# Is this legal?



## DrPhill (1 Dec 2012)

We do not own a TV. We do not watch live TV programs on our computers. We refuse, on principle, to 'declare that we do not own a TV'. We have never had a 'visit from one of our enforcement officers'. Now they send us this letter. This seems to be very threatening, and I wonder if they are overstepping the bounds of legality. What say you? I can see some people being bullied into buying TV tax even though they do not need it.






I really do think that they are overstepping the mark now.


----------



## bodge (1 Dec 2012)

I don't think its too bad to be fair. The current UK law says you must either buy a TV license or declare that you do not need one. I don't see what the problem is with complying with the law and saying "I don't need a TV license." Doesn't sound unreasonable to me. 
Of course there may be some reason you can't do that, but I'm not sure what it would be.


----------



## Oryxdesign (1 Dec 2012)

The website says "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." If you do not need one just tell them. 
From experience that will not be the end of it, they will keep asking and keep threatening, file all the letters for future use.


----------



## DrPhill (1 Dec 2012)

bodge":329gduww said:


> I don't think its too bad to be fair. The current UK law says you must either buy a TV license or declare that you do not need one. I don't see what the problem is with complying with the law and saying "I don't need a TV license." Doesn't sound unreasonable to me.
> Of course there may be some reason you can't do that, but I'm not sure what it would be.



Is it really law that I must declare that I do not have a television? I do not think that is so, but if you have evidence then that would change my position slightly.

I have searched the BBC site and I can find no mention of a legal requirement to declare that I have no TV. Plenty of stuff about it being a legal requirement to have a licence to watch..... etc etc etc. 

From Wikipedia (Bold mine):


> The initial contact with occupants of addresses for which there is no current licence is by letter. During the financial year 2011–12, approximately 21 million "standard warning" letters were sent, each costing 18.3 pence in postage (excluding printing and sorting costs).[52] The methods by which an occupant can reply are in writing, by telephone or by filling in an online form [2]. If there is no reply to the first letter and a TV licence is not bought by the occupant, then TV Licensing continues to write regularly to the address and "the tone of the letters progressively becomes stronger to encourage a reply".[38] *If a business or household is not obliged to have a TV licence then TV Licensing will request written confirmation of this, even though no such information is required to be given in law.*[53][54]



For those interested, that is a very interesting article on what (Wikipedia believes) the BBC can and cannot do.
The [53][54] are two hyperlinked references to support the assertion.

reference 54 is a quote from Shaun Woodward (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; St Helens South, Labour)



> A television licence is required to install or use a television receiver, as defined in regulations made by the Secretary of State, rather than a television set. Members of the public who do not require a television licence are under no obligation to inform TV Licensing of the fact.


----------



## t8hants (1 Dec 2012)

They work on the assumption that you must have a set, and if they have no record of you obtaining a licence then they assume you are dodging the fee. It is all done to frighten you into obtaining a licence. The dodgy ground is reached should you be summoned to court because they will I suspect lean on the assumption that any reasonable person would wish to inform the authorities of your perceived exemption. You may win but incur costs. The old detector vans were only to frighten people into buying a licence, they could detect an operating set with a much smaller device so I was told.

My little industrial unit would get letters every three months, they never gave up.

Gareth


----------



## Paul Chapman (1 Dec 2012)

DrPhill":28yvfeq0 said:


> What say you?



I think you are being a bit silly about this. Most people watch live television programmes and therefore need a licence. If you are one of the few who don't, just tell them.

You could have dealt with it in less time than it's taken you to moan on here about it.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Steve Maskery (1 Dec 2012)

I get the man at the door as well as the letters. He came when I lived at my last address and he turned up here a couple of weeks ago. On both occasions he told me I needed a licence. On both occasions I told him I didn't. He asked to come in, I refused. This last time he said they would get a warrant. I pointed out that to get a warrant you need prima facie evidence that an offence is being committed and that hard evidence is likely to be found by a search of the premises. As they have so evidence whatsoever, the granting of a search warrant seems a tad unlikely to me.

I just don't see why I should have to prove that I'm not a criminal.

Paul, it's all very well saying "just tell them", the problem is that they don't believe you and continue the harassment regardless.
S

Edit: Phill, as that letter is addressed to "Sir or Madam", I think you can quite rightly claim that they have not sent YOU a letter at all. They cannot prosecute an anonymous person and even if they go to the trouble of finding out your name they still need hard evidence. I don't have a lot of faith in the courts, having been through them and not getting justice, but even I would trust them not to penalise someone without actual evidence.


----------



## Paul Chapman (1 Dec 2012)

Steve Maskery":3kj8luor said:


> Paul, it's all very well saying "just tell them", the problem is that they don't believe you and continue the harassment. regardless.
> S



That's not been my experience. Back in the 1970s we didn't have a television for about eight years. We received the usual letter asking why we had no television licence and I wrote back and told them why. We heard no more.

I suspect that these days there are more people trying to get away without having a licence, which could explain why they are more persistent.

