 | Home > Off Topic > The dangers of BBC Four |
 
|
|
|
| LR90XS2011 Member Since: 05 Apr 2011 Location: bickenhill Posts: 3674   
|
Mate I cant comment on your current Mrs or whether the telly is better, but your much better off without the old one.
any photos!! DEFENDER 90 TDCI XS, I hope everyone is well and your land rovers make you happy |
||
5th Jul 2014 8:57pm |
|
| What puddle? Member Since: 25 Oct 2013 Location: Reading Posts: 952
|
Martin, I was doing just the same a year ago. Stayed up and watched stuff that the wife was uninterested in. Then I discovered catch-up (iplayer etc.). That way, I could watch stuff on my PC while she watched some girly stuff. Well, all that changed over Xmas. We both found ourselves watching more catch-up than actually watching the TV. Suddenly, one day, I had a thought. The TV licence was up for renewal in February, and I suggested not renewing it, and not watching live TV anymore. I made sure that was legal by actually phoning the TV licensing people. So we went for it... Ready?... It was the best thing we've ever done! I can't tell you a single current TV ad (because they are no longer drummed into us), and I'm so pleased to miss the incredible number of BBC trailers.
Now, of course, we watch very little of even the catch-up service. In fact, all we watch is The Big Bang Theory, and 8 Out Of 10 Cats Does Countdown (mainly to watch Rachel Riley). I have got so much more house-stuff done, and I have just built her the bedroom of her dreams (and gained so many Brownie points). We don't miss TV a bit. And believe me, we once watched TV as much as anyone we know. It's crap - repeats, endless BBC sport, fabricated news, dross celeb shyte. We watch DVDs of course, especially the complete series of Frasier, and last night we watched the film, Trapped (excellent). Family have given us all their DVDs, so we have months, if not years, of viewing. We were written to by the TV licensing authority, and - really weird this - they phoned us! We still can't figure out how they got our phone number. First of all they were quite aggressive, suggesting that we would get prosecuted. They sent us a letter which (completely wrongly!) stated that anyone with a TV needs a licence! I was incensed, as this is totally incorrect - by their own guidelines! I got into a great phone conversation with them and twisted the guy in knots. He admitted that the letter was wrong, but wouldn't/couldn't offer an explanation of why they state that. I berated him and his organisation for fraud and dishonesty, and suggested that there was a legal situation here. Three days later we got a 'sorry' letter telling us that they would no longer contact us regarding the lack of a TV licence as we do NOT watch live TV. The letter states they will revisit the issue in three years. We have kept to the law, and back in March I pulled the aerial connections out of all four TVs to make sure we couldn't even watch it by accident. Out of all our families and friends, we are still the only ones to do it, but seriously, I can thoroughly recommend it. Catch-up means that you miss nothing, just see it later if you choose. The one thing that you end up never watching on catch-up is the news - I haven't seen TV news since February! Now left. |
||
|
6th Jul 2014 8:04am |
|
| rustandoil Member Since: 08 Sep 2012 Location: Cotswolds Posts: 861  
|
All well and good watching TV on catch up, but just not possible on our internet connection
 |
||
|
6th Jul 2014 8:16am |
|
| SiWhite Member Since: 19 Jan 2010 Location: North Hampshire Posts: 455 
|
As above - Our TV is still in the box after we moved house a year ago. I'll watch something on iPlayer once in a blue moon - often after something is recommended on a forum or through word of mouth.
It's extraordinary how much extra time you have through not being glued to the Box. If you forgo two hours of TV per night, you effectively get an extra day off every week... My blog - www.anacreinhampshire.blogspot.co.uk 110 TD5 BuildHERE - sold! 110 Tdci Build HERE - sold! Passat Alltrack - 4x4, auto, 45mpg, gloriously comfortable - but not a Defender! |
||
|
6th Jul 2014 8:16am |
|
| gilarion Member Since: 05 Dec 2013 Location: Wales Posts: 5132  
|
A warning for those who think that only watching catch up TV you do not need a TV license think again because it is a minefield.
