More than 1,000 tv owners did not have a licence in 2012 (From Gazette)

Just because you own a TV set does not mean you need a license. The license is for watching or having recorded a "live broadcast".
So if you are watching DVD's or various iplayers you can avoid the £145.50 yearly fee legally.

Feisty CBC wrote:
Just because you own a TV set does not mean you need a license. The license is for watching or having recorded a "live broadcast".
So if you are watching DVD's or various iplayers you can avoid the £145.50 yearly fee legally.

Hmmmm £12 odd a month to watch whatever I want and at the time it is broadcast or save the money and limit myself to watching catchup tv.

Justice79 wrote:

Feisty CBC wrote:
Just because you own a TV set does not mean you need a license. The license is for watching or having recorded a "live broadcast".
So if you are watching DVD's or various iplayers you can avoid the £145.50 yearly fee legally.

Hmmmm £12 odd a month to watch whatever I want and at the time it is broadcast or save the money and limit myself to watching catchup tv.

Once you've downloaded the programme you can watch it when you want. They usually become available on iplayer 30 minutes to one hour later. Hmmm £12 odd a month for waiting thirty minutes good luck with that!

If you watch it on your computer you are still liable for the fee. You cannot avoid unless you go to the pub or a neighbours.

Jess Jephcott wrote:
If you watch it on your computer you are still liable for the fee. You cannot avoid unless you go to the pub or a neighbours.

This is untrue but it is what TV licensing aka the BBC would have you believe.
Unless you are watching it live i.e. as it's being transmitted, no license is needed for your computer.

Thank you Feisty. If that is the case then I bow to your wisdom - but how would the beeb know?

Feisty CBC wrote:

Justice79 wrote:

Feisty CBC wrote:
Just because you own a TV set does not mean you need a license. The license is for watching or having recorded a "live broadcast".
So if you are watching DVD's or various iplayers you can avoid the £145.50 yearly fee legally.

Hmmmm £12 odd a month to watch whatever I want and at the time it is broadcast or save the money and limit myself to watching catchup tv.

Once you've downloaded the programme you can watch it when you want. They usually become available on iplayer 30 minutes to one hour later. Hmmm £12 odd a month for waiting thirty minutes good luck with that!

It's less than the price of a daily paper you really are making quite a song and dance over something really very trivial.

Justice79 wrote:

Feisty CBC wrote:

Justice79 wrote:

Feisty CBC wrote:
Just because you own a TV set does not mean you need a license. The license is for watching or having recorded a "live broadcast".
So if you are watching DVD's or various iplayers you can avoid the £145.50 yearly fee legally.

Hmmmm £12 odd a month to watch whatever I want and at the time it is broadcast or save the money and limit myself to watching catchup tv.

Once you've downloaded the programme you can watch it when you want. They usually become available on iplayer 30 minutes to one hour later. Hmmm £12 odd a month for waiting thirty minutes good luck with that!

It's less than the price of a daily paper you really are making quite a song and dance over something really very trivial.

Assuming of course that you can afford a daily paper. Why pay for something that is not needed.... oh and get a criminal record as well because the BBC haven't got their £145.50. Now that is a song and dance.

Jess Jephcott wrote:
Thank you Feisty. If that is the case then I bow to your wisdom - but how would the beeb know?

Well first of all let me tell you that the "detector van" is a load of nobbly doo-dah. No one has ever been prosecuted with so called detection at their house.
The TV adverts that they run have you believe that you will get a £1000 fine for watching TV without a license. In reality on average these are apparently £125 which is currently less than a cost of a license. These fines don't even go to the BBC but straight in to the court's coffers (nice little business for them).
If any TV licensing goon comes to your door I would suggest that you slam it very quickly, you are under no obligation to speak to them.

Feisty, until now I agreed with you on everything except Tesco, but I part company with you on this issue.
If many more people follow your example, then they will alter the rules.
Try watching a TV programme live, and it will ask you if you have a current TV licence. You answer yes, and it registers your e-mail address. It already knows your location. I don't suppose they are following it up yet, but one day they will start tracing people who are on record as having clicked to say yes they have a TV licence, and if they haven't, then tough luck, because they have provided the false evidence needed to convict them. So be careful, practise what you preach, never ever watch a live programme.

