"Andy Hall" wrote
| Fine, but if they are saying on their own web site that simply
| not having the tuner tuned to any channels or with no antenna
| is a way of demonstrating that, then they can hardly say that
| more needs to be done afterwards.

Somewhere on their website will probably be a disclaimer that the site is
for general information and does not constitute a statement of the law.

Whatever TVL say on their website does not change what is the law according
to statute and judicial precedent (which may come as a surprise to many,
including TVL).

Owain

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 15:53:39 +0000, Kalico wrote:

For about the past year or so I have been receiving increasingly
threatening letters from the TV licensing people about the fact I do
not have a license.

I'm not too fussed about buying one since I do not use the TV for
anything other than watching the occasional video. Indeed, there is
no TV in the main living room and no aerial lead on the TV that is
upstairs.

The 'notices' are sounding increasingly nasty. If I do not get a
license OR write to tell them I do not use a TV, then it is likely
that the skies will darken and the seas will boil etc etc.

My first question is whether I have to tell them that I do not watch
regular TV programmes? I know you can get a fine now for not
declaring SORN on a vehicle if it is off the road, but is TV licensing
as bad as that?

Secondly, does anyone have any experience of what happens when the
inspectors call at your house? They surely will at some point. I
could write to tell them what they want to know, but there is that
little bit of rebel still left in me that hates conforming to the
nanny state's big brother-esque dictats.

Does the inspector actually have to register radiation, or similar,
coming from the back of my TV set to 'prove' I am watching it (not
sure how they would get on with an LCD tv)? If so, surely I would
have to let them into my house. Do I have to?

Also, can they tell the difference between me watching a video and a
regular TV programme? It would be rare that my girlfriend and I would
put a video on before 11pm (sounds fun doesn't it? - the reality is
less exciting). Surely they would not start to bang on the door at
that hour and I could be forgiven for not answering it if they did?

Cheers
Rob

This was discussed recently on another NG.
Tell them, once, that you do not have TV receiving equipment installed.
Ignore any further correspondance.
If they turn up, tell them to sod off. They have no right of entry without a warrant, which they are
highly unlikely to get.

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 18:14:16 GMT, Lobster
wrote:

One thing that particularly hacks me off is that they invite you to to
contact them in the event you don't have a TV, but expect you to cover
the cost of writing or phoning.

Hi,

No need to, just scribble 'NO TV' across the reminder in big letters,
and send it off without a stamp. Evidently it gets to the other end

cheers,
Pete.

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 17:55:19 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

What if it was never turned on?

So what it is doing in your living room or bedroom? Buried at the back
of the loft under 1/2" of dust is another matter...

I cannot think you would need a license for just possessing a TV or
video.

Think a reasonable question would be 'why would you have a TV in a
room in your house if you *never* used it?'

Quite, if it was in a living area you'd have a hard job convincing a
"reasonable person" that you never switched it on.

I think in the end the individual magistrate will decide whether you
genuinely *never* watch off air progs, and only videos. And the
presence of an aerial or not doesn't mean much - an indoor type
could just be unplugged and put away.

And, IMHO, the watching of videos means the equipment is installed and
therefore requires a licence. End of story.

If ripping the tuners sections out of a video and TV are beyound you
monitors are available and video players, ie videos that don't record
ergo don't have a tuner. Even then your not completely in the clear as
you could watch a broadcast video recorded by someone else...

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 17:55:19 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Kalico wrote:
Basically, you need a licence for having the machines in your house --
regardless of whether or not you use them to watch broadcasts.

Surely that cannot be the case. What if it was never turned on? I
cannot think you would need a license for just possessing a TV or
video.


Think a reasonable question would be 'why would you have a TV in a room in
your house if you *never* used it?'


Because I live in a free, democratic country and can keep in my house
exactly what I want and do with it as I wish.

Well, I'm only playing and of course we cannot keep drugs and sub
machine guns etc (though many seem to like to) but I cannot see that
the above would have to be considered a 'reasonable' question.

