Harvey Van Sickle wrote:

On 22 Dec 2004, 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!


I agree entirely with you that the "PS2" situation seems unfair; but
as I understand it, the sorry fact of life is that your statement of
intent simply isn't enough to satisfy the legal niceties.

Whether it's fair or not, I think it's been established that one has to
provide some sort of evidence that this is all you are using it for.
And the accepted way of providing that evidence is to show that the
equipment is incapable of being used to view broadcast programmes.

Thats too strong.

Its advisable to have a cast iron situation like that, but its enough to
show that it could not be readly available to be used.