Cyclone Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 Just repeating it doesn't make it so. The same applies to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No User Name Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 i no someone who didnt let them enter and they come back with police and a warrant Came back when? The same day? If so, I dont believe you http://www.yourrights.org.uk/faqs/privacy/i-dont-have-a-television-but-i-keep-getting-letters-from-tv-licensing-do-th.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast.. This is correct. The TV license now covers all forms of access to BBC content, including iplayer in the Uk. This is utter bunkum. Don't take my word for it. From the TV Licensing site: You need to be covered by a licence if you watch TV online at the same time as it's being broadcast on conventional TV in the UK or the Channel Islands. LINK and... Exception: If you only watch catch-up services online, then you don’t need a licence. For example, you don’t need one to use BBC iPlayer, or ITV player, to catch up on programmes after they have been shown on TV LINK As someone who has been LLF (legally licence free) since 2007, I like to keep up with the current state of the law. Getting back to the OP's original point, as it stands, you need a TV licence even if you only ever watch/record Sky TV. Whether that's acceptable is another point, I doubt if the BBC would survive very well in direct commercial competition to other broadcasters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Smith Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 Slightly off topic, but on the subject of Sky TV, how come so many people plead poverty when they`ve a Sky satellite dish (receiving paid for programmes) on their wall...... I`ve been skint in my life, I know what it`s like, but I don`t think anyone with spare money to pay for Sky is poor, no way. And how can people on benefits afford Sky ? ! ? Something dodgy there I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dromedary Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 Slightly off topic, but on the subject of Sky TV, how come so many people plead poverty when they`ve a Sky satellite dish (receiving paid for programmes) on their wall...... I`ve been skint in my life, I know what it`s like, but I don`t think anyone with spare money to pay for Sky is poor, no way. And how can people on benefits afford Sky ? ! ? Something dodgy there I think. Although some may have a satellite dish on the wall it may well be that they are watching Freesat which require no subscriptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No User Name Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 Although some may have a satellite dish on the wall it may well be that they are watching Freesat which require no subscriptions. Or they are merely getting the FTA channels through Sky once a subscription has been cancelled/lapsed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 OK, so it basically comes down to whether you have an antenna attached to the TV or not. Antenna attached - no licence - breaking the law No antenna attached - no licence required - not breaking the law. I would have thought that for the vast majority of people, not having an antenna attached is not really an option! No- it comes down to whether you're watching a live TV broadcast: if it can't be proven that you have been, then you're OK. The TV licensing people, when they finally started to admit that you can legally use a TV for purposes other than watching programs as they are being broadcast (i.e. you can view DVDs and non-live broadcasts, legally, without a license)- started saying that if people had a TV not connected to an ariel, or de-tuned, they would be satisfied that the person did not require a TV license. However, to all those who (sensibly) simply do not allow them into their houses to 'check' that they don't need a license, it's obviously a bit irrelevant What the law says, is that there needs to be proof that the householder is not watching live TV broadcasts, and that's all it says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 Surely the opposite proof would be required, with the principle of UK law being innocent until proven guilty... The prosecution would have to establish that you were watching broadcast TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dromedary Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 Surely the opposite proof would be required, with the principle of UK law being innocent until proven guilty... The prosecution would have to establish that you were watching broadcast TV. Lets see if I can at last get this right. You are correct as the onus is on the prosecution to prove guilt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonny5 Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 You pay £145 a year to listen to the radio? 39p a day. Big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.