LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksWatching is fine. Recording of any form isn't. Signal of any form isn't.
DVD/ VHS/ CONSOLES are all ok.
Watching is fine. Recording of any form isn't. Signal of any form isn't.
DVD/ VHS/ CONSOLES are all ok.
The TV Licensing Agency are stinking weirdos who should be shot on sight!!!!
In October last year i was moving house. The move was due to happen on the 30th October. So...i phone TV licensing and told them i was moving in two days and to change my license to the new address.
On 29th October (day before the move) a TV Lincense inspector turned up and said i didnt have a license. Of course i did have one but it was transferred to new address the day before. He agreed and left.
3 weeks ago i got a letter from a collection agency as i was fined £175 for not having the license WTF.
I called the court to dispute this and they said i could have the case reheard, and be let off. This wouldve cost me £200 in court fees.
To prove innocence wouldve cost me £25 more than to accept guilt.
The TV licensing people are very stupid and i hope they all get serious, sexually transmitted diseases
Yes. You're receiving TV broadcasts. Same applies to Sky, NTL cable, etc. It's a little trickier if you have non-UK free satellite. It didn't used to need a licence if the material you watched was non-UK in original and with non transmission or editorial control from within the UK, but I seem to remember reading that that changed a year or two back.Originally Posted by gabriel
Not necessarily.
Whether the aerial is plugged in or not isn't the criteria. It's whether you use the set to receive TV broadcasts.
Some sets in a strong signal area will receive despite having no antenna. The picture might be poor, unwatchable even, but it's still received. Also, a tuned set and a set-top antenna in a nearby cupboard is a common attempt at a dodge, but is likely to result in a conviction if you either let inspectors see it, or tgey show up with a warrant and find it, as magistrates are likely too see through the dodge, even if you weren't using it.
So, disconnect the aerial and make sure all stations on the set are detuned. That also applies to detuning any other gear, like video recorders, etc (anything with a tuner in it).
But you do NOT need a licence to watch prerecorded material (like DVDs), or to use the set as a games console, etc.
You'll often see people saying that you need a licence if you have a set CAPABLE of receiving transnissions, and that's how the licencing authorities used to state it, but it is NOT the case. It's the actual receiving, the 'use' of the set to receive that requires the licence. Trouble is, a tuned set and the ability to receive just by plugging a cable in is likely to be seen by magistrates as evidence that you have, and further intend to, receive transmissions. On it's own, unplugging the aerial is not enough to avoid needing the licence.
Moreover, if you had video editing as a hobby, and had a recorder and TV set to allow you to watch your own material, or watch stuff you or mates filmed with a camera, you don't need a licence.
So to point 2), the answer is that the aerial lead, on it's own, is not enough to be sure you do or don't need a licence.
Are you arguing that console use requires a licence, or is it that they periodically pester you despite having told them?
If the former, I'm surprised, because they've publicly confirmed that console use doesn't need a licence.
If the latter, then their argument would probably be that people's use often changes, and that they send periodic reminders in that event. Nonetheless, you should get a period of peace and quiet.
What bothers me, frankly, is not that they keep sending reminders. It's the threatening, bullying nature of the reminders. It's fine sending that when they KNOW people are using unlicenced sets that should be licenced. But to assume that everybody without a licence either uses a set illegally or even has one at all, is a downright flipping liberty, and clear evidence of a highhanded and arrogant mindset.
I'm arguing that Console use, as with DVD PLAYER and VHS PLAYER use do NOT need a licence, and despite informing them this, and offering to have an inspector come and visit, I get letters telling me I'm about to be fined, I'm breaking the law ETC.
It's a draconian tax, and I despise it. BBC America does just great with ads. And the amount of adverts they have on for their OWN programs, they may as well just sell some normal ads. People in other Countries laugh at us, paying for the right to watch TV.
Interesting fact I was told (So it may not be a fact).
If you get a TV and alter it so it is 100% unable to pick up any bbc broadcast, you still need to pay for a TV licence.
Unbelievable.
Not forgetting that the TV license is also paying for the BBC radio stations. Its all to do with them not advertising.
Even if you never watch BBC or listen to their radio stations you still have to pay. Basically we are being taken for as much money as our government see fit, in this case to actually entertain ourselves.
I love it.
And as for other people in other countries, look at how many people comment a) on the quality of BBC programming and b) how much better programs are without adverts
things like 24 are so much better without adverts
plus the BBC licence fee pays for all the radio and the BBC website etc.
Personally I think its a good deal, I get 6 BBC channels I watch (1,2,3,4, News 24 and Parliament - although not very often on the last one) and it is for the most part good quality programming - without the licence fee we would have another ITV which frankly would make me cry
That's my exact point.
You love it? Pay for it.
I don't. Why should I have to?
It'd be simple to do....
Anyone looking for using a TV for console use should go sign up to their local Freecycle and put a wanted ad in for TVs with broken tuners. That way if any Licence people come around you can show them your TV and challenge them to tune it in.
By the way you have to be caught using a TV/VCR/PVR to receive signal to get fined. You could have a house built out of TV's but if they're not on you're not breaking the law. They just try to intimidate people to hide that fact, they can however tell what you're watching from outside without line-of-sight though.
1.21 GIGAWATTS!!!!!
If an inspector does magically come up with a warrant to search, he'd probably give me a hard time to simply having an amplified aerial on the windowsill, & probably wouldn't believe that I use it to tune RADIO. I'd love to see him get BBC1 out of my radio tuner.If you have NO devices capable of receiving a TV signal, you don't pay - but bear in mind, devices can include video/DVD/HDD recorders with tuners built-in etc
Spot on. They should get it into their thick skulls that many people without a TV License don't have one because they don't need one, not because they're breaking the law!You love it? Pay for it.
I don't. Why should I have to?
Every single room in my Uni accomodation (roughly 750 rooms) got a TV license reminder today regardless of whether the occupier already had a license or if anyone even lived there. Nice waste of paper there.
LOL same here
Primary kit:
Fuji S5 Pro - Nikkor AF 50/1.8 - Nikkor AF 85/1.8
Epson RD-1
Film Kit:
Leica M3 - Summicron 50/2 DR - Zeiss ZM 25/2.8 - M-Rokkor 40/2
Olympus OM2n - Zuiko 50/2 Macro - Zuiko 50/1.4 - Zuiko 35/2.8
I get these also, despite living at home...
I'd completely agree that those uses don't need a licence. What surprises me is that, as I read what you say, you're saying that they're saying you do need a licence for that.
I'd be interested to see the actual wording in their letter. Are they saying that IF you're using it to watch or record, etc, then you're breaking the law, or that you MAY be breaking the law, MAY be fined, etc? Or did they say you ARE breaking the law, by doing what you're doing?
I'd completely agree that their letters are often obnoxious, heavy-handed, threatening and bullying in tone, but they're usually quite carefully worded so that the heavyweight impression they give differs from what they actually say which, if you take the emotiveness out out it, boils down to warning you that IF you're breaking the law, then you could face prosecution and fines as a result.
So I'm very interested in the wording of those letters. If they're actually accusing you rather than warning, then as a journalist, I'd be VERY interested in it. It may be, as they say, a story with legs. If, on the other hand, it's the usual carefully couched intimidation, then it's par for the course with them.
Actually the BBC wanted more, the government stopped them raising it even higher. But anyway.
For me though the argument should be about what the money is spent on, rather than the fact the money is required per say. The BBC do need to change a lot of things.
I do understand why people don't like paying it though. It is a odd system for sure. When they cut off analogue the should make everyone require a digital box with a card reader. Thus no one would be able to watch BBC without paying - but would anyone bother?
I have never had any problems with the licensing officers. We got caught after 3 months as students and they let us off. I have never known anyone get in trouble after being caught out, but i know it happens. Students seem to be such easy targets and its usually hard up students that you hear getting done. Yet the the spineless bastards never seem to go into the estates where the hoards of chavs get away with it all the time, and most other things for that matter.
Maybe we should tax Burbury, Stone Island and Rockport boots instead?
To be honest, in a Westcot debt collection style of manner, I believe it's STRONGLY implied as opposed to threatening, tbh the BBC aren't stupid enough to incriminate themelves.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
SCAN.care@HEXUS
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
