I do not advoicate breaking the law. I have recieved a letter informing me I have to pay lmy tv licnece. After seeing how much Zoe Ball and other presenters, I have returned mine to sender. Last year there were at least 25 presenters for tennis. Why? Four or five people u suallly men sit around a table to discuss the football. Why? Money paid for game shows, both to conestant and presenter. Why.? just think how much money the BBC have spent of games shows over the years. why? I will have to think about going to Netfix- so much per month and a very wide choice of programmes. just shows how greedy some people are. end of tirade albeit a small one. cheers all. spooks36
TV Licence: I do not advoicate breaking... - Lung Conditions C...
TV Licence
Written by
spooks36
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
34 Replies
•
I understand you feeling that way spooks. Esther Rantzen was on GMTV this morning and suggested that nobody working for the BBC be paid more than the Prime Minister. Good idea I feel. Xxxx
The alternative is to get rid of the tv
Check details. I think if you have a tv even if you use Netflix you still have to have tv license......
Hi Bevvy, you don’t need a tv licence if you only watch Netflix. That’s what my daughter does and can always find something good to watch on it. Joy x
Hi
I'm sorry Joy but Bevvy is 100% correct.
Kevin
Sorry, she’s wrong. If you ONLY watch NETFLIX you DO NOT need a tv licence. Google it, it’ll tell you just that. I’d post it here but I don’t know how to! Joy x
In the UK it is licence. License is the USA.
different laws in different countries, I do not believe USA has to pay for a tv licence .
Licence is the noun, license the verb, so licensing is correct! By licensing you are getting a licence. Born a pedant!
Licensing is correct but licence not license in the UK. I did not make any comment about licensing being incorrect so what is your problem. Please read carefully before raising unwarranted criticism.
The official advice on who needs a tv licence:
‘The law says you need to be covered by a TV Licence to:
- watch or record programmes as they’re being shown on TV, on any channel
- watch or stream programmes live on an online TV service (such as ITV Hub, All 4, YouTube, Amazon Prime Video, Now TV, Sky Go, etc.)
- download or watch any BBC programmes on iPlayer.
This applies to any device you use, including a TV, desktop computer, laptop, mobile phone, tablet, games console, digital box or DVD/VHS recorder.’
It’s also enough to have the capacity to watch live tv even if you genuinely don’t: I got done purely for having a tv and DVD player in my halls of residence for the one and only semester I did at uni. I only used it to watch DVDs, but they came round to do a check, and because my room had an aerial socket and I had a working tv, I was fined for failure to have a tv licence. It’s an easy win for the BBC, because how can you possibly prove you don’t actually watch it? As a result, for the last 15 years I’ve refused on principle to partake of any BBC service at all. I massively resent paying my tv licence fee, and won’t watch, listen to, or engage with anything they produce. Essentially, the corporation doesn’t exist in my universe. But I still have to pay my licence fee for the privilege of actively ignoring them.
2greys in reply to
"watch or stream programmes live on an online TV service (such as ITV Hub, All 4, YouTube, Amazon Prime Video, Now TV, Sky Go, etc.)"
Only if they are being shown on live TV at the same time. There are many 'live streams' that do not appear on TV at all even, let alone at the same time ie The Independent Sage Committee or Alex Belfield channels.
You can watch any 'catchup' service providing it is not the BBC iPlayer.
Simply owning a TV no longer needs a licence.
You do not have to prove anything, the onus is on the BBC/TVL to prove their case. Guilt on probability, sometimes from a sympathetic/biased magistrate on those grounds it can be challenged and won at appeal court (Crown Court).
On our first 2 week long holiday on a yacht, where there was no TV at all, we did not miss it at all. When we got home we never started to watch the rubbish again. We kept the licence going "just in case" for a couple of years, then the communal aerial system provider changed from what was an old analog Virgin cable TV system to a council contractors digital aerial/dish which meant rewiring the whole lot. We were both working full time and it was never fitted into our flat, also neither of us wanted to take time off from work to let them in. To this day the cable remains coiled up, blowing in the wind, hanging alongside the window. We have just three wires entering our flat, the mains supply, the telephone and of course the cable broadband with no TV box or service, just the broadband alone.
They have no right of entry, they need a warrant first, in reality they are just salesmen despite calling themselves 'enforcement officers' as an intimidation tactic.
TVL require a warrant under the communications act to enter, search for and test any TV's. A TV receiver under definition of the communications act requires it to be installed as a TV receiver. Our 55" TV was bought and installed as a computer monitor, if necessary we can prove this as it was purchased many years after the old analog communal aerial was disconnected and the only wires going to the set are the power cable and HDMI cable going to it's own dedicated computer. The TV has WiFi but they cannot make you turn the router on, they have no powers for that. All you are required to do is to give them the remote control.
Having an aerial or a sat dish on the wall is not proof. Disconnect any aerial lead remove the plug coil it up close to the wall with cable ties so it cannot reach the TV so they cannot simply plug it in. Better still remove the lead completely.
Their warrant only gives them the power to test any TV present, as such they are not allowed to touch any routers or computers or any other non receiver equipment. All that they will get from our TV is a "no signal" message. If they caution you, all you have to say is "no, I do not agree to being interviewed", they cannot then submit any evidence of what you say, which should only be "now you have performed your test I insist that you leave the property" they then by law have to leave or face been physically ejected.