A TV Licence is a legal permission to install or use television receiving equipment. And while in essence that to watch catch up TV you theoretically do not need a TV licence, however, here’s the rub, if you have a TV aerial whether connected or not you need a licence (as it is possible for you to receive TV broadcasts, even if you say you do not watch live TV) . If you have a smart TV that connects directly to a Wi-Fi modem then you need a TV licence, as again it is possible to watch live broadcast TV through the same medium. To qualify legally for not having a TV licence you have to have no possible way of receiving live TV broadcast to do this you need to have no aerial fitted either to your roof or portable aerial in the house, you also must not have a satellite dish. You must also remove the Aerial connector from the rear of the television this is a small silver or black box fitted directly behind the aerial socket usually about the size of a matchbox, alternatively you can place a large blob of solder in the aerial socket. Any fitted aerial connectors in your walls or skirting boards must also be removed. Your TV must not be remotely connected to a WI FI station. Finally you need to register on the TV licencing database that you wish to be exempt from having a TV licence However once you register the licence authority believe that the fairest and most consistent approach is to visit addresses where TV Licensing is notified that no television set is used for live broadcasts to check that it is not possible to do so. A recent challenge of the TV licencing was that the plus 1 and plus 2 channels were in essence catch up TV as these programs had already been broadcast, they lost the case and the TV licencing laws were amended to cover this eventuality. In conclusion you will get a visit by a TV licencing officer and unless you have absolutely no way of receiving a TV broadcast in your home you will be fined and until the law is changed (which is presently on the statute books to do so) you will also receive a criminal record. Sadly on the TV licencing FAQ’s it states that to watch catch up TV you do not need a licence though it does not explain the other things that you must do to qualify for such |
||
|
6th Jul 2014 11:41am |
|
| What puddle? Member Since: 25 Oct 2013 Location: Reading Posts: 952
|
Sorry mate, but that isn't correct. Now, this is why I said that I had words with the TV licensing Authority...because they tell lies. For a start, you DO NOT need to register on the database. They phoned me and told me I had to. However, I had already checked that it is not a LEGAL requirement, it is merely their 'advisory'. They will tell you that you HAVE to, then admit that you don't. Believe me, we went into this at length on the phone. This is what I meant about it being a "legal" issue. Three times they told me I had to register. In the end, I asked him to go and talk to his boss and come back to me. It took him a couple of minutes, but he sheepishly had to tell me I was correct. I warned him that he was saying things to people which is not legally correct, and that he could personally land himself in trouble. As I said, even the letter that came to us had it printed on the top that we had to hold a licence if we own a TV, but that isn't true, and he had to admit that too. You can have a TV set as a computer monitor, and not have to have a TV licence!
If a TV licensing person comes to our door, he has absolutely no legal powers of entry. If you ask him to leave your property, he MUST do so at once, or you can contact the police. Neither do you have to hold a licence if your PC can get television - mine can (and I have a Smart TV too). That, again, is not legally correct. The Authority must prove, in a court of law (by gaining access to your ISP's records) that on such a date and time you are recorded as watching television. It's no good them saying to the magistrate that they 'think' you watched TV, they must prove it. Finally, we got 'that' letter, which said that even though we have televisions AND can receive a TV signal, they would no longer pursue us as we were "not watching television as it is being broadcast live". As I said, I can understand your confusion, as they DO lie. But I did do my research and spoke to them personally rather than just ignoring the letters. You DO NOT have to do any of the things you said about aerial connections. Sorry mate, but I spoke to them about this personally. It's the 'watching and/or recording live television' that is the legal part, and it matters not one jot if you have a hundred TVs. Now left. |
||
|
6th Jul 2014 5:16pm |
|
| What puddle? Member Since: 25 Oct 2013 Location: Reading Posts: 952
|
This was on the letter, and it's also on their website (http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/how-to-tell-us-you-dont-watch-tv-top12):
" The law states that you need to be covered by a TV Licence if you watch or record television programmes, on any device, as they're being shown on TV. This includes TVs, computers, mobile phones, games consoles, digital boxes and Blu-ray/DVD/VHS recorders. You don't need a licence if you don't use any of these devices to watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV - for example, if you use your TV only to watch DVDs or play video games, or you only watch ‘catch up’ services like BBC iPlayer or 4oD." It then goes on to state: "In most cases you just need to complete the online declaration form." No you do not. That's the bit they are lying about. You DON'T 'need' to declare it, it's entirely optional, and NOT a legal requirement. Not declaring it means that they may send someone to your door, but you can simply remind him that he is not welcome on your property. Only a police officer can enter your property (and I believe a gas engineer when accompanied by a police officer). He must show you a warrant to search for something that must be printed on the warrant. The police do not get involved in searching for working televisions. A few years ago, the following was posed as a question to the BBC: Dear British Broadcasting Corporation, 1) Is there a legal obligation or requirement for a person who does not require a TV license to do any of the following: a) Respond to letters from TV Licensing? b) Inform TV Licensing that a TV license is not required? c) Prove to TV Licensing that a TV license is not required? 