Cheers :wink:

Paul


----------



## Oryxdesign (1 Dec 2012)

Paul Chapman":1idjesaq said:


> Steve Maskery":1idjesaq said:
> 
> 
> > Paul, it's all very well saying "just tell them", the problem is that they don't believe you and continue the harassment. regardless.
> ...



I've had the same experience as Steve, they just don't go away.


----------



## DrPhill (1 Dec 2012)

t8hants":3l8a2he4 said:


> They work on the assumption that you must have a set, and if they have no record of you obtaining a licence then they assume you are dodging the fee.


Or that everyone has to pay, but there is an exemption if you can prove that you do not have a TV. That would make life easier for all concerned would it not? (hammer) 


t8hants":3l8a2he4 said:


> It is all done to frighten you into obtaining a licence.


That is the bit that annoys me. What they are doing is bullying - plain and simple. It verges on 'extracting money with menaces'. One letter said that 'One of our enforcement officers will be round to interview you'. My wife used to manage a sheltered housing block, and had to deal with elderly residents who had been confused and frightened by such letters. This letter implies (incorrectly, which is close to lying) that I am already destined for court, and that the only way to prevent this is to either cough up some money which I am not obliged to pay, or to perform an action that I am not obliged to perform. Does that not seem a teensy-weensy bit immoral if not illegal?

And there _are_ people that fall for this. Sane, rational, adult people who have been conditioned to believe such tosh, just as some people believe that they are obliged to declare their TV free status (And even beligerent me had to check the facts at that point  ).



t8hants":3l8a2he4 said:


> The dodgy ground is reached should you be summoned to court because they will I suspect lean on the assumption that any reasonable person would wish to inform the authorities of your perceived exemption. You may win but incur costs. The old detector vans were only to frighten people into buying a licence, they could detect an operating set with a much smaller device so I was told.
> 
> My little industrial unit would get letters every three months, they never gave up.
> 
> Gareth



That would be an interesting fight.......
Take me to court for not having a licence, and when they could not prove I needed one claim that it was my fault for not telling them I did not have a TV. Bring it on. I would lean heavily on the legally supported position that I am innocent until proven guilty. And that means totally innocent, not just 'mostly innocent', which would be the implication of 'fining' me costs for defending my position.


Mostly I ignore the letters, but this one seems to have escalated the level of bullying into realms that seem entirely innappropriate for a national institution. It seems, though that many of the responders disagree. That is fine - I posted this to gauge reaction, and thank those that have taken the trouble to respond whatever their opinions.


(I reckon that I am heading for today's 'Victor Meldrew' award.....)


----------



## henton49er (1 Dec 2012)

Phill,

You could always reply to their letter saying that you have placed this matter in the hands of your solicitor (which may or may not be true) and that you are going to proceed against them for the harrassment that you have been subjected to by way of their letters, when they have not presented you with a prima facie case that you personally need a TV licence. 

You could also advise that you will be seeking recompense for the time that you have spent on this (didn't somebody recently win a court case against a persistent cold call operator for £10/minute?), plus the aggravation and stress you have suffered in the matter and that you consider that threatening you with court action is (a) tantamount to abuse of your rights to privacy and (b) an affront to your standing in the community and is subjecting you to scandal, odium and contempt (or some such similar weasel wording).

Have fun!! (or just write to them confirming that you do not have a TV and therefore do not need a licence - if they then continue to press you would be on much stronger ground for compensation).


----------



## Atkins joinery (1 Dec 2012)

Hello. I'm new on here but thought i'd post as i have an problems with them too. My problem was i bought a house to do up then move into when its finished. They seemed to find it unfathomable than a young couple wouldnt have a tv. Didnt seem to get that there was no heating kitchen bathroon doors etc. We said we will buy one when we move in but they kept hounding us. I had us resent ringing up to buy one in the end up.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Atkins joinery (1 Dec 2012)

Just to add it was our first house so we lived with parents on the electoral roll at houses which had tv licenses

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Benchwayze (1 Dec 2012)

I don't need a TV licence, there being someone over 75 years on my premises. 
When that 'happy' state was reached, the department sent me a notice which clearly stated I didn't need a licence. 
They also refunded 10 months of the fee I had paid at the start of that year.
So far no one has bothered me.

Until that concession is revoked, I don't bother with them; and they don't bother me. 

I hope! 
Mike, 

I just dented my monitor screen, trying to 'kill' your avatar! :mrgreen:


----------



## Chems (1 Dec 2012)

Is it not just the same as declaring a card off the road? Unless you declare you don't need one don't expect to be left in peace. If they hassle you after they have checked then raise hell as its costing us all for them to waste their time when you've told them you don't need one and they have checked.


----------



## beech1948 (1 Dec 2012)

Dr Phil,

Read this with interest. I am usually the kind to just go along with whatever is needed to have a quiet life.