We only get a couple of hours in the evening to watch Netflix and that means we can watch what we want and more importantly 'when' we watch it, not from a TV company's fixed schedules. We have not had a TV licence for over 12 years now. Our lifestyle is no longer compatible with broadcast TV. During the day I purely use the Internet on my separate PC and the one under the TV is used as a bit coin miner which pays towards the Internet and Netflix subscriptions when not used for watching stuff, it is switched on 24/7, earning.
You can get all the information on being 'Legally Licence Free' from many Internet sources one of the more reputable free to join Websites if you want to ask questions or get advice, free to read as a public forum as well, here:
The BBC is feeling very poor at present because over 200K people have cancelled their TV licenses. It's bound to get more shark like chasing everyone as it is struggling to pay sensible wages and stop competing for ratings in areas other TV companies do very well indeed.
I agree, if you add up Lineker and Ball’ salaries you have free licences for the over 75. Was reading Sue Barkers comments, she shared commentary of tennis ,with Virginia Wade for very little salary and bo other help.
I think the BBC is a mismanaged club for luvvies who do not live in the real world and cannot perceive how difficult it could be in current circumstances to afford a TV licence.
I watch programmes more and more on other channels and would opt out of paying the licence fee if it was not for the Proms and some seasonal concerts.
Sopsx
Hi all am I right in thinking MP's do not have to pay for a TV licence? Read that some where, or so I think.
snigger, blame it the government eyes roll,
but hey did you know it is the BBC not the government responsible.
in reply to Bkin
Your wrong, the government passed the buck to the BBC to stop there popularity dropping to rock bottom. Our fault. We elected the idiots (and thats being kind)
Bkin in reply to
you are entitled to your opinion
Jaybird19 in reply to
I believe that the BBC was " persuaded" by the government in return for some other condition. BBC should not never have agreed. Now they have to cut costs, not pay over the odds for someone whose show has dropped a lot in popularity after change of presenter.
Just a few links and loads more articles about this. The self entitled and privileged few. Do as we say, not as we do.
inews.co.uk/opinion/all-the...
express.co.uk/news/uk/12991...
express.co.uk/news/uk/11441...
inews.co.uk/opinion/bbc-tv-...
thetimes.co.uk/article/more...
thetimes.co.uk/article/more...
"Boris Johnson vows to scrap BBC licence fee and move to a subscription service in new onslaught on the corporation."
Less talk and more action please. Or will this be just be another entry in the list of broken promises?
dailymail.co.uk/news/articl...
and here we go again .... politics - sure can do without it on here.
I am sure there are forums dedicated to politics for those that like to keep on about it.
No it is about all about the outdated system of the BBC funding that Boris Johnson has said should change as an individual, how often do your him say"I think that....". It is he that may have introduced politics into the fray, you should address your comments towards him instead. The government itself has not made any statement about it at all yet, ergo it is not political.
Let's be honest, if those that like and want the BBC then they should pay for it, I do not have a problem with that. Those that do not like or want the BBC should not have to pay for those that do. That is surely fair, there are three other free channels that pay for themselves via advertising more if you count the plus ones and Film Four. There is nothing stopping the BBC from openly competing on a level playing field with themselves advertising. They already advertise their own products anyway like videos, calendars, booklets and such.
Then there is the case of repeating content that the licence payer has already paid for once already, literally money for old rope. There used to be a series called 'Never mind the quality, feel the width'. Okay it was on ITV, but good a description for BBC programming.
I must be one of the few satisfied BBC customers and i am quite happy to pay my licence,given the amount of international,national and regional coverage they provide and including the radio coverage and the world service i still think it is value for money,anyway each to their own and those dissatisfied customers are free to romance the other fee paying services available where they can watch whatever they please. 
A fair comment, as long as you do not expect others to be forced to finance it whilst they do not want the service themselves. It is after all not a necessity for life and could be classed as a luxury.
The BBC is a public service broadcaster and unless the law is changed before 2027 it will continue to be funded by the public purse via the governments licence fee,however as you have clearly stated if you don't want to use it and consider it an unneccassary luxury you are not forced to pay for it and you can legally access all those services you promote and by not purchasing a licence you are exercising your own free will.
i really don't see your problem with the current situation as others who feel like you can do likewise.if that then means i either have to pay more or expect less from the service due to its dimminished funding then so be it.
The problem is for those that just want watch the other terrestrial channels for free that are on FREEVIEW. The BBC no longer keep to the spirit of the charter anyway, endless repeats of content that has already been paid for once already is not really a public service it is just a rip off. I am pleased that I am well informed and not taken in by the underhanded methods that they use with their fearsome threatening letters and detection technology that does not exist.
Detector vans, hahaha, the longest perpetuated con job ever pulled against the public, some public service.
Well i had to choose between Newsnight or CNN for my next viewing pleasure and i think you can guess who i chose,goodnight enjoy your licence free viewing.
Not what you're looking for?
You may also like...
Follow up doctors & Respiratory physio
NORMAL A YEAR AGO PEOPLE DO NOT GENERALLY SHOW SYMPTOMS TILL A LATER STAGE so I guess I have to...
Early Onset Pulmonary Fibrosis
for any help you great fabulous hardy people. I have seen much on here to keep driving me forward....
Very breathless lying down
walk. Since then I have just felt lousy. I don't have much phlegm anymore nor much of a cough and...
age and other topics
happening and it is really bothering me. having to communicate with my much younger niece on...
Loosing weight and getting very thin!
eating etc and have taken all that on board throughout the years.
Over the last year I have gotten...
Update for all interested 
Ex-THC Vape user with lung pains
Had to cancel my Lung function tests
