TV LICENCE why should people pay when paying for Sky?

[TJC1]

That was years ago and you dont get a £1000 fine,its usually around £150.Will people please get there head out of the sand.

 

---------- Post added 05-04-2013 at 19:19 ----------

 

 

Yes,an ACT only.The policeman is there only by oath,he is only there to keep the peace eg his oath.No TV inspector has any right to issue a warrant.I have spoken to an ex manager for a department at SCC,who used to be a magistrate and they now have meetings about the freeman "tosh" as they are worried.

 

Oh and i forgot to say,when i told them they are peado protectors and i have no signed contract with them,capita sent me a cheque for £24 refund.

 

if the BBC did not want us to see there live TV, then why do they not scramble it and do pay per view,like sky do?If you look at your license it does say you must pay your TV license until 2016.Is this when they scrap it?

 

Also a facebook friend has asked for the letter i sent,which i also posted on my page,as she is fed up with them threatening her with court everytime her payment is late.She was also adviced by her friend,whom is a clerk, that if you sign the agreement the inspector asked you to sign, then you are your own witness.simple as.

 

---------- Post added 05-04-2013 at 19:34 ----------

 

 

Have you not read the peado/everyone was involved in the sex scandal? involving the BBC,but then again dont believe every thing you read in the papers thing,unless you want to bury your head.

 

Been through all this, your wasting your time!

Some people are bummed out cos they've been paying for a license all these years thinking it was enforceable.

Some still talking about warrants, police and inspectors watching through a window or writing on a forum. Like that's evidence!

 

The only thing that will happen is you can do the peado inspector!

The second thing is they are commiting an offense being at your property, if you have removed implied rights of access. Which is also an act by the way!

[ZoeSalim]

I know people that haven't had a licence they didn't have sky or virgin just tv and they got a nice fine for it

[Vague_Boy]

Yet it is illegal to use a television to receive broadcasts without paying for a license.

 

To receive live broadcasts.

 

As for enforcement, I've been LLF (legally licence free) since 2007. I maintain the "no contact" rule advocated here.

 

I get 4 computer generated letters in rotation from TV Licencing, one per month.

 

1. You may be breaking the law.

 

(Thanks but I've checked and I'm not).

 

2. An investigation has been opened on the address 000 ###### Road.

 

(I must have had more investigations opened on me than Al Capone, Jeffrey Dahmer and Albert DeSalvo combined.)

 

3. An "officer" has been assigned to visit 000 ###### Road.

 

(If they ever do visit, I never see them.)

 

And of course, the classic

 

4. What to expect in court letter.

 

I've had this one about 5 or 6 times now. Quite what court they're referring to is never made clear. Being addressed to "The Legal Occupier" doesn't exactly fill me with foreboding. How much "evidence" do they have if they don't even know who lives at my address.

 

The TV licence goons (jumped up bailiffs) only have power if the person they are harassing gives in to them. And if you really aren't breaking the law, there's no reason to sign anything.

 

If someone has been watching live TV without a licence, I've no sympathy.

[TJC1]

To receive live broadcasts.

 

As for enforcement, I've been LLF (legally licence free) since 2007. I maintain the "no contact" rule advocated here.

 

I get 4 computer generated letters in rotation from TV Licencing, one per month.

 

1. You may be breaking the law.

 

(Thanks but I've checked and I'm not).

 

2. An investigation has been opened on the address 000 ###### Road.

 

(I must have had more investigations opened on me than Al Capone, Jeffrey Dahmer and Albert DeSalvo combined.)

 

3. An "officer" has been assigned to visit 000 ###### Road.

 

(If they ever do visit, I never see them.)

 

And of course, the classic

 

4. What to expect in court letter.

 

I've had this one about 5 or 6 times now. Quite what court they're referring to is never made clear. Being addressed to "The Legal Occupier" doesn't exactly fill me with foreboding. How much "evidence" do they have if they don't even know who lives at my address.