BUT...I have recently had to fight off a Local Authority which deployed lies, naked fabrication of false legal positions and compounded by them applying the law such that they were in error. I learned in fighting this that it is the unreasonable man which shapes and makes things better. I learned that so called public service employees are lying, conniving and self serving Bas*ar*s. Surprise surprise indeed. 

So my view now would be to fight this.

I would write back quoting the exact paragraphs from the statutes covering this TV licence issue. I would quote the harassment laws, I would quote demanding money with menaces.

My final threat would be to take them to the small claims court (which is cheap to do) to claim compensation for EACH letter they have written.

I would have a go and see what happens provided I was convinced of your rightful position.

Al


----------



## beech1948 (1 Dec 2012)

The TV licence fee is an anachronism which should be repealed and TV watching should be free to all. There is no justification anymore for TV licence fees. The BBC is now a business just like other commercial TV stations so why do we need a licence.

Al


----------



## nanscombe (1 Dec 2012)

beech1948":271olqha said:


> ... I learned that *SOME* so called public service employees are lying, conniving and self serving Bas*ar*s. Surprise surprise indeed.



As an ex public servant I've fixed that sweeping generalisation for you. :evil:


----------



## Benchwayze (1 Dec 2012)

Chems, 

If you are taking a vehicle off the road, no longer can you just leave it uninsured and in the garage.

You are obliged to declare it off-road, or you must insure it.

Such is the Democracy in which we live.

(Well said nanscombe, btw!)


----------



## AndyT (1 Dec 2012)

DrPhill":3a660ri8 said:


> Mostly I ignore the letters, but this one seems to have escalated the level of bullying into realms that seem entirely innappropriate for a national institution.




Don't forget that it's not the 'national institution' doing the licence fee collecting work. TV Licensing is outsourced - currently to Capita - and I would expect their contract to have provisions in it whereby they 'share the reward' for any income realised beyond a set threshold.


----------



## monkeybiter (1 Dec 2012)

Benchwayze":35fc2z3h said:


> Chems,
> 
> If you are taking a vehicle off the road, no longer can you just leave it uninsured and in the garage.
> 
> You are obliged to declare it off-road, or you must insure it.



Tax not insurance.

Re. the OP; I had the same issue with these bullying letters to my late father's house, after he moved to be nearer me. I telephoned them to complain about the nature of the letter and the potential distress caused to older and more frail people. Surprise surprise they weren't interested and the letters continued. I learnt my lesson and just ignored them.
If I did ever find myself in the position of not needing a TVL and I received one of these I would just ignore it, because as an individual you'll never change it. I'd love to get that visit that Steve Maskery did, so much fun and righteous indignation.


----------



## Benchwayze (1 Dec 2012)

Ok Biter. 
Suit yourself. Perhaps they relinquished the law in the last few months. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/12614090

This is even clearer..

http://moneyfacts.co.uk/guides/insuranc ... -the-road/

:wink:


----------



## Richard T (1 Dec 2012)

An ex girlfriend of mine lived in a non tv household and the threats were constant. This was in the '90s so computers were no means of needing a licence. 

They were invited in when they called, which was often, just for the satisfaction of showing that there was indeed no telly. But they never gave up. The letters kept coming and the visits kept happening. It was the policy at the time to assume that every household had a telly and anyone who said they didn't was lying. It sounds like it still is and must be more so now with all the different means of seeing BBC programmes. 

This must cost them an awful lot of money - we need a licence fee to pay for this fine service alone. ](*,) 

My advice would be to send a bill to the relevant dpt. demanding payment for something that they are using of yours ... just make something up - a left handed scrangle dongler or a empathetic cheese strangler - whatever, and adopt an attitude of assumption of guilt on their part. Keep the letters going, threaten court, accuse them of lying etc. Every time you get some ludicrous threat from them, send one back. Demand that they claim non - use, then carry on anyway. :twisted:


----------



## monkeybiter (1 Dec 2012)

Benchwayze":1d8wy0ar said:


> Ok Biter.
> Suit yourself. Perhaps they relinquished the law in the last few months.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/12614090



My mistake, your are correct.


----------



## Benchwayze (1 Dec 2012)

I almost got caught too! 

You even have to check your vehicle is on a list of Insured vehicles... 
When you renew each year, it can take a week or so before the register is updated, and the Police won't always accept your word!


http://www.askMID.com


----------



## Chems (1 Dec 2012)

Benchwayze":152hnc4m said:


> Chems,
> 
> If you are taking a vehicle off the road, no longer can you just leave it uninsured and in the garage.
> 
> ...




Yes yes, that is what I was refering to. You are doing the uninsured in the garage bit at the moment in relation to your TV license. Only get in a twist if after you've told them you don't need a TV license they get annoyed. Nothing unreasonable about letting them know a car isn't on the roads anymore or you don't need a TV license.


----------



## monkeybiter (1 Dec 2012)

To continue the analogy, the difference is his garage is empty. The burden of proof should be on the accuser not the person who is innocent but assumed guilty.


