So the television licence?
Discussion
Apart from the recent exemptions for recorded media, its been that same way for decades with TV inspectors doing the rounds of known hotspots.
In previous generations people only really complained about the licence because they were too tight to pay for it.
Now it’s all about sound-bites like ‘invasion of rights’ and ‘greedy corporations’ out to put down the honest man in his own home.
I guess, that’s progress?
In previous generations people only really complained about the licence because they were too tight to pay for it.
Now it’s all about sound-bites like ‘invasion of rights’ and ‘greedy corporations’ out to put down the honest man in his own home.
I guess, that’s progress?
DELETED: Comment made by a member who's account has been deleted.
My opinion is identical and I too only use a TV in conjunction with streaming services (except iPlayer).I filled in the form online about 18 months ago to inform them that my home didn't require a licence and I haven't heard a single thing since nor ever had anyone turn up. It'll be interesting to see if they start following up again in the next year or so.
I've not had a licence since god knows when but the house I'm in now I got 3 visits from different goons in the first year and then nothing for the six years up to now. I can only assume that after the 3 f
k offs they got the message and went on to easier pickings.
All 3 were scruffy tts though, I remember that.
k offs they got the message and went on to easier pickings. All 3 were scruffy t
ts though, I remember that.psi310398 said:
SantaBarbara said:
If you ever buy a new television, the retailer said s obliged to tell the TV licensing agency your name and address
But you are, of course, not obliged to give the vendor your actual name or address
!psi310398 said:
CrutyRammers said:
All irrelevant as it would be a breach of the DPA for the isp to give your details to capita
A bit of while since I studied this but I think that you'll find TV Licensing is one of the public bodies listed in the RIPA schedule allowing them to seek usage data on the written say so of a senior person within the organisation itself, so no.The BBC is a public authority in respect of its television licensing functions and retains overall responsibility but it is not listed. Nor is the government Department which deals with the BBC, the DCMS.
The latter does not feature in Schedule 4 Part 1 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 either.
Red Devil said:
Wrong. It does not appear anywhere in Schedule 1 of RIPA 2000. Indeed it is not possible for TV Licensing to do so because it is not a public body. It is merely a trade mark used by private companies contracted by the BBC to administer the collection of television licence fees and enforcement of the television licensing system trading name. This has been confirmed by a boiler plate paragraph in the BBC's responses to a number of FoIA requests on different topics.
The BBC is a public authority in respect of its television licensing functions and retains overall responsibility but it is not listed. Nor is the government Department which deals with the BBC, the DCMS.
The latter does not feature in Schedule 4 Part 1 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 either.
You're right. I had misremembered. It is not in Schedule 1 but in The Regulation of Investigatory Powers (British Broadcasting Corporation) Order 2001. The BBC is a public authority in respect of its television licensing functions and retains overall responsibility but it is not listed. Nor is the government Department which deals with the BBC, the DCMS.
The latter does not feature in Schedule 4 Part 1 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 either.
theboss said:
DELETED: Comment made by a member who's account has been deleted.
My opinion is identical and I too only use a TV in conjunction with streaming services (except iPlayer).I filled in the form online about 18 months ago to inform them that my home didn't require a licence and I haven't heard a single thing since nor ever had anyone turn up. It'll be interesting to see if they start following up again in the next year or so.
psi310398 said:
Red Devil said:
Wrong. It does not appear anywhere in Schedule 1 of RIPA 2000. Indeed it is not possible for TV Licensing to do so because it is not a public body. It is merely a trade mark used by private companies contracted by the BBC to administer the collection of television licence fees and enforcement of the television licensing system trading name. This has been confirmed by a boiler plate paragraph in the BBC's responses to a number of FoIA requests on different topics.
The BBC is a public authority in respect of its television licensing functions and retains overall responsibility but it is not listed. Nor is the government Department which deals with the BBC, the DCMS.
The latter does not feature in Schedule 4 Part 1 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 either.
You're right. I had misremembered. It is not in Schedule 1 but in The Regulation of Investigatory Powers (British Broadcasting Corporation) Order 2001. The BBC is a public authority in respect of its television licensing functions and retains overall responsibility but it is not listed. Nor is the government Department which deals with the BBC, the DCMS.
The latter does not feature in Schedule 4 Part 1 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 either.
I wonder why that Order appears not to have modified Schedule 1 of RIPA 2000 to include the BBC in the list of Relevant Authorities.I'm guessing that might mean that the BBC and/or their hired help could undertake packet sniffing or obtain access to internet records.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/shortcuts/2016/a...
Quite how they would justify it I'm not sure. If they try it with me they'll find nothing as I don't watch/record any live TV nor watch iPlayer.
As I'm breaking no laws/regulations I'll carry on as before and totally ignore them.
A pity that their detection methods didn't extend to catching Messrs Savile and Hall.
Red Devil said:
I wonder why that Order appears not to have modified Schedule 1 of RIPA 2000 to include the BBC in the list of Relevant Authorities.I'm guessing that might mean that the BBC and/or their hired help could undertake packet sniffing or obtain access to internet records.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/shortcuts/2016/a...
