TV Licensing Letter

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aldav said:
You do not have to be actively watching when they break the door down. The offence, IIRC, is "receiving", which is why even recording counts as needing a licence. If it goes to a prosecution, as usual, it'll be proving you received "beyond reasonable doubt" that is required, not catching you in the act. So whether you get convicted or not will depend on the overall case made, of which no doubt finding a set connected, with power, and tuned, will play a big part. If that set is turned on, with both power and aerial connected, and is tuned, it's receiving.

So your case would have to be that "reasonable doubt" was not reached, that the set had not been receiving, which means not turned on, whether you were caught actively watching it or not. No two cases are ever identical, and magistrates are individuals reaching opinions, so there is no 'one size fits all' answer to that, but I can tell you how that'd be likely to go with one magistrate and that set being there, powered and tuned, would be "persuasive" evidence against you.
Click to expand...

But it isn't powered on (unless you leave your electronics switched on when you are out?) and even if it was, it would be on HDMI1 watching Netflix/Amazon Prime/Streamed content of some sort. Yes it is plugged in to an aerial and yes it is tuned in but it is not being used, so surely some sort of proof has to exist that it is being used? You cannot just connect the dots and come up with the answer of "guilty". Never the less, was just a hypothesis.

glen8 said:
Devils advocate

Does a 20 year old TV sat up in the loft requires the licence fee if it's powered off

What about if its powered on?
Click to expand...

Absolutely not.
 
These threads are crazy. Who is honestly worrying about their liability in the case of old devices that may or may not work in parts of the house that no one frequents?
 
glen8 said:
I assume it would be different if it was a newer tv
Click to expand...

Not at all. if you watch or record live TV as it is broadcast, you require a license. If not, no license is required.

Basher said:
These threads are crazy. Who is honestly worrying about their liability in the case of old devices that may or may not work in parts of the house that no one frequents?
Click to expand...

That was not the original intention of the thread, so, yea.
 
I never quite understand how folks get so worked up over this.

If you don't meet the criteria for requiring a license, tell them so and they stop sending letters. End of hassle.

If you want to watch TV without paying, it's another matter. The "rules of engagement" regarding folks at the door are well known, use that knowledge.

In either case, there's nothing here to get worked up about. Take simple steps to avoid letters or spend about 20 seconds understanding how to deal with folks at your door. End of need to get worked up about it...
 
MichaelAwkward said:
They'll just send more. :confused:

It takes less than a minute to tell them you don't need one through their website.
Click to expand...

Mercutio said:
I never quite understand how folks get so worked up over this.

If you don't meet the criteria for requiring a license, tell them so and they stop sending letters. End of hassle.
Click to expand...
I did all that and still get constant harassment from them. Even let the inspectors in my home to prove I didn't need a TV license which didn't stop them. There are no simple steps to stop the letters and the "inspectors" are more then a 20sec convenience.

How would you like constant threatening letters and inspectors at your door? Surly you can see why people get worked up for being treated this badly.
 
Last edited:
MichaelAwkward said:
You must be doing something wrong. I've informed them that I didn't need a license at two different addresses and never heard from them again.
Click to expand...
Really you suggest its my fault! I have a letter saying thank you for informing us you don't need a TV license and a email saying the same thing and I let 3 inspectors in my house. What else should I do?

I shouldn't even need to deal with them in the first place since I never had a contract with them or even owned a TV in my entire life.
 
CyZMyAssBaby said:
I remember reading about this sometime ago. As to the BBC not stating they do not advertise and then were caught out advertising in far flung countries.

Its about time the BBC earns its own keep and competes with other TV commercial companies who earn their keep through advertising.
Click to expand...

It might be worth learning the difference between BBC and BBC:WW;)

There is a world of difference, as legally the BBC cannot take advertising in the UK.

But BBC:WW was formed to deal with sales of content abroad (most of the money it makes goes back into the BBC to pay towards new programming and to the other rights holders*), and they are allowed to do advertising, but not in the UK or with any BBC branding in the UK (which is why the old UK Gold channels which were a joint venture between BBC:WW and another company had zero BBC related branding).


*As opposed to the pockets of say ITV, Sky or another media group as their profit.
 
Brenn47 said:
Fun fact, the BBC outsource its online propoganda to various companies to act as Shills to try to counteract any anti BBC/Licence fee forum debates. I used to know the name of two of the companies they used, but long forgotten.

Digital Spy is their usual haunt. You can spot them a mile off, occasionally they forget which account they're signed in as and post from the wrong account!

They also got caught out with a FOI request.
Click to expand...

I think I saw the same FOI.

IIRC it was a job description for social media and PR staff, from what little I recall of it the wording was fairly generic and pretty much the same as a host of other companies advertising for customer service staff who dealt with email/facebook.

Guess what the job description of the sort of people that do run Twitter accounts, Facebook and answer emails is :)

It would be incredibly foolish for the BBC to hire shills and then admit it in a FOI, and I'd be amazed if the likes of the DM didn't catch on to it and run it as a headline.
 
ubern00b said:
But it isn't powered on (unless you leave your electronics switched on when you are out?) and even if it was, it would be on HDMI1 watching Netflix/Amazon Prime/Streamed content of some sort. Yes it is plugged in to an aerial and yes it is tuned in but it is not being used, so surely some sort of proof has to exist that it is being used? You cannot just connect the dots and come up with the answer of "guilty". Never the less, was just a hypothesis.
Click to expand...
Again, it's not about watching, but receiving. If you turn it on to watch Netflix, and the tuner is tuned, and signal supplied by a connected aerial, it will be receiving even though you're watching Netflix via HDMI, or a DVD, or whatever. At that point, magistrates have all the proof they need of the offence.

But that wasn't really my point. What I was getting at was that they need to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, and an aerial plugged in to a tuned TV goes a very long way towards that. It is clearly down to individual magistrates exactly what they need to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt, but I'd suggest that standing on that technical point as a strategy is a dodgy idea. After all, if you're not using it to receive, why not just detune it, or not connect an aerial? The fact that you haven't done so risks them drawing the obvious inference from that. And conviction may result.

After all, you don't have to be caught in the act, waving a shotgun around in a bank to be convicted of armed dobbery. It will be the result of a range of evidence, but if police search your house and find a shotgun, and a bag of cash with serial numbers matching the nicked banknotes, it is likely the magistrates will draw the obvious conclusion from that, too. It's not connecting dots so much as whether the evidence is sufficient to eliminate reasonable doubt, not all doubt. And innocent people do sometimes get convicted. The system isn't perfect. To say the least.

Bear in mind, many magistrates are a bit cynical in my experience, having heard a wealth of excuses over the years. One, of my acquaintance, advised me if ever prosecuted for a serious offence, go for a Crown Court trial if possible because while potential penalties are higher, you're much more likely to swing a not guilty verdict from a jury than a bench of magistrates.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom