Of course he should. That's the way the law (innocent until proven guilty) works. If it's good enough for the police, it's plenty good enough for the BBC. BTW. "duly authorised" by whom?

Let's start with the right to privacy. Follow that up with innocent until proven guilty. Next, bear in mind that some of these people haven't been CRB checked. And let's not forget that people like Oluwagbenga Olaniyan and Richard John Llewellyn were employed as TVL "Enforcement Officers". I think that's enough reasons to be going on with.

They've visited me 8 times (that I know of). On five occasions I was out. On 1 occasion I was on the throne. On 2 occasions, I was in and opened the window, only to close it 5 seconds later. If they want to waste their time and money, writing to and visiting a non-TV watcher, that's up to them.

They've been trying with me for nearly three years, and they've made zero progress.

I do, when it would mean I'm paying for something I don't use. Would you be as sanguine about paying for a Tax Disc, if you didn't own a vehicle? Not if you don't watch/record live TV.

It's very relevant. That it is capable of receiving live TV signals is not the test. The test is that it is being used to receive live TV signals.

In your opinion. Have you ever been on the receiving end of BBC/TVL "enquiries"? Does that apply to those of us who don't legally require a TV Licence?

The police, NRA etc. assume you can be trusted, unless/until they have evidence that you can't be, so why not the BBC? The police do not write to people, who don't have a FAC/SGC, telling them they face prosecution if they are using a firearm without one, and stating they will be sending someone round to check.

We could start with innocent until proven guilty.

Np you don't! Completely unnecessary and massively OTT. BTW. It's not an "authority".

And if your ISP doesn't know your name and address?

No it's not. It's a licence to watch and/or record TV live broadcast signals. Operating equipment capable of doing so, does not require a licence. Totally unnecessary. Again, unnecessary.

Corrected it for you.

Actually you do have a choice. You can stop watching and/or recording live TV, then you won't need a licence.

Correct Incorrect. Mere possession of receiving equipment does not require a licence.

According to TVL, YES. They only advise removal of the aerial and detuning of the set. However, my post was in reply to the statement that a licence was required for a set that was "capable of doing so". Any TV set with a tuner is "capable" of receiving a "television service", but mere possession of such a set, does not require a licence. The requirement for a licence is set out in the Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004, which states:-

No I don't. I have a tuner-less TV, on which I watch DVDs and Video Tapes.

Quite. We have a principle in British Law, that you are innocent until proven guilty. TVL's attitude is that anyone without a licence is guilty, unless/until established otherwise. They as good as state that, on their Website.

Fixed it for you.

It's cheaper than that at ALDI. 12 rolls of Blossom for about £1-60.

No it doesn't. Who said anything about worrying about court

Aren't you overlooking a little thing called PROOF?

What makes you think I'm being a criminal?

I can easily stretch to it but, since I don't actually need one, I don't buy one.

How would you track an unregistered PAYG Dongle Even those of us who don't actually need a licence? How would that help