Hell, some people keep rats, or collections of Elvis records or plates
with pictures of dogs on. Some adults even pay serious money for
those ridiculous dolls that are supposed to be ornaments.

Anyone remember the Franklin Mint?

Hehe!
Rob


Replace 'spam' with 'org' to reply

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 19:57:11 GMT, Mike Harrison
wrote:

This was discussed recently on another NG.
Tell them, once, that you do not have TV receiving equipment installed.
Ignore any further correspondance.
If they turn up, tell them to sod off. They have no right of entry without a warrant, which they are
highly unlikely to get.

I have not had a TV for fifteen years. Every couple of years they send
a piece of paper and I write NO TV on it and send it back. When I
changed address their (new) response to the NO TV comment was that
they would be coming to check up on me. One year later they haven't
done so and I wouldn't let them through the door if they did. I could
be fantasising, but I believe that a track record of NO TV is worth
establishing

Anna

~~ Anna Kettle, Suffolk, England
|""""| ~ Lime plaster repairs
/ ^^ \ // Freehand modelling in lime: overmantels, pargeting etc
|____| www.kettlenet.co.uk 01359 230642

John Rumm wrote:
Given that our legal system still loosly clings to the ideal of
"innocent until proven guilty", one might expect that it would be up to
the authorities to prove that you were using it in violation of the
licensing terms, not that you could if you wanted.

Not these days, a lot of statute law has created absolute offences where
you are guilty unless you can prove your innocence...

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 18:09:06 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle
wrote:

On 22 Dec 2004, Kalico wrote
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 17:32:01 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle
wrote:

-snip-

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.

But if you don't have to let the inspector in without a warrant
.......

Oh, absolutely. Interestingly, that's even stated in black and white
on the back of the licence:

Our officers may ask to inspect your licence and television
equipmenet at any time, but you do not have to let them into
your home without a search warrant.

I would have thought they would call and speak with me at least once
before going to get a search warrant.

This leads to one of the things that prompted my original post. The
fact is that the chances of them catching me in are minimal since I
work odd and irregular hours. Indeed, my first post said it unlikely
that the TV would ever be switched on before 11/midnight.

With that in mind, I would hate to think that an inspector called a
dozen or so times between 9 and 5 and because he never found me at
home to have a talk with, decided to go for a warrant and the first I
know of it is when returning home from a weekend away to find my door
kicked in.

Rob


Replace 'spam' with 'org' to reply

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 20:25:19 +0000, Pete C
wrote:

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 18:14:16 GMT, Lobster
wrote:

One thing that particularly hacks me off is that they invite you to to
contact them in the event you don't have a TV, but expect you to cover
the cost of writing or phoning.

Hi,

No need to, just scribble 'NO TV' across the reminder in big letters,
and send it off without a stamp. Evidently it gets to the other end

cheers,
Pete.

But why should you?


Replace 'spam' with 'org' to reply

Lobster wrote:

This topic is an old chestnut in uk.legal (or is it u.l.moderated?) I
gather that if you do ever manage to convince the buggers that you don't
have a TV, the absence of ever-more-threatening letters is only abated
for a relatively brief period, then they assume that the 'status' will
have changed, and the whole sorry saga starts again.
Little bro's been chased for a TVL for years, in the end he gave my sons
his playstation, his mate his DVD player and tv and watches videos on
his security recorder and monitor.
At work they keep chasing as we have antennas on the roof, for vhf and
uhf research, even when pointing at 'amsats they think your watching TV.

Somebody on u.l. who was well-experienced with dealing with these people
(and who seemed to know what they were talking about) was proferring
the advice that not only should you never invite them in to see the
absence of a TV, but that it was vital not to even speak to them - just
shut the door on them. Have to say I didn't quite see the relevance or
significance of that!

Anything you say will be taken down and maybe used in evidence against
you....

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 20:30:45 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 17:55:19 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

What if it was never turned on?

So what it is doing in your living room or bedroom? Buried at the back
of the loft under 1/2" of dust is another matter...

I cannot think you would need a license for just possessing a TV or
video.

