Tv License question....just curious

[The GodMother]

I have 3 tvs all of which are tuned but none of which i have a TV licence for.

 

TVL have said to me in writing they accept that i dont need a tv licence as i dont watch live or near live tv.

 

My son uses the one in his bedroom for his PS1, yes u did read that correctly, or his built in DVD player.

 

The one in my ohs and my bedroom is for our DVD player or PS2/xbox360

 

The one in the living Room is for the video player or the dvd player or the PS2/Xbox 360 or the PS3 when it is visiting our house. We also have the internet plugged into the TV when they boys want to play online.

[buzby]

You can tap your keys long and hard but it does NOT alter the fact that if you have installed a TV, whether it is seen working or not, disadvantages the user to the degree that they may be held liable of a criminal offence.

 

Incidentally, I've no need to 'make things up' in Conniff's rather discourteous remark. I have been to many court hearings where people in the situation originally described WERE FINED.

 

The biggest laugh is where Conniff is making a categorical assurance that prosecution is not only unlikely but impossible. Just ow are you able to guarantee this MrC - where is your 'proof' within the Act that an installed TV with tuner but no aerial is somehow magically exempt from your selective interpretation?

 

Next time in court to view the block procedssing 50 licence fee evaters, I'll be happy to pass on your details should wou wish to provide them with a defence? The next batch should be coming up in October.

[Conniff]

Links to these court cases then please buzby, you say many have been prosecuted, show us.

Links to where it says you can't have a tv without a licence using it or not.

Lets put this to sleep once and for all.

[buzby]

Links... LINKS?

 

Shows how much you know about court procedure! Cases are LISTED, and appear online for 10 days prior to the case being called. Once called, the listing expires. The outcome of a case and whether it appears in a format available to be viewed by the public depends on whether the Clerk of Court decides there is merit in listing it.

 

I have (on 7 occasions since 1999) requested to the Clerk on visiting their offices to review the case disposition and/or judges notes only to be refused. It is against the DPA, is common, but more often the result iw they do not have the information as the information is returned to the pursers solicitors. So please, don't try to be clever - the court system is nowhere as 'open' as you think.

 

On to your second line - again, nice try - but no banana. Nobody can 'prove' a negative. The Act states (and I paraphrase) that a licence is required to install and use a TV set. The courts have held that installation can be the act of plugging it into the mains (not an aerial), but I've seen people lose when the TV was 'found' in the bottom of a wardrobe. (NOT connected). The judge was asked whether it would be reasonable to assume it was only there to prevent discovery by the TVLRO inspector. A conviction was obtained.

 

But wait! The Communications Act IS vailable to peruse, and as you are happy to quote from it, let's see this assertion of yours that an installed TV is exempt because of not having an aerial. If you cannot - then stop misleading people that they would be free of worry and no prosecution is guaranteed. We both know that won't happen - and for the sake of a small modification that protects the consumer, it's a worthwhile safety net.

 

I'll be back to court when the October batch of licence evaders get summoned. and I'll take my own notes of the dispositions of the day. You are more than welcome to join me.

[Conniff]

I don't believe I have said anything about an aerial, what I have said, (and I will say it again in bold), is:

 

A television licence is not required to own a television receiver, it is only required to operate that equipment for the reception of live television broadcast and that includes the installation for the purpose of receiving live broadcast.

 

Live broadcasts also include 'streaming' on the internet at the same time as they are broadcast live, but it does not include using the iplayer service.

 

The act itself says:

368 Meanings of “television receiver” and “use”

(1) In this Part “television receiver” means any apparatus of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State setting out the descriptions of apparatus that are to be television receivers for the purposes of this Part.

(2) Regulations under this section defining a television receiver may provide for references to such a receiver to include references to software used in association with apparatus.

(3) References in this Part to using a television receiver are references to using it for receiving television programmes.

 

Nothing about using it to play DVDs or computer games. Now show me a court case where someone has been convicted for owning a television receiver, and I will show you ten where the queen has been convicted for brawling when drunk.

[wheresmyhairgone]

Busby

 

Can i ask why you feel the need to sit in a court room to watch 50 people get fined and receive criminal records.Do you gain some sort of feeling of justice? I personaly think they should be imprisoned, the sooner they get these low life of the streets the better. Then i can go about my business of breaking into thier houses and nicking their telly`s without fear of being caught in the act.

 

"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in this thread. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."

[Conniff]

I think the coffin is now nailed firmly shut:

 

Reference: COM/410383/jw

 

Date: 3 August

 

Dear Mr. Bukovsky

 

Re: Television Licensing Requirements

 

Thank you for your letter of 17 July the contents of which are noted.

Whilst you are quite correct in pointing out that Section 363 of the Communications

Act 2003 "the Act" states that 'a television receiver must not be installed or used

unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence', this section

must be read in conjunction with the accompanying legislation.

 

In this regard it is important to note that Section 363 of the Act states that a 'television

receiver means any apparatus of a description specified in regulations made by the

Secretary of State'. The definition of 'television receiver' as set out in Regulation 9 of

the Communications Regulations 2004 (as amended) further defines a 'television

receiver's as '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 another purpose'.

 

Therefore, a TV licence is only required where a television set is installed or used for

the purpose of receiving television programmes.

