On 22 Dec 2004, Grunff wrote

Harvey Van Sickle wrote:

That's true, but I think it's been established that you have to
show that the TV's ability to receive programmes has been
disabled -- not just that you state "I don't use it for that
purpose".


How has this been established, and by whom?

I said "I think" it's been established.

My reason for thinking that, is that if it *had* been established that
a simple declaration of intent satisfied the legal requirement for
"non-receipt of broadcasts", one of two things would have happened:
either it would be a fairly widely-known and simple way of getting
around the licence fee; or (more likely) the law would have been
changed to require evidence.

Like I've said elsethread, I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I don't
think (there's that word again) that a simple "Take my word for it -- I
never use the thing" would be sufficient to carry the day if one was
prosecuted for not having a licence.

--
Cheers,
Harvey