Tv License question....just curious

[buzby]

Afraid you've got the wrong end of the stick. It has NOTHING to do with 'aerials' - if you recieve live TV broadcasts from ANY source (even SKY and ITV) then you need a licence. This is why cable users and dish users are still required to have a licence. If you don;t watch BBC channels, that's fine - but that isn't what your licence is for. You'll STILL have to pay regardless.

[masmit]

Afraid you've got the wrong end of the stick. It has NOTHING to do with 'aerials' - if you recieve live TV broadcasts from ANY source (even SKY and ITV) then you need a licence. This is why cable users and dish users are still required to have a licence. If you don;t watch BBC channels, that's fine - but that isn't what your licence is for. You'll STILL have to pay regardless.

 

hi buzby,

i get what your saying but it is a taxation to fund the bbc is it not,

therefore no bbc no taxation,

can you see my point

[buzby]

No it isn't. It may well fund the BBC, but that's not what the fee is for.

 

It is to permit the legal viewing to 'television programmes' - in other words, it is a broadcast recieving licence. If you don;t believe me, flip over the licence and read the reverse.

 

Whether you watch the BBC or not, is totally irrelevant!

[Thailand]

Don't know if this has been posted before as i have only read the last page on this thread but this makes for interesting reading:

 

Letters from BBC Television Licensing/intro

 

LOL davey, did you find that link in the DCA forum like me?

 

I read the lot and the BBC are a bunch of swines IMV.

 

I particularily liked the non-existant 'Vals' sigs but they are just the tip of the iceburg with the TVL or should I say BBC.

 

 

 

 

Christ, that's not the half of it..... the TV licence fee is forced, and you are, without a shadow of doubt, guilty until they are satisfied. I had the pleasure last year, courtesy of Capita (I think) to pay for 2 years in 1 year as I was skint....ces't la vie. Wilkommen to the UK, or more likely, the western 'rich' world (I want to say capitalism only I'm not sure I get it).

 

I'd have the BBC sent to Sierra Leone if it was up to me, not that I hate them or anything!.

 

Not read the thread, probably off topic, don't care, hate the BBC.

[masmit]

No it isn't. It may well fund the BBC, but that's not what the fee is for.

 

It is to permit the legal viewing to 'television programmes' - in other words, it is a broadcast recieving licence. If you don;t believe me, flip over the licence and read the reverse.

 

Whether you watch the BBC or not, is totally irrelevant!

 

i get your point about the broadcast recieving licence, but you contradict yourself,

( it may well fund the bbc, but thats not what the fee is for.)

 

the revenue off this licence is for the bbc, or do's it go some where else?

so while the bbc are recieving the fee's, i believe it is relevant & i should have a choice on what i watch & pay for.

Edited April 9, 2009 by masmit

[ashmk]

I have never brought a TV license in my life and I never will.

[HSBCrusher]

if you watch the telly ashmk, you should pay for a licence.

 

we don't condone non-payment of the TV licence.

[buzby]

i get your point about the broadcast recieving licence, but you contradict yourself,

( it may well fund the bbc, but thats not what the fee is for.)

 

??? There's no contradiction. The fee is to permit the holder to operate a television 'reciever'. Where the money goes is no business of the viewer. Sorry if you cannot understand the difference.

[buzby]

if you watch the telly ashmk, you should pay for a licence.

 

we don't condone non-payment of the TV licence.

 

I agree if you watch broadcast television, you should have a licence, HOWEVER I DISAGREE with the sweeping statement that 'if you watch the telly' you should pay for a licence'. Anyone using display screen ('television') to view DVD's, computer generated content, or CCTV images needs no licence whatsoever.

[Conniff]

??? There's no contradiction. The fee is to permit the holder to operate a television 'reciever'. Where the money goes is no business of the viewer. Sorry if you cannot understand the difference.

 

Buzby is right. The 'Government' charge a license fee for the reception of live television. The fee you pay goes to the government, not the BBC.

 

We know that fee is paid to the BBC to run it's services, but you should note the wording, you are paying for a license for the receiving equipment if it receives any live transmissions and not just if it receives BBC, so blocking the BBC will not entitle anyone to watch for free.

 

I can't say I like paying it, look at what's on today, Good Friday and miserable weather and they have no special programmes at all, Keeping up appearances, what rubbish.

[masmit]

Buzby is right. The 'Government' charge a license fee for the reception of live television. The fee you pay goes to the government, not the BBC.

 

We know that fee is paid to the BBC to run it's services, but you should note the wording, you are paying for a license for the receiving equipment if it receives any live transmissions and not just if it receives BBC, so blocking the BBC will not entitle anyone to watch for free.

 

I can't say I like paying it, look at what's on today, Good Friday and miserable weather and they have no special programmes at all, Keeping up appearances, what rubbish.

i cant believe what im reading, buzby's right? i believe in his response he works for BBC.