Think a reasonable question would be 'why would you have a TV in a
room in your house if you *never* used it?'

Quite, if it was in a living area you'd have a hard job convincing a
"reasonable person" that you never switched it on.

I think in the end the individual magistrate will decide whether you
genuinely *never* watch off air progs, and only videos. And the
presence of an aerial or not doesn't mean much - an indoor type
could just be unplugged and put away.

And, IMHO, the watching of videos means the equipment is installed and
therefore requires a licence. End of story.

No, not end of story because the fact remains that I do not watch
broadcast TV on it.

What you are saying seems (I might be misreading) like capitulation.
Others have suggested I buy a monitor and DVD player etc, but why
should I? If you are saying that I should because it is easier and
will avoid confusion or any likelihood of problems then yes, you are
right, but you are also wrong.

Just because your car can go over 70pmh, I am sure you do not
frequently post off a cheque and your driving license for endorsement.
If they catch you speeding, then yes, face the music.

If they catch me watching broadcast TV then they can rightly throw the
book at me and I'll pay up without a single moan.

But I will not just give in to them and go out and spend my money on a
monitor or have to pay someone to rip out the tuner of my TV (even if
it were possible, which it is not always with single PCBs). Not a
case of beyond me (would hope not with a degree in Electronic
Engineering), but a case of why the hell should I?



Replace 'spam' with 'org' to reply

Kalico wrote:

Anyone remember the Franklin Mint?

Oh, I think the Die-Anna trust remembers them quite well ;-)

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 19:42:14 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle wrote:

On 22 Dec 2004, Andy Burns wrote

Harvey Van Sickle wrote:

You need a licence if you "install *or* use" (my emphasis)
equipment which can receive broadcast programme services.

But by being detuned and without an aerial lead it *cannot* receive
broadcast programme services!

I did, in fact, acknowledge that in the paragraph which everybody seems
to have snipped from my original post:

In other words, if you've *installed* a TV -- or a video
machine -- you need a licence for it. The only exception
I've heard of is if you can demonstratae that its capability
for receiving programmes has been disabled (and probably
permanently disabled, by removing the tuner and turning it
into a monitor).

I still suspect that simple de-tuning and not connecting an aerial
would be regularly challenged by the licencing people -- "Our officers
would like to check that your untuned TV receiver has remained
untuned".

To which you are perfectly entitled to reply "Sod off" They have no right of entry to check.

Dave Liquorice wrote:

And, IMHO, the watching of videos means the equipment is installed and
therefore requires a licence. End of story.

I really don't follow this. If I want a TV for watching DVDs and/or
playing games, and that's all I want to use it for, I can't for the life
of me understand why I should pay a license fee!

--
Grunff

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 22:00:11 GMT, Badger wrote:



Lobster wrote:

This topic is an old chestnut in uk.legal (or is it u.l.moderated?) I
gather that if you do ever manage to convince the buggers that you don't
have a TV, the absence of ever-more-threatening letters is only abated
for a relatively brief period, then they assume that the 'status' will
have changed, and the whole sorry saga starts again.
Little bro's been chased for a TVL for years, in the end he gave my sons
his playstation, his mate his DVD player and tv and watches videos on
his security recorder and monitor.
At work they keep chasing as we have antennas on the roof, for vhf and
uhf research, even when pointing at 'amsats they think your watching TV.

Somebody on u.l. who was well-experienced with dealing with these people
(and who seemed to know what they were talking about) was proferring
the advice that not only should you never invite them in to see the
absence of a TV, but that it was vital not to even speak to them - just
shut the door on them. Have to say I didn't quite see the relevance or
significance of that!

Anything you say will be taken down and maybe used in evidence against
you....

ISTR on that discussion that most people who are done admitted it themselves and nobody had
actually been convicted on detection evidence.

On 22 Dec 2004, Mike Harrison wrote

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 19:42:14 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle
wrote:

On 22 Dec 2004, Andy Burns wrote

Harvey Van Sickle wrote:

You need a licence if you "install *or* use" (my emphasis)
equipment which can receive broadcast programme services.

But by being detuned and without an aerial lead it *cannot*
receive broadcast programme services!

I did, in fact, acknowledge that in the paragraph which everybody
seems to have snipped from my original post:

In other words, if you've *installed* a TV -- or a video
machine -- you need a licence for it. The only exception
I've heard of is if you can demonstratae that its capability
for receiving programmes has been disabled (and probably
permanently disabled, by removing the tuner and turning it
into a monitor).

I still suspect that simple de-tuning and not connecting an
aerial would be regularly challenged by the licencing people --
"Our officers would like to check that your untuned TV receiver
has remained untuned".

To which you are perfectly entitled to reply "Sod off" They have
no right of entry to check.

Absolutely -- but if you exercise that right to say "sod off" too many
times, they can obtain a warrant. At which point they'll have managed
to see your "sod off" and raise you a "try sodding that off".

--
Cheers,
Harvey

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?

When the shop asks you for your address, give them the address for the
TVLA ;-)

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!

Funnily enough, if you`ve entered the USA any time over the last few
years or bought hardware from Dell, you will have been asked equally
stupid questions.

--
Please add "[newsgroup]" in the subject of any personal replies via email
--- My new email address has "ngspamtrap" & @btinternet.com in it ;-) ---

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 21:57:49 +0000, Kalico wrote:



With that in mind, I would hate to think that an inspector called a
dozen or so times between 9 and 5 and because he never found me at
home to have a talk with, decided to go for a warrant and the first I
know of it is when returning home from a weekend away to find my door
kicked in.

Well of course, IF your door was kicked in and nothing was found, i.e.
no evidence of a suspected offence was found, you would be entitled to
compensation.

New door/frame/locks/wallpaper around said frame.... :-)

--
Frank Erskine

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 22:00:11 GMT, Badger
wrote:


Anything you say will be taken down and maybe used in evidence against
you....

Another UL from US type of legal stuff.

In English law :-

"You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you
do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in
Court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."

You still retain exactly the "right of silence" as previously, but now
if you do not answer a question, a court may now draw an inference
from your refusal to answer a question that you may have something to
hide, or that you may rely on subsequent "advice".

The whole idea of an "interview" is to establish facts, for or
against, an accusation of an offence. Indeed, an interview is your
chance to prove yourself innocent!

--
Frank Erskine

Badger wrote:



John Rumm wrote:

Given that our legal system still loosly clings to the ideal of
"innocent until proven guilty", one might expect that it would be up
to the authorities to prove that you were using it in violation of the
licensing terms, not that you could if you wanted.


Not these days, a lot of statute law has created absolute offences where
you are guilty unless you can prove your innocence...

That was why I said "loosly clings"... i.e. I am aware of things like
the RIP Act, but as far as I am aware such far reaching powers have not
been extended to TV Licensing (yet)!

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Harvey Van Sickle wrote:

I did, in fact, acknowledge that in the paragraph which everybody seems
to have snipped from my original post:

In other words, if you've *installed* a TV -- or a video
machine -- you need a licence for it. The only exception
I've heard of is if you can demonstratae that its capability
for receiving programmes has been disabled (and probably
permanently disabled, by removing the tuner and turning it
into a monitor).

You keep coming back to this, but TVL's own web site explicitly says
that if you only have a TV for use with games, prerecorded videos etc.
then you do not need a license.

IIRC it even goes so far as to say you can watch videos of broadcast
stuff so long as they were made by someone with licensed equipment.

I still suspect that simple de-tuning and not connecting an aerial
would be regularly challenged by the licencing people -- "Our officers
would like to check that your untuned TV receiver has remained
untuned". So the easiest way to "prove" disablement would be to
permanently disable the tuner in some way.

They may like to think that, but I can't see it sticking in court.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Andy Wade wrote:

I think you may be replying to the wrong post here...

John Rumm wrote:

But there is virtually no chance of detecting a TV that does not have
the aerial lead connected.