----------



## DrPhill (1 Dec 2012)

monkeybiter":bqmb8toj said:


> To continue the analogy, the difference is his garage is empty. The burden of proof should be on the accuser not the person who is innocent but assumed guilty.



Well put.

To push the analogy to it's extremes: I have no car. I have not had a car for 15 years. There is no record of me having a car at this address. There is no record of me having owned a car for 15 years. Why should I be threatened with court action because I refuse to sign a piece of paper saying that I have no car. (To be factually correct substitute each occurrence of 'car' with the word 'television'. I do have a car and comply with all uk vehicle regulations). Why would anyone think it reasonable to expect me to have to make such a declaration?

To make the car analogy more accurate, what if you were regularly asked by the DVLA to declare that you do not have an unlicenced vehicle? Note that this is different to asking you why you have not bought a licence for the car of which you are or were registered as owning, but as a 'trawling exercise' to scare up more revenue? What if the wording implied that if you owned a pushbike you may still need to by a car licence if you used the bike as a car? What if you were confused about the legality of what you were doing, and were scared of being taken to court? Would you feel a little peeved.


----------



## Chems (1 Dec 2012)

Its a petty outlook to take really, we are a society and we all have our parts to play. More people have TVs and need a license than do not (I guess) so it seems only cost effective that the small majority of people should take 2 mins to either phone up or go online and let the guys know they don't need a license. This whole burden of proof outlook is very childish over something so straight forward. 

Seen as playtime has obviously begun I'll just take my leave from this thread . . .


----------



## Steve Maskery (1 Dec 2012)

But Chems, perhaps you didn't read my earlier post. You can tell them you don't have a TV and they do not believe you. It makes no difference. They just carry on.

As an aside, the other bug-bear of mine is trick-or-treat. It's demanding money with menaces. I'm not talking about your own kids putting on a black had and having fake blood running out their mouth, I'm talking about total strangers who are taller than I am coming to the door in masks which hide their identity and demand I give them something or they will do something unpleasant to me or my property. It is just harassment and many people who are older, frailer or less alert than I am can be terrified by threats like this.

It's simply wrong, both TVL and TOT.

BTW I've received a letter today threatening the bailiffs, for a penalty charge that is not mine. Sigh.


----------



## Dusty (1 Dec 2012)

Got to say I had this about 5 years ago , My dad bought a house to renovate , we did it over a 4 year period and had all the usual letters telling us that after an investigation one of their vans detected a tv being used at the property with out a liscence , it had been gutted for about 2 years so we just ignored it , and we did with many more subsequent letters , then we had one saying an inpection officer had visited and could not access the property , we phoned them and invited them in at their convenience , they duly arrived whilst I was working there ( well engineered for the humour value ........I let him in and took great delight when I showed him the lounge which had a pile of hardcore on the floor as did every room as we had gunned up all the floors to lower them and insulate , I then pointed out the house did not have any electrics except for one socket next to the meter , and I even made a £1000 wager with him if he could find the aerial .........he left un amused that we had "wasted " his time .......and me to with him having wasted our time ...

If an inspection officer had just looked through the windows on the legendary surprise visit he would of noticed the house was inhabitable, as per on the council tax system . 

How I see it is that if they want to play call my bluff , then I play games , costs me nothing , . It is a principal thing . 

cheers


----------



## devonwoody (2 Dec 2012)

Here is a conundrum, if you have no TV license and have a computer and somehow you end up at the utube website without even the intention of doing so and get a flash of a TV show being displayed, have you therefore watched TV in your home?


----------



## Steve Maskery (2 Dec 2012)

No. In this context it is watching TV programmes as they are being broadcast. Catchup TV like iPlayer is not licensed in the same way.


----------



## devonwoody (2 Dec 2012)

Steve Maskery":3exqfoh9 said:


> No. In this context it is watching TV programmes as they are being broadcast. Catchup TV like iPlayer is not licensed in the same way.




Well it wont be long  :wink:

Actually I am completely shocked that computers are not taxed like the bbc license.


----------



## DrPhill (2 Dec 2012)

devonwoody":2ussccaj said:


> Actually I am completely shocked that computers are not taxed like the bbc license.



Historically speaking, it would be the expected move. Any new form of communication has attracted the interest of the government - first for control, then for revenue. Pamphlets, then books, the press, radio, tv. So licencing/taxing computers or the interweb would be consistent.

I am not advocating this - far from it - just saying that it would be historically consistent. Then people would be complaining 'I do not have a computer, never have had, so why do I have to declare this fact?'. Though I doubt that they would be posting such a comment here.


----------



## SBJ (2 Dec 2012)

I've had this before in houses that we've renovated. Constant threatening letters, to the point of bullying. I refused to phone them on a point of principal that I didn't have to prove that I was innocent. 

Having read this thread, I realise what a plank I must have looked to everyone that I told the story too. Just phone them DrPhil, then return to being indignant if it continues.


----------



## andersonec (2 Dec 2012)

Some months ago we got a letter from them saying we did not have a licence and must buy one, phoned them and said we've got one and here's the licence number, few weeks late another letter arrived and said we had not responded etc, phoned them and said we have a licence and here's the number, few weeks later another letter threatening us with court, phoned them and said when will the hearing be and we would be glad to meet them in court, letters stopped.

Andy


----------



## RogerS (2 Dec 2012)

Stick to your guns, Dr Phill. If you Google this you will see that you are not alone.

And if you can't get to sleep then try this website dedicated to your problem! http://www.lime-marmalade.net/

Actually some interesting wrinkles. Here's a couple of questions for you.

1) If you use a computer to watch live streaming-video BBC programmes, do you need a TV licence ?

2) If you use a computer to watch live streaming-video foreign programmes, do you need a TV licence ?

The answer is Yes to both.


----------



## PeterBassett (3 Dec 2012)

beech1948":19f787ye said:


> The TV licence fee is an anachronism which should be repealed and TV watching should be free to all. There is no justification anymore for TV licence fees. The BBC is now a business just like other commercial TV stations so why do we need a licence.
> Al



Disagree with this entirely. We pay a license fee to keep the BBC ran stations advert free and I for one and vastly grateful for that. Have you watched the other stations? Let me give you a breakdown.

A 1 hour show starts on the hour.
2 minute introduction to the show showing what the show will show you.
At the 5 minute mark we break to commercial for 5 minutes. 
There on in we break for commercial ad breaks every 10 minutes. Each break is five minutes.

A content packed 1 hour show is actually less than 40 minutes long.

The other stations are an utter bag of dung.


----------



## RogerS (3 Dec 2012)

PeterBassett":5srlmtp4 said:


> beech1948":5srlmtp4 said:
> 
> 
> > The TV licence fee is an anachronism which should be repealed and TV watching should be free to all. There is no justification anymore for TV licence fees. The BBC is now a business just like other commercial TV stations so why do we need a licence.
> ...



+1

You missed Channel 4's ability to stretch a 30 minute programme out to the hour slot by repeating for two minutes after each commercial break excerpts from what went on before in the programme...a sort of commercial reprise.


----------



## Sheffield Tony (3 Dec 2012)

I agree that the BBC channels and their lack of advertising is worth paying for. But it does not justify the harassment.
I too have had grief from them when I didn't have a TV. When I did have both TV and license, I once had a TV licence expire when I was away in Japan for several weeks. When I came back, I got a new one. Reckoning that I had not operated a TV or any such from my home address in the intervening time, I reckoned that the 1 month gap in my license payment was completely above board. Not so TVL. Letter arrives saying "We notice that your TV licenses are not contiguous, and have adjusted the start date fror you new license to match the expiry of the old one". Cue nice argument over whether I could operate a TV in the UK from a hotel in Japan where I could prove I was. Do you think they backed down ? Fat chance.


----------



## beech1948 (3 Dec 2012)

nanscombe":2ayp2pua said:


> beech1948":2ayp2pua said:
> 
> 
> > ... I learned that *SOME* so called public service employees are lying, conniving and self serving Bas*ar*s. Surprise surprise indeed.
> ...



No thanks I'll stick with the original statement.

Al


----------



## beech1948 (3 Dec 2012)

PeterBassett":2k8amig1 said:


> beech1948":2k8amig1 said:
> 
> 
> > The TV licence fee is an anachronism which should be repealed and TV watching should be free to all. There is no justification anymore for TV licence fees. The BBC is now a business just like other commercial TV stations so why do we need a licence.
> ...



It seems you do not watch attentively. The BBC uses large amounts of air time for advertisements for its own services and programmes much more than other channels. Its all advertising.

THE TV LICENCE FEE SHOULD BE ABOLISHED IMMEDIATELY

Al


----------



## RogerS (3 Dec 2012)

beech1948":1z3srcqh said:


> PeterBassett":1z3srcqh said:
> 
> 
> > beech1948":1z3srcqh said:
> ...



But NOT during the programme. *Keep the Licence fee. It is excellent value for money.*


----------



## vally bar (3 Dec 2012)

If I had the option not to recive the BBC sinal and therefore not pay the TAX that the licence fee is, I would most definitely take it. As I do not feel that it represents value for money and should not be forced upon those who do not want it.


----------



## nanscombe (3 Dec 2012)

beech1948":1y8u3hfx said:


> nanscombe":1y8u3hfx said:
> 
> 
> > beech1948":1y8u3hfx said:
> ...



Arrogant bar tender.




beech1948":1y8u3hfx said:


> ..I have recently had to fight off a Local Authority which deployed lies, naked fabrication of false legal positions and compounded by them applying the law such that they were in error.



"It wasn't me Guv, I've woz framed." :roll:


----------



## monkeybiter (3 Dec 2012)

Is this the largest font available without resorting to attachments?


----------



## Robbo3 (3 Dec 2012)

Maybe. Why? :?


----------



## PeterBassett (3 Dec 2012)

LOUD NOISES!

