OT: "Do I need a TV licence"

[Rob Morley]

True.

[:::Jerry::::]

Well strictly speaking you would need to buy a TV licence.

[:::Jerry::::]

Well I suggest you read the said act PDQ if you do think that because you couldn't be more wrong.

[Andrew Chesters]

That defines a TV reciever, not nesseceraly what you need a licence for. Does the act require, explicitly, a licence to posess a TV (in whatever guise)? Or does it require a licence TO RECEIVE OR RECORD? You have put in the relevent part in quotes (licencing of TV reception).

[Roger]

The message from T i m contains these words:

IIRC the law in question had no road safety implications but was purely a fiscal measure to punish those who bought the much cheaper vans to use as private cars in the pre VAT days when commercial vehicles escaped the punitive purchase tax levied on cars.

[:::Jerry::::]

You shouldn't put anything in quotes, you need to read the whole paragraph.

Meaning of "television receiver" 9. - (1) In Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV reception), "television receiver" means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose.

It is quite clear, if the equipment is install or used it needs to be licensed [second line of the quote] ... regardless if it is used to receive a broadcast service or not [last full line].

OTOH If the equipment can't receive (ie. the tuner has been removed or permanently disabled and thus it is in effect an AV monitor) then it can't be used to receive a broadcast service even though it is installed.

If it depended just on 'use' the inclusion of the last full line is totally pointless, also the second line would read 'installed and used'.

[:::Jerry::::]

But it would not stop them detecting the use of an unlicensed TV...

[T i m]

Oh indeed .. but this one was over 10 years old (therefore wouldn't carry any duty if converted to a 'Multipurpose Vehicle') and was used (mainly) by me to lug stuff about .. like a van .. ;-(

Oh well ..

All the best ..

T i m

[Dave]

You don't need a licence if you don't watch TV, but you do if you record it and watch later.

pre-recorded

That's fine, but see below.

They do have to prove that you were watching a transmitted signal before they can issue a summons. They can do this by using a monitoring system, like the one they have in a detector van, or look at your TV set to see what they know to be a live broadcast. Anyone who does not have a TV has the ability to watch TV :-) They go out and buy one. The offence comes when they watch TV.

To have a TV 'installed', requires that it be capable of being powered up and capable of being connected to any aerial, or live TV service, that is available. Satalite, cable etc.

Yes, you are right on this point.

You only require a licence to receive a TV signal from whatever outside means that is available from that address. There is no onus on you to prove that you cannot receive a signal from any source at that address, therefore the prosecutor's case falls flat.

Note, you can have a receiver that is capable of TV reception, The prosecution has to put forward a cast iron case that you _did_ receive a signal from a source that is licensable Note also. The onus is on the prosecution to prove that you were receiving a signal to your TV before they can secure a conviction against you. Even if you have a TV plugged up to a video or CD player, but no aerial, you should not get any summons for this set-up. Note. If you have ever had a licence before, for this apparatus, then look forward to lots of letters bombarding you with threats of prosecution for not having a current licence. Chuck them all in the bin and when the detector men come knocking on your door, give them as hard a time as you can. If they cant detect you watching anything live, they don't have a leg to stand on.

By the way, you do not have to let them onto your property. watch out for them trying to do this and block them out.

I assume you meant to say plug here, as this is a vital attribute to this argument for students away from home. More later, if needed.

No. It has to be installed. By law, this means that it is powered at the property and has an aerial connected to it. Un-install the aerial to the system and show that it is only for use to watch videos and DVDs, then you do not require a licence.

Students away from home may watch TV provided it is operated by batteries. Quite where this stands when the TV is plugged into the mains to charge those batteries is a legal nightmare.

Dave

Reading the WTA 1949 as appended through the years.

[:::Jerry::::]

Not very well by the looks of it...

[John Rumm]

So why do the licensing people themselves tell you this is not the case?

[John Rumm]

Would you care to take it up with them if you believe their web site is wrong then?

I can read it fine thanks. I just interpret it differently to you. I am happy with my interpretation.

Also there is legal precedent to support my interpretation.

[John Rumm]

And many thousands of lawyer hours are then expended trying to work our what the hell the muppets were on when they wrote it...

[Rob Morley]

But if they can't produce evidence that you are receiving a broadcast programme then you don't need to worry about being detected.

[T i m]

So, you buy a set and leave it in its box in the loft (or have a PC TV capture card on the shelf) and you are fine?

There is no doubt that neither the above are 'installed', but according to some of the interpretations that isn't the issue as you

*could* install them at any time (which is of course true, but at that point a responsible person would also get a licence?).

I have a car and *could* speed but they don't give me a ticket till I do (or till they *catch* me speeding more's the point )?

My mate has no TV and therefore no licence. The PO's of the house did have both. The licensing people can't seem to understand that he could possibly survive without one and keep sending someone round to check (he's always at work when they turn up).

I thought we were innocent till proven guilty?

All the best ..

T i m

[Stefek Zaba]

Chortle!