FSVO "no" such as "quite a high" :-). AIUI the detector vans have been
/ are being replaced by hand-held TV detectors, the operating principle
of which seems to be a closely guarded secret in the Beeb - but BBC R&D
at Kingswood had a hand in the development, so it could be something
quite advanced.

The linescan output, and that of the local oscilators in a typical TV
demodulating circuit are all easily detected with the right kit. Not
only that, but the nature of the signals makes them quite conspicous.


Line scan was used by the original detectors[1] in the 50s, replaced by
LO radiation in the later vans. If they've gone back to line scan
'radiation' (pedants read "induction field") it might make it quite
harder to find non-CRT displays, which are becoming very common.

I was not suggesting any particular technology is used, only
highlighting the fact that there are many ways to detect signal leakage
from largely unscreened boxes like TVs.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 22:26:46 +0000, Grunff wrote:

And, IMHO, the watching of videos means the equipment is installed
and therefore requires a licence. End of story.

I really don't follow this. If I want a TV for watching DVDs and/or
playing games, and that's all I want to use it for, I can't for the
life of me understand why I should pay a license fee!

Because that is how the rules is writ. TBH they are too vague and
haven't caught up with the fact that most broadcast TV is so dire that
it's not worth watching but people have TVs for other purposes such
has home cinema.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

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

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 22:17:02 +0000, Kalico wrote:

And, IMHO, the watching of videos means the equipment is installed
and therefore requires a licence. End of story.

No, not end of story because the fact remains that I do not watch
broadcast TV on it.

Unfortunately the onus is on you to prove that. In some areas you
don't need to connect any aerial to a set at all to receive a
perfectly watchable picture and listenable sound. So simply not having
an aerial connected doesn't work and as has already been pointed out a
set top jobbie can be stashed in a cupboard...

The only real way is not to have any broadcast receiving apparatus, so
use a monitor not a TV to watch your videos, played from a machine
that also does not have any broadcast receiving circuitry.

What you are saying seems (I might be misreading) like capitulation.

No, it's obeying the rules. See other post...

Others have suggested I buy a monitor and DVD player etc, but why
should I?

Because if you don't, you have installed broadcast receiving equipment
and therefore need a licence.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

In message , Kalico
writes
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 17:26:11 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle
wrote:
[snip]

Further, I suspect -- although I can't say for certain -- that one
would need to show that the "disablement" was permanent or virtually
permanent, rather than easily re-enabled.

Yes, that's what the TV licensing chap said. Hence why he said he had
put half a reel of PVC tape over the antenna input on his TV and VCR.

Seems that using a detector van can pick out which channel is being
viewed. They can pick it up from the aerial on the roof, though I
cannot see it being so accurate as to be able to discern my aerial
from my neighbour's, three storeys up.

But there is virtually no chance of detecting a TV that does not have
the aerial lead connected.

Well, if you put an IF filter on the aerial lead and enclosed it in an
earthed metal mesh, they would have great difficulty in seeing it

... except that the commonest way of detecting AIUI is peeking through
the curtains

--
geoff

"Grunff" wrote in message
...
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:

You need a licence if you "install *or* use" (my emphasis) equipment
which can receive broadcast programme services. That includes not only
the tuner inside your telly, but also the tuner inside your video; it
would also include a PC card, which is another "tuner".

I don't believe this is true. It is what the TV Licensing often tell
you, but that doesn't make it true.


Agreed. There was a case brought some time ago for a TV used as part of a
security camera system and the case was thrown out of court. If you don't
use it for TV then you don't need a licence.

However as the OP admits he does watch videos on it then he does need a
licence.

"raden" wrote in message
...
In message , Kalico
writes
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 17:26:11 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle
wrote:
[snip]

Further, I suspect -- although I can't say for certain -- that one
would need to show that the "disablement" was permanent or virtually
permanent, rather than easily re-enabled.

Yes, that's what the TV licensing chap said. Hence why he said he had
put half a reel of PVC tape over the antenna input on his TV and VCR.

Seems that using a detector van can pick out which channel is being
viewed. They can pick it up from the aerial on the roof, though I
cannot see it being so accurate as to be able to discern my aerial
from my neighbour's, three storeys up.