 

The TV licence goons (jumped up bailiffs) only have power if the person they are harassing gives in to them. And if you really aren't breaking the law, there's no reason to sign anything.

 

If someone has been watching live TV without a licence, I've no sympathy.

 

 

Got a nice collection of threatening letters too. They have been issued removal of implied rights of access. Apparently someone is breaking a law, yet they cant prove who this someone is or what law they've broken.

What a waste of tree.

[onewheeldave]

I'm happy to spend less than 3 pounds a week on the BBC as they are my most watched channels. Even if they weren't my most watched, I probably wouldn't take the advice of Mr Random off an Internet forum and not pay it *shrug*

 

£3 a week is £150 a year- it's OK if you're prepared to pay that when it's not necessary, but a lot of people would obviously prefer not to throw £3 a week away.

 

As for the advice on this thread- it's not just random opinions, several posters have given clear reasons and links to facts explaining exactly why any viewer with a basic understanding of the situation will not be taken to court for not paying for a tv 'licence'.

 

---------- Post added 06-04-2013 at 10:44 ----------

 

I know people that haven't had a licence they didn't have sky or virgin just tv and they got a nice fine for it

 

And?

 

As several have mentioned already, it's entirely possible to get a fine if you go along with the licence enforcers procedures (i.e. basically tell them that you're watching live broadcasts without a license).

 

The point is that if you don't go along with them, them you won't get fined.

[HbroChris]

As for the advice on this thread- it's not just random opinions, several posters have given clear reasons and links to facts explaining exactly why any viewer with a basic understanding of the situation will not be taken to court for not paying for a tv 'licence'.

 

Apologies for the selective quoting Dave, but there are two discussions going on here.

 

1) Is it illegal to watch live TV without a licence in the UK?

The answer is yes. There are those who think that because the law in question is derived from an Act, rather than a set of agreed rules they think they've had since the Magna Carta, that the law does not apply to them. They are wrong - their delusion would be up to them to enjoy, in isolation, but it's dangerous when they get other people (typically, as you say, those you can't afford to give up £3 per month) sucked into criminality. Maybe licence evasion isn't the worst crime in the world, but you try asking them about council tax, or debt repayments.

 

2) Will a given person get away with being a licence evader?

This is your point. The answer, sadly, is yes - I suspect it would be very easy to get away with not paying for your licence. Still illegal though. It still means that those of us who pay for it are having their service degraded because there is not as much money in the pot - revenue is being spent on enforcement.

 

So, this post is comprised of those who don't accept that there is a law, and those, like you, who accept that there is, but advocate breaking it.

 

You're both wrong.

[onewheeldave]

Apologies for the selective quoting Dave, but there are two discussions going on here.

 

1) Is it illegal to watch live TV without a licence in the UK?

The answer is yes. There are those who think that because the law in question is derived from an Act, rather than a set of agreed rules they think they've had since the Magna Carta, that the law does not apply to them. They are wrong - their delusion would be up to them to enjoy, in isolation, but it's dangerous when they get other people (typically, as you say, those you can't afford to give up £3 per month) sucked into criminality. Maybe licence evasion isn't the worst crime in the world, but you try asking them about council tax, or debt repayments.

 

2) Will a given person get away with being a licence evader?

This is your point. The answer, sadly, is yes - I suspect it would be very easy to get away with not paying for your licence. Still illegal though. It still means that those of us who pay for it are having their service degraded because there is not as much money in the pot - revenue is being spent on enforcement.

 

So, this post is comprised of those who don't accept that there is a law, and those, like you, who accept that there is, but advocate breaking it.

 

You're both wrong.

 

A fair analysis.

 

However, I refuse your accusation that those who do choose to pay are suffering as a result of those who don't- if you choose to pay this unecessary fee then just do it, don't try to put blame on others: the 'revenue spent on enforcement' is down to the BBC. That's relevant especially now it's obvious that the 'enforcement' is useless because the license fee cannot be enforced- it's literally money just thrown away.