Boris wrote:
Feisty, until now I agreed with you on everything except Tesco, but I part company with you on this issue.
If many more people follow your example, then they will alter the rules.
Try watching a TV programme live, and it will ask you if you have a current TV licence. You answer yes, and it registers your e-mail address. It already knows your location. I don't suppose they are following it up yet, but one day they will start tracing people who are on record as having clicked to say yes they have a TV licence, and if they haven't, then tough luck, because they have provided the false evidence needed to convict them. So be careful, practise what you preach, never ever watch a live programme.

I can't see where I have admitted to or condoned watching anything live without a TV license.
As for TVL registering your email address,that is making an assumption that you have given them a real one in the first place.
You are correct in saying that if people watch iplayer solely without purchasing a TV license as I do they will change the rules. Not before time I say! To criminalise people for watching television is antiquated and draconian.

Feisty CBC wrote:

Justice79 wrote:

Feisty CBC wrote:

Justice79 wrote:

Feisty CBC wrote:
Just because you own a TV set does not mean you need a license. The license is for watching or having recorded a "live broadcast".
So if you are watching DVD's or various iplayers you can avoid the £145.50 yearly fee legally.

Hmmmm £12 odd a month to watch whatever I want and at the time it is broadcast or save the money and limit myself to watching catchup tv.

Once you've downloaded the programme you can watch it when you want. They usually become available on iplayer 30 minutes to one hour later. Hmmm £12 odd a month for waiting thirty minutes good luck with that!

It's less than the price of a daily paper you really are making quite a song and dance over something really very trivial.

Assuming of course that you can afford a daily paper. Why pay for something that is not needed.... oh and get a criminal record as well because the BBC haven't got their £145.50. Now that is a song and dance.

You are carrying on like they are charging £145 a week! Less than 40p a day to watch programmes when I want to.

You stick to your backward method of watching what you want up to an hour after broadcast (that is if it even makes it on to the player service) like some kind of license martyr And i will continue to pay my license fee to watch live TV

Feisty CBC wrote:

Boris wrote:
Feisty, until now I agreed with you on everything except Tesco, but I part company with you on this issue.
If many more people follow your example, then they will alter the rules.
Try watching a TV programme live, and it will ask you if you have a current TV licence. You answer yes, and it registers your e-mail address. It already knows your location. I don't suppose they are following it up yet, but one day they will start tracing people who are on record as having clicked to say yes they have a TV licence, and if they haven't, then tough luck, because they have provided the false evidence needed to convict them. So be careful, practise what you preach, never ever watch a live programme.

I can't see where I have admitted to or condoned watching anything live without a TV license.
As for TVL registering your email address,that is making an assumption that you have given them a real one in the first place.
You are correct in saying that if people watch iplayer solely without purchasing a TV license as I do they will change the rules. Not before time I say! To criminalise people for watching television is antiquated and draconian.

While the whole e-mail address thing is only applicable to live broadcasts on iPlayer, etc. entering a false e-mail will make no difference, they don't have a database of everyone's e-mail addresses anyway, it's done on IP addresses logged when you use the site. I think the chances of them actually investigating it based on that are basically none, given that they'd have to put a request in to the ISPs for everyone and cross reference it, which would most likely need multiple court orders considering that it's not even suspicion. I guess potentially if you'd purchased a tv license online before and cancelled it they'd have a limited number of records to match against, but again, seems unlikely.

I do have a TV license for watching tv live, although it does seem like a silly expense really, given how little decent live stuff is on tv anyway, and the rest you can just watch a few minutes after the show ends without the license.

It also bugs me how much of my fee must go on sending out letters; when I was at uni in halls I didn't have a TV, and despite me replying to their first letter (Basically "WARNING: You are liable to a fine. Either purchase a TV license or contact us to inform us if you do not have a television" - scare tactics the whole way), they continued to send letters once every two months until I left. Think how many people live in halls, and how many people nationwide don't have televisions; 4-6 letters a year stacks up cost wise.

