Not to need a tv licence

[bestthings]

My friend says she doesn't need a licence because she doesn't watch BBC. Is it really that simple, i mean do they have to believe you? It just seems very trusting of them. I don't watch BBC myself, but have always had a licence. She says i shouldn't. Does anyone know the actual facts about this?

"Well no, if you're that poor you can't pay for your tv licence it's probably advisable not to have a tv.. It's not punishment for being poor it's punishment for not having a licence."

This ^^
Watching TV is a luxury (that most of us take fro granted), not a basic human right.

We got fined after my gran died because her house had a tv with an aerial cable plugged into the wall and we hadn't renewed the tv licence. We insisted the house was empty and we weren't watching tv, but the inspector didn't believe us. The rules don't SAY you can't own tv receiving equipment, but they will question why you own it if you're not watching tv.

I thought this was a radio and television licence?

I don't actually have a tv, but I've got all the channels loaded on my iPad- some I watch as broadcast, some I watch on catchup...
BUT, for choice, given I really had to make one, I'd choose a licence to listen to the radio any time., including their overseas broadcasts.

Wonderful,wonderful service. Gold star to Auntie Beeb, and that gold star comes cheap at the price, for me ]

Why ask if you won't listen to the answers
Strange comment, of course i'm listening to the answers. How did you work out i wasn't listening after i only made 1 or 2 comments.Am i just supposed to say "right thanks" immediately or just wait for more replies.
bigdreamtree i read this on the tv licensing website.

"Well no, if you're that poor you can't pay for your tv licence it's probably advisable not to have a tv.. It's not punishment for being poor it's punishment for not having a licence.
Call it what you want, but imo it's still a punishment for the poor, never happens to the rich. Always been the same, and i've got a licence so i presume you mean my friend.

As above - if you’re watching ITV, Channel 4 etc. on TV as it’s broadcast, you need a licence.

If you watch BBC iPlayer, you need a licence.

If you never watch TV as it’s broadcast on TV, and never watch BBC iPlayer, then you don’t need a licence.

So it’s not just about watching BBC.

You need a television licence if

• You watch or record live television, including watching it live online, or
• You watch the BBC's catch-up service.

You don't need one for merely owning a television or computer, or for watching catch-up from non-BBC providers.

Most importantly, you DO NOT HAVE TO LET THE TV LICENCE INSPECTOR INTO YOUR PROPERTY WITHOUT A WARRANT. For you to be proved to be breaking the law, you must either be caught in the act of watching TV, or be stupid enough to admit to doing it.

TV Licence inspectors have no right to enter your home without your permission - no matter how much they try to persuade you otherwise.

You need a licence to watch ITV, this i never knew. They don't get any of the licence money though do they?

No they don’t, but that’s the law.

Have you got a link for that educated, i'll show it to my friend.

This one, which IrkthePurist posted upthread:

www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one

Just to be clear, "live" TV doesn't mean programmes broadcast as live, such as sports matches and special events like Remembrance Day services. Everything you watch on broadcast TV, whatever the channel - including pay-for services such as Sky -, even if it's a repeat, and even if you watch on a mobile device, PC or tablet, etc, is "live". If you record a programme to watch it later, you've still made use of the "live" service and need a licence.

I don't have a telly licence haven't needed one for years.
Similar to vampires if you rescind the implied right of access then Capita shouldn't knock.

I find it insulting. I don't get interrogation from any fishing licence inspectors, the police don't assume I need a gun licence and knock round to check for guns.
I'm fully capable of determining what I need.

It's simple, if your 'friend' watches live tv, whether BBC ITV or any other channel, or on iplayer, a licence is required. It's not rocket science.

OP, I think perhaps you got confused reading the first results you got from googling. If your friend just uses catch-up TV (as long as it's not BBC iplayer) then she wouldn't need a licence. If she is actually watching live TV on ANY channel, then she does. Owning a TV doesn't require a licence, if you have it connected up so that you only use it for catch-up (NOT BBC) and things like maybe NetFlix. I would clarify with her.

You do have a point about poor people though. Although people wont be sent to prison for not having a licence, they can be fined and may then be sent to prison if they don't pay the court fine. The TV licence is what they call a 'regressive tax' - so it affects poorer people disproportionately more than richer ones. One of the reasons I don't really agree with it, although I pay it.

I think either the TV Licence should be income related in some way, or the BBC should become a subscription service, like Sky. I would sign up at the right price. (They can stop paying inflated salaries to dinosaurs like John Humphries, though!)

The thing is,bestthings, it's not a BBC TV licence, there is no such thing. It's a TV licence that you must have if you watch or record any live channel TV in any way.
Most but not all of the money goes to the BBC, but that's not relevant.

Well it seems my friend is breaking the law, better show her all this. Thanks everyone.

It's £12 a month for a licence and freeview is free so not really expensive to be able to watch tv is it!

Netflix is cheaper and have better shows. I also have amazon prime for next day delivery. TV license is crap value for money. I haven’t got one for years now.

I don't have a tv license as no live tv or BBCviplayer, you can watch catch-up for other channels but not as it's being broadcast.

"but imo it's still a punishment for the poor, never happens to the rich."

Where do you draw the line? Should poorer people pay less for petrol? Pay less in bus fares? Go into a shop and say to the cashier that they want to pay less for a pair of trousers?

Sorry, but your statement is silly.

No it isn't silly, you wouldn't get fined for not being able to afford petrol and bus fares etc, because if you can't afford them you don't buy them. The same can't be said about tv licences, people who omit to pay for them have until recently been sent to prison. That would only happen to poor people, who have a television but struggle to afford a licence. Saying it's akin to being punished for being poor is something that's been said many many times over the years, surely you've heard it said before? It's hugely wrong to criminalize someone for it. Or should we fill our jails with these awful people and let real criminals go free.

www.mirror.co.uk/money/tv-licence-fee-fines-scrapped-9682014
I think maybe my friend could have read this, it's not quite as clear cut as some think perhaps.

you wouldn't get fined for not being able to afford petrol and bus fares etc, because if you can't afford them you don't buy them. The same can't be said about tv licences

You would get fined if you took the petrol or the bus ride without paying. Exactly the same as you get punished if you watch TV without paying for the license. If you can’t afford the license, you don’t watch TV as it is broadcast or on iPlayer.

it's not quite as clear cut as some think perhaps.

It is clear cut. “Anyone watching or recording live TV broadcasts or using iPlayer needs to have a TV licence – no matter what they're watching it on – or they could get a hefty fine.”

The 9nly exception is when you have a license at your permanent address (or your parents do) and you do not watch “as broadcast” tv
or iPlayer when your device is plugged into the mains.

If you're 75 or over, a TV licence is free - ie, the BBC fund it. It used to be the government who funded it, I think.