Data Protection and TV Licenses

[5lab]

Ffs. Im Not Complaining About Paying For Breast Cancer I Suggest That People Shouldnt View Tv Licencing Converting Into A Tax Being A Bad Think Just Cos They Wont Use It!

[Russ]

where do u work with these nurses Iraq, suppouse 70,000 dinar ain't to bad.

what nurses get 70,000 a year??

linky for u mate

[joshwa]

you are allowed to own a TV, VCR etc and NOT buy a license so long as you never actually watch TV / recieve TV signal through your equipment...

I've got a TV for playing Videos and playing playstation - I've had the TV license people come round and say it's 100% fine for me to do this. The TV and video are detuned, and there is no functioning aerial in the house...

yet they still haven't managed to update there details at there end - surely that's a breach of the data protection act - because one of the conditions of the data protection act is to make sure the data kept is accurate and up to date!

since it had been a month or more since the TV inspector came round I sent a recorded letter to them... see what happens next.

as further proof that it is okay to own a tv / video and use it for videos (not of TV) - a friend emailed the tv license people and asked, and they said - providing you don't recieve any tv signals, you do not need a license.

Josh
ps - i hate the tv license people!

Keep it on topic chaps!!!

[floppybootstomp]

russ i wasnt winging. i have nothing against paying to help people with breast cancer, even thou i myself will never get it..

Did you not read my post? I know I'm a bit boring at times but...

Let me say this again Men get Breast Cancer as well as women.

Got that? Good. Now, as I said earlier, don't tempt fate. And WTF does it matter where the hell you get cancer? Most of it I'd rather do without, thanks.

[revol68]

why would i join the communist party????? to advance to march of state capitalism.

Anyway this is goin way off thread and im goin to take the heat for it, so if anyone wants a proper debate over alternatives to capitalism instead of repeating cliches and recalling the USSR then lets have another thread.
and what is this righteousness???

i also think people are misunderstanding what i mean by working class

also floppy ive forgot more about the history of the USSR in the time its taken to write this than u know

and i can see more than the wood for the trees i can see u getting a slap u cheeky lil monkey

[5lab]

i know that. breast cancer was a bloody example. i was trying to suggest that just taking the tv licence money out of tax would be a better idea, and those that winge cos they dont use a tv can consider the many other things that your taxes pay for that you dont use. like. FOR INSTANCE. breast cancer. or free condoms. and so on.

[5lab]

josh that what i said - If you use or install television receiving equipment to receive or record television programme services you are required by law to have a valid TV Licence

[floppybootstomp]

revol: yes, it is going off topic, so I'll shut up. I just trying to wind you up fella - worked, didn't it

Go on, start an anarchist/capitalism/working class/middle class/I ain't got no class/goverment brainwashed by TV thread. Yay!

[joshwa]

josh that what i said - If you use or install television receiving equipment to receive or record television programme services you are required by law to have a valid TV Licence

but if you have a TV etc but don't watch TV, then you don't need one - something which the TV license people try and avoid - and continually harrass people unfairly. It used to be much clearer on their website, but they've changed it so that there's no clear information there.

this site's good: http://www.jifvik.org/tv/

here's an official response from a TV license person:

However, if your equipment is not used to receive or record television programmes, please let me know your name and address. I will then make sure our records are changed to show you do not need a television licence.

However, I should advise you to make sure that the television and video are not tuned to receive television broadcasts. It is also advisable to ensure the equipment is not connected to any aerials.

[floppybootstomp]

i know that. breast cancer was a bloody example. i was trying to suggest that just taking the tv licence money out of tax would be a better idea, and those that winge cos they dont use a tv can consider the many other things that your taxes pay for that you dont use. like. FOR INSTANCE. breast cancer. or free condoms. and so on.

OK, one last OT thingie. 5lab, OK, understood, that's a fair point. It's all a matter of context, maybe. What you're saying is we all contribute via taxes to a safety net for society, sortta thing, even though we may never take out what we've paid in for. I really think that's a bit deeper than TV Licensing meself, but, whatever. As I said earlier, TV LIcensing is now handled by a private Agency, who don't work for nothing. They have to pay wages and presumably make a profit. I'm wondering whether that will mean a steeper increase for the Licence fee in the future.

[Ceryndrion]

1. Wether you own/watch a TV or not, if an "enforcement officer" knocks at your door, NEVER EVER let him in. You have no legal obligation to let him into (or on) your property whatsoever, ignore whatever they say and just tell them to get off your property. It's really as simple as that.

2. If you own a TV, but do not have it tuned into any terrestrial channels and not plugged into an ariel, you're safe even if you are STUPID enough to let them in your house. This means owning a TV for playing xbox, DVD's, etc is fine. Even watching pre-recorded VHS tapes is fine, as long as you take note of the first sentence.

3. The "detector vans" are a load of crap, fear tactics. There has never been a case in UK law where Capita (the company that does TV license enforcement) used evidence from a "detector van", in any court, ever.

4. There are a number of very high profile court cases ongoing at the moment, and should any of them win, the TV license will be declared illegal and incompatible with human rights laws. The cases I'm aware of are Jonathan Miller (millionaire sunday times columnist), the "Liverpool Six", Jim Marmot (this guy spent 10 years of his life researching law for the purposes of abolishing the TV license!!!), and some Russian guy.

Further to point #1, the ONLY way a TV license enforcement officer is permitted to enter your premesis is when he is accompanied by at least 1, possibly 2, police officers, and they MUST have a valid search warrant.
In order to obtain a search warrant, they need to provide a judge with EVIDENCE that you are watching TV programs without a license. A detector van is not evidence (see point #3), in fact unless you're stupid enough to actually let them in your house (read: self incrimination), they CANNOT get any evidence. Enjoy

[revol68]

hey russ just worked out the lil link gag very funny must say ...
oh wait it is sad.. or am i missin somethin???

[Allen]

Ahh heck, this is turning into a rather amusing thread!

You gotta laugh... or buy an Uzi and climb a church tower...

[revol68]

actually an uzi from that height would be wasted..... u'd want at least an ak, tho still a bit too much recoil from that distance .... not that ive thought about it...much....

[5lab]

What you're saying is we all contribute via taxes to a safety net for society, sortta thing, even though we may never take out what we've paid in for.

yes!! finally

my other point is that if you just included the licence in tax, you wouldnt have to employ the 3000 people who currently work for the tv licencing place, so would be cheaper. see?

[Rave]

also how do u suggest i stop givin them my money???? stop eating,

You can start by getting as much of your food as you can by bin raiding. I get plenty of perfectly good food from the bins of our local supermarket. The stuff they chuck away is crazy, I once got nine perfectly good cans of Fosters, they chucked them just 'cos the multipack split open.

Rich :¬)