On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 01:14:29 +0000, Grunff wrote:

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.

This is all getting a bit silly.

If you check back to my original post you will see that I did not ask
about whether I need a license or not.

I DO NOT NEED A LICENSE.

My queries were about the necessity to report the lack of a need for a
license to the authorities and to get some idea of how they behave if
I do nothing.

Rob


Replace 'spam' with 'org' to reply

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 08:59:12 +0000, Ian White
wrote:

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.

I like that idea and did consider squirting some GripFil in there but
thought that was a bit drastic since I will want to use it for TV at
some point in the future (and yes, will buy a license then).

The same reason is why I will not remove my aerial. I do not think
that is necessary for 'prove' I do not watch TV.

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.

Apparently, they would leave me alone for about 3 months before
starting all over again - hence my original post about why I should
even bother telling them I do not need a license.

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.

But if I did seal the sockets I would have to let the inspector into
the house to view the arrangement - something most others advise
against doing.


[*] 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 :-)


Replace 'spam' with 'org' to reply

"Kalico" wrote in message
...
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.

A friend who did a stint as licence inspector said they worked most in the
evenings at about Eastenders or Coronation Street time. Out of a street of
100 houses, there would be one without a licence, just simply knock on door
during the end of the relevant programme and listen for the relevant theme
tune !!! Did have hand IF detectors as well but easier to just listen.

Had a whole variety in interesting stories and escapades of people trying to
dodge. Most either paid or ended up paying a lot more through the courts.
One story I remember is he called at a house door opened, could hear
Eastenders music playing, bloke shouted to wife "its the TV inspector guy
come to see that we don't have a TV dear". Lot of shuffling in lounge. He
went into lounge and sure enough no TV. But in the corner of the room on top
of a "TV unit" was a perfectly TV shaped mark in the dust and patch was
warm. Bloke could offer no explanation. After a lot of commotion in kitchen
found the blokes wife trying to stuff a "warm to the touch" TV into a
cupboard. £800 fine I think in the end.

"Harvey Van Sickle" wrote
| On 22 Dec 2004, Andy Burns wrote
| But by being detuned and without an aerial lead it *cannot* receive
| broadcast programme services!
| I still suspect that simple de-tuning and not connecting an aerial
| would be regularly challenged by the licencing people

Many TVs auto-tune on switch-on, and in many areas the signal will be strong
enough for the set to receive something, even without an aerial. It will
therefore be necessary to take positive steps to prevent this happening in
many cases.

Owain

My queries were about the necessity to report the lack of a need for a
license to the authorities and to get some idea of how they behave if
I do nothing.

The answer to your original question is that you do not need to inform them,
but if you do they might stop sending you letters for 3 months, if you're
lucky. You are under no obligation to do so.

Christian.

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.

You are right Christian.

We don`t have a licence (not since 2000). An inspector came round, we
offered to let him see our equipment - he wasn`t bothered. The aerial is
still up on the roof as I may want to use it again at some point. We have
had no letters. Got a refund on the licence we did have too.

You can be arsey about letting them in but it`s really cutting off your nose
to spite your face - they haven`t bothered us at all since the check.

Will

Bob Eager wrote:

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

The "student" exemption was withdrawn a good while ago (20 years back?)

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

That, I think, is the case - "solely powered by internal batteries". It
would take dedication of a uk.d-i-y variety to make up a spaceframe
around the bulk of an existing TV set, with two or four deep-discharge
lead-acid batteries, layered in photovoltaic cells to keep 'em topped up ;-)

Ian Middleton wrote:


Had a whole variety in interesting stories and escapades of people trying to
dodge. Most either paid or ended up paying a lot more through the courts.
One story I remember is he called at a house door opened, could hear
Eastenders music playing, bloke shouted to wife "its the TV inspector guy
come to see that we don't have a TV dear". Lot of shuffling in lounge. He
went into lounge and sure enough no TV. But in the corner of the room on top
of a "TV unit" was a perfectly TV shaped mark in the dust and patch was
warm. Bloke could offer no explanation. After a lot of commotion in kitchen
found the blokes wife trying to stuff a "warm to the touch" TV into a
cupboard. £800 fine I think in the end.