But there is virtually no chance of detecting a TV that does not have
the aerial lead connected.

Well, if you put an IF filter on the aerial lead and enclosed it in an
earthed metal mesh, they would have great difficulty in seeing it

... except that the commonest way of detecting AIUI is peeking through
the curtains

When they knock on the door, you don't have to let them in. Tell them to go
away and get a proper job as you hate snoopers.. They require a warrant to
enter.

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 00:20:57 -0000, "Mike" wrote:


"Grunff" wrote in message
...
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:

You need a licence if you "install *or* use" (my emphasis) equipment
which can receive broadcast programme services. That includes not only
the tuner inside your telly, but also the tuner inside your video; it
would also include a PC card, which is another "tuner".

I don't believe this is true. It is what the TV Licensing often tell
you, but that doesn't make it true.


Agreed. There was a case brought some time ago for a TV used as part of a
security camera system and the case was thrown out of court. If you don't
use it for TV then you don't need a licence.

However as the OP admits he does watch videos on it then he does need a
licence.


Why? A received broadcast may not have been involved - it could be
videos from the rental shop. If the tape was recorded on a VCR,
then a license would need to be in place for where the recording was
made.


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In message , Pete C
writes
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 18:14:16 GMT, Lobster
wrote:

One thing that particularly hacks me off is that they invite you to to
contact them in the event you don't have a TV, but expect you to cover
the cost of writing or phoning.

Hi,

No need to, just scribble 'NO TV' across the reminder in big letters,
and send it off without a stamp. Evidently it gets to the other end

Doesn't work

--
geoff

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 00:13:30 UTC, raden wrote:

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

Not exactly. There is a provision for televisions used (inter alia) by
students living away from home, and (I believe) caravanners.

I'm pretty sure (from memory) that the batteries have to be 'internal'.

Also (more importantly) that this relates only to being able to use a
'base' licence to cover the portable set in question, so there must be a
TV 'back home' with a real licence.

--
Bob Eager
begin a new life...dump Windows!

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 00:20:57 -0000, "Mike" wrote:


"Grunff" wrote in message
...
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:

You need a licence if you "install *or* use" (my emphasis) equipment
which can receive broadcast programme services. That includes not
only
the tuner inside your telly, but also the tuner inside your video;
it
would also include a PC card, which is another "tuner".

I don't believe this is true. It is what the TV Licensing often tell
you, but that doesn't make it true.


Agreed. There was a case brought some time ago for a TV used as part of
a
security camera system and the case was thrown out of court. If you
don't
use it for TV then you don't need a licence.

However as the OP admits he does watch videos on it then he does need a
licence.


Why? A received broadcast may not have been involved - it could be
videos from the rental shop. If the tape was recorded on a VCR,
then a license would need to be in place for where the recording was
made.

To be really picky on legal points, anything recorded on a VCR can only be
watched by the person doing the recording at the place it was recorded (or
something like that anyway) so he needs a licence to do this. If you have
two houses then you still need a 2nd licence to watch the recording made in
the first but watched in the second.

Videos from rental shops is a different issue but I'm sure I read somewhere
these aren't exempt. DVD players on PCs come under this category.

said...
I really don't follow this. If I want a TV for watching DVDs and/or
playing games, and that's all I want to use it for, I can't for the
life of me understand why I should pay a license fee!

Because that is how the rules is writ. TBH they are too vague and
haven't caught up with the fact that most broadcast TV is so dire that
it's not worth watching but people have TVs for other purposes such
has home cinema.

Coming to this thread late... I have a television that is only
used for videos and DVDs and I do not have a television
licence. I checked with the licencing authority before
acquiring the TV, because I knew that I'd only be watching
films on it rather than broadcast programmes, and they said
that I'd be OK if the *internal* arial on the TV was disabled.
Thus, since the TV couldn't receive programmes if it tried (a
lump of solder works wonders), it doesn't count for licencing
purposes. I still have the external arial on the roof;
however the set itself is incapable of receiving anything
other than video/DVD and the arial cable enters the house and
sits there doing nothing except look silly.

said...
Agreed. There was a case brought some time ago for a TV used as part of a
security camera system and the case was thrown out of court. If you don't
use it for TV then you don't need a licence.