Anyway, I'm actually in the complete opposite boat. When I moved into my last house, five years back, we didn't get a license as I didn't bother hooking the TV up at all first the first month and after that only plugged the DVD player in.

We got a reminder about licensing so I rang them up and said we aren't using it for watching TV, just DVDs. The helpful person on the phone said that this was fine. We only need a license to watch broadcast signals, not to actually own a TV capable of such. They just said that they may send someone round to check it's not plugged into the aerial. I'm fine with that but they haven't ever sent anyone. The TV doesn't have an aerial and isn't even tuned in so they can look all they like.

Now, I recently bought a fancy new TV with smart capabilities. Just means that it's capable of watching the iPlayer etc without me starting up the laptop and now I'm giving *serious* consideration to just getting a license because, honestly, I believe we have to support such a fantastic service. The iPlayer was great on its own but having it integrated right into the TV is fantastic.

beech1948 :

Large amounts of air time? In comparison to what? As for the BBC having adverts, I think you'll find they are trailers for other BBC shows and they are only between programs. There are no CILLIT BANG ads. No pineapple window ads. No scumbag "No Win No Fee" ads. etc etc etc and they DO NOT INTERRUPT THE PROGRAMS.

You remove the license fee and the ad free nature of the BBC ends. No to mention other nasty effects like the BBC news being potentially influenced by ad revenue. If you have never seen horrorshow the Americans call TV I should count yourself lucky. It is basically viewer abuse and they have to pay for the privilege.

I'm sure there is something you'd much rather ABOLISH IMMEDIATELY.


----------



## monkeybiter (3 Dec 2012)

PeterBassett":h443jvi3 said:


> If you have never seen horrorshow the Americans call TV I should count yourself lucky. It is basically viewer abuse and they have to pay for the privilege.



Agreed, it's about 20 years since I watched TV in the states and I was shocked and found it unwatchable. A programme would start with the opening credits then go straight to adverts. I would wager it hasn't improved.


----------



## andersonec (3 Dec 2012)

PeterBassett":39dt5egt said:


> beech1948":39dt5egt said:
> 
> 
> > The TV licence fee is an anachronism which should be repealed and TV watching should be free to all. There is no justification anymore for TV licence fees. The BBC is now a business just like other commercial TV stations so why do we need a licence.
> ...



I presume you are not including the advertising carried out by the Beeb in which every celeb and his dog are queuing up to advertise their latest book, dvd, film, programmes (on other channels) etc. etc. and don't tell me the BBC are paying these people to come on and advertise their stuff, surely they wouldn't advertise these peoples wares unless they were the ones being paid to do so, how do they get round that is what I want to know?

And the one hour content packed show is a bit like the Beeb's Strictly Come Dancing, 10 minutes dancing and the rest, well I think you all know.

Oh, and as for the iplayer, why does anybody need it? all programmes are repeated at least twice weekly.

Andy


----------



## Oryxdesign (3 Dec 2012)

You need the iplayer if you don't mindlessly sit in front of whatever they serve up. Pick and choose what you want to watch, don't watch live and then you don't need a licence.


----------



## RogerS (3 Dec 2012)

andersonec":1r9j5rvm said:


> ....
> ...why does anybody need it? all programmes are repeated at least twice weekly.
> 
> Andy



That's utter tosh.


----------



## nanscombe (3 Dec 2012)

andersonec":2pl69u2m said:


> Oh, and as for the iplayer, why does anybody need it? all programmes are repeated at least twice weekly.



Because they'd have to pay for a TV Licence to watch it live?


----------



## whiskywill (4 Dec 2012)

Paul Chapman":11n6euzu said:


> I think you are being a bit silly about this.




No he is not. I have a collection of 23 letters from the licensing people, most of them red and threatening to take to court if I don't respond by a certain date. I am still waiting.

The point is I do have a television and I do have a license, paid by direct debit. When I built my house 21 years ago there was some confusion about the address but that was sorted about 15 years ago.

I just wish that they would knock my door. I like confrontaion when I am in the right. :twisted:


----------



## seanybaby (4 Dec 2012)

Ignore the letters, they are from a private company.

You could remove their implied right of access to your property.

http://www.bbctvlicence.com/Withholding implied right of access.htm

Detector machines are a fiction!

Just don't let them in, and never give your name.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdOVEKocXuQ

There are lots of videos on youtube of how to deal with these parasites.


----------



## seanybaby (4 Dec 2012)

Who are you and what do you want? :lol: :lol: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfHRhXW1hno


----------



## morfa (4 Dec 2012)

I've not had to deal with this for a while, but I have to say the TV licencing authority are a bunch of horrible bullies. Other government agencies aren't any where near as bad. The letters are very threatening and they make a blanket assumption that *everyone* has a TV. They just keep on sending them and sending them, even when you're paying the fee. I really wish I could disconnect the TV, just so I can stop paying them, just cause of the behaviour of them. I like the BBC and I'm happy to pay them the fee, I just strongly dislike the TV licencing authority. Personally I'd be more than happy with just watching the odd DVD, no need for TV.


