JonathanL Posted July 7, 2013 Report Share Posted July 7, 2013 (edited) What if you watch sky go on a device in your house from your mums sky account ? , is that covered by her licence as its her sky accountIt is covered as it covers TV usage by anyone who is normally resident at that address. I think it's the same situation which applies to caravans though so you cannot use a TV in both locations at the same time. J. Edited July 7, 2013 by JonathanL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overandunder2012 Posted July 8, 2013 Report Share Posted July 8, 2013 It is covered as it covers TV usage by anyone who is normally resident at that address. I think it's the same situation which applies to caravans though so you cannot use a TV in both locations at the same time. J. cant be bothered to read back threw it all so i will just ask, do you have a tv licence jonathan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunnerbob Posted July 8, 2013 Report Share Posted July 8, 2013 You require a tv licence to operate a television receiver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted July 8, 2013 Report Share Posted July 8, 2013 cant be bothered to read back threw it all so i will just ask, do you have a tv licence jonathan? Why would you ask? I mean, of what relevance is it to what we are discussing? J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overandunder2012 Posted July 8, 2013 Report Share Posted July 8, 2013 Why would you ask? I mean, of what relevance is it to what we are discussing? J. you seem sure you dont need one but are you sure enough that you got rid of yours? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted July 8, 2013 Report Share Posted July 8, 2013 you seem sure you dont need one but are you sure enough that you got rid of yours? I haven't said that you don't need a TV licence. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overandunder2012 Posted July 8, 2013 Report Share Posted July 8, 2013 (edited) I haven't said that you don't need a TV licence. J. well thats all been a bit of a waste of time then lol so what was the point you were trying to make if not getting rid of the licence? i must have missed something Edited July 8, 2013 by overandunder2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted July 9, 2013 Report Share Posted July 9, 2013 well thats all been a bit of a waste of time then lol so what was the point you were trying to make if not getting rid of the licence? i must have missed something Jonathan was replying to the OP. It was he who was asking, not Jonathan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overandunder2012 Posted July 9, 2013 Report Share Posted July 9, 2013 Jonathan was replying to the OP. It was he who was asking, not Jonathan. ok fair point my apologies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boromir Posted August 28, 2013 Author Report Share Posted August 28, 2013 Well TV licencing came to my door today and asked if I was Mr B, I know I didnt have to give any info or let him in the house to check around but I wasnt worried as im hiding nothing, but he did see my 42" television and thought he was onto a winner, but no tv box or aeriel was connected . He then said I should not receive anymore letters(again). And I dont miss watching TV one bit I tell you. You should all try it some day and save yourself some £££. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeds chimp Posted August 28, 2013 Report Share Posted August 28, 2013 Well TV licencing came to my door today and asked if I was Mr B, I know I didnt have to give any info or let him in the house to check around but I wasnt worried as im hiding nothing, but he did see my 42" television and thought he was onto a winner, but no tv box or aeriel was connected . He then said I should not receive anymore letters(again). And I dont miss watching TV one bit I tell you. You should all try it some day and save yourself some £££. less than £15 a month for all the services they give....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boromir Posted August 28, 2013 Author Report Share Posted August 28, 2013 But I wasnt watching hardly any tv for at least 3 months before I stopped paying them, so why should I pay for something Im not using. Also at least my money wont be going towards £1million stunt in eastenders or wages for corrupt executives pedo's and biased views of the BBC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney86 Posted August 28, 2013 Report Share Posted August 28, 2013 I occasionally watch things on iPlayer. If you try to watch a live (or nearly live) broadcast, a box pops up asking "do you have a TV license?". If you click no, it reminds you that you shouldn't be watching it. Everything else is freely available. I don't have a license. The licensing people confirmed that what I do is ok (although I later changed my story to "I dont watch anything, ever" because they kept pestering me!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted August 29, 2013 Report Share Posted August 29, 2013 less than £15 a month for all the services they give....... It isn't a 'service' (in my opinion) if you have no choice about paying it simply because you wish to use other peoples genuine services instead. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timps Posted August 29, 2013 Report Share Posted August 29, 2013 You do NOT have to prove your innocence. They have to prove that you were breaking the law by watching TV without a licence. There is no need to detune your set. If you don't switch it on then you are not engaging in a licensable activity. If the man from Capita comes round and switches your telly on then he will commit thw offence not you! J. As usual with the law it's not black and white. It's the legal definition of use that is the issue. The court can "draw the necessary inference in the absence of some credible explanation by the defendant to the effect that it was not being used" So basically if the court believes your explanation of why you have a working TV sat in you living room without the intention of using it you get off, if not they can draw inference that you were actually using it just by the fact is was there. So just because they don't see you use it only weakens their case but they still have a case due to the precedence below. The fact you have a TV capable of receiving live TV gives them a case which they may or may not win but still a case none the less. Rudd v. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry: APPENDIX Judgement in the appeal of Rudd vs. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, 4/6/87 This legal precedent is important because TV Licensing rely on it to obtain convictions in apparent contradiction of the Wireless Telegraphy Act. The Act is widely mentioned in their literature, but this precedent is a well-kept secret! The judgement hinges on the meaning of the word "use" as applied in the Act. Bear in mind that throughout we are talking about "use for receiving broadcasts", not use of the TV for any other purpose. The Wireless Telegraphy Act states: "No person shall establish or use any station for wireless telegraphy or instal or use any apparatus for wireless telegraphy except under the authority of a licence in that behalf granted by the Secretary of State, and any person who establishes or uses any station for wireless telegraphy except under and in accordance with such a licence shall be guilty of an offence under this Act." Mr Rudd was caught running a pirate radio station, and successfully argued that his tapes and records should not be confiscated since they were not being "used" at the time of the offence. The Secretary of State appealed against this decision, arguing that they were "available for use" and that this amounted to the same