onewheeldave Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 If your point is that a licence isn't required to watch broadcast TV then that is not correct - people that consume the service in this way are criminals, and they do get prosecuted at the rate of about 200,000 per year. Those prosecuted are those who don't understand the law i.e. those who believe the intimidatory tactics used by doorstep tv licence workers and actually let them in their house to check. Single mothers have traditionally been the prime victims, and many have been imprisoned over the past few decades- http://www.spiderbomb.com/tv/womenprison.html In contrast, anyone who watches TV without a license, and, who does understand that no tv license person has any right to enter your home, and who simply shuts the door on them; will not get prosecuted. The reason the BBC are wanting to tax everyone (regardless of whether they watch BBC broadcasts) is because more and more people are becoming aware that buying a license is optional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Unless of course the "inspector" has eyes and looks through your window. You might as well argue though, that shoplifting is okay, so long as you can run fast, because you won't get caught. Paying for the license is NOT optional. Any more than paying for the food you buy from Tesco. Sure, you might get away with not paying, but that simply makes you a thief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HbroChris Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Those prosecuted are those who don't understand the law i.e. those who believe the intimidatory tactics used by doorstep tv licence workers and actually let them in their house to check. Single mothers have traditionally been the prime victims, and many have been imprisoned over the past few decades- http://www.spiderbomb.com/tv/womenprison.html In contrast, anyone who watches TV without a license, and, who does understand that no tv license person has any right to enter your home, and who simply shuts the door on them; will not get prosecuted. The reason the BBC are wanting to tax everyone (regardless of whether they watch BBC broadcasts) is because more and more people are becoming aware that buying a license is optional. That's not good advice, Dave. Firstly because it promotes criminality - having a licence is not optional for watching broadcast TV. Secondly, shutting the door on someone with a search warrant accompanied by a police officer is an extremely bad plan. Finally, because it's morally wrong to watch something paid for by others when you evade that payment yourself. Had a read of your source. It has a very specific anti-TVL bias, but I haven't bothered looking for other evidence to refute your claim because the demographic is simply irrelevant. I very much doubt that enforcement is targeted at women, or at people who can't pay (in the latter case, what would be the point?). The point of the thread is alternate payment models for the BBC. Let's try and return to it. ---------- Post added 09-03-2015 at 09:55 ---------- Paying for the license is NOT optional. Any more than paying for the food you buy from Tesco. Sure, you might get away with not paying, but that simply makes you a thief. You beat me to it. I simply cannot understand this mentally that is accepting of crime that you get away with. Seems like the thin end of the wedge - I mean at what level of criminality does that stop being mitigation? Assault? Arson? Breaking & Entering? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubermaus Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. The actual offence itself is defined in law. If your point is that some people are not, by law, required to have a licence then you're quite correct - if they don't watch broadcast TV then that's fine. If your point is that a licence isn't required to watch broadcast TV then that is not correct - people that consume the service in this way are criminals, and they do get prosecuted at the rate of about 200,000 per year. I quite agree that it's difficult to enforce in some circumstances, and there are diminishing returns in investing money in doing so. In this sense, some sort of authorised user or subscription model would be useful - I just don't see how the transition would be cost-effective in anything like a reasonable amount of time. My point which i think was touched on is its impossible to detect and prosecute without the owners consent. If what you say is accurate 200k have criminilized themselves. Unless centrica, a private company can now force themselves into peoples homes and force people to answer incriminating questions. ---------- Post added 09-03-2015 at 10:21 ---------- Unless of course the "inspector" has eyes and looks through your window. You might as well argue though, that shoplifting is okay, so long as you can run fast, because you won't get caught. Paying for the license is NOT optional. Any more than paying for the food you buy from Tesco. Sure, you might get away with not paying, but that simply makes you a thief. I think thats called trespassing. The point is thats not evidence of live broadcast tv is it. It could be a dvd or recorded. The evidence required is obtained only by entering homes an ---------- Post added 09-03-2015 at 10:22 ---------- Nd interviewing under caution. Which is false too. No time to go into that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 It's not unless they've been told to leave already. If they can see the screen, that could well be evidence of watching broadcast. Or indeed if they can see that the Sky box is turned on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubermaus Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Those prosecuted are those who don't understand the law i.e. those who believe the intimidatory tactics used by doorstep tv licence workers and actually let them in their house to check. Single mothers have traditionally been the prime victims, and many have been imprisoned over the past few decades- http://www.spiderbomb.com/tv/womenprison.html In contrast, anyone who watches TV without a license, and, who does understand that no tv license person has any right to enter your home, and who simply shuts the door on them; will not get prosecuted. The reason the BBC are wanting to tax everyone (regardless of whether they watch BBC broadcasts) is because more and more people are becoming aware that buying a license is optional. Exactly my point. More people should understand the law. ---------- Post added 09-03-2015 at 10:28 ---------- It's not unless they've been told to leave already. If they can see the screen, that could well be evidence of watching broadcast. Or indeed if they can see that the Sky box is turned on. Sorry its not lawful evidence of live broadcast tv. Its called implied denied rights of access. The only person that should be at your house is those invited like friends or the postman. Like I say a 1p law book from amazon will teach you as much law as you need to understand your rights and what to do about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Exactly my point. More people should understand the law. ---------- Post added 09-03-2015 at 10:28 ---------- Sorry its not lawful evidence of live broadcast tv. Its called implied denied rights of access. The only person that should be at your house is those invited like friends or the postman. Like I say a 1p law book from amazon will teach you as much law as you need to understand your rights and what to do about it. "You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder." From here http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one What your basically saying is it's OK to break the law so long as you don't get caught? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubermaus Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 That's not good advice, Dave. Firstly because it promotes criminality - having a licence is not optional for watching broadcast TV. Secondly, shutting the door on someone with a search warrant accompanied by a police officer is an extremely bad plan. Finally, because it's morally wrong to watch something paid for by others when you evade that payment yourself. Had a read of your source. It has a very specific anti-TVL bias, but I haven't bothered looking for other evidence to refute your claim because the demographic is simply irrelevant. I very much doubt that enforcement is targeted at women, or at people who can't pay (in the latter case, what would be the point?). The point of the thread is alternate payment models for the BBC. Let's try and return to it. ---------- Post added 09-03-2015 at 09:55 ---------- You beat me to it. I simply cannot understand this mentally that is accepting of crime that you get away with. Seems like the thin end of the wedge - I mean at what level of criminality does that stop being mitigation? Assault? Arson? Breaking & Entering? Firstly a policeman has no powers to enter your home without a signed by a judge and countersigned warrant. Secondly comparing tv license evasion with arson is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 What point are you making, do you think that it's okay to steal, so long as you can get away with it? Are you also claiming that seeing live broadcast TV on the screen is not evidence of watching broadcast TV? If you can get away with stealing food from Tesco, do you think that makes it okay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubermaus Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 "You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder." From here http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one What your basically saying is it's OK to break the law so long as you don't get caught? What im saying is clear. Its above. ---------- Post added 09-03-2015 at 10:36 ---------- What point are you making, do you think that it's okay to steal, so long as you can get away with it? Are you also claiming that seeing live broadcast TV on the screen is not evidence of watching broadcast TV? If you can get away with stealing food from Tesco, do you think that makes it okay? Its above. Cant be any clearer. Buy an english law book and read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now