Crosswords1 min ago
BBC TV Licence
I am always mindful of things found on the internet, however I am wondering if the following link and the info therein is factually correct? The video offers an argument suggesting that having to pay the TV licence is not legally enforcible: http://tv-licensing.b...-tv-licence-scam.html
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Hettster. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
That is interesting to know. I have a property with no TV and I got sick & fed up of telling them the situation. Always a few months later they'd have forgotten and be pestering again. So I now ignore them. And yes they do get threatening in their standard letters, trying to bully you, which does not improve my opinion of them. They even try the trick of sending a registered letter, until you leave the next one at the depot. They all go straight in the bin now. It'd be so much more sensible to fund natioanl TV out of general taxation. If it is a benefit to the country as a whole then why not, and do away with all this palaver? It's not like other things the government spends our tax on are all used by everyone.
You can have a house stacked full of televisions or any other equipment capable of recieving television signals that is not an offence nor is any licence needed.
They can send out all the threatening letters with all the red ink they like all carefully worded to make you think you are being watched/monitored prosecuted etc but It is only an offence if you watch TV live as its being broadcast.
You can have have a subscriptiuon to cable or sky or whatever you want, that is not illegal (pretty pointless though if youre not watching it) but not illegal and not proof of you watching live TV.
They can send out all the threatening letters with all the red ink they like all carefully worded to make you think you are being watched/monitored prosecuted etc but It is only an offence if you watch TV live as its being broadcast.
You can have have a subscriptiuon to cable or sky or whatever you want, that is not illegal (pretty pointless though if youre not watching it) but not illegal and not proof of you watching live TV.
Of course its the principle. if you subscribe to Sky/cable then why should you have to pay again to the BBC. No other country has to pay twice to view tv.
Personaly I dont own a tv as I find it all full of mind numbing reality programmes and repeats but if I did own one I certainly wouldnt buy a license.
Personaly I dont own a tv as I find it all full of mind numbing reality programmes and repeats but if I did own one I certainly wouldnt buy a license.
If you live in the UK - it is the law that you have to have a TV licence if you watch broadcast TV.
So either
* just get a licence
or
* don't watch live TV
anything else is illegal and poncing off the money that the rest of us pay.
If I know where you live and suspect you of breaking this law I'll research your name & dob you in - simples.
So either
* just get a licence
or
* don't watch live TV
anything else is illegal and poncing off the money that the rest of us pay.
If I know where you live and suspect you of breaking this law I'll research your name & dob you in - simples.
I am one of the authors of that blog. The video is not ours, but we have commentated on it. Before I go any further it would be perfectly reasonable to say we know a lot about TV licence law, as a cursory glance of our blog will show. We have held the BBC (the statutory Licensing Authority) to account on aspects of TV licence law on several occasions.
If you read the "About" page you will see our motivations: we're more opposed to the way the licence fee is enforced, than the fee itself. Furthermore, we always encourage anyone using equipment for a licensable purpose (e.g. viewing/recording live broadcast TV programmes) should get a licence.
Our main bugbear is the way TV Licensing treat people who don't need a licence. If you don't need a licence, even if you volunteer the fact to TV Licensing (you are not legally obliged to tell them), they will harass you with intimidatory letters and send their people to check. If Sainsbury's sent someone to randomly check you weren't shoplifting, even though you'd earlier been in their store and had the opportunity to do so, you'd be rightly offended.
They daub big red warnings on the envelopes to embarass people infront of their postman or neighbours. They simply don't believe anyone can live without live TV. They scare people by threatening court, £1000 fines, detector vans and enforcement visits when they have no evidence of wrongdoing at all. That is a fact. Quite simply their tactics coerce payment from people who are not legally obliged to pay. The BBC love reading our blog. We couldn't air all their horrible little secrets so publicly if we weren't sure of our facts.
The BBC is funded by the fee, so they have a pecuniary advantage with every licence sold. They need money more than ever with the fee frozen until 2016. The people who sell the licences, employed by BBC contractor Capita Business Services Ltd., are on a crap basic rate but good commission for every licence sold. A lot of them will say almost anything to sell licences. They aren't particularly bothered whether the person buying needs a licence or not. That is also a fact (see our article about Criminal TV Licensing Employees).
A company called Fishburn Hedges is contracted to deal with TV Licensing PR. All the letters by "TV Licensing spokespeople" that appear in the local newspapers are written by them. The names are pretty common (Fergus Reid, Ian Fannon, Sarah Armstrong, Jon Shaw, Tim Downs, Mark Whitehouse) but they all work for TV Licensing's PR companies. A company called Proximity London deal with their routine letters, dubbed threatograms for their menacing and accusatory tone. Proximity actually hold the contract for the second time. Their first contract was terminated for publishing dishonest statistics in threatograms, but the BBC saw fit to re-employ them in the same role.
