T.V licence
- Thread starter D.Roberts
- Start date
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
Oh God this again? Really? Yes he needs one but no he doesn't but maybe he does. There's the snapshot of the advice you will receive in this thread, as always.
yep although questionable legality.
Somethings like bbc F1 are broadcasted live online as well and the occasional item on Iplayer.
It doesn't say they were not either.
http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/news/Licence-dodgers-paying/article-2836763-detail/article.html
http://fullfact.org/articles?sel=articlelist&id=65
Either way, my point is based upon my own personal experience. I was fined by a magistrate because I could not sufficiently prove I did not own the TV or that I was not watching broadcast TV, my brief said it was routinely the case. Granted it was in 1989 and it may be different now but I have seen nothing to suggest it is.
Last edited:
Soldato
[FnG]magnolia;17860671 said:
Nearly been a whole month since the last one!
Soldato
Last edited:
Still wrong mate, You only need a license when you physically watch live TV broadcasts. You do not need a license for simply owning the equipment, whether it is plugged in or not or capable of receiving live broadcasts or not.
So to recap:
Own a TV (plugged in and tuned in doesn't matter) - No License
Own Sky Box (plugged in and tuned in doesn't matter)- No License
Using a TV, Laptop etc to Physically watch live broadcasts - Need License
The License is required for the act of watching, not owning or capable of receiving.
Soldato
Do you not need a license to listen to the radio?
Nope
Soldato
See that sounds wrong to me.
And if it is right is a very silly system.That suggests i could pay to subscribe to all the channels on Sky, have my TV connected up to the Sky box ready to go, but as long as i dont watch it i dont need a license?
Soldato
Ahh right i didn't know that, thanks.
See that sounds wrong to me.
That suggests i could pay to subscribe to all the channels on Sky, have my TV connected up to the Sky box ready to go, but as long as i dont watch it i dont need a license?
why would you waste money on all channels not to watch any, court would almost certainly find you guilty.
Soldato
Its a rediculously hypothetical situation but its technically correct.
See that sounds wrong to me.
Silly as you may find it, it is the law and it is correct.
Soldato
TVLicensing define Prosecutions as a '"Prosecution Statement" Taken. They call it a 'Code 8'. Using the Freedom of Information Act they will cite exemptions to the Act under the Prevention or Detection of Crime clauses if you enquire about the ACTUAL Prosecution figures. (Taken to Court in simple terms)
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/tv_license_evaders_caught
Did you actually read the second link at all?
Here is the relevant data from the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Justice, it gives the figures for those proceeded against and those found guilty
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2010-03-30e.324382.h#g324382.r0
Last edited:
Soldato
That's nice information to know, the TVLicensing have always been notoriously untruthful with figures and other information as it helps their 'Scaremongering' Campaign is all, makes no sense how they cite Section 31 to some when they actually publish the figures elsewhere.
Soldato
They still owe me £70 from when i left the UK. Robbin Gits.
The problem is with people not knowing what their rights are and being prosecuted and like myself many years ago having the burden of proof laid on the defendant.
Most magistrates seem to feel that having a TV capable of receiving is a sign of guilt.