The days when Bill Drafting Teams were actually capable of rendering this kind of unambiguous prose are long since gone. The sheer volume of knne-jerk legislation passed in recent years in response to the Politician's Syllogism (Something must be done; This is Something; ergo, we shall do This) means that at least a substantial minority - quite possibly a majority - of even primary legislation (Bills) is sloppily drafted, usually erring well on the side of being overbroad. It's worsened again by the increasing use of primary legislation which just sets up broad powers, which are then specified in detail by secondary ligislation (Orders In Council, Regulations, and other such flummery), which goes through without examination or comment by anyone remotely competent.

At some point, organic waste matter hits the HVAC installation, some judge somewhere will pick up the mess of verbiage with a deep sigh, and will make some sort of attempt to come to a decision consistent with the wording of the statutes and established case law if possible. If not, they may moan in their judgment about the quality of the legislation - more likely they'll just have a whine to colleagues over a good port and look forward to their well-funded retirement. (Sigh).

Specifically to this Act which :::Jerry::: (Zen and the Art Of Bill Interpretation? no, one colon too few) is trying to read for us: I'm afraid :::Jerry:::'s reading it wrong(ly). The words are, once again, Meaning of "television receiver" 9. - (1) In Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV reception), "television receiver" means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose.

It's :::Jerry:::'s contention that 'installed or used for the purpose of receiving' should be construed as: any apparatus (i) installed, or (ii) used for the purposes of receving... telivision programme service

Whereas drafting convention, the specific advice rendered by the unlovely sharks at Centrica-masquarading-as-TVLA, and specific case rulings, all go to show that the meaning is: any apparatus (i) installed, or (ii) used for the purposes of receiving... television programme service

Do you see the critical difference, :::Jerry:::? Both 'installed' and 'used' qualify 'for the purposes of receiving...'. Mere installation is

*NOT* sufficient for apparatus to be a "television receiver". It has to be installed WITH THE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING ... ANY TELEVISION PROGRAMME SERVICE". If it's installed as a space-heater, an abstract art installation, or as room decoration, it does *not* need a licence.

The last part of the sentence, 'whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose', says that if there are ADDITIONAL purposes for the use or installation, they don't remove the need for a licence for equipment which IS used-or-installed with the purpose, among other purposes, of TV reception. Thus, watching DVDs *as well* as receiving TV broadcasts does *not* remove the need for a licence: the equipment need not be used EXCLUSIVELY for TV reception in order to need a licence. But it ONLY requires a licence if, among the many hundreds of purposes for its use-or-installtion, is included the 'receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service'. Equipment used SOLELY for any myriad of OTHER purposes does NOT need a licence.

The chances of :::Jerry::: abandoning his crusade to teach us all what the statute requires are, of course, negligible. But since he blusters so loudly, I offer this small counterblast of reason to reassure our many viewers that repetition alone does not make right, that the world is only *slowly* taking leave of its senses, and that logic, while bruised, is not yet out for the count...

Stefek

[Stefek Zaba]

With burnt offerings to the Cabal, I follow up my own posting... where I have

pedantry demands it should have been cast as

"But it requires a licence ONLY if, among the many hundreds of purposes..."

;-)

[Huge]

Not so far as the TVLRO is concerned.

[Christian McArdle]

You are not required to disable it, though, so you needn't give a toss whether they consider it disabled or not.

Christian.

[Dave Baker]

Yes, it's abundantly clear, except it seems to you, and has been done to death in uk.legal over the years. You need a license if..

1) You have equipment 'installed' such that it is capable of receiving broadcast television. i.e. something unpacked, assembled, connected to power and ariel or cable that is capable of receiving a broadcast signal even if it is not being 'used' to watch such a signal when they visit you. If you can receive a signal without an ariel then this is still installed.

OR

2) You 'use' said equipment to receive broadcast tv even if it is not 'installed' when they visit you. However, this would require other proof of use prior to their visit which in practice means you have to be stupid enough to sign something for them admitting to such.

3) Even if you claim your main or only use is something other than receiving broadcast tv (pc monitor, watching dvds etc) then you still need a license if the equipment meets the conditions in 1 or 2 above. i.e you've been stupid enough to connect an ariel or can receive a broadcast signal without one even though you only watch pre-recorded dvds.

Can you be done solely on the evidence of a detector van or the word of a tv inspector who says he saw a tv being used through the window? No. This is not sufficient proof for the courts. The van might have detected a signal from another house or you might have been watching a dvd. You have to let them in to examine the equipment (which you don't need to) and sign an admission (which you don't need to).

Do you need to disable ariel sockets or tuner capabilities? No, unless you live in such a strong signal area that you can receive broadcast tv without an ariel. In that case just detune every channel so that it doesn't receive a broadcast signal - just the noise between channels.

In practice just don't let them in. They only have right of entry with both a warrant and a police officer in attendance. The court fees are too expensive to make this practical for them. Even if they turn up with both just unplug the tv (or cut the plug off) and the ariel before letting them in.

If you don't have a tv, or a tv installed or used as described above, then by all means let them in but they'll only stop pestering you briefly and then the letters will start up again.