TV license

[Sky1992]

So AIBU to stop my direct debit towards TV license since the kids only watch netflix, you tube or Disney and I only watch eastenders and most times I watch it at my parents?

Also is it worth cancelling it and only watching eastenders when I'm not at home or downloading it at my parents who do have TV license and watch it mine once its downloaded?

This is not the case.

The language in the act is unambiguous and very specific.

You require a licence only if you watch, or intend to watch live programming as broadcast, or BBC iplayer.

The important and pertinent part is the 'watch, or intend to watch'.

You absolutely do not require a licence simply because you happen to own the means to do so, i.e. a television set, or some other screen, and a means of delivery, which is what your post implies.

This is a yet another of the deliberate lies by omission that the BBC perpetuate. You absolutely do not require a TV licence just because you own the means to receive live BBC broadcasts. Complete and utter untruth.

Probably because in large parts of the UK there is absolutely no such thing as 'Implied right of access'.

Yes, the vans themselves existed, unfortunately for the BBC the much trumpeted 'detection equipment' did not. At least, not in the sense that it was possible to detect TV usage in any meaningful way that could contribute to a potential court case.

There's a reason why 'detection' was never once presented as part of a case against a transgressor. Not one single instance of it in the history of the TV licence. Why? Because the BBC would have been immediately challenged to produce their equipment, demonstrate it's efficacy, explain their technology, and demonstrate how it was used to obtain evidence in the pertinent case.

They wouldn't have been able to do this for one simple reason- it was all a complete fabrication.

You aren't the only person who has been inside 'TV detector vans' either, so you won't be the only person who happened to notice they were completely empty of anything remotely resembling 'TV detection' equipment.

Strange how the 'impartial' BBC appears to have a long standing and very tenuous grasp of this wee thing called 'truth', eh?

Loads of other countries have a TV licence, Austria even has a radio licence. Some countries pay for their state TV by an extra tax on electricity.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence#Detection_of_evasion_of_television_licences

No one in the UK has ever gone to prison for not having a TV licence, people who refuse to pay fines have, just as you might for any other fine you refuse to pay.

The so called detector vans is a load of tripe and always was, they just have a list of which houses don't have a licence and come round hoping to catch you out, often you can see people watching TV from the road. If they exist, why won't they show people how they work? They have never been used in court or independently verified.

We had an empty house for a couple of years, every few months a letter would drop, at one point they even told us what we would need to bring to court!

There was nothing in the house, no TV, lap top, mobile phone, furniture or even a human 99.99% of they time. I rang them to get them off my back and they told a bunch of lies, if someone had been in the house with a mobile phone which could get iPlayer ,I needed a licence. I asked them to repeat this lie while I recorded it and the clammed up.

It is an out dated concept and I would like to see the BBC funded through general taxation.

Probably only older people like I am that watch normal TV and have use for a licence, we have the whole lot, Sky, all the streamers, though these are often on free trials or with Clubcard points, a licence for BBC, live stuff etc, we also a DVD player for anything else that may not be available on the other stuff. DS hardly watches TV and uses his iPad for Netflix and Prime which he doesn't watch very often anyway.

The modelling for the licence is from past times when most people just had a TV and maybe a very large Sky dish and that was the only choice

Are people spelling Licence wrong because Apple keeps advising License on its devices

That’s because Apple is a US company, so uses the US spelling, I suppose.

A big part of how people feel and act around the TV Licence is based on widespread misconceptions, some of which involve the malign influence of the BBC's misinformation and deliberate ambiguity on the topic.

In short: if this level of public understanding is the best that can be achieved by one of the World's biggest communication organisations then we are in serious trouble.

TV Detectors of any sort (whether the vans or handheld) have never been used as primary evidence of evasion in Court, and legal processes preclude it. In reality, most TV Licensing cases are brought based on confession evidence extracted without offering suspects their full range of legal rights (or in some cases, any of their legal rights in a meaningful way). That is a bigger (if less interesting) can of worms than the idea of detectors.

In short: the BBC has "Detectorists", but it doesn't have TV detectorists.

There are three basic facts about TV Licence enforcement-

• Unlicensed households are not answerable to the BBC/TV Licensing.
• Routine "Visits" by TV Licensing are strictly voluntary on the part of householders.
• Interviews under caution are subject to a requirement for informed consent (and have various other associated rights).

When the BBC/TV Licensing contradicts those facts (which it does, a lot), it is lying to us. And shame on them for that.

@XDownwiththissortofthingX
This is now in a museum 😂😂😂😂😂 look at the aerials on the roof 😂😂😂😂😂

That section is just a definition of the terms used within the subsequent faqs, nothing to do with the actual legislation or rules.

If you scroll down it makes it very clear that you don't need a tv licence to watch on demand/catch up services other than bbc iplayer.

Why would you refer to something as proof that you clearly haven't read properly?

You don't need a licence if you own a TV.

@CornucopiaTVLR

A big part of how people feel and act around the TV Licence is based on widespread misconceptions, some of which involve the malign influence of the BBC's misinformation and deliberate ambiguity on the topic.
In short: if this level of public understanding is the best that can be achieved by one of the World's biggest communication organisations then we are in serious trouble.

That is so accurate sadly

We’ve not had one for 2 years now as we only watch Netflix. Someone called once but we were out, & we get the monthly letters saying that they may come out on any day & at any time.

@Nolongera
the Licence was first introduced in 1946!!! that is some serious heel dragging

@TwoMonthsOff

A relative used to work on them and let me look in the back when I was a child. That's a completely ordinary stock Sherpa van in TV Licensing livery. No special equipment, no magic gadgets that could detect Mrs Smith watching 'Are You Being Served' without a licence.

