Harvey Van Sickle wrote:

On 22 Dec 2004, Grunff wrote


Harvey Van Sickle wrote:


Well, that's what it states on the back of the licence itself, in
writing:

You need a TV licence to install or use any equipment to receive
television programme services -- for example a television set,
video recorder, set-top box, PC with a broadcast card or any
other TV receiving equipment.

So if it's an illegal statement, they're doing it in writing --
which strikes me as unlikely, as I'd have thought it would have
been challenged in court by now.


Now you made me go and look it up!

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/nw/ind...munications/te
levision_licences.htm#who

See the section entitled "You do not use your television set or
video recorder to watch or record authorised broadcast
programmes".



Yeah, that's the bit -- it states (as I mentioned in my first post)
that you can get around it by showing that the TV is "incapable of
receiving" broadcasts:


Wrong.

You ahve to show reasonable grounds to support your assertion that it is
not used, not that it cannot be used.

However, the television set and/or video recorder must be
incapable of receiving all authorised broadcast programmes.
This could be done, for example, by making sure that neither
the television set nor the video recorder are tuned into any
channels and ensuring that they are not connected to an
aerial.

I take that to mean that it wouldn't be enough just to have no aerial
connection: the TV -- and the video -- cannot even be tuned to pick up
a signal. (FWIW I wouldn't be surprised if -- to qualify under that
exemption -- you had to show that the tuning mechanism was inaccessible
or otherwise disabled in some way.)


Actually merely saying 'I don't use not for TV use' is enough. The
burden of proof is on them.

However expect then back with a warrant aat coronation street time if
you do...