In message , Harvey Van Sickle
writes
The statement is legal, you're just not reading it correctly. You
do not need a licence to install or use equipment ( such as a TV
or video recorder). You need a licence to install or use any
equipment to receive television programme services.

Spot the difference?

It's not an issue of whether the equipment is capable of receiving
television broadcast, it's one of whether the equipment is used to
receive broadcasts.

Oh, yes; I'm well aware of that. It's why in my first post I
mentioned that people have been exempted from licencing for non-
broadcast use -- but AFAIK only by showing that the receiving
capability had been disabled.

I'd be interested to hear of cases where someone has got off on the
basis that "The equipment is broadcast-ready, but I don't use it for
that purpose"?

My suspicion is that one's word would not be enough to carry the day in
a legal challenge -- some sort of physical evidence of disabled
receiving capability would need to be shown -- but I'm happy to be
proven wrong if a legal precedent can be pointed to.

I understand that a TV run from batteries is exempt (well it used to be)

So, a couple of car batteries and an inverter then ...

--
geoff