 

You have stated in your recent letter that you have not watched television since 2001,

accordingly your television set is 'not installed or used for receiving television

programme services' at this time.

 

Consequently, on the basis of the information that we have, our view is that you are

not at this time committing an offence contrary to Section 363 of the Act.

 

Yours sincerely

 

John Williams

 

Customer Relations Manager

 

In response to a challenge by Vladimir Bukovsky (Ex Soviet Dissident)

[scoobyd77]

Not had a tv license for 10 years, basically if they come to your door tell them to go away(dont let them in, tell them your name etc). Had many a letter from them but I know they are screwed.

 

I refuse to pay for the bbc monster when people like rossy earn 15 million quid a year.

[scooby1022]

Hello to all, this is my 1st post and i hope i get it done correctly.

 

Had this letter from the TV police after i sent them a letter refusing them right of access!

Not sure what to do next ? if anything?

Has anyone come across the same letter?

Hope someone can shed a bit more light on the subject.

[Sol]

Sorry, it's too small to read.

[Conniff]

Hello to all, this is my 1st post and i hope i get it done correctly.

 

Had this letter from the TV police after i sent them a letter refusing them right of access!

Not sure what to do next ? if anything?

Has anyone come across the same letter?

Hope someone can shed a bit more light on the subject.

 

Do you have a license?

[scooby1022]

The letter says

"i can confirm that we have received your instruction to withdraw Tv licensing' common law right to visit your property.

We need to be able to identify an individual to ascertain your right to make the assertion, administer a withdraw of the right to visit and maintain an up to date record in line with our obligations under the Data protection act. We would therefore ask you to confirm receipt of this letter, quoting the above reference and provide your full name.

We reserve the right to use other methods available for the detection of television receiving equipment.

I enclose pre paid envelope for you to provide me with the above information."

Bla bla bla, yours faithfully

Rachel Price, Customer relations

[Conniff]

The letter says

"i can confirm that we have received your instruction to withdraw Tv licensing' common law right to visit your property.

We need to be able to identify an individual to ascertain your right to make the assertion, administer a withdraw of the right to visit and maintain an up to date record in line with our obligations under the Data protection act. We would therefore ask you to confirm receipt of this letter, quoting the above reference and provide your full name.

We reserve the right to use other methods available for the detection of television receiving equipment.

I enclose pre paid envelope for you to provide me with the above information."

Bla bla bla, yours faithfully

Rachel Price, Customer relations

 

Yes - but do you watch television?

 

Noticed in a previous post you said you don't have a license.

Edited September 3, 2009 by Conniff

[scooby1022]

yes i watch tv but never bbc

and i dont have a license! thats obvious i thought!

[buzby]

It's a TV licence, not a BBC-only licence. So you'll be breaking the law watching ITV or CH4 regardless.

[Conniff]

So you have come here knowingly breaking the law and admitting so and want assistance to do it.

Sorry.

[scooby1022]

yes! as it is a form of tax!

i paying a presenter £18 million pounds is wrong

I dont want any more crap from people who agree to pay! so dont waste your time!

Piers Morgan!

[scoobyd77]

scooby1022

 

dont try and fight the system you will lose, what you need to do is play it man.

 

now they have your details you are screwed, so get a licence on direct debit £10 a month for 1 month

then cancel, then the golden rule is do not corespond in any way with them

[scooby1022]

They do not have any details!

just an address that previously had a license registered to a previous owner.

I have ONLY sent them a letter refusing them a right of access, never signed it or name given.

[scoobyd77]

got you, in that case file the letter into the bin.

 

this sounds like a scare letter, cant imagine the cops getting involved in this.

 

basically some dude on minimum wage will come knocking, you just say hit the road and shut the door, did this 2 years ago and not been back since.

 

basically society is brainwashed to pay this, lets face it if there was a democratic vote on this asking the real people it would be gone.

 

Let the sheep keep paying. baaaahhhhhh !

[scoobyd77]

cool user id by the way,LOL

[scoobyd77]

hang on a mo

 

you said "Had this letter from the TV police after i sent them a letter refusing them right of access!"

 

so you sent a letter without saying who it was from ????

[car2403]

CAG will never condone the break of any law, explicitly or by implication.

 

Please don't put this forum at risk by suggesting methods of avoiding any legal obligation. Such posts will be removed and those continually posting them may find their accounts placed on moderation, requiring posts to be approved by a moderator before being visible, or worse, being banned from the site.

[Rooster-UK]

CAG will never condone the break of any law, explicitly or by implication.

 

Please don't put this forum at risk by suggesting methods of avoiding any legal obligation. Such posts will be removed and those continually posting them may find their accounts placed on moderation, requiring posts to be approved by a moderator before being visible, or worse, being banned from the site.

 

I suggest that you take heed of the above post.

If you are not prepared to abide by the site rules, then your account will be moderated.

 

Rooster-UK.

[scooby1022]

The letter i had was from The TV Licensing h.q. in Bristol.

I am not wanting others to follow i am just saying i think it is wrong that yet another stealth tax is forced upon us. Just a point of interest i live in a flat in a large house that was converted into 7 separate flats! "IF" it had been left as one they would not be looking to collect 6 other license fees!

This is just "MY" own view and i fully understand what the moderators have posted. I would not wish to put this site in any position to cause offense to any one and cause any problems as this is such a valuable forum.