thing. The Law Lords disagreed, stating: "There may well be circumstances in which, for example, a television set may be available for use in a person's house, and yet he may have no intention to use it and so may not license it. Thus he may be about to go away from home at the time when the licence expires, and not intend to renew the licence until he returns home. It is difficult to see why in such circumstances he should be convicted for an offence under section 11 on the ground only that the set was available for use and unlicensed. Furthermore there are other sections in the Act in which the word "use" appears, which indicate that the word is used in its ordinary sense when creating offences under the Act ... (There followed two examples of the usage of the word "use" in the Act.) ... In my opinion, both these provisions, having regard to their context, employ the word "uses" in its ordinary sense, and not in the sense of meaning "has available for use". I can see no reason for concluding that the word "use" as employed in relation to the offence created by section 1(1) of the Act should be understood in any different sense. Indeed, to construe the words "use" or "uses" in any of these sections as having the broad meaning "has available for use" would be in conflict with the principle that words in a statute creating a criminal offence should, if ambiguous, be given a narrow rather than a broad construction." At this point you might think that under the Wireless Telegraphy Act this means that merely possessing an unlicensed TV (i.e. having it available for use) would not be an offence, and that TV Licensing would therefore have to catch an offender actually in the act of using it to receive a broadcast to bring a successful prosecution. But read on! "I recognise that this conclusion may create problems for the enforcing authorities in so far as it means that they cannot simply rely upon the fact that the relevant apparatus was available for use. They will, I fear, have to go further and will if necessary have to persuade the court to draw the inference that the apparatus in question was used by the defendant during the relevant period. But I trust and believe that if, for example, a television set in working order is found in the sitting room of a house occupied by the defendant, it will not be difficult for a court to draw the necessary inference in the absence of some credible explanation by the defendant to the effect that it was not being used." This last paragraph is just an example by the judge to illustrate his point, and is not as precisely phrased as the main judgement. However, TV Licensing may try to take it out of context and construe it as meaning that possessing any unlicensed TV is automatically an offence. If they try to prosecute on this basis, you should point out that they still have to persuade the court to draw the inference that it was being used to receive broadcasts. A TV set "in working order" here presumably means one which has been installed to receive broadcasts, i.e. connected to an aerial and tuned in to a local station. If the set were connected to a video recorder, for example, rather than an aerial, and especially if the tuner were also de-tuned, this would surely be a "credible explanation to the effect that it was not being used" (to receive broadcasts), and so would not constitute an offence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silver pigeon69 Posted August 29, 2013 Report Share Posted August 29, 2013 this link below is from "The Times" newspaper about the BBC stating that over 400,000 people have used the catchup tv reason to not have a licence! and are NOT breaking the law! http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/medianews/article3792665.ece Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timps Posted August 29, 2013 Report Share Posted August 29, 2013 It's only live broadcasts you can be done for, not catch up TV, DVD or games console. However people have been prosecuted for watching online. As I said it is whether the court believes you or not. People have been fined and people have got off, if your tv is incapable of receiving live TV you will get off, if can receive both you COULD get done there have been successful prosecutions and successful defence it's how convincing you are. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/8219280/Online-viewers-prosecuted-for-not-paying-TV-licence.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Livefast123 Posted August 29, 2013 Report Share Posted August 29, 2013 (edited) It's about time they scrapped the whole thing anyway and let the Beeb fight it out in the real world.......but then who would pay for stars to go to glorious locations with 5 star accommodation and execs huge pensions. Edited August 29, 2013 by Livefast123 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tedster Posted August 29, 2013 Report Share Posted August 29, 2013 Or for nonse cases to have their own, private, grooming suites! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRNDL Posted August 29, 2013 Report Share Posted August 29, 2013 I am thinking that if that knock on the door arrives and you answer with "no comment " to all questions and then remove all access rights for the company how do they then gain entry to your residence and check the legality or set up of your television and connections without legal access?? Or after a couple of visits then be on your toes to change over the cables if need be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velocette Posted August 29, 2013 Report Share Posted August 29, 2013 Has anyone actually been successfully prosecuted solely on "detector van " evidence ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old rooster Posted August 30, 2013 Report Share Posted August 30, 2013 All interesting stuff! There is a widespread rebellion in the UK against paying the TV licence fee on principle, for many of the reasons expressed in this thread. The fine is up to £1,000 but statistics show that the average is more like £100 and that most people who've paid the fine have done so having watched their TV without a licence for a couple of years so it could be viewed (no pun intended) as a risk worth taking. They don't arf send you a lot of letters though! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aris Posted August 30, 2013 Report Share Posted August 30, 2013 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10256679/TV-licence-offences-account-for-one-in-ten-UK-court-cases.html I wonder if this is true. Is non-payment a criminal offence? If so, would it affect getting a firearms license? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted August 30, 2013 Report Share Posted August 30, 2013 Its a criminal record so you would have to declare it but I can't see it counting against you much Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twistedsanity Posted August 30, 2013 Report Share Posted August 30, 2013 Has anyone actually been successfully prosecuted solely on "detector van " evidence ? Nope, never , look on the licencing fee crooks own website and there is an FAQ section where they have had to respond to questions under the Freedom of Information act , there has never been a prosecution using detector van evidence . The question of how do detector vans work was granted exemption from the FOI act by a judge which is also on their website . In order to successfully prosecute somebody using detector van evidence in a court they would have to make the workings and evidence by the the equipment available to the defence to scrutinise ( just like Gatso's and hand held speed cameras) , its difficult to tell a court how something that doesn't exist works hence no prosecutions ever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.