TV licensing rant

mattyfez · 22 Apr 2011 at 10:39

meghatronic said:
They've very openly said they're not going to enforce it.

They're relying on trust and maturity.

PhillyDee · 22 Apr 2011 at 11:05

Jez said:
Urban myth. They cant do anything, they wont do anything. Dont bother.

Ive always known this, and yet people call you a liar, and that you are'making it up' because they saw a van parked across their street with 'ariels and wires on the outside' so it must be true. Dosn't matter how many times you tell them that its a ruse to get you to pay.

For the record, I watch TV, I have a TV license.

Strife212 · 22 Apr 2011 at 11:57

mistercrabb said:
The reason they are chasing you is probably because you told them you don't have a TV.
They know you bought one, so they assume you are lying.

This is the reason anyway.

mistercrabb · 22 Apr 2011 at 11:58

PhillyDee said:
Ive always known this, and yet people call you a liar, and that you are'making it up' because they saw a van parked across their street with 'ariels and wires on the outside' so it must be true. Dosn't matter how many times you tell them that its a ruse to get you to pay.

For the record, I watch TV, I have a TV license.

I know,it does my head in. Last world cup I decided to watch part of a match live on the BBC website.

Cue my Mother: "That's illegal! what if the TV van drives past?!"
Me: "They can't detect PCs. Or TV's for that matter. Both things receive signals, they don't emit them"
Mother: "Of course they can! " etc

Vonhelmet · 22 Apr 2011 at 12:01

Technically you can collect the RF radiation from a CRT and tell what someone is watching, but it's not terribly simple. It can't be done with an LCD or whatever else people have nowadays.

In any case, a mate of mine did some work for the Tv license people and said the van works purely by intimidation ie people think it works so they confess. It's just an empty van, apparently.

gambitt · 22 Apr 2011 at 12:05

mistercrabb said:
I know,it does my head in. Last world cup I decided to watch part of a match live on the BBC website.

Cue my Mother: "That's illegal! what if the TV van drives past?!"
Me: "They can't detect PCs. Or TV's for that matter. Both things receive signals, they don't emit them"
Mother: "Of course they can! " etc

Sounds like my mother. Completely ignorant on most subjects but will still give a strong opinion on just about anything as if it were fact.

Vulcan · 22 Apr 2011 at 12:14

gambitt said:
Sounds like my mother. Completely ignorant on most subjects but will still give a strong opinion on just about anything as if it were fact.

Sounds like all mothers.

JRS said:
I don't know why people get this trouble with the TV Licensing folk. I moved into my current home last May. I got a letter from them, filled in the form on-line to tell them that I don't have a TV. They wrote back saying thanks for updating their records and haven't sent me anything since.

Job done.

I'd rather they sent me letters than tell them anything. They have no right to know if I own a TV, so I'm not going to do any work for them.

franco_22 · 22 Apr 2011 at 12:32

Haha, my mother, like me, thinks the TV license is a scam

but then again, she's not english so she's not willing to pay for the privilege of watching East Enders and other crap they air over here :rolleyes:

Vonhelmet · 22 Apr 2011 at 12:41

Longbow said:
Sounds like all mothers.

I'd rather they sent me letters than tell them anything. They have no right to know if I own a TV, so I'm not going to do any work for them.

Do you apply the same logic to refusing to tell the DVLA whether you own a car when it comes to vehicle excuse duty?

mattyfez · 22 Apr 2011 at 13:05

vonhelmet said:
Do you apply the same logic to refusing to tell the DVLA whether you own a car when it comes to vehicle excuse duty?

Slightly different kettle of fish, a car is registered to you and you are to some extent responsible for it.

As longbow said: "They have no right to know if I own a TV, so I'm not going to do any work for them"

Thats pretty much my stance on the issue.

Vonhelmet · 22 Apr 2011 at 13:17

mattyfez said:
Slightly different kettle of fish, a car is registered to you and you are to some extent responsible for it.

As longbow said: "They have no right to know if I own a TV, so I'm not going to do any work for them"

Thats pretty much my stance on the issue.

Except use of a TV or comparable receiving equipment to watch live broadcasts is licensed, so they do have a right to know whether you are doing such a thing.

Vulcan · 22 Apr 2011 at 13:40

vonhelmet said:
Except use of a TV or comparable receiving equipment to watch live broadcasts is licensed, so they do have a right to know whether you are doing such a thing.

Incorrect. You don't have to tell them anything, they have no right to know if you own a TV.

Edit: Source: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2006-05-15c.69812.h#g69812.r0

BunnyKillBot · 22 Apr 2011 at 13:42

Ranting about these people is far too easy. Last year, we had one of the thugs come round. As soon as he did his schpeil and i realised who he was, i asked 'do you have a warrant?' 'No' 'Sorry not interested then, goodbye' and shut the door. He then loudly swore at me through the closed door about how much of a **** i was.

Lovely people this 'company' employs. Nice to know its all legit and above board.

Vonhelmet · 22 Apr 2011 at 13:56

Longbow said:
Incorrect. You don't have to tell them anything, they have no right to know if you own a TV.

Edit: Source: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2006-05-15c.69812.h#g69812.r0

I phrased what I said in the post you quoted in terms of whether you are watching live tv, not in terms of merely owning a tv.

Brookert · 22 Apr 2011 at 14:24

Am I right in thinking if you had a tv, but it wasn't connected to an aerial, technically your fine?

rypt · 22 Apr 2011 at 14:27

Brookert said:
Am I right in thinking if you had a tv, but it wasn't connected to an aerial, technically your fine?

You can connect it to an aerial and still be fine, the only thing that is illegal is watching live TV, you can have it all hooked up and not in use.

J-FRO · 22 Apr 2011 at 14:39

Nikias said:
There is no precedent for it as such, but I would like to see someone take on the TV licensing authority.

Last year there was this case, which maybe suggests a claim under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 would not be completely hopeless given the right circumstances...

Just read the abstract on westlaw instead (hate reading full cases) but very interesting.

The bit I found most interesting was this:

It was not appropriate, on an incompletely argued strike-out application, to analyse the authorities on corporate liability under the Act in detail. It was notable that the Act did not provide any defence for "accidental" harassment. Nor did it contain anything like the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 s.24, which was considered in Tesco. It was difficult to think of a policy reason why large corporations should be exonerated for conduct which, if carried out by an individual, would amount to harassment. The court's provisional view was that F had pleaded enough to allege actual knowledge of the conduct complained of, Tesco considered. As a matter of construction, it seemed that a company must be taken to have knowledge of material within the knowledge of its employees, even if top management knew nothing of the particular case. However, there might be difficulties in showing knowledge that the conduct amounted to harassment. However, F did not have to go as far as to prove actual knowledge. An "ought to know" case would suffice.

That could seriously pave the way for people to rebel against the TV licensing authorities.

So far its been mentioned in another 5 cases since, 6 books and 16 journal articles.

V4NT0M · 22 Apr 2011 at 14:48

TV license is the biggest scam in the UK.

Rainmaker · 22 Apr 2011 at 14:54

Lisa Ferguson's successful case against British Gas seems appropriate here too (she took action under the Protection from Harassment Act after they harassed her by letter for a bill she'd already paid). Linky.

Amongst other things, it was held that the corporation should be held responsible for its employee, agent and even computer generated conduct.

J-FRO · 22 Apr 2011 at 15:22

Rainmaker said:
Lisa Ferguson's successful case against British Gas seems appropriate here too (she took action under the Protection from Harassment Act after they harassed her by letter for a bill she'd already paid). Linky.

Amongst other things, it was held that the corporation should be held responsible for its employee, agent and even computer generated conduct.

Yeah, thats the case we've all been talking about.