Hilarious. Oh how we laughed.

And from exposure to people behaving badly and stupidly like this, the
organisation as a whole becomes aggressively convinced we're *all* lying
scrotes - especially, I suspect, now that it's been Outsourced on
commercial terms: the one remark I made, having stayed calm throughout
the phone conversation, which made the Centrica-acting-as-TVLA person
raise their voice and become unprofessionally defensive, was to suggest
they had some sort of targets for sending out their YOU SHOULD PAY
letters...

Frank Erskine wrote:


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!

"To prove yourself innocent", Frank? Funny, I thought the basis for most
criminal charges was that it was the *prosecution's* job to prove the
accused guilty. To a standard of "beyond reasonable doubt, moreover.

Yes, there are "strict liability" offences - failure to display a valid
road-fund licence disc (or whatever they're called this year) is one
such. The attempt by the TV licencing people to create the impression
that merely being a householder requires possession of a TV licence is
what we're objecting to in this thread...

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 13:12:22 UTC, Stefek Zaba
wrote:

Bob Eager wrote:

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

The "student" exemption was withdrawn a good while ago (20 years back?)

Sorry, what I meant was that students can only use the 'batteries'
exemption - I know students who do.

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

That, I think, is the case - "solely powered by internal batteries". It
would take dedication of a uk.d-i-y variety to make up a spaceframe
around the bulk of an existing TV set, with two or four deep-discharge
lead-acid batteries, layered in photovoltaic cells to keep 'em topped up ;-)

I did actually wonder about covering that point! Dunno about multiple
sets of rechargeable, exchangeable batteries, tho'!

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

In article ,
Kalico wrote:
I like that idea and did consider squirting some GripFil in there but
thought that was a bit drastic since I will want to use it for TV at
some point in the future (and yes, will buy a license then).

The same reason is why I will not remove my aerial. I do not think
that is necessary for 'prove' I do not watch TV.

Hmm.

--
*Tell me to 'stuff it' - I'm a taxidermist.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Harvey Van Sickle wrote:

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".

At which point you act as nice as pie, let them in (as you then have to)
and take the opportunity to explain just how much time time and effort
they've wasted, to nobody's benefit, and that you hope not to have to
put them through all those hoops again in the future ...

Stefek Zaba wrote:

commercial terms: the one remark I made, having stayed calm throughout
the phone conversation, which made the Centrica-acting-as-TVLA person

Keep you gassing on the phone did she? ;-)


--
Cheers,

John.

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

In article , "Kalico"
says...
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 08:59:12 +0000, Ian White
wrote:

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.

I like that idea and did consider squirting some GripFil in there but
thought that was a bit drastic since I will want to use it for TV at
some point in the future (and yes, will buy a license then).

The easiest reversible way to disable reception is to solder a wire
across the terminals on the back of the aerial socket, although
that's not visible from the outside of the case. Of course you'll
also need a non-RF input to use the TV for non-broadcast video.

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

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

It doesn't have to be in your house, you could buy it as a present for
or on behalf of someone else.
--

SJW
Please reply to group or use 'usenet' in email subject

"Lurch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 17:55:19 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
strung together this:

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

It doesn't have to be in your house, you could buy it as a present for
or on behalf of someone else.

Then, presumably it would still be in it's wrappings, not to mention the
fact that you would have a receipt showing that you had only just bought the
set....

Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
On 22 Dec 2004, Grunff wrote


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.


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

now pay attention.......

to receive television programme services

This, if the equipment can, but is not, used to receive TV services, no
license fee is payable.

It does NOT say 'install or use any equipment whoich COULD receive TV
services, nor is non visual broadcast - radio - mentioned either.


