Why the license fee is a rip-off

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 17:35:31 +0000, Ian Rawlings
wrote:

On 2007-03-11, :Jerry: wrote:

Judging from the many threads on Usenet, quite a few, those who own
Playstations for example. The problems is, quite rightly IMO,
proving that an installed TV set is not and will not be used to
receive a broadcast signal.

Well, I'm one of them, my "TV" is a large LCD flatscreen plugged into
a computer, DVD player and games console, on which I post to groups
like this, watch stuff downloaded from UK Nova, browse the web, watch
DVDs, play video games etc. TV license bods know this and haven't
bothered me since I wrote to them telling them so. That was well over
a year ago now.

It's hardly a "tax" as people moan on about, as you can unsubscribe to
the service and stop paying just as you can with Sky. The main
difference from Murdoch is that if you do unsubscribe, you still get
the use of many radio channels and one of the best news websites
around.

Unfortunately my missus likes watching coronation street. It's a bit
like paying Sainsburys a £5 every time you shop at Asda.

On 2007-03-11, AlanG wrote:

Unfortunately my missus likes watching coronation street. It's a bit
like paying Sainsburys a £5 every time you shop at Asda.

Get her to pay ;-)

Episodes of corrie etc appear on UKNova and other sites pretty quickly
so it wouldn't stop you, but the license fee is probably saving you an
ear-bashing so don't forget to take that into account!

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 08:13:25 +0000 (GMT), charles
wrote:

In article ,
Alex Heney wrote:

You can own as many TV sets as you like, and you will not need a
licence unless you use one or more of them to receive television
programme services.

It is the reception of those services which requires a licence (or the
act of installing a set for the purpose of receiving those services).

How many people would bother to own a tv set if the don't intend to use it?

Quite a lot will own a TV set without any intention of using it for
licensable purposes.

Some will only ever use it for watching DVDs or videos (pre-recorded
of course).

Others will only use it as a monitor for a games console, or a CCTV
system.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Some people approach every problem with an open mouth
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 08:39:04 -0000, ":Jerry:"
wrote:


"charles" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
Alex Heney wrote:

You can own as many TV sets as you like, and you will not need a
licence unless you use one or more of them to receive television
programme services.

It is the reception of those services which requires a licence (or
the
act of installing a set for the purpose of receiving those
services).

How many people would bother to own a tv set if the don't intend to
use it?


Judging from the many threads on Usenet, quite a few, those who own
Playstations for example. The problems is, quite rightly IMO, proving
that an installed TV set is not and will not be used to receive a
broadcast signal.


Why would that be a "problem"?

You don't *need* to prove any such thing. It is up to TVL to prove
that you *are* using it (or intend using it) for that purpose.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I can walk on water, but I stagger on alcohol.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

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


"Palindrome" wrote in message
m...
:Jerry: wrote:
"charles" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Alex Heney wrote:


You can own as many TV sets as you like, and you will not need a
licence unless you use one or more of them to receive television
programme services.

It is the reception of those services which requires a licence (or
the
act of installing a set for the purpose of receiving those
services).

How many people would bother to own a tv set if the don't intend to
use it?



Judging from the many threads on Usenet, quite a few, those who own
Playstations for example. The problems is, quite rightly IMO,
proving that an installed TV set is not and will not be used to
receive a broadcast signal.
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.


Wrong.

The law says NOTHING about being "able" to receive.

It is only an offence to do so.

And (as always in UK criminal law), it is up to the prosecution to
prove BRD that you did so.



IME, even if silly enough to let one into your property, give a TVL
revenue protection officer a reasonable explanation of why you have
a TV but no licence... no problem.


Have it your way and they will be given powers to force entry in
pursuit of believed criminal activity...


Wrong again.

Sue speaks from experience here, and what is more, they *cannot*
obtain a warrant in those circumstances.

They can only obtain a warrant where they have reasonable grounds for
suspicion that you are using a TV receiver without a licence AND they
believe that entry will be refused without the warrant. If you let
them in, they can't get a warrant.

And AIUI, they apply for VERY few warrants. They won't release exact
numbers under FOIA, claiming that the information is exempt under the
detection or prevention of crime provisions, but from other things I
have seen, I believe the total number per year across the whole
country is of the order of two or three digits (with over 100,000
prosecutions per year for using a TV receiver without a licence).
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
The wise open their minds, but a fool opens his mouth.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 10:56:02 -0000, ":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...

Nope.

It would still be up to the prosecution to convince a jury Beyond
Reasonable Doubt that you *did* use it, not up to you to convince them
you didn't.

You could do with getting a very basic understanding of how criminal
law works in the UK.



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.


Not in the UK.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I've no idea what I'm doing out of bed. - Shadwell
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 11:21:26 +0000, "Anthony R. Gold"
wrote:

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 10:56:02 -0000, ":Jerry:"
wrote:

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

Why bother when even the act of installation required the same licence?


Not necessarily.

If it was installed by a professional TV installer/dealer, then he did
not need a licence to do so.

And once again, if it wasn't such a person, the authorities would have
to prove who did install it, and that they did not have an appropriate
licence in force at the time of installation.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Hindsight is always 20/20.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 10:59:46 -0000, ":Jerry:"
wrote:


"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...


Utter rubbish.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Hindsight is always 20/20.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 12:29:08 -0000, "Bob Smith" [email protected]
wrote:


"Adrian A" wrote in message
news:[email protected] com...
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?

How on earth do you get to that from the above?

Your previous statement *was* bull****.

It is not ownership that matters at all.

The licence is for *use* of the TV set for any of the licensable
purposes.

Watching *any* publicly broadcast TV is one of those purposes, whether
it be BBC, ITV, C4 , Sky, or any other broadcaster which may be in
existence at any time..
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
$$$ not found -- (A)bort (R)efinance (B)ankrupt
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

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

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.

You mis-spelled "month" in the last word of your post :-)
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
$$$ not found -- (A)bort (R)efinance (B)ankrupt
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom