[Closed] Has anyone told TV Licensing that they don't need a TV licence ?

I have netflix, movies and whatever I download.

Did you download Eastenders from a torrent site?

My experiences were similar to KM79. Their policy seems to be "Buy our shit or we will torture you for life".

Broadcast tv is absolutely dire. The vast majority of it is complete pap. [i]Whowantstobeacelebritypopfactorsbigbrothersanimalhospitalwithtalent. [/i]

I finally reacted to their monthly letters. They assume that one has a TV and is therefore watching it illegally, I found the tone unpleasant and threatening.

There's an example on the net of a letter that one can write to them removing their common law right to approach one's front door. That keeps away the doorsteppers. It may also have stopped the letters.

The BBC won't answer FoI requests about number of TV licenses, and any changes. There must be something they'd like to hide.

Drac - Moderator

[img] http://images.memes.com/meme/573094 [/img]

Digital Blackface. Racist.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-40931479/is-it-ok-to-use-black-emojis-and-gifs

They printed the 97% figure on one of the leaflets they sent out

I half expect them to show up one day with a search warrant and a copper.

Yeah, a point of note here is that they don't have any rights to enter your property without a warrant.

I do wonder though, you need a licence to watch or record broadcast TV, not to own a TV capable of receiving one. If they were to actually do an inspection, what are they hoping to prove unless they actually catch you watching it?

They aren't answering when the question is asked about Scotland.

Cougar

I do wonder though, you need a licence to watch or record broadcast TV, not to own a TV capable of receiving one. If they were to actually do an inspection, what are they hoping to prove unless they actually catch you watching it?

There's a clip on youtube which was posted here a while back where the inpsector plugs in the tv, then proceeds to connect an aerial/digi box or similar.

Anyway it's only a matter of time until they extend the existing laws to cover any device capable or recieving data or similar.

A facebook friend liked a comment on some "don't pay your licence fee" page on Facebook. Clicked through out of interest and there was a comment from a woman about how she had been taken to court and convicted. They labelled her a troll etc then a few days later another post popped up confirming the woman's story and a couple of other incidences. I didn't pay much attention to the details as it wasn't relevant to me but the basic gist was something has changed and they can get you now. This was their post:

Hey guys it's come to our attention that a few people have recently been served with search warrant, warrants are only used on about 0.04% of unlicensed addresses and are EXTREMELY RARE but we need to make you all aware on how to deal with them and how easy they are to deal with.
if by the slim chance they do show up before you let them in tell them your calling a solicitor for legal advice and to verify their identity. You have the right to close the door while doing this and while your doing this
remove ALL leads from the back of any tvs and switch them off.
grab your camera and start recording as you let them in.
the only thing you say to them is 'I do NOT watch live broadcasts'
otherwise exercise your right to remain silent. its also worth reminding the police to act on their oath and only get involved if theirs a breach of the peace.
Do NOT TURN ON tvs if asked to.
that will be sufficient to prevent the scum obtaining any evidence against you.
You have a legal right to remain silent. You do not have to give your name. TV Licensing's own training manual confirms this does not amount to obstruction.
The Communications Act obliges you to provide "reasonable assistance" if asked (not doing so is an obstruction of a warrant) HOWEVER, you are NOT required to plug anything in, or set up/tune in any equipment if asked to.
TV Licensing can only test equipment as they find it.
If you legally refuse to give your name, TV Licensing MIGHT ask an accompanying police officer to get your name.
You can legally refuse to give it, even to the police.
A police officer does have the power to arrest someone who they suspect of committing an offence IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THEIR IDENTITY. And once your identity is confirmed they would have to release you.
TV Licensing is NOT a police matter and the police are extremely unlikely to arrest someone for refusing to give details in a TV Licensing investigation.
Even following a search warrant, you do not have to answer any of TV Licensing's questions.
You should remain silent and refuse to sign any paperwork.
They still rely on your voluntary cooperation. They still need that signed confession.
YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT . . . So use it.
but as I say these search warrants are very very rare and only get used when they suspect live tv is being watched.

 

here's a clip on youtube which was posted here a while back where the inpsector plugs in the tv, then proceeds to connect an aerial/digi box or similar.

But what does that prove other than you have a device capable of receiving a TV signal? You do not require a licence for that.

remove ALL leads from the back of any tvs and switch them off.

That totally won't look suspicious at all.

Cougar

But what does that prove other than you have a device capable of receiving a TV signal? You do not require a licence for that.

Well I'm not totally au fait with the finer points of the law but it was more a reply to your question as to what they would do if they came in (assuming they didn't catch you in the act as it were).

Apparently, they'll do quite a lot to "prove" that you are watching tv.

I informed them a few years ago. Heard nothing for about two years, when they started sending letters asking if I still didn't have a TV, then started sending letters addressed to 'the occupier' instead of me, which have all been filed in the usual location.

According to the last letter I actually bothered opening, "an investigation Is underway"

Isn't Netflix Brilliant? That and amazon prime costs me about the same as a TV licence, bargain!

The BBC won't answer FoI requests about number of TV licenses, and any changes. There must be something they'd like to hide.

Not BBC information is it? TV Licensing is a government department, they then fund the money they collect.

'TV Licensing' is a trade mark of the BBC and is used under licence by companies contracted by the BBC to administer the collection of the television licence fee and enforcement of the television licensing system.

The BBC is a public authority in respect of its television licensing functions and retains overall responsibility.

I note the TV Licensing website is co.uk site not a .gov one.

Well I'm not totally au fait with the finer points of the law but it was more a reply to your question as to what they would do if they came in

Which is why I asked the question. It'd be trivial to prove that you were capable of watching live TV but quite difficult to prove that you actually watched it short of catching you in the act (though I suppose if they switched it on and it was halfway through Eastenders that might be pretty damning).

I have a hammer at home which is perfectly capable of stoving someone's head in, doesn't mean I'm guilty of doing so. (They've never caught me in the act yet.)

Apparently, they'll do quite a lot to "prove" that you are watching tv.

"Apparently" seems to crop up a lot when it comes to TV licensing. If they're going to come in armed with a set-top box and tune in your TV to use it, they're not proving anything, they're setting you up.

Cougar

"Apparently" seems to crop up a lot when it comes to TV licensing. If they're going to come in armed with a set-top box and tune in your TV to use it, they're not proving anything, they're setting you up.

They could just cast from their phones 😉

That totally won't look suspicious at all.

In my case the rear of my TV is broken so that an aerial cannot be plugged into it so I cannot watch tv even if i wished to . physical aerial is there but it wont connect

However my understanding is they need to prove you watch tv not that you could - anyone with a phone, tablet, computer and internet could watch tv for example.

That is why the advice is to not talk to them and just repeat i dont watch tv whatever they ask as they are looking for an admission of guilt.

None of this is a worry for me as i dont watch tv

I've just gone through the process and have received all the emails advising they may visit at some point.

For me it's on a flat I've started renting while I work away so I do have a TV licence back at home. I have the IPlayer app on my iPad but don't currently use it and have no other to receiving kit or any intention to watch TV or live streams during the week.

Which is why I asked the question. It'd be trivial to prove that you were capable of watching live TV but quite difficult to prove that you actually watched it short of catching you in the act (though I suppose if they switched it on and it was halfway through Eastenders that might be pretty damning).

If you look at some of the twists and turns they appear to have made at court hearings, it seems that the vast majority of convictions are based on confession.

so rang them up and said they were welcome to visit and inspect the house at any time and that if they found any equipment capable of receiving a signal I'd pay the fine but if they didn't then they agreed to pay me the same amount.

What a clown 😆

I bet the recording of that call gets used in training sessions.
Teaching them how to hit the mute button really fast before bursting out laghing 😆

I don't have a TV license, and I told them as much a good while back. I despise the business and current legislation regarding licenses. I won't support the BBC financially... they can sit on a stick and sing and I still wouldn't chuck a penny their way.

The sooner the BBC vanishes up it's own rear the better.

To keep km79 happy.

[img] [/img]

Drac - Moderator

To keep km79 happy.

Are you Italian American Drac?

I'm another not got a licence. Or a tv. Because I don't watch tv.

I'm on my 4th address since I stopped and moved out of a licensed home (I reckoned that watching about 20 programmes in the previous year meant I could probably live without one. I did watch iplayer for awhile though (ironically after the licensing letters told me it was ok 😆 ) but stopped that once it became licensed. Can't say I desperately miss is at all. Plus my broadband was never fast enough without buffering and now I'm on 16Gb a month on 4g, I'd be cheaper buying a license 😉

I do buy dvd boxsets though. Don't think many of them eminate from the BBC though.

The place I'm in now was receiving red ink full on 'compliance' letters when I moved in. They've done the are you going to be in on 10th July.... coz we're coming round to catch you... good luck on that!

Drac - Moderator

To keep km79 happy.[img] [/img]

used my TV licence for the first time this year, last week, during the athletics.... otherwise it's just netflix for us... and that's only for the childrens tv. Wife and I don't watch it otherwise (Oh.. and Eurosport during cycling season)

I don't have a license and haven't for years. I don't have a TV or watch anything other than the odd amazon prime show so definitely no offence being committed.

The letters (all addressed to "occupier") have big bold threatening slogans on the front but keeping getting filed in the blue filing cabinet out the back. No one has been round yet (we're talking 6 years now), but if they do they'd be politely asked to jog on.

I used to notify them every year, but I started to resent being made to feel like a criminal by a private company acting on behalf of another company, who is funded by an archaic system.

So now i just stick to my legal obligations. Which is to do exactly nothing.

The only thing I watch is Gardner's World. So essentially, Monty Don is costing me £144 a year.

Similar stories to above. No TV for 15 years, to busy,, we watched the odd iPlayer stuff when that was ok and films on dvds. Had stacks of threatening letters, from what I believe is a private company working for BBC licensing. Flipping annoying they were as well, even wrote to the BBC to point out how inappropriate the letters/process were, never heard anything.
Bought a license with the iPlayer law change as the odd iPlayer programme was being watched and would be in future and didn't want to be an intentional law breaker. Ought not to be but still annoyed about the license, our BBC watching is about an hour a fortnight so £6 an hour ish. Now watch more tv but feel most is awful but a few bits we have really appreciated: thought BBC War and Peace excellent (but bough that on a DVD) the documentary about moving the Antarctic station was fab.

Seems to have become a bit of a minefield with license laws. Here in Germany you have to pay it now if you own a tv or not.

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/do-i-need-a-tv-licence

They're bullies.

I've seen, and had to personally remove one of these roaches from a student house full of young girls, where this 'enforcement officer' or whatever had put his foot in the door, shouldered it open and barged in. Also heard plenty of stories about them doing similar things to old people.

It's for this reason that I've never had a TV licence, and I never will. Granted, I don't watch television and haven't for over a decade but even if I bought one tomorrow I still wouldn't pay. All the faux-important ALL CAPS letters to 'the occupier' go straight in the bin. I never understand why people who don't need a licence help these scumbags. Just ignore them. Let them do their own work.

If there simply must be a national broadcasting service, why can't it be funded via income tax, or included in council tax etc? It would then also be subject to means testing. If it was collected like this I don't think I'd mind, I enjoy Radio 3 so the price would be worth it for that alone.

Personally, I'm more than happy to pay the license fee; given the breadth of the combined services that the BBC provides (TV, Radio, online, news and sports coverage) I think it represents excellent value for money.

I also think it's worth it to not have your viewing interrupted by intellectually insulting, repetitive and unnecessary advertising. If I ever meet that Go Compare moustache-twiddling prick i'm going to punch him in the face, once I've driven over him in my Lexus.

It's the [i]intellectually insulting, repetitive and unnecessary[/i] programs I object to. I was paying towards the bread-and-circuses cooking, decorating and house-moving dross. I used to watch programmes about subjects that interested me and was frequently disappointed, sometimes annoyed by how shallow and misleading they could be.

The last straw was my volunteering in the background of a gardening programme on a subject which I'd been studying. It wasn't true to its subject, just a projection of one person's woolly ideas. I didn't last long.

I was fined for no licence sometime in the eighties. It was a lovely young lady who turned up un expectedly, talked her way into my flat and caught me watching rentaghost.

At the time it was a fair cop and I did feel a bit silly letting her in but she was very attractive and that sort of made it ok. Now all that seems a bit archiaic
I quite like the beeb though. So whilst you may not need a licence for some output it has to be paid for somehow and a little over £10 a month for R4, R6, the big sporting events, strictly and the news seems reasonable to me.

I'm with Bodgy on this one. I am happy to pay my licence as I do watch TV regularly and I enjoy a proportion of the programmes on BBC TV, certainly enough to think 50p per day is adequate value. Those who genuinely don't watch TV shouldn't pay and indeed don't legally have to.
I don't think it is right at all for all the agressive approaches by the collection agengies, but since it is currently a legal requirement to have a licence if you watch live TV with a criminal rather than civil offence being committed if you don't -although not recordable so not on any DBS check for example-( whether you agree with this as a concept is actually a seperate argument) there does need to be some checking.

I don't think it is right at all for all the agressive approaches by the collection agengies, but since it is currently a legal requirement to have a licence if you watch live TV with a criminal rather than civil offence being committed if you don't...there does need to be some checking.

If you are seen driving and allegedly commit a traffic offence you do have to show a driving licence either then or at a police station. So, yes it is the same. Most people driving do have a driving licence, some don't so checks need to be made. Most housholds have a TV licence and are documented so don't getasked, those households that don't are known so checks are made

Lots of people here who seem to simply want to abide by the law for the sake of it. But none of them seem to have the mind to QUESTION this law. Why just accept something because someone else says so? Why support an archaic organisation that produces a plethora of bottom of the barrel reality/celebrity/talent shows and reports the news in a highly narrow minded way? Plus Top Gear!

Have a look at top staff's severance payments for some sobering reading.

Not having a license doesn't cause danger or a threat to others... it reduces the cash flow to a desperate BBC.

But if you are not seen driving but they presume you do as well most people do, don't they? That would be more in line with the TV licence checks.

Glasgow dan, you may strongly disagree with the law on this. Many others do as well, and question it through the media and parliament etc. That is your right. But it doesn't mean people should break the law as it stands and expect to get away without consequences.
I personally agree with this piece of legistlation because I strongly believe the BBC should be independent and free of commercial interference and this is the current way of that happening, there may be others in the future
So no, I am not simply abiding by the law.

Lots of people here who seem to simply want to abide by the law for the sake of it.

And plenty that think about things objectively and analytically, and make their own minds up.

jimw - Member

If you are seen driving and allegedly commit a traffic offence you do have to show a driving licence either then or at a police station. So, yes it is the same.

That's a shit analogy tbh. If you own a house, indeed if there is a building anywhere that will have people in it there's an assumption (aggressively enforced) that you will own a piece of equipment and be using it illegally.

The equivalent would be a group of inspectors showing up on your 17th birthday demanding to see your driving license.