2) Does a TV Licensing "Enforcement officer" have any right of access to a home without a warrant or invitation? 3) If the answer to #2 is no, would the "Enforcement officer" have the right to enter a home if accompanied by a police officer (but again, still without a warrant or invitation)? 4) In the event of a TV Licensing law being broken, what amount of evidence is required to be gathered before the TV licensing authority will issue a court summons to the law-breaker? 5) If a householder is taken to court over suspected infringement of TV licensing laws, does the burden of proof that a TV license is not required rest upon the defendant? or is it the duty of the enforcement authority to prove that the law has been broken? 6) In the scenario set out in #5, if the defendant is found to be not-guilty, would the defendant be liable for any court costs incurred by the TV licensing authority under any circumstances? It was answered by a retired lay advocate in constitutional matters: 1) a) no b) no c) no 2) absolutely not. 3) no. Only a police officer has the right of entry *with a warrant* to search for items specified on the warrant (ie television equipment that is in use (ie switched on and tuned)). 4) tvla has no authority to issue a summons. Only a justice of the peace or a magistrate can issue a summons, upon the laying of evidence from a material witness to the complaint. Any summons which does not come from a court, bearing a court seal and the name of the magistrate or his clerk and/or their signature, is fraudulent. Any summons bearing the name of anybody who claims to be the reporting person who was not actually a witness to the offence being reported is also fraudulent. 5) the burden of proof rests solely and entirely with tvla to prove their case. 6) no. In fact, tvla would then be liable for costs. Now left. |
||
|
6th Jul 2014 5:40pm |
|
| gilarion Member Since: 05 Dec 2013 Location: Wales Posts: 5132
|
The argument that you do not need a license for owning a TV if you do not watch live broadcasts is as old as the licence itself, but remember that a license is to RECEIVE broadcasted materials and as such the TV licencing authority can trip you up if you own a TV set and have a router connected to the internet that is capable of receiving Live TV. Several people are falling foul of this law with the recent introduction of the Sky ‘NOW’ TV box. The only argument that you can use to an enforcement officer is that you are refusing to pay for a service you neither require nor use, but the owness would be on you to prove that. The present law and it is on the statute books is that if a TV licencing enforcement officer knocks on your door then you are required by law to produce a valid TV licence, failure to do so if it is deemed you do not have such a licence will result in you receiving a summons from your local Magistrate court. It does not matter that you don't watch Live TV and only catch up TV if your TV set is capable of receiving a broadcast signal. It will then be up to the person who does not have a licence to prove in court that he in law does not require one, a very tricky thing to do. As for allowing an Enforcement officer into your home, no you do not have to, enforcement officers are employed by Capita and work on a commission basis so they are very keen, and you are right you are under no obligation to allow them to enter your home, and they have no more rights over you than any other member of the public. However refusing to allow an enforcement officer into your home will if you have no valid licence result in a summons, with a possible fine. One point to note no matter what has been said on the telephone is that unlicensed properties are flagged by up by the TV Licensing's database and will be subject to further investigation. This usually involves sending regular licence reminder letters to the property, which are eventually followed up by a visit by one of TV Licensing's doorstep enforcement officers who are really salespeople again employed by Capita and looking for commission . You can withdraw TV Licensing's implied right of access by writing to them and saying so. Unless you have a letter from the licencing office saying that they agree that you do not require a licence or that they have agreed to amend your details on their database then you will be flagged up. I realise that this is a matter of principle and I applaud your stand, and what you say is in theory perfectly correct, but I have in the past dealt with several persons who have received summons for not having a TV licence and Magistrates always look upon such people as if they are the worst. Sometimes it is worth paying the £145.50 just not to have the hassle. |
||
|
6th Jul 2014 7:35pm |
|
| martinfiattech Member Since: 13 Nov 2013 Location: leicester Posts: 422
|
Oh heck this is worse than the cat or de cat debate
As for pic`s of said girl they got burnt that night, just after I punched her windscreen in on her car. Which I had brought for her as a present. So that night cost me a left hand that still hurts 15 years later, £65 for new screen, on the up side the wife after 13 years is a keeper for sure. We also love the big bang theory, well more me than her. Now Dr Alice Roberts, Alyson hannaigan, is worth watching. Any kind of geeky girl will do Excuse the spelling I`am better with spanners and wires. |
||
|
6th Jul 2014 8:13pm |
|
| What puddle? Member Since: 25 Oct 2013 Location: Reading Posts: 952
|
Sorry gilarion, but again I must disagree based entirely on my sharp end experience. The law is quoted on their website and the letter sent to me. It states very clearly that you need to have a licence if you watch or record live TV. Again, you are NOT required to produce a TV licence if an enforcement officer knocks on your door. You are merely asked if you have one. They already know the answer to that. If you state you do then you are asked to prove it. If you state that you do not have a licence, then they remind you that you are breaking the law if you are watching or recording live television. As I said, despite us owning FOUR TVs, one Smart TV, a PC with TV fitted, and two iPads, they expressed no interest in us (in writing) based on my verbal declaration that we only watch catch up TV (I refused to sign their formal declaration on principle that it is not legally required). As I said, they said that they were satisfied (again, I have this in writing), and would review it in three years.