I've typed a lot already, but I'll summarise a few key points:
- If you don't watch/record live TV programmes you do not legally need a licence. Mere ownership of a TV or PC does not legally need a licence.
- If you do not need a licence you do not legally need to communicate with TV Licensing. Indeed you shouldn't, as it would be a completely wasted effort on your part.
- If you do not need a licence then you can safely bin TV Licensing threatograms and ignore the contents. Likewise you can safely slam the door if they send a salesman around to check on you.
- Most of what TV Licensing say is designed to scare people into buying a licence. Selling licences, by whatever tactics, is the aim of their people who receive a bonus for each sale.
If you read the "About" page you will see our motivations: we're more opposed to the way the licence fee is enforced, than the fee itself. Furthermore, we always encourage anyone using equipment for a licensable purpose (e.g. viewing/recording live broadcast TV programmes) should get a licence.
Our main bugbear is the way TV Licensing treat people who don't need a licence. If you don't need a licence, even if you volunteer the fact to TV Licensing (you are not legally obliged to tell them), they will harass you with intimidatory letters and send their people to check. If Sainsbury's sent someone to randomly check you weren't shoplifting, even though you'd earlier been in their store and had the opportunity to do so, you'd be rightly offended.
They daub big red warnings on the envelopes to embarass people infront of their postman or neighbours. They simply don't believe anyone can live without live TV. They scare people by threatening court, £1000 fines, detector vans and enforcement visits when they have no evidence of wrongdoing at all. That is a fact. Quite simply their tactics coerce payment from people who are not legally obliged to pay. The BBC love reading our blog. We couldn't air all their horrible little secrets so publicly if we weren't sure of our facts.
The BBC is funded by the fee, so they have a pecuniary advantage with every licence sold. They need money more than ever with the fee frozen until 2016. The people who sell the licences, employed by BBC contractor Capita Business Services Ltd., are on a crap basic rate but good commission for every licence sold. A lot of them will say almost anything to sell licences. They aren't particularly bothered whether the person buying needs a licence or not. That is also a fact (see our article about Criminal TV Licensing Employees).
A company called Fishburn Hedges is contracted to deal with TV Licensing PR. All the letters by "TV Licensing spokespeople" that appear in the local newspapers are written by them. The names are pretty common (Fergus Reid, Ian Fannon, Sarah Armstrong, Jon Shaw, Tim Downs, Mark Whitehouse) but they all work for TV Licensing's PR companies. A company called Proximity London deal with their routine letters, dubbed threatograms for their menacing and accusatory tone. Proximity actually hold the contract for the second time. Their first contract was terminated for publishing dishonest statistics in threatograms, but the BBC saw fit to re-employ them in the same role.
I've typed a lot already, but I'll summarise a few key points:
- If you don't watch/record live TV programmes you do not legally need a licence. Mere ownership of a TV or PC does not legally need a licence.
- If you do not need a licence you do not legally need to communicate with TV Licensing. Indeed you shouldn't, as it would be a completely wasted effort on your part.
- If you do not need a licence then you can safely bin TV Licensing threatograms and ignore the contents. Likewise you can safely slam the door if they send a salesman around to check on you.
- Most of what TV Licensing say is designed to scare people into buying a licence. Selling licences, by whatever tactics, is the aim of their people who receive a bonus for each sale.
Postdog , just to reinforce the above post , you DO NOT need a TV licence if you use the set only to watch prerecorded videos or DVDs . You DO NOT need a licence if you simply own a set but do not use it.
A few years back my TV broke down and the new licence was due. I was out of work and could not afford a new TV, so I did not renew the licence.
3 months later I got a job and a new TV , I immediately bought a licence.
A couple of weeks later I got a letter from the TV licence people, it said ''The licence you recently bought was incorrectly dated, it has been cancelled, a replacement is enclosed''. The replacement licence was backdated 3 months! for all of which I did not have a TV set! I wrote back to them explaining why I did not buy a licence immidately the old one expired but they simply ignored the letter.
A few years back my TV broke down and the new licence was due. I was out of work and could not afford a new TV, so I did not renew the licence.
3 months later I got a job and a new TV , I immediately bought a licence.
A couple of weeks later I got a letter from the TV licence people, it said ''The licence you recently bought was incorrectly dated, it has been cancelled, a replacement is enclosed''. The replacement licence was backdated 3 months! for all of which I did not have a TV set! I wrote back to them explaining why I did not buy a licence immidately the old one expired but they simply ignored the letter.