The only way that 'detector vans' detected anything, was that the operators used to simultaneously watch a live BBC broadcast on an ordinary television set, and observe the changes in light and colour patterns through someone's curtains/windows in order to ascertain if they likely were watching the same programme.

This might provide them with the ammunition to more forcefully assert themselves on the doorstep, but in terms of an actual prosecution? Utterly worthless.

The use of a TV set can be detected, but only insofar that you can detect the emissions from an old Cathode Ray Tube. You can't pinpoint it, identify the specific make and model of TV, or in a block of flats prove beyond doubt it was being used to view BBC programming. All of the nonsense was exactly that - complete tripe designed to fool, bully, and cajole the unwitting into purchasing and maintaining a licence.

@XDownwiththissortofthingX
A poster up thread mentioned 'covert surveillance' ( as if Capita Goons are highly trained like MI6 or the SAS )
The livery on that van is hardly covert though is it, perhaps that is why it is now a museum piece - The Postal Museum no less !

@TwoMonthsOff

Again, the extent of covert surveillance' available to Capita reps would be hoping they can spot your TV showing BBC programming through your window as they walk up your garden path, or perhaps surreptitiously listening through your letter box in the hope of hearing the Eastenders or BBC News themes.

None of that would be of any real consequence in any case, because it's still entirely at your discretion whether you choose to acknowledge their knock on your door or not, and no magistrate/sheriff is going to issue them a warrant without categorical proof your TV set was on and showing BBC, which would likely involve a timestamped, verifiable photograph, which they have no right to take through your window, or a recording of your own admission.

It really is as simple as 'ignore them and they cease to exist', because they are utterly powerless without some degree of cooperation and self-incrimination on the part of the viewer.

The vast bulk of fines are levied on unwitting homeowners who allow Capita reps into their homes, usually after a barrage of misleading or not entirely truthful statements and assertions. One of the reasons women are disproportionately affected is because they will often call during the day, find SAHM and single parents busy looking after small children, and sweet talk them into allowing access for a 'check'. Of course, if the TV is on and showing BBC, they have an instant winner, but even then it's usually a case of offering them an on the spot sign-up for a licence. It's not everyone who has the funds available to just acquiesce to that though.

It really is a despicable and patently dishonest way to conduct a business. Which other company is allowed to harass and threaten you with impunity because you are NOT a customer? And yes, they are a business, and they use stationery and language that intentionally carries implied threats. They mail indiscriminately and regularly, and they often ignore demands to cease, so I would contend that their typical practice absolutely does constitute harassment and threatening behaviour.

Hilarious that you think I’m unable to think when you’re the one eho thinks you need a TV license to own a TV 😂

I agree with your post. We still watch TV as a family because I hate sitting hunched over a laptop or a tablet with a small picture and poor sound quality.

DD (22) has been home for Christmas and it is much easier if we are all watching the same programme to sit comfortably on the settee and watch a TV screen. Over Christmas we all watched quite a lot of terrestrial TV - The King's Speech, Call the Midwife, Death in Paradise, University Challenge, Only Connect, The Big Fat Quiz of the Year, 1917 and a few other films that we had recorded off the TV.

We have Amazon Prime and Netflix but often forget that we have it. I think with traditional TV you get listings and it is easier to select what you want to see rather than logging in to a streaming service and not knowing what is there.

@ExtraOnions "As long as you are not using any BBC services (TV, Radio, Website, Bitesized, Streaming etc)"

It isn't just BBC though. The following mean you need to pay the fee:

• Watch or record live TV as it’s being broadcast
• Watch live TV through streaming services like ITV Player, All 4, YouTube or BBC iPlayer
• Use the BBC catch-up service BBC iPlayer to watch live or recorded programs
• Watch live sports through Sky, BT or Amazon’s digital services"

So basically ANY live TV requires a fee even if it is through another service provider.

'Smart' TV's are widely available so there really is no need to be hunched over a laptop, added bonus that the streaming services (and the regular channels) are available over several devices so lots of choice of viewing medium now
We no longer have to visit the neighbour who had the only TV on the street to watch the queens coronation

Ours is a smart TV @TwoMonthsOff. My post was in response to people who only watch TV on other smaller devices.

Need to be careful, here, though.

It's not so much "live TV", but live broadcasts from TV Broadcasters - which is not the same thing.

As the amount of live streamed content from non-TV Broadcasters grows (including exclusive sport on Amazon Prime) there's no reason not to watch if you want because you do not need a TV Licence.

a lot of people are getting great value for money from their licence fee, I think it is comforting/easy for people to just switch on the TV for background noise/ company without having to faff with apps etc, that is great for them, at the same time others do not feel that they need LIVE TV or are interested in anything that the BBC broadcast, and choose to watch what is of actual interest to them, also great and as long as they can do this Legally Licence Free all the better which is why I think the current system is fair, provided the 'rules' are adhered to. The problems start because inevitably people do break these' rules' and therefore the enforcement term tar everyone with the same brush.

But you're only allowed a refund in quarters of a year. Its a complete con.

If you pay monthly you're actually permanently 6 months in credit. If you cancel your licence they should therefore refund you 6 months. But they don't, if you're 1 month, or even a week into a quarter they'll only refund you full whole 3 month chunks.

Eg, if you originally bought your tv licence on 20th Feb whatever year, you've paid until 19th Aug (because they charge double for the first 6 months to get you 6 months in credit). If you cancel for example of 12th March (however many years later) they'll only refund you the fees for the upcoming 20th May-19th August. March-May you lose because they quarter.

Complete con.