stopping tv licence fees

[buzby]

Just noticed this - boy is this way off - Consignia? This was a name Royal Mail used for a period of 18 months, like the CB Licence, it is no more, the old name was restored.

 

However, it is still wrong, as Royal Mail are NOT responsible for TV Licencing, this is run by an outsourced outfit called Crapita (sic) who do the same for TFL and other firms who can't be bothered having control of their enterprise. This is the reason you can no longer buy a TV Licence from Post Offices, and changed in 2004-5 I believe.

[buzby]

I thought there was no confusion in this, the Detector vans DID exist, but the fleet of 28 were retired in the early 70's when the cost of renewing them became untenable. They later became transportation for inspectors (with no technical equipment) for PR purposes.

 

By the end of the 70s private cars were used to ferry inspection staff, and all the vans were scrapped by BT. Since then, all enforcement has been based on witness statements from inspectors, and the admission of the viewer in many cases.

 

BBC later awarded the contract for collection from GPO/PO/BT to Capita outsourcing. No vans were replaced, nor advertised as part of their enforcement programme. The are a footnote to history.

 

As to your later point, iPlayer also provides live streaming, so watch out for this.

[buzby]

They are completely lawful. They may not be fair, but thats a different issue. As for scrapping them, this has been talked about since 1945, so don't hold your breath!

[buzby]

But the principal point remains - it is not an issue of identity, more of one that they havew an address that is not licence, and they want you to prove that you do not need one. If you don't then there's no problem. The issues only arise when there is a wilful avoidance of paying what is rightfully required under law. Why should others be forced to pay when certain individuals pride themselves in avoiding it?

[buzby]

Bad press is damaging? To whom? The evader of the TVL? It's water off a duck's back if you mean TVL, and they've been having more 'good press' with their constant press releases of enforcement.

 

The licence terms are clear, if you have the CAPABILITY to vireo terrestrial or satellite/cable broadcasts, it will be up to a judge to decide whether you did or did not break the law. Not having the equipment, or modified to prevent this is the only safe response.

[buzby]

The mail is paid for by the other licence holders. As are the visits to enforce (as BBC pay Capita to provide enforcement administration) - what makes you think they (Capita) even care? Do Parking Attendants? I think you are giving them too much intelligence to care one way or another.

[buzby]

The trouble is both the BBC and TVL issue statements as to how they interprete the requirements for a licence should be. Similarly, what it states on the licence itself is pretty irrelevant too, as it is the enabling legistlation (Communications Act 2000) that defines what requires to be done and who needs one. In cases of conflict, then it is a judge that decides, not the BBC or TVL.

 

You are correct that there is no right of entry to a TVL agent. However, with a previously obtained warrant for the subject address, they have their ability to enter. In this case they do not need anyone to be watching, just that there is a viable TV set 'installed'. Whether a judge would be happy with this is anyones case, but the AoP allows for this and makes to requirement to have anyone watching a live programme.

[buzby]

One clarification - this is not a 'BBC' licence (a mechanism to permit BBC broadcasts to be viewed), but a 'Broadcast Receiving Licence' that is required irrespective of the channels viewed. The money may go to the BBC, but under the legislation this is irrelevant - the payment is required to view all UK terrestrial/satellite/cable channels licenced for UK delivery.

[buzby]

The basis for the licence fee is to permit the reception of TV broadcasts. The fact the BBC is funded from it is irrelevant, as you could not escape prosecution by stating you do not watch the BBC. Further, you cannot be serious about requiring a licence number to provide access to their services - apart from the obvious ease at distributing cracked codes, ITV, SKY, CH4 & 5, and ITV wouls similarly have to arrange conditional access - who would pay for that?

 

They would need to repeal the Communications Act and the basis of TV licencing, and institure some replacement that removes the obligation to pay sinply to 'receive' transmissions (as it is at present).

[buzby]

I'd thought of that. Crapita mindful of the need to identify non pagers, would have convinced HM Govt that a fingerprint or eyeball scan would be needed to verify a paid up viewer!

[buzby]

Where have you been? The other broadcasters HAVE been shouting about it! They WANT to 'topslice' the licence fee and get money allocated to them for their broadcasts, ITV News and CH4 to name but two. Since the whole point of the licence is based on the ability to receive said broadcasts, the Govt could keep the money and distribute it however they like. The fact the BBC administer the collection at the moment is neither here not there. They didn't used to, and they may not down the line.

[buzby]

None of which is relevant when you're standing in the dock admitting not to have paid your licence fee, and in much the same way as Council Tax protesters are treated when their Council does something they object to. If you're liable - you pay. The reasons for not doing so are not listed as exception in the Act of Parliament authorising it.

[buzby]

You are not paying for repeats! Even if there was only the testcard showing, you are paying for the privilege of installing a receiver capable of displaying licenced broadcasts, it has nothing to do with programming.

 

Of the repeats are causing so much annoyance, get rid of the receiver an no licence will be required!

[buzby]

It does.

 

It is a TV Broadcast Recieving Licence, if you have a receiver and no licence, then you are nicely lined up for a criminal conviction. Don't fool yourself into believing you have to be watching live broadcasts to be liable, you do not, although they (Crapita) might decide not to pursue you, there's little point leaving yourself at risk.

 

The simple fact is, if you have the equipment, this is the same as 'going equipped' and prosecutes ARE successful. It may seem a defeat to let them in to prove you don't have a TV, but at least this will give you a few years of peace until they start again. There's no point in taking thevstance out outline, they get paid to harass you and they'll keep at it until there is a resolution one way or another.

 

Let's get real, there are people out there who watch TV without a licence. why should they get it for free when I have to pay for it? If they weren't actively pursuing non licence holders, I doubt many of us would be minded to pay.

 

Incidentally, it is the Tuner, whether part of a TV, Video, DVR or STB that the household becomes liable. I have seen some cases where people admit to having a receiver, but in mitigation state that they don't use it. This will whorl sometimes, but it is up to the judge to decide whether he believes you, which remains a risk. With no tuner, you don't have the tools to commit the crime, and they're wasting their time.

[buzby]

True, but then, if everybody played it fair - there probably would be no need for this subterfuge. You have to ask, which came first? Deception by the non-licence holder. or the licence enforcement people? Fighting fire with fire would appear to be the only way to get results.

 

Surely, those who do not have a licence (and need one) require somew form of prompting? It's not rocket science.... surely?

[buzby]

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