I'm disappointed that you encourage the myths around TV licensing, and very disappointed that you advise paying £140 when you don't have to, just to avoid a little hassle. Again I state that the Authority will actually lie about what is required of you by law - in stating that you should sign their declaration. I researched this, and it was confirmed by them - that you don't actually have to. It isn't a minefield, it is VERY clear. You only have to have a TV licence if you watch or record live TV. If you break ANY law in this country it is NOT incumbent upon you to prove your innocence. It is up to the prosecutor to prove that the law has been broken. In order to provide evidence they would need to issue a warrant for entry, but they can only get the warrant signed and validated if they offer the judge who signs the warrant positive evidence that live TV is being watched. That can only get that by seeing it, hearing it, by the owner's own admission, or by the records of the internet service provider. Now left. |
||
|
6th Jul 2014 8:25pm |
|
| Supacat Member Since: 16 Oct 2012 Location: West Yorkshire Posts: 11018 
|
I've no problem with this approach to commercial channels but what happens to BBC content when everyone adopts your approach?
|
||
|
7th Jul 2014 2:18pm |
|
| What puddle? Member Since: 25 Oct 2013 Location: Reading Posts: 952
|
Supacat, I've absolutely no doubt that the BBC would be even worse should it have to go commercial, but it may also finally get to grips with its budget, rather than wasting it by sending 140 people to cover Mandela's funeral in South Africa, or 300 staff to Glastonbury, or using different newsreaders for all its radio and TV stations when one could do the whole job, or wasting £100 million on a cancelled digital project, or spending £350 million on paying off useless executives, or the £180 million move of BBC North to Salford, or the £1 billion (yes, £1 billion) spent on moving News to Broadcasting House, or the £15,000 in taxi fares last year taking Gary Linekar to and from Salford and his Surrey home.
The BBC content isn't good. And yes, Channel 5, ITV, and to a lesser extent, Channel 4, all have awful standards. Just because the BBC is better than the dross put out by the others doesn't make it worth saving with a 'tax' of £145 a year. The left wing BBC (it plainly is) is obsessed with sport and climate change, an spending YOUR money. Who knows how many people are not paying the licence while actually watching, but I do know that the number of people like me who have switched to catch-up is currently 428,359 and growing. There's only one end to this: it WILL go commercial, it's just a matter of time. Of course, the BBC currently is already kind of commercial, as it promotes its own products and programmes during the break in EVERY programme - sometimes three trailers. It also has a huge sales division to sell its content abroad. Commercialisation of the BBC is already here. Now left. |
||
|
7th Jul 2014 2:52pm |
|
| gilarion Member Since: 05 Dec 2013 Location: Wales Posts: 5132
|
There is no mythology surrounding the facts I have given, and I do not think that the TV licencing authority are a bunch of liars as you have quoted.
