stopping tv licence fees

[Bedsit Bob]

It is a license fee for using equipment that DOES receive TV as it is broadcast.

 

Corrected it for you.

[Bedsit Bob]

It's a licence to operate equipment capable of receiving TV live broadcast signals.

 

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.

 

so your choices are:

take the tuner out of your TV/Video recorder, or physically detach the aerial socket.

 

Totally unnecessary.

 

take down your antenna from the roof

 

Again, unnecessary.

[Bedsit Bob]

Don't worry, they will log your IP address and if they want your name and address can ask your ISP who will give it under orders from the court.

 

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

[Bedsit Bob]

If you have equipment that is capable of receiving a signal then you need a licence for it.

 

Np you don't!

 

You can have a TV adjusted by an engineer so that it is incapable of receiving a BBC signal and getting a written report, this, then you can present to the TV licencing authority.

 

Completely unnecessary and massively OTT.

 

BTW. It's not an "authority".

[Bedsit Bob]

Any suggestions as to how the law should be enforced?

 

We could start with innocent until proven guilty.

[Bedsit Bob]

However, it starts to get problematic if you insist on being trusted

 

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.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Bedsit Bob

[Bedsit Bob]

However the system is not oppressive.

 

In your opinion.

 

Have you ever been on the receiving end of BBC/TVL "enquiries"?

 

Those who do not pay increase the price for those who do

 

Does that apply to those of us who don't legally require a TV Licence?

[Bedsit Bob]

This is equipment capable of receiving live TV signals and the way you use it the equipment is irrelevant.

 

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.

[Bedsit Bob]

I honestly don't mind paying £12 a month

 

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?

 

I assume you're aware that non-payment of the fee could potentially result in Magistrates' Court action?

 

Not if you don't watch/record live TV.

[Bedsit Bob]

they get paid to harass you and they'll keep at it until there is a resolution one way or another.

 

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

[Bedsit Bob]

Without a licence at the address, they will return - of that you can be assured!

 

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.

[CHRIS44G]

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

 

Three years? That`s nothing! Been harassing me for 30! I have a shop with no TV. Finally convinced them after a visit and a thorough search of the shop (even looked in the loo) that I have no TV on the premises they finally stopped writing last year.

 

Digital switch over time here a few months ago, ordered a Freeview box from Amazon, delivered to the shop as it`s more convienent than delivery at home (where I watch TV and have a licence) , and hey presto 2 months later we start again with the letters.

[Bedsit Bob]

What is the objection those who insist they are not breaking the law have to the collection agency's authorised representative inspecting their premises to see if the law is being flouted?

 

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.

[Bedsit Bob]

What some seem to be saying here is that if a duly authorised person calls and makes enquiries concerning TV licences that he is required to take the occupier's word for it that the premises do not require a licence.

 

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?

[Bang!]

A wee summary as mentioned elsewhere on how I stopped them after realising being nice to them and letting them look in the livingroom just meant they continued sending letters and revisiting as I may have bought a TV since then.

 

1. Remove their right of access using the same technique for DCA doorsteppers, and get their confirmation in writing that they will no longer visit.

 

2. Tell them you have no TV (the link's on their site) which triggers the automated response saying they will visit to confirm you have no TV (its weird that they want to visit to check you have no TV, given its its use that would be taxable)..

 

3. Be affronted in writing at their contracting themselves.

 

4. Submit a FOI request with each complaint regarding their sending you any letter.

 

Result:- Silence!

[Bedsit Bob]

Trouble with serving WOIRA is, it increases the chances of them applying for a Search Warrant.

[Bang!]

Very few warrants are applied for, as its a cost to them, and they need to have grounds stating why they believe a TV is being used. Lying to obtain a warrant is contempt of court (best example being they claimed to have seen a TV lighting the curtains "matching some TV programme". Warrant was granted, and house visited to find a family of Amish people with no electricity.

 

They are in it to make money by persecuting/harassing people to pay, so paying out money is not high on their list.

 

Besides, the entire warrant concept is dated, as it was procedure to catch people with TVs when TVs were only used as TVs. What they need to find now is a TV with a sky/antenna connection.

 

If you are not using a TV (etc) as a TV receiver, you have nothing to lose.

[Bedsit Bob]

Very few warrants are applied for, as its a cost to them, and they need to have grounds stating why they believe a TV is being used.

 

Nevertheless, the BBC state that the increase in WOIRAs, is contributing to an increase in search warrant requests.

 

If you are not using a TV (etc) as a TV receiver, you have nothing to lose.

 

Except your privacy.

[Bang!]

Its fairly logical it will be people whose TVs they see through windows but denying having TVs who will be the ones they chase with warrants, as its unlikely to make financial sense to let pass ones they can see with TVs but chase those who make things difficult for them (appearing to be) on protest grounds.

 

The thing is chased by fear, and you are listing a statistic issued by the BBC that makes you fear for your privacy - so not much of a change in policy there from the people with the main interest!

[Bedsit Bob]

Rare as SWs are, I know of several people who have been SW'd, after issuing WOIRA.

 

Two people (who issued WOIRA) were SW'd on the same day.

 

Apart from anything else, issuing WOIRA breaches rule No1 - "No Contact".

[Conniff]

I dunno what he/she's talking about. It would be better in English seeing as this is and English site.

[Bedsit Bob]

Do you mean me?

 

It is English. There's just a couple of acronyms.

 

I'l translate:-

 

Rare as Search Warrants are, I know of several people who have been Search Warranted, after issuing Withdrawal Of Implied Right of Access.

 

Two people (who issued Withdrawal Of Implied Right of Access) were Search Warranted on the same day.

 

Apart from anything else, issuing Withdrawal Of Implied Right of Access breaches rule No1 - "No Contact".

[Conniff]

Ah right, I get it. There is no point in withdrawing right of access, there isn't really any such thing as far as criminal offences are concerned. If you bar someone from voluntarily having a look, they think you must have something to hide and will get a warrant.

Edited November 13, 2012 by Conniff

[Bedsit Bob]

Actually, they do respect WOIRA, but issuing it has the effect of moving you up the harassment list.