on the off chance????

stop and think. 99.999999999% of DVD buyers have a TV.

T

 

I, like Jerome, have spent time in the USA and it is for that reason alone that I pay my license fee gladly!!!!!

You ******* really dont know how good you've got it when it comes to tv in this country.

I also have Sky but tbh i spend more time watching BBC2/BBC3/BBC4 or channel 4 (not part of the BBC i know).

If you dont like it - dont watch TV!

 

I pay mine.
I don't doubt that the BBC could be more efficiently run but I wouldn't want to try.
Can you imagine running something of that scale with that level of entrenched behaviour, it would be a nightmare.
I'm sure there are lots of armchair experts on SN who think they could do it better....
In reality I think you'd be better off using your armchair to watch the telly, who knows you might even learn something and repay that debt by becoming a law abiding citizen and paying your way!
Happy Christmas
R

 

I don't have to stop and think, because I realise that is the case, although I'd suggest that 99.999999999% is merely a guess on your part.

However, as a DVD player is not receiving equipment, they have no grounds to be hassling me to buy a licence required for receiving kit. They have no way of knowing I have a TV and are guessing. Anyway, I would presumably also have been hassled to buy a licence when I actually bought the TV, and they'd found no licence exists in my name. So, they should have checked then, when they know I've bought receiving equipment, not just something that MIGHT indicate I own receiving equipment.

People who own a DVD player but do not own a TV do exist, after all. In fact, I know two people who fit that category.

 

Yeah, I could have, but I didn't and I am not going to.

If they want to check our TV licence, they can get up off their ***** and come and ask to see it. I am not obligated by any law to tell them in whose name our TV licence is held. They're asking me to make it easier for them by volunteering that information and I'm declining to do so.

 

Right on sister. Sock it to the man.

 

OK - so someone put me right on this..... My daughter is at uni staying in a flat in a student house. She took her TV but it doesn't work 'cos the TV connection is knackered and the signal on a stand alone aerial is naff. So she just uses it for DVDs. I told her I would get her a licence if/when the uni fixed the connection (most unlikely). If I understood this thread correctly she could still be done for not having a licence?? DL

 

Absolutely. A TV License is not a guarentee of service quality. The fact that the signal is so poor that you can't get a picture is irrelevant, you have equipment capable of picking up a signal should one exist and as such you must have a license.

 

afaik if you have "equipment capable of receiving" terrestrial broadcasts then you need a licence.

 

Just watch TV in your scoobs!

That way you can avoid paying the license fee? LOL


-Schumacher

 

Being as some DVD units are now recorders, with built in FTA tuners, maybe they just group all DVD players into the same category

As for the BBC being corrupt and bloated, have you seen the size of David Jasons' 2 lakes in his garden

 

If you use a TV or any other device to receive or record TV programmes (for example, a VCR, set-top box, DVD recorder or PC with a broadcast card) - you need a TV Licence. You are required by law to have one.


-Schumacher

 

If the DVD player does not have a tuner capable of receiving a signal then hasn't the seller broken the law (data protection act) by informing TV licencing?

J.

 

The BBC is worth every penny of the TV license.

Personally I belive that SKY is a rip-off

I do however believe that the TV license (since it is funding the BBC) should be optional as there are people who dont want to ever watch or listen to the BBC.

If BBC were to go down the route of subscription and abolish the TV license, I would gladly pay even double for it.

 

I pay it, but grudgingly. Don't watch much BBC, and never listen to BBC radio.

They could easily take adverts like the other terrestrial channels, but why slay the goose that lays the golden egg???

The license fee is a right rip-off.

Andy.

 

Do you have to have a licence if you only have a TV tuner card for the PC but no telly?
Alas

 

BBC newsonline and other online services like bbc food,i'd starve without it.

 

Further to the answers I received on this board I phoned up TV Licensing this morning and asked question above.