Justice79 wrote:

Feisty CBC wrote:

Justice79 wrote:

Feisty CBC wrote:

Justice79 wrote:

Feisty CBC wrote:
Just because you own a TV set does not mean you need a license. The license is for watching or having recorded a "live broadcast".
So if you are watching DVD's or various iplayers you can avoid the £145.50 yearly fee legally.

Hmmmm £12 odd a month to watch whatever I want and at the time it is broadcast or save the money and limit myself to watching catchup tv.

Once you've downloaded the programme you can watch it when you want. They usually become available on iplayer 30 minutes to one hour later. Hmmm £12 odd a month for waiting thirty minutes good luck with that!

It's less than the price of a daily paper you really are making quite a song and dance over something really very trivial.

Assuming of course that you can afford a daily paper. Why pay for something that is not needed.... oh and get a criminal record as well because the BBC haven't got their £145.50. Now that is a song and dance.

You are carrying on like they are charging £145 a week! Less than 40p a day to watch programmes when I want to.

You stick to your backward method of watching what you want up to an hour after broadcast (that is if it even makes it on to the player service) like some kind of license martyr And i will continue to pay my license fee to watch live TV

£3 a week is actually quite a lot of money for a lot of people. It could be the difference of an extra hot meal or a few more hours of heat for some people (probably the majority of the 1000 "evaders" in Colchester) Why would I want to pay even 2p a day for something that I personally don't need?

wormshero wrote:

Feisty CBC wrote:

Boris wrote:
Feisty, until now I agreed with you on everything except Tesco, but I part company with you on this issue.
If many more people follow your example, then they will alter the rules.
Try watching a TV programme live, and it will ask you if you have a current TV licence. You answer yes, and it registers your e-mail address. It already knows your location. I don't suppose they are following it up yet, but one day they will start tracing people who are on record as having clicked to say yes they have a TV licence, and if they haven't, then tough luck, because they have provided the false evidence needed to convict them. So be careful, practise what you preach, never ever watch a live programme.

I can't see where I have admitted to or condoned watching anything live without a TV license.
As for TVL registering your email address,that is making an assumption that you have given them a real one in the first place.
You are correct in saying that if people watch iplayer solely without purchasing a TV license as I do they will change the rules. Not before time I say! To criminalise people for watching television is antiquated and draconian.

While the whole e-mail address thing is only applicable to live broadcasts on iPlayer, etc. entering a false e-mail will make no difference, they don't have a database of everyone's e-mail addresses anyway, it's done on IP addresses logged when you use the site. I think the chances of them actually investigating it based on that are basically none, given that they'd have to put a request in to the ISPs for everyone and cross reference it, which would most likely need multiple court orders considering that it's not even suspicion. I guess potentially if you'd purchased a tv license online before and cancelled it they'd have a limited number of records to match against, but again, seems unlikely.

I do have a TV license for watching tv live, although it does seem like a silly expense really, given how little decent live stuff is on tv anyway, and the rest you can just watch a few minutes after the show ends without the license.

It also bugs me how much of my fee must go on sending out letters; when I was at uni in halls I didn't have a TV, and despite me replying to their first letter (Basically "WARNING: You are liable to a fine. Either purchase a TV license or contact us to inform us if you do not have a television" - scare tactics the whole way), they continued to send letters once every two months until I left. Think how many people live in halls, and how many people nationwide don't have televisions; 4-6 letters a year stacks up cost wise.

You are correct of course about ISP addresses I was simply replying To Boris's comment.
I too have received threatening letters, which if they had been sent by any other company could be classed as harrassment. I have got a nice little collection going.
These will stop if you let a TV licensing goon from Capita into your property to "check your equipment". But why should I let in someone who hasn't been CRB checked just so they can try and earn commission for themselves trying to catch you watching live TV.
TV licensing have no more rights when visiting your home than a double glazed window salesmen.

To be honest, I told TV Licensing at the time that they were more than welcome to come and check the property, and they said they'd send someone out. They didn't, and the harassing letters continued regardless. You're right, no other company would get away with such things; I imagine if English is not your first language or, well, various reasons, people will just pay the charge thinking they have to.

