For UK members. If you own a TV you must have a licence. WRONG!

page: 1
37
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+5 more 
posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 05:34 AM
link   
We in the UK who don't do our homework (that means most of us) are led to believe that if you own a TV you must have a licence. We've always known it. Even the threatening big bro telly adverts have told us that. But it's a lie. It's confusing too, and relies on us being scared of going to court, or to jail. So we cough up our nearly £150 per year like obedient puppies. It's like paying gangsters to leave you alone. You might not need to pay them.

This thread isn't about showing anyone how to break the law. This is about pointing out why you might not need something that you're paying for religiously every year.
I think I might not need a licence. More correctly, if I tweak my lifestyle a tiny bit more then I definitely wont need one. But will I still be hassled if I'm within the law?

This is what I've found out so far.

Myth 1 - you own a TV you must have a licence.

From the TV licence website

A reminder of the law.
The law states that you need to be covered by a TV Licence if you watch or record television programmes, on any device, as they're being shown on TV. This includes TVs, computers, mobile phones, games consoles, digital boxes and Blu-ray/DVD/VHS recorders.

You don't need a licence if you don't use any of these devices to watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV - for example, if you use your TV only to watch DVDs or play video games, or you only watch ‘catch up’ services like BBC iPlayer or 4oD.


Myth 2 - the TV detector van will catch you if you watch TV without a licence.

But no evidence from a detector van has ever been used in court. Has it? Here's an example of how confusing things are for us.How do TV detector vans work? Do they know what channel you're watching, or just that you have the TV on?

TV Licensing detector vans – menace or myth?


The BBC explained that the number of detector vans in operation, the location of their deployment and the frequency is not common knowledge. It relies on the public perception that the vans could be used at any time to catch evaders. This perception has built up since the first van was launched in 1952 and has been a key cost effective method in deterring people from evading their licence fee.

The BBC state that to release information which relates to the number of detection devices and how often they are used will change the public’s perception of their effectiveness. If the deterrent effect is lost, the BBC believes that a significant number of people would decide not to pay their licence fee, knowing how the deployment and effectiveness of vans and other equipment will affect their chances of success in avoiding detection.


TV licence cheats make up a TENTH of all magistrate court cases - (and two out of three are women). Is it because there are so many cheaters that honest non-TV watching and non-TV owners are being hassled so much?

TV Licence Fee: briefing

You DO need a licence -


You need a TV Licence to watch or record TV programmes as they are being shown on television, irrespective of what channel you're watching, what device you are using (TV, computer, laptop, mobile phone or any other), and how you receive them (terrestrial, satellite, cable, via the internet or any other way).

You DON'T need a licence -


You do not need a TV Licence if you are watching TV after it has been shown on television, eg TV programmes downloaded or streamed after broadcast.


I rarely watch TV as it is being shown on TV. If it's on, it's to watch a DVD, or some odd show I've missed as it was being shown on TV, so I'll catch it on Iplayer or 4OD. You don't need a licence to watch them.
On the TV licencing website there's a form to fill in if you want to cancel your licence. Seems easy enough. But what happens after? How often do they come to the door pretending they have more rights than they do and want access into your house? That happens. People who don't even own a TV are sent letters threatening investigations, warrants, hefty fines and even jail. Has anyone on ATS given up telly and experienced this treatment?

Again - I want nothing to do with any illegality. I just want to know the facts. This is about changing a little thing in my household so I can save on the licence fee, which I disagree with because it's outdated and bad-mannered and threatening. But I want to know what I'm up against. It's not as simple as stopping watching TV "as it is being broadcast".

Letters from BBC Television Licensing


I enter my seventh year as a prisoner in my own home, but the good news is that I have saved £966 by not paying TVL/BBC and, assuming 50p a letter, cost the BBC a further £29 in postage.


Here's where a fraction of the licence fee money goes.
BBC expenses: list of salaries earned by BBC's top managers
BBC spend £13m chasing licence fee avoiders
The price of beauty: BBC to spend £100,000 of licence fee payer’s money on make-up artists for news presenters




posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 05:44 AM
link   
Some youtube vids regarding TV licences, and those home visits I mentioned.

