John Wright Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 I have defended as duty advocate the twice yearly TV licence court Here is the sp sorry I was slow, I was in court, have to earn a living every so often If you have a functioning TV in the house the onus , ie burden of proof, is changed and put on you to show it is not capable of showing live tV broadcasts. TV licence man gets over hurdle by showing you have a telly, which he does by knocking on door of any house shown as not having a licence and asking do you have a TV, not do you have a TV licence, armed with your admission or your childs admission that you have a telly you have to prove it is not used to receive live programmes 1player plays live and stored so playing live needs a licence. And no you cannot say it is incapable of receiving the live broadcast because you don't have an aerial, or you only watch recordings, with the PS3 you can watch live and so, whether you do or not you need a licence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 TV licence man gets over hurdle by showing you have a telly, which he does by knocking on door of any house shown as not having a licence and asking do you have a TV, not do you have a TV licence, armed with your admission or your childs admission that you have a telly you have to prove it is not used to receive live programmes 1player plays live and stored so playing live needs a licence. And no you cannot say it is incapable of receiving the live broadcast because you don't have an aerial, or you only watch recordings, with the PS3 you can watch live and so, whether you do or not you need a licence How do you prove you don't use a ps3, or even a pc to receive live programmes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 Hopefully no one invited TV licence man in so he did not see and you or kid did not admit we watch via iplayer You give evidence. After the visit they will write to you If you have no internet connection you state no aerial, no internet connection, no receiver no digi box no psp etc If they take it further you stand up in Court and swear what the truth is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 Here is the relevant part of the law (The Communications Act 2003): Part 4 S 363 Licence 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. and: S 368 (3) References in this Part to using a television receiver are references to using it for receiving television programmes. So, as long as you didn't install the telly, or had a licence when you installed it which has now expired, you are in the clear if you don't watch live programmes on it. S ETA: This of course is the UK Act. I don't know whether the IOM version, if there is one, is different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 Yes but you have to prove you don't watch live programmes Once its in the house the burden of proof in showing live programmes are not watched changes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 Yes but you have to prove you don't watch live programmes Once its in the house the burden of proof in showing live programmes are not watched changes The law doesn't say that. I have no knowledge of how the law is interpreted on the island, or in the UK, come to that, but the existence of a DVD player plugged into the TV set, plus a shelf full of DVDs, is evidence that the TV is probably being used, inter alia, for purposes other than receiving live programmes. Therefore, the presumption that the TV is also being used to receive live programmes is therefore only that. A presumption. And in English law, upon which Manx law is based, that should not be sufficient to secure a conviction. But I am talking theory, and you are talking practice. Great, very often, is the gulf between them. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jo79 Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 It's interesting though that whilst you are too skint to pay for a tv licence, you own a nice "big" tv and a ps3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 Here is the relevant part of the law (The Communications Act 2003): You've got it wrong. The above act says you need to adhere to the bbc's licensing, The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004 and subsequent amendments then set out on what basis you need to purchase a license. It's not 'because you own receiving equipment' any more. John, sounds daft. Surely it's up to them to prove you watch live tv, not up to you to disprove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freggyragh Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Surely the message here is to teach your kids not to talk to strangers, tell strangers who ask you questions about what you do in your free time where to go, and never let people into your house without a seeing a warrant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 No and what sebrof and I say is exactly the same If TV licensing can show you have a TV the presumption in law is that you use it to watch live programmes so to be aquitted you have to prove you don't If you don't give evidence the court only has the presumption, it can only convict Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 It's interesting though that whilst you are too skint to pay for a tv licence, you own a nice "big" tv and a ps3. Circumstances change perhaps? Its pretty simple really you either risk getting caught or pay, no other way about it, if you watch a bbc programme you should pay, simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 If TV licensing can show you have a TV the presumption in law is that you use it to watch live programmes so to be aquitted you have to prove you don'tIf you don't give evidence the court only has the presumption, it can only convict This part in the 2004 regs seems to update that act: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2004/20040692.htm#9 Either way, it's clear as mud. The TV licensing page itself has changed now and doesn't talk about TV equipment at all, just talks about watching live TV: http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/index.jsp#link1 Here's a written response from TV licensing to say if you have a TV but don't use it for watching live TV, you should notify them in advance and could get a confirming inspection: What if I only use a TV to watch videos/DVDs/as a monitor for my games console? Do I still need a licence? You do not need a TV Licence if you only use your TV to watch videos and DVDs or as a monitor for your games console. However, please notify us in writing that this is the case. One of our Enforcement Officers may visit you to confirm that you do not need a licence. Please write to us including your name, address and the reason you believe that you don't need a licence at: TV Licensing Bristol BS98 1TL. They need to make this stuff much easier to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 ...and never let people into your house without a seeing a warrant. Many of them don't need a warrant. All 266 entry powers enjoyed by the State(2007) (UK). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 They need to make this stuff much easier to understand. The technology is getting away from them - I can't really see how they can escape from a pay per view system or some sort of subsciption service as it gets more and more complicated. No idea if that's fair or not, but technology is merging digital media too greatly for these neat distinctions- your TV licence will have to be a computer licence in 10 years time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 The technology is getting away from them - I can't really see how they can escape from a pay per view system or some sort of subsciption service as it gets more and more complicated. Or a broader tax for every address, tv or not. Presume you could reduce the cost as a result too. I wonder if this is a better use of Ron Berry's isp tax idea? Instead of paying the record companies via the ISP, the ISP pays the beeb? No idea if that's fair or not, but technology is merging digital media too greatly for these neat distinctions- your TV licence will have to be a computer licence in 10 years time! Yep, something's got to change, there's plenty of people who don't have a telly now and only use iplayer, the concept of 'broadcasting live' doesn't really make any sense in the digital world. For example, if I access my live feed via a proxy that delays 5 mins, am I now not required to have a license? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.