OT : TV licensing - must I compy? - Page 12

Sickle" harvey.news@ntlworld.com says...
<snip>

That's not true.  A TV license guy came to a house I was sharing,
there was a TV in plain view of the front window, but it wasn't
plugged in and it wasn't within reach of the aerial cable - I told
him we didn't use it and he was happy when I pointed out that it
wasn't hooked up.

Harvey Van Sickle wrote:


No, you don't have to, but it helps destroy their case.

Otherwise its your word against theirs, and most likely any magistrate
will feel that you should have one. very few magistrates know the law.

You could take it to a high court of course, but that is expensive.

Kalico wrote:

This topic is an old chestnut in uk.legal (or is it u.l.moderated?)  I
gather that if you do ever manage to convince the buggers that you don't
have a TV, the absence of ever-more-threatening letters is only abated
for a relatively brief period, then they assume that the 'status' will
have changed, and the whole sorry saga starts again.

Somebody on u.l. who was well-experienced with dealing with these people
    (and who seemed to know what they were talking about) was proferring
the advice that not only should you never invite them in to see the
absence of a TV, but that it was vital not to even speak to them - just
shut the door on them. Have to say I didn't quite see the relevance or
significance of that!

On a different tack... when I was doing a house conversion recently, I
had to set up a completely new address via the local council, who then
registered it with Royal Mail's postcode database. It took no more than
a few weeks before I started getting TV license letters at the address
(despite the fact that it was no more than a building site).

One thing that particularly hacks me off is that they invite you to to
contact them in the event you don't have a TV, but expect you to cover
the cost of writing or phoning.  (So I didn't; they went in to the skip
by the acore).

David

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 18:14:16 GMT, Lobster


No need to, just scribble 'NO TV' across the reminder in big letters,
and send it off without a stamp. Evidently it gets to the other end :)

cheers,
Pete.

wrote:


But why should you?


Replace 'spam' with 'org' to reply

--
geoff

Lobster wrote:


Little bro's been chased for a TVL for years, in the end he gave my sons
his playstation, his mate his DVD player and tv and watches videos on
his security recorder and monitor.
At work they keep chasing as we have antennas on the roof, for vhf and
uhf research, even when pointing at 'amsats they think your watching TV.

Anything you say will be taken down and maybe used in evidence against
you....

ISTR on that discussion that most people who are done  admitted it themselves and
nobody had
actually been convicted on detection evidence.

wrote:



Another UL from US type of legal stuff.

In English law :-

"You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you
do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in
Court.  Anything you do say may be given in evidence."

You still retain exactly the "right of silence" as previously, but now
if you do not answer a question, a court may now draw an inference
from your refusal to answer a question that you may have something to
hide, or that you may  rely on subsequent  "advice".

The whole idea of an "interview" is to establish facts, for or
against, an accusation of an offence. Indeed, an interview is your
chance to prove yourself innocent!

--
Frank Erskine

Frank Erskine wrote:


"To prove yourself innocent", Frank? Funny, I thought the basis for most
criminal charges was that it was the *prosecution's* job to prove the
accused guilty. To a standard of "beyond reasonable doubt, moreover.

Yes, there are "strict liability" offences - failure to display a valid
road-fund licence disc (or whatever they're called this year) is one
such. The attempt by the TV licencing people to create the impression
that merely being a householder requires possession of a TV licence is
what we're objecting to in this thread...

Lobster wrote:


I rebuilt my house and lived somewhere else for a while, so din';t
bother to renew the license during the rebuild.

I bought a new telly and gave the old address as I assumed it was for
huarante etc.

Letters started arriving and continued sporadically for 18 months. All
went in the bin.

No one ever turned up to check, or if they did they went away again.

Last time I heard they have no authority to enter uninvited so you are at
liberty to tell them to piss off. Unless your set is actually operating at
the time of calling it won't be radiating anything for their detector to
pick up and I can't see them turning up at 11pm
(I could be wrong)

This was discussed recently on another NG.
Tell them, once, that you do not have TV receiving equipment installed.
Ignore any further correspondance.
If they turn up, tell them to sod off. They have no right of entry without a warrant,
which they are
highly unlikely to get.

 

wrote:


warrant, which they are

I have not had a TV for fifteen years. Every couple of years they send
a piece of paper and I write NO TV on it and send it back. When I
changed address their (new) response to the NO TV comment was that
they would be coming to check up on me. One year later they haven't
done so and I wouldn't let them through the door if they did. I could
be fantasising, but I believe that a track record of NO TV is worth
establishing

Anna

             ~~            Anna Kettle, Suffolk, England  
 |""""|    ~                   Lime plaster repairs
 / ^^ \ //    Freehand modelling in lime: overmantels, pargeting etc
 |____|                 www.kettlenet.co.uk   01359 230642

They are paranoid.


That is fine. Unless there is any way that either TV can be connected to any
means of receiving a signal.
If there is a socket there that could connect to a transmitted TV signal,
then remove that option.
The receiving of a signal is the most important aspect of this. If you have
no means of receiving, you don't need a licence.


They are getting increasingly more paranoid, keep up the good work.  :-))


First, ask yourself, did they ask you if you have a television installed? If
the answer is no, then why tell them. If they did ask the question, you are
under no obligation to tell them. See the WTA

The letters are designed to frighten those that have a television installed
into buying a licence. They just assume that all households have a TV
plugged up and ready to receive.

When you buy a TV, the seller should send into the govmint of TV licensing,
your name, address, postcode etc. Some do, the greedy don't  ;-)

I went to buy a free view box at Asda last week and they asked me to fill in
a form for the WTA 1949 to let them sell me one. I refused and went to Tesco
and bought one without question at the checkout. This form was to tell the
retailer that I had bought a device that was capable of receiving a TV
signal.
Talk about a Nanny state  :-((((((((


No, but the authorities would like it that way and run the system so that
we, the consumer, think that is the way it is.


