|
Forums65
Topics76,486
Posts1,034,062
Members14,865
| |
Most Online80,173
Apr 25th, 2025
|
|
|
2 members (1 invisible),
47,092
guests, and
1,129
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,044
Forum Guardian
|
Forum Guardian
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,044 |
They don't have to catch you watching a program, the communications act also makes it an offence to install or intend to install, not just "use". I was under the impression that it was only an offence to use a TV set or PC to watch programmes as they are being broadcast or recording them. It cannot be an offence to install one as many people only ever use it to watch dvds.or even vhs etc
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 14,510 Likes: 32
Wiki Master
|
|
Wiki Master
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 14,510 Likes: 32 |
A lot of rumours on the internet aren't there  From the Communications Act 2003 ..... 363Licence required for use of TV receiver
(1)A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this Part.
(2)A person who installs or uses a television receiver in contravention of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.
(3)A person with a television receiver in his possession or under his control who—
(a)intends to install or use it in contravention of subsection (1), or
(b)knows, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that another person intends to install or use it in contravention of that subsection,
is guilty of an offence.
We don't do charity in Germany, we pay taxes. Charity is a failure of governments' responsibilities - Henning Wehn https://ddue.uk
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,044
Forum Guardian
|
|
Forum Guardian
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,044 |
From the TV Licensing Website (the People who try and fine you using Capita agents) Do I need a TV Licence if I only use my TV for gaming or DVDs?
No. If you don’t watch or record programmes as they’re being shown on TV or live on an online TV service you don’t need a licence. That applies to any device, including:
TV sets
Laptops and desktop computers
Tablets, mobile phones, satnavs and other portable devices
Digital boxes (PVRs), satellite and cable, e.g. Freeview, Freesat, Sky, Virgin Media, BT Vision, YouView, Apple TV, Chromecast, Roku and Amazon Fire TV
Games consoles
DVD, Blu-ray and VHS recorders
When don’t I need a licence to watch TV?
If you never watch or record live TV, you don’t need a TV Licence.
Without a licence you’re only covered to:
Watch on demand – including catch-up TV and on demand previews – through services like BBC iPlayer, ITV Hub, All 4, Demand 5, BT Vision, Virgin Media, Sky Go, Now TV, Apple TV, Chromecast, Roku and Amazon Fire TV.
Watch on demand movies from providers like Sky, Virgin Media, BT Vision, Netflix and Amazon Instant Video.
Watch recorded films and programmes either from a disc (e.g. DVD or Blu-ray) or downloaded from the internet.
Watch on demand internet video clips through services like YouTube.
Play video games.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 14,510 Likes: 32
Wiki Master
|
|
Wiki Master
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 14,510 Likes: 32 |
Its never been tested in court, however there is a slight ambiguity in the act. The definition of a "television receiver" in another act clearly states that it is a device which is either installed or used, the ambiguity arises in this act because it is talking about installing a television receiver (which by definition is already installed).
The authorities don't want it to be tested in court and so are happy that if there is no intention to use then they will not class it as an installation.
Since this act came into power in 2004, I am not aware of anybody being fined for the effective "possession of the ability to receive", however under previous acts they most certainly were on the balance of probability that they did use the equipment if it was installed in such a way as was likely to be used.
imho
We don't do charity in Germany, we pay taxes. Charity is a failure of governments' responsibilities - Henning Wehn https://ddue.uk
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 388
Old Hand
|
|
Old Hand
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 388 |
This is what this thread is about: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-35708623What this effectively means is that those with internet connections but no "live" TV will have to pay the compulsory rip-off licence fee.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 14,510 Likes: 32
Wiki Master
|
|
Wiki Master
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 14,510 Likes: 32 |
If you don't want to pay, don't watch it.
We don't do charity in Germany, we pay taxes. Charity is a failure of governments' responsibilities - Henning Wehn https://ddue.uk
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,990
Are you SoNutz? Forum Master
|
|
Are you SoNutz? Forum Master
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,990 |
Suppose the only way to police this is to enter your TV Licence details on the IPLAYER website or vice versa. Thats the only way they will police this. If someone wants to watch TV online then obviously the only way is hide your selves. But seriously it needs scrapping completly its a waste of time. Adverts on BBC is the way forward i think if no one wants to pay it...
Lee Mills
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,044
Forum Guardian
|
|
Forum Guardian
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,044 |
At present there is no legal avenue tv licensing can pursue to see if you have been watching i player.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 14,510 Likes: 32
Wiki Master
|
|
Wiki Master
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 14,510 Likes: 32 |
The BBC have stated that they are looking at having a compulsory log-in process for iplayer, presumably the registration details will contain checkable information.
We don't do charity in Germany, we pay taxes. Charity is a failure of governments' responsibilities - Henning Wehn https://ddue.uk
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 17,810 Likes: 3
Wiki Master
|
|
Wiki Master
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 17,810 Likes: 3 |
An utter disgrace. If only Margaret Thatcher had privatised the BBC (as she was planning to do) instead if implementing the poll tax.
This parasitic institution knowingly sheltered Jimmy Savile, Stuart Hall, and Rolf Harris. Furthermore, they've got all their own way. They make millions from selling the likes of Doctor Who overseas *and* they get the compulsory licence fee too.
The majority of people who are prosecuted for evasion are single mothers on low incomes. Meanwhile, they pay obscene amounts of money to talentless cretins like Jonathan Ross. what's more they pay just two employees, Laura kuenssberg, and that odd chap who does News Night, half a million between them. Jeremy Paxman was on a million. This is unreal, when we think of what all the salaries must amount to and how they continue to churn out repeats. We on Poverty Row, pay to keep other people in well paid jobs. That seems to be the general rule of thumb, these days.
Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together. All things connect.
~Chief Seattle
|
|
|
Click to View Topic.
|
|
|
Posts: 2,293
Joined: December 2010
|
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
|
