Why the license fee is a rip-off

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 10:04:04 -0000, ":Jerry:"
wrote:

Erm, the law rather requires that TVL proves, brd, that there was
intended or actual use of the set to receive broadcast signals. The
owner/user has no need to prove, or disprove, anything.

Oh yes they do, if you have an installed TV set you are able to use it
to receive, QED - unless you prove otherwise.

This is silly. In my kitchen drawer I have installed several sharp
knives, and am therefore able to use them to stab people to death
unless I prove otherwise, yet I don't expect to be accused of murder.

The law, thankfully, works the other way round, and puts the burden of
proof on whoever wants to accuse me of doing something wrong.


You are right about the law, of course, but please tell that to TVL! Have
you ever had a phone call from the authorities asking what use you put your
knives to? Or aggressively written letters telling you of the penalties for
using knives illegally; or even the police coming round asking to have a
look at the contents of your kitchen drawer so that they can check for
illegal use? I suspect not , but the equivalent happens as a matter of
routine when it comes to the licence fee.

Regards,
Arfur

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 10:04:04 -0000, ":Jerry:"
wrote:

Erm, the law rather requires that TVL proves, brd, that there was
intended or actual use of the set to receive broadcast signals.
The
owner/user has no need to prove, or disprove, anything.

Oh yes they do, if you have an installed TV set you are able to use
it
to receive, QED - unless you prove otherwise.

This is silly. In my kitchen drawer I have installed several sharp
knives, and am therefore able to use them to stab people to death
unless I prove otherwise, yet I don't expect to be accused of
murder.

But if there was a stabbing in or around your house you may well have
to prove that you didn't use one of the knives... You own the knife,
your finger prints are on the handle, the victim was on your property,
unless the bird can prove it isn't a duck even though it has web feet
and quacks...


The law, thankfully, works the other way round, and puts the burden
of
proof on whoever wants to accuse me of doing something wrong.


But the proof is that the set is installed, you need to prove that you
don't use it to receive a broadcast signal.

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in
message ...
snip

That's irrelevant. The licence is for *using* a TV set. It's still
perfectly legal to own one (or a dozen) without a licence.

As long as they are not installed, so yes if they are up in the loft,
don't have plugs fitted or have their receiving circuit disabled...

:Jerry: wrote:
"Roderick Stewart" wrote in
message ...

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 10:04:04 -0000, ":Jerry:"
wrote:


Erm, the law rather requires that TVL proves, brd, that there was
intended or actual use of the set to receive broadcast signals.
The
owner/user has no need to prove, or disprove, anything.

Oh yes they do, if you have an installed TV set you are able to use
it
to receive, QED - unless you prove otherwise.

This is silly. In my kitchen drawer I have installed several sharp
knives, and am therefore able to use them to stab people to death
unless I prove otherwise, yet I don't expect to be accused of
murder.


But if there was a stabbing in or around your house you may well have
to prove that you didn't use one of the knives... You own the knife,
your finger prints are on the handle, the victim was on your property,
unless the bird can prove it isn't a duck even though it has web feet
and quacks...


The law, thankfully, works the other way round, and puts the burden
of
proof on whoever wants to accuse me of doing something wrong.



But the proof is that the set is installed, you need to prove that you
don't use it to receive a broadcast signal.


Unfortunately the law generally considers it necessary that there is
some evidence of a crime having taken place, rather than just evidence
that one could.

It is not an offence to have an installed tv set, without a licence.

It is not even an offence to install a tv set without a licence, if the
purpose of the installation is other than to receive broadcast tv.

It is not an offence to use a tv set without a licence, for purposes
other than receiving broadcast tv.

There is no legal requirement to de-install or partially disable an
installed tv set in order to use it for other purposes than receiving
broadcast tv.

From personal experience with TVLA revenue protection officers, it is
not necessary to *prove* anything. At most, all you need to provide is a
reasonable explanation as to why you have an installed tv, but no
licence. In my case, it was because the tv had been provided and
installed by my landlord as part of a furnished flat. My "reasonable
explanation" was simply that I did not use it and had no intention of
using it. No problem.

--
Sue

In message ews.net,
":Jerry:" writes

"Chris Morrison" wrote in message
...
snip total claptrap

WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE BRITAIN!!!!!!


After you sir, you are in more need....




If everyone involved in this thread were to do a Google newsgroup
search, you could all read this same discussion which takes place every
year.
--
Ian

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 11:21:53 +0000, Ian wrote:

If everyone involved in this thread were to do a Google newsgroup
search, you could all read this same discussion which takes place every
year.

No, every month :-(

--
Alan White
Mozilla Firefox and Forte Agent.
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Lochs Long and Goil in Argyll, Scotland.
Webcam and weather:- http://windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/weather

Alan White wrote:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 11:21:53 +0000, Ian wrote:


If everyone involved in this thread were to do a Google newsgroup
search, you could all read this same discussion which takes place every
year.


No, every month :-(

Which is rather interesting, in its own right.

Clearly there is a significant proportion of the population who are
misinformed about tv licencing law. Which is quite amazing for a law
which directly affects almost the whole population.

The literature that I used to receive from TVL did little to inform and
looked almost designed to mislead and misinform.

The attitude of TVL is that every house without a licence is almost
certainly breaking the law. It is no wonder that people seem to feel
that they have to prove that they aren't.

--
Sue

"Adrian A" wrote in message
om...
Bob Smith wrote:

The license fee is for owning a tv set, not for access to any of the
content.

Bull****!


So if you use a TV to watch only ITV, you expect to not have to pay the
licence fee?

Bob

Bob Smith wrote:
"Adrian A" wrote in message
om...
Bob Smith wrote:

The license fee is for owning a tv set, not for access to any of the
content.

Bull****!


So if you use a TV to watch only ITV, you expect to not have to pay
the licence fee?

Bob

You're a moron!

"Anthony R. Gold" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 00:20:38 -0000, "Bob Smith" [email protected] wrote:

The license fee is for owning a tv set, not for access to any of the
content.

Does your TV Licence (or any you have seen) state that it permits the
holder to own a TV set? Maybe yours is different from all the others.

OK, I meant *using* the TV set to receive broadcast TV signals. It does not
matter which channels you watch, you still have to pay it is what I meant.

It still makes me laugh remembering the idiot in Sainsbury's trying to get
me to fill out a TV licence form for a DVD player.

Bob