck to" then everything is fine and dandy, and it must be irritating to be asked to prove innocence. Let's face it, not a single prosecution has ever been brought on the back of detection evidence. If however, as with the 153 thousand found guilty, don't stick your the rules and expect a reaming.
The other thing that's irritating is the constant assertion by the non licence holders is that they're the up to date cool kids on the block and licence payers are stuck in the generational time warp of sitting round with the family waiting for something to come on, plus they usually throw a few insults in for good measure like brain dead, or unthinking, or watching some decidedly unhip programming. I very rarely watch anything live, Olympics was an exception, can't think of another one offhand. However do watch stuff streamed Netflix, and the various catchup services, using tablet, laptop and TV. However there is an element which is recorded live, simply for convenience and stuff on iplayer, therefore a licence is needed and no problem paying for it. Furthermore it covers anyone in the family or visitors who may not be so minded to watch streaming or catch up services. It may well be that in a couple of decades things are completely different, certainly the current funding model needs radical reform, but for now it's what we've got, right or wrong.
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.
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.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/11809201/No-Sc...
We got rid of virgin and the TV license over a year ago, we stream netflix / prime etc.
It was the realization that the savings can pay for a holiday a year and the fact we didn't watch a lot made us do it.
We have 2 TV's in the house, one in the lounge which has a PC with Kodi on it and one in the games room with just an xbox connected to it.
We do have an aerial on the roof but it is not connected to anything. We don't even have the port in the lounge.
We don't watch sport, catch up or iplayer.
Viewing habbits are changing and we only watch the programs we are genuinely interested in rather than having something on in the background.
It was the realization that the savings can pay for a holiday a year and the fact we didn't watch a lot made us do it.
We have 2 TV's in the house, one in the lounge which has a PC with Kodi on it and one in the games room with just an xbox connected to it.
We do have an aerial on the roof but it is not connected to anything. We don't even have the port in the lounge.
We don't watch sport, catch up or iplayer.
Viewing habbits are changing and we only watch the programs we are genuinely interested in rather than having something on in the background.
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.
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.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/11809201/No-Sc...
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.
https://tv-licensing.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/tv-lic...
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0eNVR3Ar16ZUjk1M...
http://www.thurrockgazette.co.uk/news/9867463.Man_...
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/126190/resp...
Make no mistake; TVL will play dirty in order to get a 'win'.
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.
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.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)
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff