Tv License question....just curious

[barracad]

Well that differs from TVL's own advice which states that the only offence is to actually receive or record broadcasts! I stand corrected. But back to the original point then Buzby's advice is still wrong - simply owning the equipment is not an offence.

[meshi]

Well that differs from TVL's own advice which states that the only offence is to actually receive or record broadcasts! I stand corrected. But back to the original point then Buzby's advice is still wrong - simply owning the equipment is not an offence.

 

I agree, owning it, using it as a monitor, using it as a games console, using it for DVD's is fine as long as the ariel is not connected and the channels have not been tuned in.

[buzby]

What everyone forgets is this isn't a hypothetical issue - an inspector can claim 'reasonable cause' to obtain a conviction. The best one to illustrate this was when the inspector stated on oath that the TV was 'warm to the touch'. In this particular household, there was no other equipment to provide a non-off-air experience. In the case outlined it was still a slam dunk conviction. So you can huff about de-tuning and no TV inspector seeing the image, but this is a CRIMINAL conviction, and as such a judge can decide on the balance of probabilities that the law was indeed being broken.

 

All this is safely avoided by not having a viable tuner. I suggest those that doubt this course of events to spend an afternoon when all the avoidance cases are held - they're normally held en block, with the bulk undefended with the judgement given on the not. Having not had a chance to see the evidence that would be led on each an every case brought in the day, the most usual outcome is the inspector states he viewed a life picture of the householder's set, and when asked no valid TV licence was exhibited.

 

This would appear to be a fast-track to guilty verdict, as things would slow down mightily if there was a challenge based of no picture evident at the time of the call. That said, an important part of the inspector's job appears to be peering through windows, and this is often enough (that, and a rolled up copy of the radio times).

 

As an off-topic aside, what are your thoughts on the recent pursuit of 2 pensioners, who have been deemed responsible for sharing copyrighted games illegally, simply because their IP address (and NOTHING else) seemingly proves they did and they supposedly don't have a leg to stand on - yet this is a civil, NOT criminal matter!

[patdavies]

. So you can huff about de-tuning and no TV inspector seeing the image, but this is a CRIMINAL conviction, and as such a judge can decide on the balance of probabilities that the law was indeed being broken.

 

 

A criminal conviction carries a higher burden of proof - beyond reasonable doubt

[meshi]

A criminal conviction carries a higher burden of proof - beyond reasonable doubt

 

I was going to say the same but buzby sees to have a bee in his bonnet :grin:

[Zamzara]

TV licensing themselves seem to agree (officially, at least) with the general consensus:

 

TV Licensing - TV Licence Information

 

You need a TV Licence to use any television receiving equipment such as a TV set, digital box, DVD or video recorder, PC, laptop or mobile phone to watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV.

[Conniff]

Well that differs from TVL's own advice which states that the only offence is to actually receive or record broadcasts! I stand corrected. But back to the original point then Buzby's advice is still wrong - simply owning the equipment is not an offence.

 

None of the wording is from TVL, it is from the BBC and reproduced by the collection companies (the main collector is Capita Business Services Ltd. and collectively they are known as TVL).

 

The wording is being misread by others, it states:

 

" Part 4 Para 636 (1)

 

A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence."

 

The BBC states very clearly what the licence 'authorises' and what the communications act actually says:

 

By the BBC - Part 4 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to install or use a television receiver to watch or record any television programmes as they're being shown (I'll repeat that - AS THEY ARE BEING SHOWN) on television without a valid TV Licence.

 

 

You need a TV Licence to use any television receiving equipment such as a TV set, digital box, DVD or video recorder, PC, laptop or mobile phone to watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV and FOR NO OTHER REASON.

 

So your original post is correct barracad.

[zebedy1967]

now im more confused than when i asked the question

[barracad]

now im more confused than when i asked the question

 

You don't need a licence to watch iPlayer etc on your PC. If you had a tuner card installed and connected, and used your PC to watch or record live broadcasts then you would need a licence.

[The GodMother]

thanks for clearing that up barra.

[Skintandpennyless]

A criminal conviction carries a higher burden of proof - beyond reasonable doubt

 

Can anyone confirm this please, i`m due in court in 2 days and wasn`t sure if it fell under statute law and wether strict liability applied.

[Zamzara]

Pat is correct. Strict liability means it isn't necessary to show that you intended to break the law for an offence to have been committed.

 

It is still necessary to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the offence occurred.