Someone years ago had a run in with theBoys abot a TYV thta was only
used as a Sincliar Spectrim monitor. They claimed it had no aerial and
got away with it.

Detector vans are a myth anyway.

I dount they can actually pick up a working TV




-- 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.

Al Reynolds wrote:

"Grunff" wrote in message
...

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/index/your_world/communications/television_licences.htm#who

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


Interesting.

"... 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'd be fascinated to know what would happen if the inspectors
came 'round and someone used this line on them. My TVs
aren't tuned into any channels and aren't connected to aerials,
because I have cable boxes. Theoretically I could just hide the
cable boxes and this would make me "acceptable".

The key is to have reasonable grounds to prove that you do not use the
TV to watch programs on.

Siting it where there is obviously no aerial, and where it won't work
with rabbits ears, is a simple solution.

The license is for reception of broadcast material, not ownership of one
or more TV's.

And PC's used as Internet receivers via webcasst etc DO need a license
too...
..





Al

Tony Collins wrote:

I'm with Harvey on this.

When I read up on this some time ago, it was clear that you could only use a
TV or Video without a licence if it was INCAPABLE of recieving
(permanently).

Not true.


Just stating that you don't use it to recieve is not enough.

No, you must have reasonable evidence to show that you don''t use it.

Thats all. The burden of proof is on them to prove that you do.

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...

Harvey Van Sickle wrote:

On 22 Dec 2004, wrote


I believe the journalist Jonathan Miller is waging a war against
the TV Licencing people.

His website is:
http://www.tvlicensing.biz

The key info you are after is at:
http://www.tvlicensing.biz/info_on_t...sing/index.htm

To summarise:

You do NOT need a TV Licence for owning any kind of TV
receiver/VCR/Satellite receiver/PC with TV-TCard [PC/TV] etc.

When you only use a TV for:
- playing video games
- watch pre-recorded videos [VCR/DVD]*
- closed circuit monitoring [CCD]
- displaying -for example- presentations using your PC
Then "again" you do NOT need a TV licence.


That's true, but I think it's been established that you have to show
that the TV's ability to receive programmes has been disabled -- not
just that you state "I don't use it for that purpose".


No, you don't have to, but it helps destroy their case.

Otherwise its your word against theirs, and most likely any magistrate
will feel that you should have one. very few magistrates know the law.

You could take it to a high court of course, but that is expensive.

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.

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'

Harvey Van Sickle wrote:

On 22 Dec 2004, Kalico wrote


On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:50:02 -0000, "Tony Collins"
reply_to_group wrote:


I'm with Harvey on this.

When I read up on this some time ago, it was clear that you could
only use a TV or Video without a licence if it was INCAPABLE of
recieving (permanently).

Just stating that you don't use it to recieve is not enough.

Not what the guy at TV licensing told me although you are right
that just 'stating' that you do not use it for broadcasts is not
enough.

BUT, he did say that the TV/VCR did not have to have all the
appropriate circuitry removed.


I don't think that's what either of us were saying -- it doesn't have
to be removed, but the equipment's receiving capability *does* have to
be shown to be "disabled" in some way.


Not plugging an earial in is adequate.

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.

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.

Harvey Van Sickle wrote:

On 22 Dec 2004, Rob Morley wrote


In article , "Harvey Van
Sickle" says...

On 22 Dec 2004, Grunff wrote


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.

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.



"to receive television programme services" - if the aerial isn't
hooked up, and the TV isn't tuned in to available broadcast
channels, then it's not "installed" and it can't be used to
receive broadcasts.


Yup -- that's what I said in my first post (it was snipped further down
the thread, so you may not have seen the comment): that the only
exemptions I've heard of have been where people have shown that it
"can't be used to receive broadcasts".

Replace 'can't' with 'can't easily'

An sliced orange can receive TV broadcast, with suitable extra hardware...

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 23:05:18 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:



Detector vans are a myth anyway.