Now we start getting into the silly section of point making.

Note to all : as far as i know.....a tv ( what ever you play on it ) still contains a reciever = license. A tv cunningly exported to the loft / hidden / claiming unused or unplugged...still a reciever = license.The ability to watch programmes on a pc = license. A wireless/ radio is a reciever = license.Even downloading /listening to music on the net = license.

From BBC website:

You do not need a television licence to catch-up on television programmes in BBC iPlayer, only when you watch or record at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is being broadcast or otherwise distributed to the public. In BBC iPlayer, this is through the Watch Live simulcast option.

Anyone in the UK watching or recording television as it's being broadcast or simulcast on any device - including mobiles, laptops and PCs - must, by law, be covered by a valid TV licence.

A 'live' TV programme is a programme, which is watched or recorded at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is being broadcast or otherwise distributed to members of the public. As a general rule, if a person is watching a programme on a computer or other device at the same time as it is being shown on TV then the programme is 'live'. This is sometimes known as simulcasting.

If you are using the live rewind function to either restart the current live programme or to rewind any live stream for up to 2 hours, a television license is required as you are still accessing the live simulcasts.

So if you never watch anything live on TV, you do not need a licence.

Of course, if everybody did that, the BBC would quickly be in trouble, and you´d end up with a situation such as in the US. Yes, there is no licence, but the drawback is that there are ad breaks far more often than here. All those things that the BBC does very well (Attenborough, World Service, period dramas, news somewhat more impartial than Sky or CNN) would suffer.

As taxes go, I´m happier to pay this one than my income tax, which gets squandered on all sorts of stuff that I don´t really approve of. 40p a day per household is not that much for what the BBC provides.

Its a loophole Romantic which I heard was going to be closed as a fair number of people have canned their licence.

There will be tough times ahead for the BBC, but something needs to be done.

There are a lot of services with real minority audiences and for every David Attenborough there are a lot of David Dickenson's!

Thanks for your post Romantic. Just confirms everything I've said in previous posts and I didn't want to come over as condescending.
I completely agree with you over "quality" programmes but hasn't ITV in previous years broadcast ground breaking content?
Unfotunately now we seem so de-regionalised that there are only a few hours of progammes that seem to pertain to us.
ITV seem happy to keep the status quo regarding TV licensing as they wouldn't want the Beeb competing for advertising. Something that enabled first Channel 4 then FIVE to emerge before all the cable and freeview (a term I use loosely) to emerge.

SOMETHING2SAY wrote:
Note to all : as far as i know.....a tv ( what ever you play on it ) still contains a reciever = license. A tv cunningly exported to the loft / hidden / claiming unused or unplugged...still a reciever = license.The ability to watch programmes on a pc = license. A wireless/ radio is a reciever = license.Even downloading /listening to music on the net = license.

Thankfully the tv license clearly state that unless it's able to receive live broadcasts it's exempt. It states if it's unused or not connected that it's exempt. So this simply isn't true.

The only loophole I know of that they're trying to close is the battery powered rule, which particularly applies to students in which laptops can be used with a receiver as battery televisions are covered under parents license. There's no plan to end the non-live broadcast exemption. Personally I'd rather they offer iplayer free to license payers but offer catch up at a one off or lower subscription to everyone else. Would hate to see the end of the bbc to be honest (hence I'm happy to pay)

So much mis-information from TV licensing, underhand tactics and bullying/rude demands for payment and access. Send them a letter stating your denial of their implied right of access on to the relevant address and they will respond saying they will not trespass onto your property. It is well within your rights to do so. I don't watch live TV as I don't want my brain to rot...I select what I want to watch and view it when I choose, considerable better that the prescribed 'live' route...imo...

Furnace wrote:
So much mis-information from TV licensing, underhand tactics and bullying/rude demands for payment and access. Send them a letter stating your denial of their implied right of access on to the relevant address and they will respond saying they will not trespass onto your property. It is well within your rights to do so. I don't watch live TV as I don't want my brain to rot...I select what I want to watch and view it when I choose, considerable better that the prescribed 'live' route...imo...

