Harvey Van Sickle wrote:

On 22 Dec 2004, Steve Firth 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.

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"?


Innocent until proven guilty is the thesis.

OK its not a criminal offence, so its merely the burden of evidence
being most likley to point etc. etc.

In orher words, would an ordeinary man in teh street, walking into your
house and turning ion teh TV, discover a station or would he have to do
somethig like find an earila lead, or tune the set up etc etc.


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.