We (my family) went through a time that we got totally bored with the
program content of TV and sent it back to the rental Co. It was a long time
ago, when rental was they way to prove that the TV and video would last
longer than the guarantee  :-)

We got letters and an inspection that proved fruitless to the authorities.


I'm beginning to like you  :-)


All radios, computers and video receivers (that includes TVs) emit radiation
that can be measured on instruments that can determine what you are watching
and where it came from


No, they have no rights of access to do their job. But remember, they can
look through the window and if they see a transmitted program on your TV
then they will issue a summons.


Yes, the detector vans can do this, but anyone knocking on your door has no
clue as to what you are watching. They can only observe what is visible to
them.

The 'Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949' and all it's amendments states (this is
for TVs only) that is an offence to have any receiver installed.
The 'installed' means that it must not be capable of receiving any signal
from things like Sky, digi boxes, terrestrial broadcasts, or any other means
of receiving a signal, other than from a pre recorded storage medium. (All
those devices and any others that I have not mentioned, that can receive any
TV signal must be included)

It also means that there must be no method of connecting any aerial to the
device. Recent cases, where the defendant stated that there was no wire
connected to the aerial, or the set, but that there was an aerial socket
with a signal available lost their case and were prosecuted.

If you want to see a copy of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, then pay a visit
to your local library and ask to see it. It is a very complex piece of
legislation, but if you read it in its entirety, you will see what I am
talking about.

HTH

To the best of my knowledge, all the above is correct as of 22 Dec 2004.
If you doubt anything, them mail me about the problem.

g6khp



Dave

We have been without a TV licence since 2000. Our TV is not connected to an
aerial, being upstairs in the bedroom and is used only for watching videos
and DVDs. It has beeen detuned. When we took this step we called TV
licencing and were told this was no problem and we got a refund on the
unused portion of the licence.

An inspector came once to check our equipment - invited him in and he stuck
his head in the sitting room door and said it was fine - even offered to
show him the actual telly in the bedroom but he wasn`t bothered. No checks
on tuning status aerial connection etc.

Have never had any threatening letters

Will

Hi,

Very OT but wouldn't it be nice to only pay for the stuff you watched.
That might wake the BBC and ITV up a bit.  The b&&^&& channel ids
annoy the hell out of me an I won't watch a channel with them on.
That means I don't watch BBC3/4 ITV2/3 even though I could.

I'm not the only one.  The only data I could find on channel id
(logos) was research done by BBC choice: 29% of viewers didn't like
them but 78% of viewers said it would not affect their viewing.  The
last bit is pure spin.  The truth is:

29% of viewers didn't like them.
22% of viewers said it WOULD affect their viewing.

So the decision to have logos disenfranchises almost 1/4 of viewers.
No viewers have said they like logos.  And the explanation that
viewers need this to tell them what channel they are on is pure
rubbish.  I've sure everyone knows to press select to find that out!

So my vote goes for paying on a channel per channel basis.  Perhaps
less money on the logo'ed channels might finally wake them up to what
suits all viewers - NO LOGOS.



--

Malcolm

 Malcolm Reeves BSc CEng MIEE MIRSE, Full Circuit Ltd, Chippenham, UK
 (mreeves@fullcircuit.com, mreeves@fullcircuit.co.uk or mreeves@iee.org).
 Design Service for Analogue/Digital H/W & S/W Railway Signalling and Power
 electronics. More details plus freeware, Win95/98 DUN and Pspice tips, see:

 http://www.fullcircuit.com or    http://www.fullcircuit.co.uk

NEW - www.CharteredConsultant.co.uk - The Consultant A-List

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 12:19:06 +0000, Malcolm Reeves


Super idea.    Does that mean that if I only watch BBC then Tesco and
the like will charge me less for my shopping?
--
On-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk

(Waterways World site of the month, April 2001)

You have to have a licence if you have equipment capable of receiving
a signal. I argued sucessfully, that I don't have this. I do have a
TV, and Video, and a Massive Video collection, but the TV in the house
is not capable of receiving a signal, as one does not reach the house.

We don't get radio inside either, the walls are simply too thick, and
the signal too week.

I phoned up the TV people and told them this, they agreed I was right,
the bad letters stopped. Just for good measure they sent the detector
van down to my place, got the damm thing stuck, and let all the sheep
out on the road. The farmer was pissed off big time. I don't think I
will ever see them again.

I am in N Wales, just oustide the National Park.

Rick

Rick Dipper wrote:


AARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

"Literacy hour" remedial reading skills training needed.

FFS, the statute is pretty damn clear what you need a licence for. You
need a licence to

     u s e

equipment to receive, etc. Mere possession, *without* use, - and without
licence - is  N O T  the offence.

The business about keeping it detuned, away from aerial sockets (if
present), gumming up the RF input, etc etc etc are all to help rebut a
presumption of 'use'. Such a presumption might not strike many of us as
fair or reasonable: but the overwhelming majority of the population are
watchers of broadcast TV, and some substantial proportion of those with
TVs and no licence are indeed using them to receive broadcasts. Hence
the elaborate, disproportionate, steps to which it turns out in practice
to be worth going to get the suspicious,
can't-imagine-life-without-a-teli morons who account for the bulk of the
TV Licensing organisation's workforce off one's back.

Though I do like Andy Dingley's idea of posing as a tin-foil nutter -
along with a little harmless sodium bicarb + tartaric acid in the mouth
to help with the foaming bit ;-)

Stefek