Actally the act is about recieving really, but since its almost impossible to prove whether you did or not, merely having a set that is fully capable of, and in a condition to do so without use of a screwdriver or an hour of setup time, or he purchase of a separate piece of cable, is deemed to be adequate evidence of intent...
That is already ambiguous.
Consider: any apparatus installed [for] (or used for the purpose of) receiving... ... whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose." and any apparatus installed (or used for the purpose of receiving)... ... whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose."
and any apparatus, installed or used for, the purpose of receiving... .. whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose."
I take the first and third to be equivalent statements, and that the appartus is installed for or used for purpose of reception.
If its merely installed, and potentially capable, but not actually for use as a receiver, it does not fall under the remit.
A compuiter monitor is also potentially capable, but not withoiut sufficient time and extra bits...so it is with an unsetup TV with no aerial lead and no external antenna capability.
The Law is an Ass, but not t the extent that its purpose in this case is to allow prosecution of people who watch TV without a license.
No. it does not. See above.
By the time TV licensing catches up with you the TV will be long gone, won't it....
That is one of the problems with pandering to people like the 'Plain English' campaign, some things just can't be put in to plain English, many hours are spent wording Acts or Parliament etc. so that they mean one thing and one thing only.
If that is the case then the act is meaningless, the TV licensing people would have to visually witness someone watching TV before they could bring a prosecution !
No, all the required 'bits' needed are in the TV, as others have said, if you live near a transmitter it's sometimes possible to receive a broadcast signal without the need for an antenna [1] - in a later part of the act it states that reception has to be useable, just that you can receive it. A computer monitor needs extra parts to even come close to the possibility of receiving a broadcast signal.
[1] not to mention any device that might have a built in antenna.
Oops, I meant;
...... in a later part of the act it
You wouldn't if it wasn't tuned in. If it was a problem you could easily short the aerial socket inside the case.
What don't you understand about "installed or used for the purpose of receiving"?
The aerial is not in the tv.
So does a TV in anything orher than right under the transmitter situation.
That's often how they do it.
What don't you understand you mean !
The two are not linked, if you install, if you use.
An installed TV will be the 'property' of the room (ie, TV that comes as part of the fixtures and fittings of a Let room or Dwelling.).
To use a TV it doesn't need to be installed (ie. a portable TV owned by a Uni' student or someone renting a Let room or Dwelling), it might even have it's own built in antenna but not it's own power source.
The fact that a TV only needs to be installed means that it doesn't have to be used, just that the option is there. The fact that someone only uses it to play with their play-station is neither here nor there - regardless of what the TV licensing people say, the fact is they are either taking a 'soft' approach to the problem or are simple wrong !
Or even stick a 75 ohm resistor in a UHF plug. Much easier!
I am led to believe that the detection involves the HT parts of a TV. This is why retailers go to extra lengths to identify purchasers if you go for LCD type TVs. Not personal experience, can't afford one. :-(
AIUI installed means tuned in to receive broadcasts, so an untuned tv which is only used for watching DVD's/computer games does not require a license.However the licensing gestapo will try and insist on inspecting your whole house.
Slightly evading the question though?
If we wanted to comply with the letter of the law, how would the above model fit your interpretation of it (genuine question)?
All the best ..
T i m
No, the critical phrase is "TO RECEIVE OR RECORD", clear?
Much easier to undo too, to the extent that the TV Licensing people probably wouldn't consider that it was disabled.
message
No it is not, read the whole paragraph in the act, it make it quite clear that it doesn't mater if the equipment is used to receive a broadcast signal.
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.
But it _would_ stop you from watching, accidentally, while they were parked outside in their van.
....and removable in seconds to be replaced by a lead to a portable aerial.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.