So TV some how becomes better when recorded and watched at a later date, that's an interesting theory you have there.

Justice79 wrote:

Furnace wrote:
So much mis-information from TV licensing, underhand tactics and bullying/rude demands for payment and access. Send them a letter stating your denial of their implied right of access on to the relevant address and they will respond saying they will not trespass onto your property. It is well within your rights to do so. I don't watch live TV as I don't want my brain to rot...I select what I want to watch and view it when I choose, considerable better that the prescribed 'live' route...imo...

So TV some how becomes better when recorded and watched at a later date, that's an interesting theory you have there.

It is when it's £145.50 cheaper ;p

Justice79 wrote:

Furnace wrote:
So much mis-information from TV licensing, underhand tactics and bullying/rude demands for payment and access. Send them a letter stating your denial of their implied right of access on to the relevant address and they will respond saying they will not trespass onto your property. It is well within your rights to do so. I don't watch live TV as I don't want my brain to rot...I select what I want to watch and view it when I choose, considerable better that the prescribed 'live' route...imo...

So TV some how becomes better when recorded and watched at a later date, that's an interesting theory you have there.

Well it is better because I can choose WHEN I want to watch...if your happy to restrict your options and pay £145 annually that is up to you. Although it seems a less intelligent way to go about things, its an interesting theory nonetheless.

Open the cage!

Furnace wrote:

Justice79 wrote:

Furnace wrote:
So much mis-information from TV licensing, underhand tactics and bullying/rude demands for payment and access. Send them a letter stating your denial of their implied right of access on to the relevant address and they will respond saying they will not trespass onto your property. It is well within your rights to do so. I don't watch live TV as I don't want my brain to rot...I select what I want to watch and view it when I choose, considerable better that the prescribed 'live' route...imo...

So TV some how becomes better when recorded and watched at a later date, that's an interesting theory you have there.

Well it is better because I can choose WHEN I want to watch...if your happy to restrict your options and pay £145 annually that is up to you. Although it seems a less intelligent way to go about things, its an interesting theory nonetheless.

For the most part I agree with you, however I'm not sure how paying the tv license "restricts your options", given that they have the same ability as you to watch what they want, when they want, but with the additional option that they can watch things live if they want to.

I use a catch-up TV on android, all the same channels as freeview and pipe them through a HDMI lead to my 60 inch tv all the programmes are only about 30seconds at the most behind broadcast tv , I still pay for a tv licence though we carn't have all them bad actors and perverts at the bbc out of work can we.

http://www.ebay.co.u
k/itm/261140045552?s
sPageName=STRK:MEWNX
:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1
439.l2648

Customer service is not exactly cutting-edge with these people. I emailed them to say I might be moving house, they sent me a nice form to fill and return. The house move fell through so I didn't send the form back. Next thing I know, I get a threatening letter, assuming I didn't have a licence. I phoned and told them I did have a licence and in fact was paying direct debit monthly, and they said I had moved home. I said I hadn't moved, so why did they assume I had? The answer was priceless: "Because we sent you a form". I reminded them I hadn't sent the form back and was told "We assumed you were moving because we sent you a form". At which point I asked them on what date had I moved? They couldn't answer that, but assumed it was my error, not theirs. After pulling my hair out, they agreed I still had a direct debit in place and all was okay. Yesterday, I received another letter asking me to pay a £145 bill for a new licence by the end of February - or else set up a direct debit. Needless to say, I still have a direct debit in place and have never cancelled it! Still, I am ignoring this letter and am prepared to go to prison (so I can watch TV without hassle).

corporate wrote:
Customer service is not exactly cutting-edge with these people. I emailed them to say I might be moving house, they sent me a nice form to fill and return. The house move fell through so I didn't send the form back. Next thing I know, I get a threatening letter, assuming I didn't have a licence. I phoned and told them I did have a licence and in fact was paying direct debit monthly, and they said I had moved home. I said I hadn't moved, so why did they assume I had? The answer was priceless: "Because we sent you a form". I reminded them I hadn't sent the form back and was told "We assumed you were moving because we sent you a form". At which point I asked them on what date had I moved? They couldn't answer that, but assumed it was my error, not theirs. After pulling my hair out, they agreed I still had a direct debit in place and all was okay. Yesterday, I received another letter asking me to pay a £145 bill for a new licence by the end of February - or else set up a direct debit. Needless to say, I still have a direct debit in place and have never cancelled it! Still, I am ignoring this letter and am prepared to go to prison (so I can watch TV without hassle).