Ah yes, the old backdated licence trick - that's a common one used to extract money from people they might not owe.
Whenever you buy a TV licence it always begins from the start of the month of purchase. This is another money spinner for TV Licensing, as it means someone renewing on 29th Feb 2012 (for sake of argument) will have their licence start on 1st Feb 2012 and expire on 31st Jan 2012 (e.g. they've paid for 12 months but only been given an 11 month licence).
A lot of what TV Licensing do is borderline criminal. If was anyone other than the luvvy-duvvy pink-fluffy BBC behind it there would be national outrage.
Whenever you buy a TV licence it always begins from the start of the month of purchase. This is another money spinner for TV Licensing, as it means someone renewing on 29th Feb 2012 (for sake of argument) will have their licence start on 1st Feb 2012 and expire on 31st Jan 2012 (e.g. they've paid for 12 months but only been given an 11 month licence).
A lot of what TV Licensing do is borderline criminal. If was anyone other than the luvvy-duvvy pink-fluffy BBC behind it there would be national outrage.
Im have the utmost sympathy for people who do not watch broadcast TV and are hounded on a regular/routine basis to buy a licence they do not need. It's not legal and it's not fair.
Equally, I have nothing but contempt for people who seek to evade paying the correct licence fee when they do watch broadcast TV. They are breaking the law and should be made to cough up the correct amount like the rest of us.
The argument about whether the current system is the best way to fund the BBC is a whole different matter - by all means campaign against the licence system if you think it is unjust.
Just because you don't agree with a form of taxation does not mean that paying it is optional or indeed that it is 'morally correct' to evade payment. There are many taxes (or uses of taxation income) which I find repugnant and will speak against - but part of the deal for living in the UK is that I pay those taxes unless/until I can force a change in the law to end them.
Equally, I have nothing but contempt for people who seek to evade paying the correct licence fee when they do watch broadcast TV. They are breaking the law and should be made to cough up the correct amount like the rest of us.
The argument about whether the current system is the best way to fund the BBC is a whole different matter - by all means campaign against the licence system if you think it is unjust.
Just because you don't agree with a form of taxation does not mean that paying it is optional or indeed that it is 'morally correct' to evade payment. There are many taxes (or uses of taxation income) which I find repugnant and will speak against - but part of the deal for living in the UK is that I pay those taxes unless/until I can force a change in the law to end them.
Eddie is right you do not need a TV licence if, for example, you only:
Use the TV set as a computer monitor;
Use the TV set to play electronic games;
Watch pre-recorded DVDs or videos whether these have been bought or recorded by someone else on a licensed recorder.
However the TV set must be incapable of receiving all authorised broadcast programmes this could be achieved by making sure the TV is not tuned into any channel or connected to an aerial.
Use the TV set as a computer monitor;
Use the TV set to play electronic games;
Watch pre-recorded DVDs or videos whether these have been bought or recorded by someone else on a licensed recorder.
However the TV set must be incapable of receiving all authorised broadcast programmes this could be achieved by making sure the TV is not tuned into any channel or connected to an aerial.
I have always said the TV licence should be renamed as 'The BBC Tax' as that is what it is .
I worked with a guy who did not own a TV set, the licence people hounded him all the time. They even pretended to be doing an educational survey and asked if they could come into his house to talk to his children .
I know another person who had an office in an industrial estate , he had never had a TV set there but they would never leave him alone , he even let then come in and search the office , they found nothing but just a few weeks later they were back threatening him with prosecution for no licence.
The TV licence people think there are only 2 types of person, TV licence holders and licence evaders, they just do not understand that some people do not have or want a TV.
I worked with a guy who did not own a TV set, the licence people hounded him all the time. They even pretended to be doing an educational survey and asked if they could come into his house to talk to his children .
I know another person who had an office in an industrial estate , he had never had a TV set there but they would never leave him alone , he even let then come in and search the office , they found nothing but just a few weeks later they were back threatening him with prosecution for no licence.
The TV licence people think there are only 2 types of person, TV licence holders and licence evaders, they just do not understand that some people do not have or want a TV.
nailit - "No other country has to pay twice to view tv."
Here is a list of the myriad other countries which operate TV licensing...
http://en.wikipedia.o...ki/Television_licence
Where subscription channels also exist within those jurisdiction citiizens will also "pay twice".
Here is a list of the myriad other countries which operate TV licensing...
http://en.wikipedia.o...ki/Television_licence
Where subscription channels also exist within those jurisdiction citiizens will also "pay twice".