However as the OP admits he does watch videos on it then he does need a
licence.

Not necessarily. If the set is *incapable* of receiving
broadcast television a licence is unnecessary.

Mike wrote:

Videos from rental shops is a different issue but I'm sure I read somewhere
these aren't exempt. DVD players on PCs come under this category.

For the zillionth time, there is no 'exempt' about it - you need a
license if you're going to be watching TV. If you are going to watch
DVDs, play games, whatever, then you don't need a license. It says so on
TVL's own website.

--
Grunff

Dave Liquorice wrote:

I really don't follow this. If I want a TV for watching DVDs and/or
playing games, and that's all I want to use it for, I can't for the
life of me understand why I should pay a license fee!


Because that is how the rules is writ. TBH they are too vague and
haven't caught up with the fact that most broadcast TV is so dire that
it's not worth watching but people have TVs for other purposes such
has home cinema.

I've yet to see it writ like that. From
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/


"Do I need a licence?

If you use a TV or any other device to receive or record TV programmes
(for example, a VCR, set-top box, DVD recorder or PC with a broadcast
card) - you need a TV Licence. You are required by law to have one."


The key phrase: "to receive or record TV programmes".


--
Grunff

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 01:17:03 +0000, Grunff wrote:

The key phrase: "to receive or record TV programmes".

Define "to receive".

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

Dave Liquorice wrote:

The only real way is not to have any broadcast receiving apparatus, so
use a monitor not a TV to watch your videos, played from a machine that
also does not have any broadcast receiving circuitry.

All of which is easier, or cheaper, to say than to do.

A simple solution might be to physically seal the aerial sockets of the
TV and VCR by filling them with epoxy or hot-melt glue; and of course to
remove any unused TV aerial from outside the house.

The objective is to do something simple and physical, that any
"reasonable" person would see as obvious proof that TV reception has
been thoroughly and permanently disabled[*]. If you then put it in
writing, include pictures, and send it all to TVL with proof of
delivery, I should think you could safely ignore them forevermore.

There are two different standards operating here. To stop TVL from
pestering you, it seems that you have to prove your innocence beyond
reasonable doubt... way, way way beyond or so it seems. But securing a
conviction in court is a different matter - IANAL, but it seems to me
that the burden of proof would then fall back onto TVL, to prove your
guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Physically sealing the aerial sockets
would seem to create enough doubt to prevent that ever happening.

[*] Yes, we all know there are ways to get around a sealed aerial
socket, or even more drastic measures - but we are DIYers and techies,
so by definition not reasonable people at all :-)


--
Ian White
Abingdon, England

And, IMHO, the watching of videos means the equipment is installed and
therefore requires a licence. End of story.

I really don't follow this. If I want a TV for watching DVDs and/or
playing games, and that's all I want to use it for, I can't for the life
of me understand why I should pay a license fee!

You don't. End of story. Anyone who thinks a detuned television or video
with no aerial requires a licence is simply incorrect. From the horse's
mouth:

http://www.jifvik.org/tv/tvl2.jpg
http://www.jifvik.org/tv/clp.gif

Christian.

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 00:20:57 -0000, "Mike" wrote:


"Grunff" wrote in message
...
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:

You need a licence if you "install *or* use" (my emphasis) equipment
which can receive broadcast programme services. That includes not only
the tuner inside your telly, but also the tuner inside your video; it
would also include a PC card, which is another "tuner".

I don't believe this is true. It is what the TV Licensing often tell
you, but that doesn't make it true.


Agreed. There was a case brought some time ago for a TV used as part of a
security camera system and the case was thrown out of court. If you don't
use it for TV then you don't need a licence.

However as the OP admits he does watch videos on it then he does need a
licence.

I do not use videos of broadcast stuff though, only pre-recorded.


Replace 'spam' with 'org' to reply