Important information for my UK friends

[BlueDancer]

Important information for my UK friends


If you are like me and don't watch TV and are getting sick of the heavy handed tactics of the TV licensing people then you should read this.

A television licence is only required when equipment is used to receive or record television signals as they are broadcast to the wider public. If you don't use equipment as described above then you don't require a television licence.

You would think, understandably, that if you don't need a licence then you simply don't bother to buy one. That should be the end of the matter but it isn't. It won't take TV Licensing long to realise that your address is unlicensed and, given their misguided impression that no-one in the world can live without television, they'll want to know why.

Know your rights.

Read more……

http://tv-licensing.blogspot.com/200...nts-index.html


I am absolutely sick of these letters coming through my door threatening court action because I don’t have a TV licence. I don’t watch TV. I hate television, all those crappy programs and LOUD adverts and soap operas that try to teach me how to deal with life’s situations and events. I can think for myself. Thank you. And it is possible to live without TV.

The law says people need a licence to have a gun but you don’t see any gun licence inspector people knocking on doors to make sure people who own a gun have a licence.

I’m just happy here in front of my computer. I just want to be left alone. I no longer respond to these letters and I plan to simply close the door the next time a TV Licence inspector calls.

The sooner the TV Licence is abolished the better.

 

[pacinitaly]

are you saying that in the UK a person must have a license to view television?

 

[BlueDancer]

Yes. The cost is £145 a year.

But that's not the problem. The problem is the nasty letters and the abuse on your own doorstep from TV Licence inspectors, even if you don't watch TV and therefore don't need a licence.

I don't watch TV. More and more people are posting about the harassment they receive.

In this particular situation it looks like we are guilty until proved innocent.

 

[Lorien]

Yes. The cost is £145 a year.

But that's not the problem. The problem is the nasty letters and the abuse on your own doorstep from TV Licence inspectors, even if you don't watch TV and therefore don't need a licence.

I don't watch TV. More and more people are posting about the harassment they receive.

In this particular situation it looks like we are guilty until proved innocent.

Why don't you sell or get rid of the TV (since you don't use it anyway)? Then when the inspectors show up you can give them a tour and show you don't have a TV and that should be enough proof for them to leave you alone. Of course, they may still try to charge you for a license up until the date of sale (if they subpoena the sales receipt or you leave a trail concerning the sale) - but it certainly can't hurt your case. But since it can by done by computer and you obviously have one, then even that may not be enough (unless you can prove the computer unable to receive live TV broadcasts or you let them check the computer and the TV and whatever else with their detection devices however they work).

As far as court goes, how can they possibly prove you've watched TV and therefore owe for the license (except with their secret detectors which they won't disclose how they work)? The fact that there's a TV or other receiving device in the house is NOT enough "proof" to satisfy a judge that it is being used in a way that requires a license. I'm sure there are signal trackers (hand held and vans according to what I read) to check if there is an active receiver there (and if they use them and you really aren't using the TV, those records could be used by you to help prove your case). Surely there must be some case files you can research to see how such cases go - and I'm sure somewhere there's a website with the actual word-for-word law/regulation including how it is to be enforced and what it takes to prove a violation. I read what was available, but a lot about how they detect violations is not available to the public. But if you're in the right, you should be fine as long as you cooperate (meaning let them in with their detectors to check the TV and computer and any other such devices). Apparently, if you refuse to let them in, they can get a subpoena to check more remotely (by special vans) but if you aren't watching live TV, you should be fine.

From what I can tell, if you follow the procedures at: TV Licensing - What if a TV Licence is not needed and cooperate if an inspector shows up, you should be fine and not be harrassed for at least two years (at which point you do the same thing again and get another 2 years OK - except for the possible confirmation visits). I believe you can contact them to schedule a visit if they keep showing up when you aren't there and leaving nasty letters - and that should be the end of it. It sounds more like a bunch of paperwork and maybe a few visits that will prove nothing - not really anything outrageous.

It sounds like a major PITA, but if you follow the rules and fill out the forms and cooperate if visited, you should be fine and able to avoid paying for a license that is not required. It sounds to me like you're on a crusade against the entire concept and making things harder for yourself than they need to be if you just accept the situation and follow the rules.