I dount they can actually pick up a working TV





I had the opportunity to look through the windows of one parked in a
layby once.

Inside there were light blue Formica worktops and instrument panels
that looked as though they had come from a 50s kitchen.

On the panel, there were some old switches and meters and an altimeter
from a WW2 aircraft. Presumably this was used to check the height
of people's antennas.

There were some clipboards and the remains of several visits to the
chippy.

Presumably it fooled some people.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

John Rumm wrote:

Harvey Van Sickle wrote:

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.


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. cf. You have a car
that can exceed 70 mph, therefore you are nicked for speeding.

That will be the next thing to happen.

Cars capable of more than 50mph will be banned from suburbia.

Lobster wrote:

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.


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.

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!

On a different tack... when I was doing a house conversion recently, I
had to set up a completely new address via the local council, who then
registered it with Royal Mail's postcode database. It took no more than
a few weeks before I started getting TV license letters at the address
(despite the fact that it was no more than a building site).

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. (So I didn't; they went in to the skip
by the acore).


Me too.

I rebuilt my house and lived somewhere else for a while, so din';t
bother to renew the license during the rebuild.

I bought a new telly and gave the old address as I assumed it was for
huarante etc.

Letters started arriving and continued sporadically for 18 months. All
went in the bin.

No one ever turned up to check, or if they did they went away again.



David

Rob Morley wrote:

In article , "Kalico"
says...

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.


I think they actually detect the IF from the set's tuner.

LO as wel. LO is more of a givewway as it shows what its tuned to.

Needs a fanct DF aerial and a spectrum analyser though.

Much cjeaper to simply put an aerial on a van and cruise the streets
stopping by every address not on the database..

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!
It can, with the addition of an aerial and being retuned

"Honest gov, it can't have been my car seppding down the M11, its got no
petrol in it!"

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". So the easiest way to "prove" disablement would be to
permanently disable the tuner in some way.

nAH. tHEY ARE GOUING FOR MAXIUMUM SCARE AT MINIUMUM COST.

Threaten to take em to High Court and thats the enbd of it apart from
teh random threatening letyters.

Hmm. Could do em for intimidation or gaining pecuniary advantage thrugh
bullying, or whatever it is.

Kalico wrote:

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.


Because you are an avid collector of TV's.

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

Kalico wrote:
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?



Shove a shorted plug in the tuner socket.
And tape it in.

No one sp[ens a half hour every day unstapeing a shortingplug to watch
corontaion street, and then carefully taping it up again.




Replace 'spam' with 'org' to reply

Grunff wrote:

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!

ou shouoldn't.

Its just teh burden of proof on you to show that is in fact what you do do,.

Grunff wrote:

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".


Not to play them back...

Dave Liquorice wrote:

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


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


Define "to receive".

To receive and present in a visible form.
As I said,. a slice of orange wioll receive TV signals, if you stick it
into teh back of a TV you can see the pictures as well..
:-)

Kalico wrote:

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.


Would not seem to to matter. You need the licence to _record_ broadcast
material.
..


Replace 'spam' with 'org' to reply

Kalico wrote:

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 01:14:29 +0000, Grunff wrote:


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.


This is all getting a bit silly.

If you check back to my original post you will see that I did not ask
about whether I need a license or not.

I DO NOT NEED A LICENSE.

My queries were about the necessity to report the lack of a need for a
license to the authorities and to get some idea of how they behave if
I do nothing.

And you have the answer.They will not believe you, and may even come and
inspect you. They will certanly semnd you regualr thretening letters.



Rob


Replace 'spam' with 'org' to reply

The Natural Philosopher wrote:


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.

It most certainly *is* a criminal offence - it's not a commercial
contract you enter into with the Beeb, it's a condition of using
apparatus to receive broadcast TV signals in the UK. And non-possession
of a licence is a criminabubble offencifier.

Which is part of what's offensive about their snotty, guilt-assuming
letters...