Answer. "NO she does NOT NEED a License - we have a lot of students in this sort of situation"

So I'll hang on to my £116.00 and my daughter should stay out of jail DL

 

Nobody can be done for not having a license ..................
as long as you dont let the muppets in your house
and dont let them see or hear the tv

anybody is quite within there rights to refuse entry to anybody without a search warrant

 

But I am one of those sad old cases where I don't like breaking the law - seems rarer these days

 

And I am one of those who dosn't like spending money on crap

 

IMO the TV licence/telly tax is a complete joke and shouldnt be compulsory. When I was a student I never paid the licence, and infact made a point of not paying it (v.few students pay it infact).

Ok the BBC make the odd decent programme, but not enough - and anything decent gets released on DVD anyway. The news has a total pro-government vested interest, and its the same with the news website. The selective reporting really pis$es me off.

Also its worth noting that portable TV's dont require a licence, and technically you dont need a licence if you run your TV off a battery power supply.

 

Refusing entry to a TVL officer is grounds for them to get a warrant.

They will get a warrant. TVL is not the BBC, they are a collection agency who happen to also run TVL.

 

Getting a search warrant involves spending money so they are used much less frequently than people think. If the TVLA has the evidence to get a warrant and they also have your name, then they will usually go straight to issuing you with a summons to bring you to court. This is administratively far more cost-effective



copied from http://www.tvlicensing.biz/

 

The problem with "not compulsory" is how you're going to administer it - you can't easily prevent people from receiving BBC, either via a conventional RF signal or via Sky. And most people here are saying "I hardly ever watch BBC", which actually means "I do watch it occassionally".

Where do you draw the line? You don't often hear people saying "90% of the time I'm not driving, so why should I pay road tax", or even "70% of the time I'm not working, so why should I pay income tax". The first at least fits into a similar "don't use it much" category.

Hacing said that, there are better ways to administer it for student accomodation. I always had a license when at uni, which technically covers all areas that you live in within that building - e.g. the kitchen and common room within halls of residence. Everyone in my block knew this, so when the detector van came round, there were 20+ TVs in our kitchen, all covered on my license.

 

I read somewhere that it costs GBP200M per year to collect the TV licence fee.

Seeing as 99.9% of people have a TV (and thus should have a licence), why don't they just pop an extra 0.002% or whatever on tax and fund the corporation directly - and put the GBP200M to better use!!!!!?

Maybe the savings would help avoid all those bloody adverts that are on the BBC - the ones for itself

mb

 

Thankfully their detector vans prolly cant pick us up floating off the south coast - watching my pc based tv.............................................. ...........awaits slating..

 

FFS its only a hundred odd quid for something we all sit in front of, I only have the 5 channels after having SKY and 500 channels of total and utter ****e I will gladly watch something of interest on the BBC

 

Based on my experience with the bunch of fcukwits that work at the licensing authority, even if you had filled the form in, you would still be getting letters asking why you don't have a licence. I let my first house to my sister when I bought it and she lived there for two years, I got on average 2 letters per month asking why there was no TV licence in my name at that address, I filled two of the forms in explaining that the licence was in my sister's name as she was renting the property, but gave up on the rest in the whole two years the never got the message. My sister finally moved out and I totally gutted the property with the intention of total refurbishment. Obviously when she left she stopped paying the licence, and all of a sudden the letters to both me and her became a lot more threatening, along the lines of bailiffs coming to check whether I had a TV, court action for non-payment, the works.

Four years ago, I sold the property uncompleted to a friend of mine, who is just on the verge of finishing the work and moving in, and I STILL get the odd letter at my new address, wondering why I have no TV licence at the old property

But strangely I have not yet been asked why I have no licence at my new house But having just purchased a freeview box for my father for christmas, I shall expect letters along the lines of TK's in the new year, which I too will not respond to

PS, before tiggs grasses me up, our house does have a TV licence, in the wife's maiden name

 

I wouldn't watch Sky at gunpoint. The Beeb might be poor, but the offerings of Sky are excrement.


M