Quite how they would justify it I'm not sure. If they try it with me they'll find nothing as I don't watch/record any live TV nor watch iPlayer.
As I'm breaking no laws/regulations I'll carry on as before and totally ignore them.
A pity that their detection methods didn't extend to catching Messrs Savile and Hall.
The Explanatory Note to the Order says:
"Part II of the 2000 Act provides for the grant of authorisations for certain forms of surveillance. By virtue of section 26(6), the detection of television receivers is not one of the kinds of surveillance regulated by Part II. However, section 47 provides for that Part to be applied, or applied with modifications, to surveillance not otherwise covered. This Order is made under that section, and provides for authorisations to be granted for the detection of television receivers under a modified version of Part II. Authorisations may cover such detection in any part of the United Kingdom.
Article 2 modifies Part II by providing that certain of its provisions are not to apply to the detection of television receivers. Article 3 modifies Part II so that it has effect in relation to such detection as if the “section 27A” set out in that article were inserted in that Part. “Section 27A” provides for authorisations to be granted by persons holding certain positions within the BBC, if they are satisfied that the authorisation is necessary for preventing or detecting certain offences under section 1 or 1A of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949, or for assessing or collecting sums payable in respect of television licences. Article 4 modifies the general rules in section 43 about the grant, renewal and duration of authorisations and provides (in particular) that authorisations for the detection of television receivers are to last for up to eight weeks. Article 5 modifies the duty imposed by section 45 to cancel an authorisation where the requirements that were necessary for its grant or renewal no longer apply."
Re justification, I would also be interested to understand how such intrusive surveillance could be justified both in terms of having enough original suspicion that criminality was taking place and/or its proportionality. Packet sniffing is direct and intrusive surveillance rather than seeking simple historical internet usage records.
This link https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/... goes to the BBC's most recent report. What is interesting is the National Audit Office commentary at the back. It contains a very clear analysis of who needs a TV licence and who doesn't.
among other things, the NAO also claims that the detection equipment TVL uses can detect non-traditional TV viewing i.e. on-line.
mybrainhurts said:
Duty mod...please change the thread title to LICENCE before the whole world thinks we're uneducated.
Or maybe less travel(l)ed? License is the correct American use so while you make a fair point it is 'licence' in the UK, there is some justification for using 'license' when the OP has lived yonks in the USA Could be they eased up the noun v verb rule as .....the television license/licence just does not exist!
I will refer to it as 'licence' now I'm back in the UK
Just to add my four penneth on this, an area I have some experience in.
In about 2009 I moved to a flat and the first letter on the doormat when I loved in was the tv licence demand.
I was aware of the law after some previous encounters, mainly being a friend of mine in a shared house asking me, "where do I give you the money for this" as he handed me a tv licence full amount when we were already paying it! So I did some digging.
The letters started to come thick and fast. I had a tv but no antenna and no adapter. And no intention of ever owning one. Was aware of the not watching tv but not clear on the full law.
After perhaps 5 or 6 letters they tried to pay me a visit, which I obviously ignored as I could do without the hassle. Then, the bombshell. A red letter from them telling me I was breaking the law as I had made a purchase of a tv related product.
This was a real company, based 150 miles away with no proof of the transaction and no real statement that told me what I was doing to break the law.
I had declared by now the personal use for DVD and gaming box online. But this obviously took it to a whole new level. A made up transaction!!
So I sent the whole thing to the licencing people in London, with a bank statement showing no transaction on the date supplied, and received an apology.
The thing is the enforcement people are like parking attendants or debt collectors, they are on commission and this was the case here, they were trying it on!
To present day, I still do not pay but am on borrowed time, so will pay eventually now the rules have changed regarding streaming and things like Iplayer.
But until they can actually source my ISP by flouting data protection laws or do so legally I am going to continue the game...
In about 2009 I moved to a flat and the first letter on the doormat when I loved in was the tv licence demand.
I was aware of the law after some previous encounters, mainly being a friend of mine in a shared house asking me, "where do I give you the money for this" as he handed me a tv licence full amount when we were already paying it! So I did some digging.
The letters started to come thick and fast. I had a tv but no antenna and no adapter. And no intention of ever owning one. Was aware of the not watching tv but not clear on the full law.
After perhaps 5 or 6 letters they tried to pay me a visit, which I obviously ignored as I could do without the hassle. Then, the bombshell. A red letter from them telling me I was breaking the law as I had made a purchase of a tv related product.
This was a real company, based 150 miles away with no proof of the transaction and no real statement that told me what I was doing to break the law.
I had declared by now the personal use for DVD and gaming box online. But this obviously took it to a whole new level. A made up transaction!!
So I sent the whole thing to the licencing people in London, with a bank statement showing no transaction on the date supplied, and received an apology.
The thing is the enforcement people are like parking attendants or debt collectors, they are on commission and this was the case here, they were trying it on!
To present day, I still do not pay but am on borrowed time, so will pay eventually now the rules have changed regarding streaming and things like Iplayer.
But until they can actually source my ISP by flouting data protection laws or do so legally I am going to continue the game...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff