TV Licence required because i have a computer?

[Jez]

Can someone outline a single scenario whereby you can actually be prosecuted for not having a license? As far as i am concerned it is a non issue anyway, so i do not understand the hysteria.

1) They cannot enter your property without a search warrant, and accompanying police.
2) They cannot obtain a search warrant without sufficient evidence that you are worthy of investigation.
3) See point one.

 

[Glaucus]

If you let them in, or they can see you watching tv through a window. Other than those I can't see how they can prosecute.

 

[Jez]

Would a photo through a window of an "apparently" live broadcast which could easily be a recording and/or an on demand feature be enough for the court to issue a search warrant and use police time though? Surely not

 

[Glaucus]

Would a photo through a window of an "apparently" live broadcast which could easily be a recording and/or an on demand feature be enough for the court to issue a search warrant and use police time though? Surely not

I would have thought a video would be, although I don't know.

 

[mollymoo]

I find that choosing NOT to pay it, while choosing to watch live TV all I want, works well for me

Wish everyone did the same, it might force them to find funding elsewhere.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Wish everyone did the same, it might force them to find funding elsewhere.

Like where? Adverts?

It's worth £150 a year at least, to me, to be able to watch TV and listen to the radio without adverts.

 

[Ucof]

Except that BBC advertises its TV programmes on the radio, and radio programmes on the TV.

I know its not nearly as bad as advert breaks, but they still shouldnt advertise cross-media.

 

[mollymoo]

Like where? Adverts?

It's worth £150 a year at least, to me, to be able to watch TV and listen to the radio without adverts.

As I don't watch tv that would be acceptable to me.

 

[Jez]

Like where? Adverts?

It's worth £150 a year at least, to me, to be able to watch TV and listen to the radio without adverts.

Given that the BBC accounts for what...5 or so channels out of 500+ i fail to see the value. Ok, the quality is better than a lot of channels, but it is still disproportionately expensive.

Those last 5 channels out of hundreds upon hundreds being commercially funded would have zero impact really. If you dont like adverts then just watch as its best to watch all channels, on a timeshift allowing you to FF the breaks.

 

[clv101]

Given that the BBC accounts for what...5 or so channels out of 500+ i fail to see the value. Ok, the quality is better than a lot of channels, but it is still disproportionately expensive.

Those last 5 channels out of hundreds upon hundreds being commercially funded would have zero impact really. If you dont like adverts then just watch as its best to watch all channels, on a timeshift allowing you to FF the breaks.

Jez, your logic here is poor!

Whether there are 50, 500, or 5,000 rubbish channels is irrelevant. Hundreds of channels hardly anyone watches is not comparable to a single BBC channel with millions of viewers.

Number of channels is irrelevant, it's number of viewers, amount of time watched, market share etc. that's important.

 

[Jez]

So? Just FF the breaks if it bothers you that much, the BBC fill between the programmes anyway with their own internal adverts, it would have no affect on my viewing anyhow...

 

[Mr. Anderson]

Isn't this question moot? OP says that his house mate bought a license. AFAIK 1 License covers an entire house. Although, you should really have chipped in anyway.

 

[Mr. Anderson]

So? Just FF the breaks if it bothers you that much, the BBC fill between the programmes anyway with their own internal adverts, it would have no affect on my viewing anyhow...

License isn't just for the BBC. The license allows you to receive TV signals. Just as Amateur radio users need a license, although the yearly payments were ended a couple of years ago.

I think a smaller portion of the license goes to OFCOM, ITV, Channel 4 etc as well to keep them free on TV, adverts don't keep them free otherwise sky would be too!

 

[Aod]

Can someone outline a single scenario whereby you can actually be prosecuted for not having a license? As far as i am concerned it is a non issue anyway, so i do not understand the hysteria.

1) They cannot enter your property without a search warrant, and accompanying police.
2) They cannot obtain a search warrant without sufficient evidence that you are worthy of investigation.
3) See point one.

the Detector vans, with sufficient surveillance time, are capable of providing enough evidence to procure a warrant.

 

[dirtydog]

the Detector vans, with sufficient surveillance time, are capable of providing enough evidence to procure a warrant.

Do the detector vans exist in reality?

Can they detect what a PC and LCD monitor are being used for? I doubt it.

Are we living in Stalnist Soviet Russia where we have the state spying on its own citizens for watching bloody television?

We should all refuse to pay this iniquitous licence tax and hasten its demise, and along with it the army of gestapo who enforce it.

 

[Werewolf]

Given that the BBC accounts for what...5 or so channels out of 500+ i fail to see the value. Ok, the quality is better than a lot of channels, but it is still disproportionately expensive.

Those last 5 channels out of hundreds upon hundreds being commercially funded would have zero impact really. If you dont like adverts then just watch as its best to watch all channels, on a timeshift allowing you to FF the breaks.

The BBC's 5 channels in the average day produce much more (proper*) new content than between 10 and 100 of the of the other channels (depending on if you're including Sky 1 on a good day, or just the dozens of channels showing repeats**), excluding the premium sports channels (and that's ignoring the News Channel, Parliament, the Radio stations etc).

It's also worth noting that statistically BBC 1 and 2 are the most watched pair of channels in the UK, even in households with full Sky/VM packages.

So, 100 channels of mainly old repeats (some showing the same few episodes every month for years), with very little UK content, of 5 channels showing primarily new content, most of which has been made specifically for the UK market.
Guess which costs more to do?

Seriously if you want to see how much value a lot of pay packages give, in terms of new content go through the listings some time and have a look at the repeats.
BBC1 alone averages about 8 hours of new content a day (sports and news excluded), Sky 1 on a very good day manages 3 hours, usually less than 2 hours, and Discovery is lucky to average an hour a night of new content


*As opposed to the likes of Bid UP TV, and QVC which could be argued to be new content, but is basically just long adverts

**Many of which were originally produced by the BBC

 

[antijoke]

I agree with Werewolf, look at channels like Dave, they just air the same old BBC shows year after year.

 

[Jez]

the Detector vans, with sufficient surveillance time, are capable of providing enough evidence to procure a warrant.

I dont believe that they are capable of collecting any evidence whatsoever, i believe that they are simply a means of transport for the license checking people.

 

[Ucof]

Isn't this question moot? OP says that his house mate bought a license. AFAIK 1 License covers an entire house. Although, you should really have chipped in anyway.

Yes and no - in student houses/ uni dorms, if all the bedrooms have locks on, they can be classed as "private dwellings" and as such, every TV (more accurately; "every person who owns a tv") needs to have a licence.

 

[Wicksta]

The last time I heard someone believe detector vans were real was probably in the 1980s.