Grunff wrote:

Harvey Van Sickle wrote:

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.



Look at it this way. Say I want to buy a TV to use with my PS2. That's
all I ever want to use it for. Why on earth should I be penalised for
this, by being forced to 'prove' that this is all I want to use it for?
That's like saying that when I buy a kitchen knife I have to prove that
I'm not going to use it to kill anyone!


Welcome to Blind Mans Bluff.

If you read the papers, you will doscover that is recisely waht is going
through teh courts rght now.

man with Army penknife in briefcase arrested for possessing and
offensive weapon.

However, its merely the weight of evidence. If the set looks like it
isn't and has'nty and would take a bit of effort to make it suiatble for
receiving, teh case is not pursuable.

If its plugged in, tuned in, with a set top aerial on it, then the
magistrate is going to say 'pull the other one'