[Skintandpennyless]

Much appreciated, theres hope for me yet then

[tofwig]

last year the goverment listed this as a tax for the first time. thats all it is and i for one am fed up with it. why cant they do as other channels and every other company has to do, and earn a living.

[Conniff]

last year the goverment listed this as a tax for the first time. thats all it is and i for one am fed up with it. why cant they do as other channels and every other company has to do, and earn a living.

 

It's been a tax since forever and not just classed as one since last year, that is why it is a criminal offence with the maximum penalty of prison and not a civil one.

[robin9342]

It's been a tax since forever and not just classed as one since last year, that is why it is a criminal offence with the maximum penalty of prison and not a civil one.

Technically, you do not go to prison for not paying your licence fee, but you can go to prison for not paying the fine imposed by the court. Its an insidious, unfair tax which should have been abolished years ago. The BBC has nothing different to any other channel. Scrap the TV Tax!

[Beanie1]

Heres the official statement from No.10 regarding the Licence fee

I signed a petition to get rid of it but looks like it will stay for quite a few years yet

 

We received a petition asking:

“We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to abolish the UK TV licence and permit advertising and other means of finance generation to the BBC.”

Details of Petition:

“Independent economic research analysis and investigations by consumer protection organisations such as the National Consumers Council have consistently concluded, for many years, that the UK TV licence is a levy which is regressive in its financial impact on the poor. This gross iniquity is perpetuated in essence by the UK Government upon its most vulnerable citizens. This situation is even more outrageous in an age when the poor may receive only 5 terrestial TV channels, for which the TV licence contributes to the cost of only BBC output, yet the more wealthy within the UK tend to enjoy dozens, or even hundreds of digital or satellite TV channels at comparatively little extra cost to them per channel. This petition accordingly urges the Government to abolish the UK TV licence and allow the BBC to make use of all lawful, reasonable, modern means of capital and revenue generation including share issues, property equity stakes and loans and advertising on BBC TV, radio and internet broadcasts.”

· Read the petition

· Petitions homepage

Read the Government’s response

 

During the latest review of the BBC’s Royal Charter (completed in 2006), the Government considered whether the television licence was still the best way to fund the Corporation. We also sought the views of members of the public on this and other BBC issues as part of the Charter Review consultations. When compared with the alternatives, the television licence fee was widely considered to be the best way to pay for the BBC for the period of the new Charter that is to say until 2016. None of the alternative funding options would enable the BBC to continue to provide its full range of public services while safeguarding the Corporation’s independence. It was therefore agreed that no changes would be made.

We intend to review the scope for alternative funding mechanisms once we have the conclusions of Ofcom’s review of public service broadcasting (due to be completed in 2009).

This will take in account the final costs of switchover and the outcome of the wider review of Public Service Broadcasting (PSB) funding to which the Government committed in the Charter Review White Paper.

Further information about Charter Review and the Green Paper and White Paper consultations are available on the Charter Review website at The BBC Charter Review Website.

[The GodMother]

typical we dont care about your concerns we just want our money.

[Folkiedave]

I have never owned a TV - nor do I want one.

 

As far as I know the offence is to watch simulataneous broadcast so for example I-player does not count.

 

I used to get letters each month - but shortly after I retired I got two in one week and decided to investigate what I could do. I came across the "Implied Right of Access" and withdrew it.

 

Crapita wrote back and said that they accepted the withdrawal of access but reserved the right to catch me by other means.

 

The point is that since then I have not had another letter - I used to get one a month.

 

This man Letters from BBC Television Licensing/intro has a lot to say on it.

[Conniff]

Having never owned one you were in a good position to throw insults back at them with letters like, 'you have to catch me first' and 'did you see what happened on Corrie last night'.

[The GodMother]

what a useful link.

 

They do seem to be going round in circles tho.

[robin9342]

We also sought the views of members of the public on this and other BBC issues as part of the Charter Review consultations.

Oh, really. And which members of the public were they then?? Certainly not representative of a general cross section of the population who would like to see the licence gone

[The GodMother]

robin

 

I can safely say that i was never sent a questionairre or very telephoned about a questionairre regarding tv licences. If i had done they would not have had enough time or space for my replies.

[robin9342]

Indeed, the cynic in me says they were probably BBC or TVL employees

[The GodMother]

yep probably were. Well there still getting no money outter me as i refuse to pay for a licence when i dont watch TV.