Typical British ineptitude, found in the private sector as well as the public sector.

I thought the TV licence was in place of ad breaks, however, as product placement is now in place, surely this is advertising, therefore what is the
Licence cost now for?
If the BBC want to keep up with this antiquated system, maybe they should switch to pay per view?
As for people who say they never watch 'live' tv, really?!

Feisty CBC wrote:
Just because you own a TV set does not mean you need a license. The license is for watching or having recorded a "live broadcast".
So if you are watching DVD's or various iplayers you can avoid the £145.50 yearly fee legally.

Actually, you require a license to watch streamed live TV, and indeed iPlayer as it says on the website.

A friend of mine had streams of threatening letters also coming through his postbox.
he was new at the time in his property, but his previous tennents did have both a TV and a license.
my friend did not posses a TV in the few years he was at that address, but the central computor never accepted that point.
my friend had repeated attempts by license Investigators to enter his property, as they quite clearly did not believe there was no connected TV in that property at any time in my friends tenure.
It took a cleverly worded letter by myself to the faceless bureacrats at TV licensing to convince them of my friends rights.
No more letters have been recieved for over a year now.

jeffbridges wrote:
A friend of mine had streams of threatening letters also coming through his postbox.
he was new at the time in his property, but his previous tennents did have both a TV and a license.
my friend did not posses a TV in the few years he was at that address, but the central computor never accepted that point.
my friend had repeated attempts by license Investigators to enter his property, as they quite clearly did not believe there was no connected TV in that property at any time in my friends tenure.
It took a cleverly worded letter by myself to the faceless bureacrats at TV licensing to convince them of my friends rights.
No more letters have been recieved for over a year now.

LOL!!!!!!!!! It's back

bullybob wrote:

Feisty CBC wrote:
Just because you own a TV set does not mean you need a license. The license is for watching or having recorded a "live broadcast".
So if you are watching DVD's or various iplayers you can avoid the £145.50 yearly fee legally.

Actually, you require a license to watch streamed live TV, and indeed iPlayer as it says on the website.

Only for streaming live broadcasts, not for anything streaming catch-up tv.

wormshero wrote:

bullybob wrote:

Feisty CBC wrote:
Just because you own a TV set does not mean you need a license. The license is for watching or having recorded a "live broadcast".
So if you are watching DVD's or various iplayers you can avoid the £145.50 yearly fee legally.

Actually, you require a license to watch streamed live TV, and indeed iPlayer as it says on the website.

Only for streaming live broadcasts, not for anything streaming catch-up tv.

Well dreary me I hope they change the regs to make you scroungers pay , why should the rest of us pay while you free load , its a lot of entertainment for a small amount of cash, scroungers get a life and get a job for gods sake.

boxted ave resedent wrote:

wormshero wrote:

bullybob wrote:

Feisty CBC wrote:
Just because you own a TV set does not mean you need a license. The license is for watching or having recorded a "live broadcast".
So if you are watching DVD's or various iplayers you can avoid the £145.50 yearly fee legally.

Actually, you require a license to watch streamed live TV, and indeed iPlayer as it says on the website.

Only for streaming live broadcasts, not for anything streaming catch-up tv.

Well dreary me I hope they change the regs to make you scroungers pay , why should the rest of us pay while you free load , its a lot of entertainment for a small amount of cash, scroungers get a life and get a job for gods sake.

I pay for the license (like the majority of people...), thanks very much, despite only watching live TV maybe 1 hour a week. Personally I think the BBC should be allowed to make money back through advertising on their iPlayer service anyway. Even if I didn't pay, I wouldn't see it as freeloading; the one or two shows a week on the BBC which are entertaining fund themselves through licensing to overseas broadcasters.