Your claim is it is a tax & PAYMENT go's to the goverment & then they fund the BBC. Whats being said is the BBC has no responsibility to the TVL, its the goverment.

If this is true then, if you have a complaint to the TVL & your not happy with the response, then why do you take that complaint to the BBC for it to be resolved.

Surely if by what your saying it would be the goverment ombudsman to resolve complaints.

Therefore i disagree & still believe no BBC no TVL, that's just my opinion & i dont work for SKY or CABLE, just think in this day & age it should be pay per view giving me the choice.

[Conniff]

The tv licence is a tax, the BBC have been charged with collection and administration of that tax, they in turn have contracted that collection out to a few companies with the biggest collector being Capita Business Services Ltd; using the allocated name 'TVL' as it gives it that official sounding ring like DVLA or HMRC.

 

If the conditions of use were only set by the BBC, you can bet your life that it would be on a TV, full stop, and not on the way it is used.

 

Unfortunately there is only one way around the licence and that is not to have one and hope you are not caught.

[patdavies]

i cant believe what im reading, buzby's right? i believe in his response he works for BBC.

Your claim is it is a tax & PAYMENT go's to the goverment & then they fund the BBC. Whats being said is the BBC has no responsibility to the TVL, its the goverment.

If this is true then, if you have a complaint to the TVL & your not happy with the response, then why do you take that complaint to the BBC for it to be resolved.

Surely if by what your saying it would be the goverment ombudsman to resolve complaints.

Therefore i disagree & still believe no BBC no TVL, that's just my opinion & i dont work for SKY or CABLE, just think in this day & age it should be pay per view giving me the choice.

 

Buzby is both right and wrong.

 

He is right in that It is a tax levied by HMG. The licence is required to receive direct broadcast TV programmes - from whatever source.

 

He is wrong that it is collected by HMG and given to the BBC. The BBC are the collecting agent in behalf of HMG. That is why complaints about TVL end up at the BBC.

[buzby]

What Pat overlooks is that the licence and the collection thereof was instigated as a Government 'package' - they collected AND enforced. It was the Post Office (a Govt organisation) that accepted payment and Post Office Telephones (ditto) who provided the technology to weed out non-payers who viewed. This was the 'TV Detector van'.

 

I would argue nothing really has changed, the Govt told the BBC it wanted out of the burdensome task of collection and enforcement, and this resulted in the outsourcing of collections and enforcement. The PO 'lost' the contract to sell licences, as did BT to track viewers without a licence. I believe there is now no 'detection' in the accepted sense - TVL now utilise the 'blunderbuss' approach, everyone needs a licence and will be pursued until they are satisfied none is required - even then, in this unlikely event, the status of a non-licence holder has an expiry date of 24 months, before the collection process starts again.

 

Technically, the money is pursued because an act of parliament says whoever is charged with the collection of it can legally do so. However, if this collection is to stop at any time it will be the Government who will order it, NOT the BBC.

[bonjob]

you won't pay that. wait,

i think this topic has been posted before.

i don't know but i'm still interested reading it.

I have also never brought a TV license in my life.

__________________

Edited April 26, 2009 by maroondevo52
Commercial link removed

[miss trollope]

What Pat overlooks is that the licence and the collection thereof was instigated as a Government 'package' - they collected AND enforced. It was the Post Office (a Govt organisation) that accepted payment and Post Office Telephones (ditto) who provided the technology to weed out non-payers who viewed. This was the 'TV Detector van'.

 

I would argue nothing really has changed, the Govt told the BBC it wanted out of the burdensome task of collection and enforcement, and this resulted in the outsourcing of collections and enforcement. The PO 'lost' the contract to sell licences, as did BT to track viewers without a licence. I believe there is now no 'detection' in the accepted sense - TVL now utilise the 'blunderbuss' approach, everyone needs a licence and will be pursued until they are satisfied none is required - even then, in this unlikely event, the status of a non-licence holder has an expiry date of 24 months, before the collection process starts again.

 

Technically, the money is pursued because an act of parliament says whoever is charged with the collection of it can legally do so. However, if this collection is to stop at any time it will be the Government who will order it, NOT the BBC.

 

Yes an 'act' of parliament is just that - an act. In other words a contract, if you pay you have been duped. The TV licence funds a private company and if you do not wish to contract with them there is nothing they can do about it. (sorry if this link has been posted before I haven't read the whole thread).

 

Bribery, Corruption and Fraud at the BBC - Stop paying your TV Licence fee NOW! | www.tpuc.org

[buzby]

Sorry Miss T, and Act of Parliament is far more than a 'contract', as for not paying, it goes without saying that anyone who does not view live broadcasts should not be bullied into paying for a licence they do not need.

