Personal details

[onewheeldave]

If you think there's something I don't know about the law then you can spell it out.

I'd guess that the TV Licensing authority doesn't monitor SF to see who's claiming what about TV Licenses. It would be a large waste of their time to get a court order to identify you only to find out that you have a TVL or that you don't have a TV.

 

Well they'll know whether or not he's got a TVL, cos it'll be on their database of licence owners.

 

As to whether he's got a TV- he's told them he has, and, says

 

Really?

You think?

Ha, you know very little. The last few times i got a visit i deliberatly turn the tv up so it CAN be heard.

 

 

I think the point he's making is that you can have a TV, not have a licence, and there's not a thing the licensing people can do about it, unless they can prove you've got one and watch programs, as they're being broadcast.

 

Bear in mind that the vast majority, if not all, people prosecuted for license evasion, are the likes of vulnerable single mothers who don't know their rights, and, in the face of a bullying uniformed male licensing officer, assumed he had a legal right to enter their premises, to check for a TV.

 

Anyone who does know their rights, knows that they can simply tell him to go away: which is what I routinely do on the occasions they've knocked on my door.

[onewheeldave]

Not that I'd advise anyone with a TV to flaunt the fact, in the presence of a TV officer- I'm intersted in Saabmans approach, but obviously can't say whether he's as invulnerable as he thinks he is.

 

However, I'd certainly encourage those without TVs (or who have TVS but don't watch programs as they're being broadcast )to deny access to any licence officers- no point making their job any easier

 

And, it's just a fact, that, if you do use a TV to watch programs as they're being broadcast, and, don't have a licence, with a modicome of care, you won't ever be prosecuted for it.

[SaabMan]

If you think there's something I don't know about the law then you can spell it out.

I'd guess that the TV Licensing authority doesn't monitor SF to see who's claiming what about TV Licenses. It would be a large waste of their time to get a court order to identify you only to find out that you have a TVL or that you don't have a TV.

 

Obviously you neglected to read the bit where i point out that tvl know my name. If they really could get me into court, dont you think after 22 years they would have done so by now?

[Obelix]

I think the point he's making is that you can have a TV, not have a licence, and there's not a thing the licensing people can do about it, unless they can prove you've got one and watch programs, as they're being broadcast.

 

Bear in mind that the vast majority, if not all, people prosecuted for license evasion, are the likes of vulnerable single mothers who don't know their rights, and, in the face of a bullying uniformed male licensing officer, assumed he had a legal right to enter their premises, to check for a TV.

 

Anyone who does know their rights, knows that they can simply tell him to go away: which is what I routinely do on the occasions they've knocked on my door.

 

That's exactly what I do, since they persist in knocking. However they did once serve a search warrant and the information that the magistrate had signed it on was based on the signed and sworn information that the officer had previously heard a TV being used there.

[Cyclone]

Obviously you neglected to read the bit where i point out that tvl know my name. If they really could get me into court, dont you think after 22 years they would have done so by now?

 

No, I was responding to the idea that you posting about it on SF might matter.

 

Maybe you neglected to read the bit about evidence? Or maybe you're spinning a silly story.

 

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2012/08/26/almost-10-000-people-in-wales-prosecuted-for-not-having-a-tv-licence-91466-31696588/

 

Admittedly this is about Wales, but the law there is the same AFAIK. 1k/annum prosecuted and 90% convicted.

 

But you're special and they won't prosecute you, or so you expect us to believe.

 

From the "South Yorkshire Times"

around 1,180 people were caught watching TV without a licence in Doncaster during the first six months of 2012, figures have revealed.

 

This compares to more than 870 in Barnsley, over 1,190 in Rotherham and over 2,520 in Sheffield.

 

They are among more than 204,000 people caught across the UK during the first half of this year.

 

Jenny Wilkinson, TV Licensing spokesman for the North of England, said: “If people decide to watch TV without being properly licensed, they risk prosecution and a fine of up to £1,000.”

But it's all a myth you say, there is no law that requires them to have a TV license. (But you're not going to share the details).

[onewheeldave]

No, I was responding to the idea that you posting about it on SF might matter.

 

Maybe you neglected to read the bit about evidence? Or maybe you're spinning a silly story.

 

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2012/08/26/almost-10-000-people-in-wales-prosecuted-for-not-having-a-tv-licence-91466-31696588/

 

Admittedly this is about Wales, but the law there is the same AFAIK. 1k/annum prosecuted and 90% convicted.

 

But you're special and they won't prosecute you, or so you expect us to believe.

 

From the "South Yorkshire Times"

 

But it's all a myth you say, there is no law that requires them to have a TV license. (But you're not going to share the details).

 

But no-one's denying that people get prosecuted.

 

What the links above fail to indicate is how those prosecuted got to court in the first place.

 

Did they, for example, not knowing their rights, let a licensing person into their homes?

 

It's well known that that happens, like I said in a previous post-

 

......

 

Bear in mind that the vast majority, if not all, people prosecuted for license evasion, are the likes of vulnerable single mothers who don't know their rights, and, in the face of a bullying uniformed male licensing officer, assumed he had a legal right to enter their premises, to check for a TV.

 

Anyone who does know their rights, knows that they can simply tell him to go away: which is what I routinely do on the occasions they've knocked on my door.

 

So, until we get to know the relevant details of the above prosecutions, they don't necessarily reflect on what we're discussing here.

 

To summarise, if people with TVs let license people into their homes, they may get prosecuted.

 

If they simply refuse, then I see no evidence here that they can end up in court.