----------



## Chems (5 Dec 2012)

I'd love for someone to be a decent human, invite the person in, show them what they want, offer them a cuppa and ask kindly that you hope you don't receive anymore letters and see what the outcome is.


----------



## DrPhill (5 Dec 2012)

Thanks for the links to sites (especially the site dedicated to frustrating the BBC/TVL people. I think I may try the revocation of implied right of access together with warnings that I will raise a charge of harassment. I need to read a bit more about both first though (and as I am a lazy beggar it may take some time).

It is good to know that I am not the only spikey one around, though a large number of folk do prefer the supine route. 

As for 'why not just tell them you do not have a TV' - if you read the BBC site carefully you will see that this will like as not provoke rather than prevent a visit. Also they will check 'from time to time' that the situation has not changed. In other words you will just have to go through it all again every six months or a year. I see it as impertinence (which I routinely ignore) or aggressive bullying (which rattled my cage this time).

My preferred solution would be for them to leave me in peace and go harrass somebody who enjoys it instead.


----------



## John Brown (5 Dec 2012)

Hmmm..

That youtube link and the similar clips on youtube say it all for me.

I accept that a very small minority of people do not own a TV set, and thus do not have a licence, and that some of them feel hassled and aggravated by the attitudes of the licence inspectors, but most of the people who have run-ins with the licensing authorites are simply trying to get away without paying.

Just confirm that you don't have a TV, it will be quicker and far less trouble in the long run.
You can bang your head against a brick wall for as long as you like but you are unlikely to effect any material change in the structure of anything outside of your head.


----------



## devonwoody (5 Dec 2012)

Remember those letters are computer generated and the old computer has no feelings like you and it will just keep pumping those letters out until someone at the office decides to stop chatting and do some computerisation. :wink:


----------



## beech1948 (5 Dec 2012)

quote

beech1948 :

Large amounts of air time? In comparison to what? As for the BBC having adverts, I think you'll find they are trailers for other BBC shows and they are only between programs. There are no CILLIT BANG ads. No pineapple window ads. No scumbag "No Win No Fee" ads. etc etc etc and they DO NOT INTERRUPT THE PROGRAMS.

You remove the license fee and the ad free nature of the BBC ends. No to mention other nasty effects like the BBC news being potentially influenced by ad revenue. If you have never seen horrorshow the Americans call TV I should count yourself lucky. It is basically viewer abuse and they have to pay for the privilege.

>>The BBC is NOT without adverts given the amount of time it wastes trailering and invoking celebrities to do stuff.
The BBC cost of operations and revenue is far higher than the Licence fee so where does this money come from....the commercial arm of the BBC. Its a business just like any other.

The lack of commercial advertising as opposed to BBC funded internal adverts could be managed by limiting by law how much time could be used for adverts.

I watch maybe 2 hrs at most a week....that makes the licence fee expensive and arguably unfair or discriminating against me.

Al


----------



## Pond (5 Dec 2012)

I think there may a 'campaign' on at the moment for realising revenue.
I pay my TV licence by DD, have done for years. I got a randon letter in the post on Monday, saying "don't forget to let us know if you move house"!
Our house is for sale at the moment, I find it hard to believe 'they' know this, or maybe they do?!

The TV licence is still the best VFM around. For £12 a month you get 4 of the best TV channels on the planet, 2 HD channels, News channels. At least 30 radio stations, on demand tv. 2 childrens channels. They had over 20 HD channels for the Olympics. The BBC website, I could go on.... Compare it to SKY!

Dr Phill, I have to ask: if you have no TV and no car, what the hell do you do? Do you crowd around the mahogany Bush radiogram in the corner of an evening and hail a Hackney Carriage to visit anywhere?? Is Spam a major foodsource in your house? :wink:


----------



## Pond (5 Dec 2012)

beech1948":sskqlx3w said:


> quote
> 
> I watch maybe 2 hrs at most a week....that makes the licence fee expensive and arguably unfair or discriminating against me.
> 
> Al



That is a ridiculous argument. The same as saying, I have only ever used the Council for the bin collection, that makes my Council Tax extortionate. Just doesn't hold water, does it?


----------



## DrPhill (5 Dec 2012)

Pond":2j8kdoqo said:


> Dr Phill, I have to ask: if you have no TV and no car, what the hell do you do? Do you crowd around the mahogany Bush radiogram in the corner of an evening and hail a Hackney Carriage to visit anywhere?? Is Spam a major foodsource in your house? :wink:



I do not know why you feel that you have to ask - if you read carefully the post in which I used not having a car as an analogy, you will see that I explicitly stated that I do have a car.

I am not sure about the reference to spam. I am a partial vegetarian (I do not eat birds or mammals) and therefore would not eat spam.