In a way, this really isn't much different than all the BS one has to go through with cars in terms of driver licenses, insurance, inspections, speed traps, red light cameras, seat belt and DWI checkpoints, titles and registrations, emission testing, taxes in states where that applies, and all the other related nonsense. This is a bit worse because you need to prove non-use which is harder, but it sounds like it's just another form of beaurocratic nonsense where filling out forms and allowing periodic inspections when they can only prove your case is all it takes to make it merely a minor annoyance rather than a major attack on civil rights.

I do understand how you feel, but I think if you go with the flow instead of trying to fight the system, things will be a lot easier for you and, if what I read is true, the harrassment will be minimal at worst. But if you want to fight against the system, then I'm sure they can make things even rougher than they already are. Then again, I guess it's your choice.

 

[niemiro]

When one of my relatives died, and the house was empty until sold, we got rid of our TV Liscense. I remember these letters, and periodically (apparently) a van came round and pointed an aerial at our aerial to check if it was being used. We had the TV unplugged just in case, and it all went fine. Obviously we passed.

 

[pacinitaly]

I gotta ask


if the UK has to pay a $145/yr fee for viewing the tele, are all channels available for free?
eg: HBO,cinamax,BBC,ifc,starz,pbs,showtime, etc ???

 

[z3r010]

It's not for viewing the TV it's for owning it!!! and while there is some free to air TV, all the good stuff requires a satellite or cable sub.

 

[pacinitaly]

holy cow, entertainment is expensive there!!!

how much is a license for a

radio
computer
automobile
girlfriend
water bed

 

[BlueDancer]

Lorien,

Getting rid of the TV isn't the problem. The Licence is for programmes as they are aired. I use my TV/monitor for watching DVDs and playing console games. The real problem going on here at the moment is the harassment people who don't use TV are having to put up with; nasty letters and threats of search warrants and court action. And they are very heavy handed with it - behaving like debt collectors.

Not having the need of a TV Licence I see no need to be dealing with these people at all. And that's how a lot of people here feel. It's an invasion of privacy. If you read up on it on the net you'll see that they claim to have rights that they do not have. They do not have the right to enter a home without the owners permission.

Showing them around doesn't work, the letters keep coming. Their database is a mess.

It has nothing to do with owning a TV. It's all about TV broadcasting. I could easily prove that I don't watch TV but that's not the problem. The problem is being forced to deal with these people even when you don't have to because you don't have a licence.

It's a big issue here. people have been tricked into signing a form which the TV Licence inspector says is just to show that he called and that everything was fine. When in fact they are signing to say they were caught watching TV programmes. Next they receive a summons to attend court. It's all very time consuming and intrusive. There are many petitions being signed to have this TV TAX abolished.

The TV Licence inspectors are on commission and some if not most are quite unscrupulous.

No one has been found guilty of this offence through using a detector van. A lot of people here doubt that such vans even exist. If they did then why would these people need to enter our homes?

The magistrates courts are becoming overwhelmed with such cases and don't spend a lot of time looking at proof.

This is where I and others have a problem. Why should we co-operate? Why should we put up with these letters that they send out in the thousands? Why should we, who do not watch TV, have to deal with them at all.

At the moment it looks like it is up to us to prove that we don't watch TV. When it should be up to them to prove that we do.

From what I can tell, if you follow the procedures at: TV Licensing - What if a TV Licence is not needed and cooperate if an inspector shows up, you should be fine and not be harassed for at least two years (at which point you do the same thing again and get another 2 years OK - except for the possible confirmation visits). I believe you can contact them to schedule a visit if they keep showing up when you aren't there and leaving nasty letters - and that should be the end of it. It sounds more like a bunch of paperwork and maybe a few visits that will prove nothing - not really anything outrageous.

Sounds good but this isn't the case. They continue to send the letters like they were automated, they fail to update their database, and the threats of court action keep coming. I'm beginning to realise that it's mostly empty threats hence the growing feeling of harassment and intimidation.