 

However, if you are suggesting that TV viewers should somehow NOT pay for their licence, I and I am sure many others, trust they will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

[Conniff]

I am also sorry Miss T but you (as many others) have been duped by one of the growing anti-license lobbies.

 

The tv licence is not a fee, it is a 'tax' and as such has the full weight of the law behind it. Non payment is a 'criminal' offence which is why you can be sent to prison for non payment.

 

It was officially classed as a 'tax' in January 2006.

 

The BBC, although remaining in the public sector, was reclassified from the public non-financial corporations sector to central government.

Edited April 29, 2009 by Conniff

[digitalhelix]

Hi,

I got rid of my TV about ten years ago and have faced no end of threats and harassment from them. I have stood my ground though and written to them, the OFT and my MP.

 

After all these years they now seem to be serious about coming round to inspect my home. The principal is guilty until proven innocent apparently.

 

I dont have a TV and use an HDMI projector for games and dvds/blu-ray and I own two laptops and a Google G1 smart phone.

 

My question is this; does anyone have advice on how to handle the inspection?

 

I have already decided to comply with their request to inspect, but how far do their powers extend? For exmaple, if they come in to inspect my home can they search my hard disks, intenet history and smart phone for evidence of illegal activity (ie wathcing live broadcasts)?

 

Will they be able to request to search my computers and phone?

I have nothing to hide (except a few DVDs rips of The Simpsons perhaps!), but I will probably refuse this on principal. Does anyone have any advice?

 

Additionally, does anyone know what the inspectors ID card looks like? I can't find any references anywhere.

 

Thanks in advance,

J

[Conniff]

NO - DON'T give in to them. They have no powers whatsoever and can only enter your house with a warrant issued by a court and they have to have very convincing evidence to show the judge before he will issue one.

 

Just ditch the letters in the bin or write inside 'up yours' and send it back to them.

 

If you invite them in, all they can do is look to see if you have an operating television that is receiving 'live' (that is very important) television.

 

They can ask if you have a tv card in your computer and have a look at that, but then only to see if you are receiving 'live' television. If you have no aerial connected then you won't receive anything.

 

I strongly advise - don't let them into your house unless they have a warrant, which they won't and under no circumstances sign anything.

 

They have less powers without a warrant than your postman, remember that.

 

P.S. No they can't search your hard drive or even switch on your computer. There is NO law againt owning a television or having a tv card in your computer. They must catch you actually using it.

 

And if you want to watch any television, then watch it over the internet. Both BBC and ITV have iplayer for you to do so and it does not require a license.

Edited May 23, 2009 by Conniff

[The GodMother]

I sent them a trespasses will be shot notice they replied saying ok no one will visit.

[buzby]

Fully agree. They are one part of UK officialdom that do not have ANY right of entry, and to do so simply to 'prove' that you don;t have a working TV is a travesty. If invited in, they can look into each and every room of your hose in search of any device that may contain a TV tuner (laptop, laptop,PC. You'll then be asked to 'demonstrate' they do nt have the ability to receive TV programming. You mobile phone will also be a target as these can also receive TV programmes 'as live' and these will require a licence, and if their suspicions are founded, you'll be asked to sign a statement noting the items, they discovered that were capable of viewing.

 

You need this like a hole in the head - even if you refuse to sign the statement it will be marked that you refused to incriminate yourself and works either way.

 

DON'T let them in, unless you plan to follow Sweeny Todd's example....

[The GodMother]

Oh good they can search each and every room does this mean we can make them take there shoes of aswell in respect of our religious belifs or what they may have trodden in due to having kids.

[Conniff]

One reason this tax will never end is the 'big' money the government makes from it.

Just to take one person Jonathan Ross. We have all show alarm about the amount he is paid (£18million) and then consider the 'income tax' taken at 50% which means the government gets £9million income just from that one man.

 

So the government will have no plans to ever scrap it and will always agree to increases.

[Tango34]

A little bit of background info to start with.....

 

6 Months ago I did pay a court fine for not having a TV licence, and currently have one, but this is where it all gets interesting.

 

The property I rent does not have a ariel, but does have a sky dish (left over from the last person) I do currenlty have a sky package - but I am going to be stopping that next month.

 

I currently watch NO television, but instead use my 37" HD TV as a monitor for my PC! My PC has internet access, but does not have a TV card.

 

Now I am sure most of us are aware that it "may be" possible to get access to all (99.9%) of the channels available worldwide via the internet - but of course I don't watch TV via this either.

 

Now my question is , If I stopped my Sky package, and didn't have a set-top box (either freeview (the word FREE always worries me in that!) or freesat) as I don't have an ariel or a PC with a TV card - what steps would I have to take to stop paying the BBC the stupid yearly amount of money that I currently do?

 

Regards