On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 19:07:54 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:18:39 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 04:42:21 -0800, Man at B&Q wrote:

On Jan 13, 7:09Àš pm, OG wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:
On Jan 12, 7:19 pm, "OG" wrote:
Meaning of "television receiver"
Àš Àš Àš 9. Àš - (1) In Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV
reception), Àš Àš Àš "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.
So it's clear that it's the *purpose* for the apparatus rather
than the *capability* that's important.
So, with respect, I think you are in error.
By your own quote "apparatus installed or used for the purpose of
receiving", just installing it is sufficient. You don't have to
actually use it.
No, that's why it says "installed or used for the purpose of
receiving..."

If it's not installed or used for that specific purpose, then it
doesn't need a licence.
Installed OR used, not installed AND used. Installing and not using
it still satisfies what it says.
No, expanding it gives "installed for the purpose OR use for the
purpose".

Installing it NOT for the purpose is legal.

"well yer honor, I installed me 54" plasmaa and surround sound , and
satellite dish and Digital aerial just to impress the neighbours, no
we never watch it."

But the case we were discussing wasn't that, was it? It was an
installed TV used to watch DVDs, or fed from a PC with iPlayer.

No antaenna/dish needed.
The principle proves the rule. In the end any legislative body will
take a view, and try not to set an unfortunate precedent that allows
evildoers off the hook.

Meaningless wriggling.



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org