 

As for what I'm advocating- that's simply to not pay an overpriced, unfair fee to prop up a deeply flawed company (the BBC) when it is unecessary to do so. If that's unlawfull, then so be it, I hold a similar position to any law that I consider to be wrong. The only reason to follow a law is that you either consider it to be a good/usefull law, or, you don't think it's a good law but follow it due to the enforcement consequences of not doing so. Neither of those apply to the TV license fee.

[HbroChris]

Well that's kind of a social contract question. You live in this society, you agree to abide by its rules, rather than just those you like. What you get in return is to live in a society of people who follow those same rules and assorted other benefits depending on what that society is - safety, tolerance, health care etc. I think it's quite a binary choice - you're either in it or you're not. If enough of those in the society want to change the way it operates then they are able to effect that change. Pretty equitable.

 

For the sake of argument, let's consider a a different law here. Instead of licence evasion, let's talk about car insurance. Let's say you don't agree with the legal requirement to have insurance, so you drive around without it. Without stretching the analogy, because I'm aware it's a tad limited - if you don't have it then the amount of money that insurance companies have to pay out remains the same. Drivers would be generally about as likely to make a claim or be claimed against. Reasonable?

 

Ok, but the pot that all of that money comes from would either have to stay the same (ie. fees from the remaining payees would go up, or the companies agree to make less profit because some people are breaking the law) or it would decrease (and so less payouts would be available to people who make a claim - including those people who are insurance avoiders).

 

Fixed pot of money required - less people pay - either payee's contributions increase, or overall service (including for the freeloaders) is reduced. I can't see how this position can be refuted. It's logical.

 

The suggestion that the BBC could save revenue by just not pursuing evaders is flawed. Don't you see where that would lead?

 

Fine, the BBC is a flawed organisation. I don't think it has a culture of paedophilia (min. requirements for job - 3 years relevant experience, ability to present on air, must want to abuse children? I don't think that's how they write the job applications). I think it's overly secretive about a lot of things, and that's its real problem. It's governance needs to be more inquisitive, more independent, and less a group of the peerage. But that's a discussion for another thread.

 

To conclude - yes, people evading the fee are harming the service that the users (including them) receive, and yes, the BBC needs to change but the way to effect that change is probably not to stop paying it until it collapses under its own weight. Then we just end up like other countries with little or no non-commercial TV.

[Super Hans]

The reason is your Sky subscription goes to fund Sky, it doesn't go to fund the BBC.

 

/thread.

[onewheeldave]

Well that's kind of a social contract question. You live in this society, you agree to abide by its rules....

 

No, I was born here- don't recall agreeing to anything prior to appearing here.

 

I actually disagree strongly with many, many aspects of our society, and I'm well within my rights to not go along with some of those that I think are particularly wrong, especially the ones that harm people.

 

 

 

 

For the sake of argument, let's consider a a different law here. Instead of licence evasion, let's talk about car insurance. Let's say you don't agree with the legal requirement to have insurance, so you drive around without it. ...

 

Let's not talk about car insurance, as 1. it's not a TV licence, and 2. the bit in bold is incorrect

 

 

 

To conclude - yes, people evading the fee are harming the service that the users (including them) receive, and yes, the BBC needs to change but the way to effect that change is probably not to stop paying it until it collapses under its own weight. Then we just end up like other countries with little or no non-commercial TV.

 

Why would it collapse? Firstly, there's millions of people like your good self who feel it's a moral duty to pay the BBC what they demand- surely you're not suggesting that you, and those others, will suddenly cease to pay just because lots of other people do so?

 

Secondly, there are a host of other TV stations that survive quite happily without the luxury of cash from a tv licence- the BBc can easily adopt some of their methods.

 

Even if it did collapse, the fact is that more and more media and news is being watched on pcs, not TVs- that is only going to increase from now on.