As far as what do I do without a TV, well I produce entertainment as often as not, rather than being a passive consumer of others output. I play music - recorded for others and as entertainment for myself and friends at local pubs. I carve wood (including making presents for freinds and family), I grow an excess of vegetables and give some away to freinds and family. I walk locally with the dogs enjoying the local countryside, I write free software to give to any who want to use it. The thought of blobbing out in front of a TV horrifies me. Life is too short and too precious to waste on such banality.

Was that the answer you wanted?


----------



## barkwindjammer (5 Dec 2012)

As opposed to Pond-life,,,,,then


----------



## RogerS (6 Dec 2012)

barkwindjammer":nldaclxq said:


> As opposed to Pond-life,,,,,then




=D>


----------



## Pond (7 Dec 2012)

The :wink: in my post should have indicated a 'tongue in cheek' response.

Obviously a sense of humour failure! :wink: :wink: (see wink wink)


----------



## RogerS (7 Dec 2012)

Pond":3e931y2y said:


> The :wink: in my post should have indicated a 'tongue in cheek' response.
> 
> Obviously a sense of humour failure! :wink: :wink: (see wink wink)



:lol:


----------



## beech1948 (7 Dec 2012)

Pond":h1mvpqy5 said:


> beech1948":h1mvpqy5 said:
> 
> 
> > quote
> ...



Nothing ridiculous about it. Keep your name calling to yourself.

The BBC is so far from the Council in organisation and purpose so that there is no comparison except to those who lack any analytical skills.

The fact remains that the BBC is in the main a commercial organisation. It accepts money from us because it claims to be a Public Service Broadcaster when in reality it has failed in that role over the past 40 yrs. Let the BBC fund itself from its income from its commercial activity.

What is ridiculous is to say that because the BBC does not show commercial adverts it is valuable and more valuable than the commercial only stations. Utter rubbish.

Time to get rid of this antiquated tax.

Al


----------



## Pond (7 Dec 2012)

beech1948":3448t60g said:


> Nothing ridiculous about it. Keep your name calling to yourself.
> 
> Al



I don't remember calling anybody any names :? I called your argument ridiculous, not you! 
These are all opinions. We are all allowed them, even if they differ; the advantage of living in a democracy!?
Differences of opinion are (in my opinion) the thing that makes internet forums fun!!


----------



## Pond (7 Dec 2012)

barkwindjammer":1b7i8s2r said:


> As opposed to Pond-life,,,,,then



That's name calling! Or possibly insulting, if you gave a t*ss! :wink:


----------



## Steve Maskery (7 Dec 2012)

Have we strayed a little from the original topic?
S


----------



## nanscombe (7 Dec 2012)

Pond":2jhtxsnc said:


> barkwindjammer":2jhtxsnc said:
> 
> 
> > As opposed to Pond-life,,,,,then
> ...



That's not name calling ...



> ... lying, conniving and self serving Bas*ar*s



That's name calling.


----------



## Pond (7 Dec 2012)

nanscombe":v92bqoyu said:


> Pond":v92bqoyu said:
> 
> 
> > barkwindjammer":v92bqoyu said:
> ...



Oh yeah, so it is!


----------



## Pond (7 Dec 2012)

DrPhill":1lucb50a said:


> I am a partial vegetarian (I do not eat birds or mammals)



So you eat fish and insects! You should get a TV, I'm pretty sure there will be a cookery programme on channel 4 for you!


----------



## Steve Maskery (7 Dec 2012)

Come on guys! 'Tis the season of goodwill, and all that nonsense.
S


----------



## Phil Pascoe (7 Dec 2012)

Sodd goodwill - xmas is shyte.


----------



## RogerBoyle (7 Dec 2012)

phil.p":76nazwl3 said:


> Sodd goodwill - xmas is shyte.


Go on then I'll bite 
Why ???


----------



## Phil Pascoe (7 Dec 2012)

Too many years of working in licensed trade - it's silly person season. Everyone thinks they can do and say exactly as they wish because they've had three pints and it's xmas. Atheism has an influence as well. Roll on 2nd Jan.


----------



## Chrisnw (8 Dec 2012)

Phill,

I had the same, with the only exception that my house didn't exist! 

My house was being built and I guess that the address had been registered enabling the contractors working on behalf of TV licencing to send out bulk letter to addresses that weren't shown as having TV licences. When the house was completed I received all of the post that had been stored over the past few months,consisting of mostly threatening letter from these folks. It also stated that enforcement officers had been around but couldn't get an answer during periods when all they would have seen was a field.

I carried on getting the letters after transferring my TV licence and eventually after tiring of speaking to people and writing a couple of letters, I wrote to the local MP. I'm slightly embarrassed of wasting someone's time like this but it had the desired effect. I had several letters of a apology from TV licencing and haven't been bothered since.

Chris


----------



## mseries (8 Dec 2012)

SO the OP has three options

1. Buy a licence
2. Tell them he has no telly
3. Do nothing


Option 1 is not the right one since he doesn't have a telly, it'll get them off his back though !
Option 2 is what they want but them might check up again to make sure he's not fibbing just to get them off his back.
Option 3 is unlikely to get them off his back in my opinion.


----------