This is what happened next. The bloke with the camera admits he was a plonker to this very nice police woman but the interesting part is that the police woman does not know TV licencing laws and even she thinks if you own a telly you need a licence.




posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 05:51 AM
link   
you watch tv as it is broadcast then yes i agree, one requires the license. watch stuff after live transmission and one doesn't require a license. those with an aerial connected into the back of a viewing screen who allow the gubbermint inspector in will be bang to rights.

i also agree with your statement regarding those caught. there were several ladies fined for not having tv licenses in the local rag this week.
me suspects an overhaul is in the offing regarding computer dongles and the like eventually coming under legislation. i suppose when one purchases a tv/tv dongle all details are centralised for the tv tax shack to plan a runaround.
personally i could do without, however consideration to others overrides my opinion. would rather watch the real sky with radio in ears.
fakedirt.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 05:53 AM
link   
I sent them a nice letter about 3 years ago telling them i had no need for a license, and as such would not be paying for it. I have a 42" plasma tv....but i only use it for gaming, and watching iplayer, 4od, and browsing the internet


I also sent them a letter removing their implied right of access, which means they cannot knock my door or approach my property
They wrote back saying, they would use other methods to investigate me, but acknowledged they could not step foot on my property


I remove the implied right of access to all sorts of people lol, if they are stupid enough to knock my door i have them for trespass and remove them using "reasonable" force


Only the postman has an implied right....oh and a passer by looking for directions or something similar.

ETA: If you havent done the implied right of access thing, you dont have to let them in anyways. They have no authority....its like letting a random person in to check you have a fridge or washing machine lol
edit on 22-3-2012 by loves a conspiricy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 05:57 AM
link   
Yes you dont need a license. License is only needed when you watch live TV.
I invited the inspector in and showed him my TV. I informed him that I use it for gaming and he checked to see if it was conected to an aerial. It wasnt. So I showed him the door and told him if he ever comes back, then I will charge him with harassment. Havent seen him since.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 05:58 AM
link   
hi op

my g/f went to court 2 years ago for non licence
100 pound fine given
she paid it off ,but so far they havent had a penny for the licence
they are all p""s and wind, think about it...
100 pound fine every 2 years..or...150 odd pound a year..
im saying no more lol
dave



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 06:00 AM
link   
its funny how people will pay for a licence for a device that is used to brainwash you.

why the hell dont the governments just take a cut of ad revenue.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by wigit
 


I suspect many are more clued up than you give them credit for. But many just don't want the hassle. There is an excellent forum (tv licence resistance).
The thing to remember is that you don't have to give any jumped up jobsworths who come to your door access - unless they have a warrant. You don't even have to talk to them or confirm or deny anything.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy
ETA: If you havent done the implied right of access thing, you dont have to let them in anyways. They have no authority....its like letting a random person in to check you have a fridge or washing machine lol
edit on 22-3-2012 by loves a conspiricy because: (no reason given)


just like vampires, you need to invite them.


+1 more 
posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 06:02 AM
link   
um? TV Licencing fees? Is that a joke? Every person in my country would agree that sounds like a scam.....



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 06:05 AM
link   
Having been "LLF" (Legally License Free) for several months now I live by the mantra "NO, NO, NO":

NO Response. NEVER respond to a TVL letter, straight to the shredder!

NO Talking. NEVER talk or verbally communicate in any way with a TVL "inspector." Answer their question with a question, maintain the upper hand. Once they have identified themselves the conversation is OVER, shut your door.

NO Admission. NEVER let them into your house under any circumstance.

I am however, not condoning illegal behaviour, if you require a license then get one!



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 06:10 AM
link   
To be fair, the licence fee, over a year isn't that expensive. By finding loopholes and refusing to pay, you push the cost up for everyone else.

I find it hard to believe the majority of those who don't pay, won't watch the channels live throughout the year because they haven't paid for the licence, or use any BBC service.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 06:15 AM
link   
I find this whole "pay to watch" scheme very unsettling.

I question the need for such schemes. Perhaps better budgeting and spending would render such a license obsolete?

Then again, municipalities will do anything to keep the cash rolling in, usually with quotas, speed traps and other legal means.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by wigit
 


i havnt paid for one for years .. id like to know how much of the tv licence goes to the bbc .. as i understand it they dont show adverts so thats why we pay the tvl unlike the other channels who get there money from adverts .. and if so the bbc should take the bbc of air and charge people subs to have it on .. i dont watch the bbc so why should i have to pay get adverts like everyone else .. this is ofc depending on how much of the tv licence funds raised goes to the bbc



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by JonoEnglish
To be fair, the licence fee, over a year isn't that expensive. By finding loopholes and refusing to pay, you push the cost up for everyone else.

I find it hard to believe the majority of those who don't pay, won't watch the channels live throughout the year because they haven't paid for the licence, or use any BBC service.



hya
no
not paying the bbc will not push prices up for you or i
check out this link
look at the table
cheers
dave
www.guardian.co.uk...



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 


Most TV networks get their funding from advertising or Product placement. The BBC has no adverts for commercial products so relies on a licence for it's funding.

More and more people are using laptops and other devices so the licence is becoming a bit of a defunct mechanism of gaining revenue.

I have never minded contributing to the license as I enjoy quite a lot of BBC content. Although it has definitely gone down hill recently.Personally, I think it would be a shame if we lost the BBC as a public broadcaster, but understand why people would not want to pay for something they don't use, with so much other choice now available.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by JonoEnglish
 


Exactly. I have no objection to paying towards a free to air and advert free service. Plus tyhe BBC is actually the best content maker around at the moment.

I would rather object to Council tax more than the TV licence, which just for a month is more than the licence is for a year and regardless of ability to pay, you must pay it or have your wages garnished or go to Prison.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 06:27 AM
link   
reply to post by JonoEnglish
 


Believe what you will, not everyone needs to sit in front of a box to have fun or entertain themselves.

Ive not watched tv for years, i watch the occasional documentary...online, i watch AlJazeera news live online as well as some others....but i tend to stay away from the bbc news as much as possible.

BBC could have put in adverts long ago, the reason the license was introduced was because back in the day, there was no such thing as advertizing on tv. It was a way to fund the broadcasting costs. They have no reason to charge a license fee now....except for greed. Its a guaranteed income...they dont have to worry about looking for people to advertize.


Prices dont go up because people arent paying their license. It goes up because they have convinced the majority that it is a legal requirement, brainwashing.... and because of this can pretty much do what they like.

They say they dont advertize, but ive seen on numerous occasions the BBC pushing products, such as ipads, iphones, books, films....they have programs devoted to advertizing....Click is one example, that film review thing with Jonathon Woss (I know...its Ross lol)...of course they are paid to promote this stuff.

You pay more for the license because the rest of the world get the BBC for free.

It nothing but a scam
edit on 22-3-2012 by loves a conspiricy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 06:32 AM
link   
The thing is with the British TV licence is that you can watch 4 channels that do not have damn adverts, or listen to radio stations that do not have adverts, they have to be paid for somehow, all those soccer fans who can watch a whole game without adverts, what a joy!!!! (or any other sport) perhaps that £150.00 (?) is worth it, than paying for a separate sport channel? I dont watch any sport myself, I'm into other types of programs.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by loves a conspiricy
 


The license fee doesn't just towards the BBC News or their TV channels. In fact, it only covers around 75% of the BBC's broadcasting costs. They make 25% of their revenue selling their high value programming via the BBC World Service.

It also pays for a lot more besides, as well as a grant for Channel 4 (yes, that too is a state owned channel) and paying for the infrastructure over which the entire terrestrial TV service is broadcast (so ITV, C4, C5 etc etc). The BBC also do a lot of R&D into new technology which a "for profit" company wouldn't do.

It always strikes me that those who bleet about the licence fee rarely know what it is for. They make the assumption that it pays simply for the BBC without any thought as to what it is the BBC does.





new topics
top topics
 
37
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join