It is as I have stated a criminal offence to have a television in your home capable of receiving live broadcasts and with an aerial or satellite dish fitted to that same home, that same law now covers smart boxes such as ‘NOW’ TV. Only by removing either the tuner or aerial input socket of a TV to render it incapable of receiving a signal can you in law qualify to be exempt, this is not a TV licencing premise it is how the law perceives it. There was a slight change in the law in 2013 which amended the clause that retailers have to take your address at the time of purchasing a TV receiver, other than that the law on TV ownership has not changed. The TV licencing law is also entrenched in the Wireless Telegraphy Act which states ‘’ anyone using or owning 'with intent to use' a television to watch any channel (including satellite or cable) or to record and watch video tapes needs a TV licence’. I feel that soon this will be amended to include the many new mediums of TV viewing that have recently come on to the market. It may be prudent at this time to mention that prosecutions for television licence evasion has grown to such an extent that this offence is fast becoming the largest single instance of crime, especially for those who are female. As you will know it is possible that a TV licence evader can also be jailed, and many have been, but even if found guilty in a court for not having a TV licence will give you a criminal record, making getting insurance and job prospects difficult. There is a movement at present that wishes to de criminalise TV licence evasion which would then become a civil matter, though I believe the BBC believes decriminalisation could lead to reduced revenue and as such is opposing any change. Where I think the confusion comes from is that you are alluding to TV licencing facts as given by that authority who are not judge and jury nor are they able to police licence evasion, this is done through the courts and is looked upon as a serious offence in the same way as tax evasion is (at least for some), I am relying on the law as fact written on the statute books and those facts cannot be debated or argued on, only parliament can alter them. I am sure that what you say is a grey area or a loophole in the present system, and that many others are thinking along similar lines. I am also sure that the BBC are also thinking along these lines and are beginning to realise that with the advent of Smart TV’s, fast broadband and of course their own iPlayer and various other devices that have recently come on the market, re catch up TV, that unless the law is altered it could severely effect their income. I feel that while watching catch up TV without a TV licence is presently not a criminal offence, it may soon be, all it will need is a simple act of Parliament or a test case taken through the courts where a magistrate or judge makes the decision. The TV licencing is a vast machine, that also has a deal of power backed by many acts of Parliament, I know of no case that they have taken to court, that they have lost. As a caveat blind people have to pay for a licence although they are able to claim a 50% blind concession, when you think about that these persons are only able to enjoy the audio of any live broadcast, so in many ways a TV becomes like a radio which of course is not licensable, but as I keep quoting it is not what you do with a television or how you use it, it is the fact that a television is capable of receiving live broadcasts and as such you have to have a licence, that is the law. |
||
|
7th Jul 2014 3:17pm |
|
| What puddle? Member Since: 25 Oct 2013 Location: Reading Posts: 952
|
gilarion. For the sake of others, I am going to try one last time by stating the actual law then, rather than the TV Licensing's own webpage. I'm going to give you the ACTUAL law, mate, so that we can perhaps conclude this. First of all though, they DO lie. I have already stated this, and I have proof. I have the original letter which states that if you have a television, then you have to have a licence. This is NOT true, as they admitted to me. And here is where I prove it:
Right, where you are going wrong is that you are reading the law as it is set out in legislation. However, you are failing to read the notes that go with the law. When laws are passed and written down, there are always notes that explain the terms used. And with all due respect, this is what you are completely failing to see. Let me explain: "Part 4 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to install or use a television receiver to watch or record any television programmes as they're being shown on television without a valid TV Licence." I appreciate that this isn't good enough for you, and that you are instead referring to the actual law as it was passed in 2003. So let's look at that. It's the 'Communications Act 2003'. This states: 363 Licence required for use of TV receiver (1)A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this Part. (2)A person who installs or uses a television receiver in contravention of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence. (3)A person with a television receiver in his possession or under his control who— (a)intends to install or use it in contravention of subsection (1), or (b)knows, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that another person intends to install or use it in contravention of that subsection, is guilty of an offence. BUT, you'll see that the term "television receiver" is used with no explanation of what exactly that is. So, to make it clear, the Act provides it thus: 368 Meanings of “television receiver” and “use” (1)In this Part “television receiver” means any apparatus of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State setting out the descriptions of apparatus that are to be television receivers for the purposes of this Part. Hmm, so the Secretary of State has to issue a description of such a 'television receiver'? Well, he does! It is Regulation 9 of the Communications Regulations 2004: Meaning of “television receiver” 9. (1) In Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV reception), “television receiver” means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose. (2) In this regulation, any reference to receiving a television programme service includes a reference to receiving by any means any programme included in that service, where that programme is received at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by members of the public by virtue of its being broadcast or distributed as part of that service. And it is Part 2 of Regulation 9 of the Communications Regulations that you are completely failing to take into account gilarion... "as it is received by members of the public by virtue of its being broadcast or distributed as part of that service" Its meaning is 'live' television. So to boil it all down (which is what in all due respect I have already said a number of times, and which the TV Licensing webpage does for you)... It is an offence to use a television receiver to watch or record any television programmes as they're being shown on television without a valid TV Licence. However, it is NOT an offence to watch that programme if it is shown later on a 'catch-up' service. Now, if you want to reply, that's fine, and I understand. But you'll excuse me if I don't. I have provided the ACTUAL law which you often refer to. I simply cannot make it any clearer, it isn't possible. Now left. |
||
|
7th Jul 2014 4:06pm |
|
|
|
| All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
< Previous Topic | Next Topic > |
Posting Rules
|
Site Copyright © 2006-2025 Futuranet Ltd & Martin Lewis