There is a crusade but it's not mine. I only became aware of the extent of this situation when I came across others speaking out on the net. I did some reading and was quite shocked at the extent of this.

I do understand how you feel, but I think if you go with the flow instead of trying to fight the system, things will be a lot easier for you and, if what I read is true, the harassment will be minimal at worst. But if you want to fight against the system, then I'm sure they can make things even rougher than they already are. Then again, I guess it's your choice.

I'm sure you're right about that. I've certainly read a lot about it over the last few days. Maybe it's time to let go and simply deal with them next time they call.

Thanks for your input.

 

[Joan Archer]

Don't forget it's the BBC that the licence is paid to, the other channels, ITV and Channel 5 get their money from the adverts they show, but if you want to see more you have to pay again to Satellite or Cable companies or the phone people BT for their Vision box.

If you have the equipment that enables you to receive a TV signal you have to have a licence.

 

[Lorien]

According to TV Licensing - What if a TV Licence is not needed, there are ways to avoid the license if you don't use the equipment to view live TV but only to watch DVDs or as a second computer monitor or things like that. Though it seems that enforcement seems to act as if having a receiver is enough to require a license (even if from what I read like the above link, that doesn't seem to be actually true according to the regulations).

Of course, I don't live there, so I don't know what it's really like. It seems like enforcement is such that getting the license if you have receiving equipment but don't actually use it in a way that should require a license may be simpler than battling the system - and so considering the license required if you have receiving equipment may be the simpler way to go (even if there seem to be alternatives if you want to put up with the hoopla involved in fighting to avoid it and are actually justified).

I'm glad I don't have to put up with this - but then again, we do watch TV so there's no doubt we'd require a license anyway.

 

[fieseler]

The link appears to be dead. Looks like MI6 has infiltrated the server and wiped the information.

No doubt the authors property is now vacant and he/she hasn't been seen since.

 

[Lorien]

The link appears to be dead. Looks like MI6 has infiltrated the server and wiped the information.

No doubt the authors property is now vacant and he/she hasn't been seen since.

I just checked and connected with no problems. Plus it's the OFFICIAL link for information about the license including how to pay for it (and methods to do so). It isn't some activisty site. They may have had a temporary problem, but I'm sure the site is maintained.

 

[MrNeeds]

Ahhh, I wish I read this before, just got sky HD and multi room and bought a brand new TV, oh, btw, BBC are that cunning that they automatically send out letters to unlicensed properties when you buy a new TV, I ordered my TV online and a few days later I got a letter telling me that I have an unlicensed TV in my property, scary to think that they have access to this information!

Dave

 

[pacinitaly]

The link appears to be dead. Looks like MI6 has infiltrated the server and wiped the information.

No doubt the authors property is now vacant and he/she hasn't been seen since.

 

[americancritic]

Hello BlueDancer I was doing some reading and ran across your page and WoW, I live in Phoenix, Arizona and we can walk down the street with a loaded AK47 and it is legal and now if you are 21 or older you don't even have to have a licence to carry a concealed weapon. I hope for the best for the people who live in the UK.

americancritic

 

[BlueDancer]

Well I’ve calmed down quite a bit since I got the letter and did some reading on the net. I don’t watch TV. I’ll just deal with them if and when they call. Thanks for the input folks.

 

[Smurfyy]

We don't watch alot of TV in my house, we have a virgin Media TV box thingie, but not the latest one, there's no point in paying for it if we don't use it. Ofc we have TV's in other rooms, but they are freeview, and I also have a freeview TV card for my pc...

Alot of the main channels have the online player, like BBC Iplayer and ITV Player, so anything I wanna watch I go there.
Anyways, hope you get it sorted

 

[niemiro]

We don't watch much TV either. I watch Top Gear occasionally, the Apprentice, David Attenborough, and that is about it. My parents also watch Lark Rise to Candleford and Not the Nine o'Clock news, but that is about 2/3 hours a week between us - not much at all.

 

[pacinitaly]

again... in the UK, does anyone have a television and not pay a fee?
what if you only turn on the tele for emergency info?


forgetaboutit,




God watch over the Kingdom of Great Britain



love Carmine