interesting if true

[chesters1]

it seems the beeb do not have to use evidence gained from a detector van to get a conviction.

from what i can see if they believe you have a tv but no licence i presume they force or gain entry and if you do they use that as evidence ,what happens if you don't have a tv do they apologise and give remuneration for your inconvenience?

 

http://www.anorak.co.uk/281554/tv/bbc-admi...are-videos.html

 

 

ofcourse if its true you need a tv licence to watch online programmes then the detector van wont be of much use unless extremely sensitive so they can peek through your curtains.

i mentioned a few years ago bbc cookies appearing on your pc so i expect this is how they now approach the online side ,your monitor is a tv as is your pc a receiver

 

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/

 

i have never been to the bbc online but look and their cookies are there .i presume thats enough evidence to prove your guilty nowadays

 

interesting bit "as it's being broadcast" very open to speculation

 

"The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988 defines a broadcast as "a transmission by wireless telegraphy of visual images, sounds, or other information which is capable of lawful reception by the public or which is made for presentation to the public". Thus, it covers radio, television, teletext and telephones."

Edited May 23, 2011 by chesters1

[watatoad]

Sounds about standard to me... :bigemo_harabe_net-163:

 

Just don't expect legal aid to help you I expect all that's been used up fighting for asylum seekers rights and against deportation orders.

[Ken L]

I have no TV licence and do occasionally use the i-player but you do need to be very careful with the current version because just like the BBC news site, it's peppered with links to live video feeds to catch the unwary. As you say, I'm quite sure that it is loaded with little data gathering applications that they would use to try to secure a conviction but it's very annoying having to tread on eggshells because they are virtually trying to trick you into accidentally commiting an offence.

As for the monitor for the DVD player, it's not plugged into an arial, has never been tuned in and although there is an arial cable comming into the house, it has no socket on the end.

[chesters1]

I have no TV licence and do occasionally use the i-player but you do need to be very careful with the current version because just like the BBC news site, it's peppered with links to live video feeds to catch the unwary. As you say, I'm quite sure that it is loaded with little data gathering applications that they would use to try to secure a conviction but it's very annoying having to tread on eggshells because they are virtually trying to trick you into accidentally commiting an offence.

As for the monitor for the DVD player, it's not plugged into an arial, has never been tuned in and although there is an arial cable comming into the house, it has no socket on the end.

the licence is not about items in use its a licence about anything that could be

 

i have a ps2 with its own onboard screen ,technically it cannot receive any tv but you can buy tv dongles for them and i believe you can connect to a PC? network with its network socket so it could "receive" "tv" with just a small adjustment .your monitor could be used the same way ,its worded "could" in the legislations.

even my old Game Gear has a TV plug in ,fine now but next year when we turn to digital it still could be used with a set top box with a build in modulator ,pretty silly idea (its a tiny screen) but still a viable device for receiving tv and thus needs a licence (just having the set top box does as well)

 

technically if you have a pc with access to the outside you have a "TV" and it needs a licence ,your ISP will be happy to let the BBC compare its database of non licensed households with its data base of internet users and must do by law if requested.

whether it will is another matter.

 

if your using firefox go to "tools" ,"options" ,"privacy" and show cookies and you will be very surprised by the amount of cookies you have including BBC ones i have no doubt

Edited May 23, 2011 by chesters1

[Huge_Vitae]

the licence is not about items in use its a licence about anything that could be

 

i have a ps2 with its own onboard screen ,technically it cannot receive any tv but you can buy tv dongles for them and i believe you can connect to a PC? network with its network socket so it could "receive" "tv" with just a small adjustment .your monitor could be used the same way ,its worded "could" in the legislations

It is actually "Capable," so, even if it needs an added on bit of kit, not present, you lose.....................

[chesters1]

It is actually "Capable," so, even if it needs an added on bit of kit, not present, you lose.....................

its always been difficult proving innocence hence the turnaround to insist you have to in many parts of the law ,not new an "alibi" is you trying to do so

 

another interesting snippet is (or was) you didnt need another licence to watch a tv if say you were in your caravan ,well except if your kids were watching your telly at home at the same time in that case you do need another licence

 

 

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-...cond-home-aud8/

 

even more difficult for the tv chaps to prove but just as hard for you to dispute if there's someone at home

Edited May 23, 2011 by chesters1

[Huge_Vitae]

its always been difficult proving innocence hence the turnaround to insist you have to in many parts of the law ,not new an "alibi" is you trying to do so

 

another interesting snippet is (or was) you didnt need another licence to watch a tv if say you were in your caravan ,well except if your kids were watching your telly at home at the same time in that case you do need another licence

 

 

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-...cond-home-aud8/

 

even more difficult for the tv chaps to prove but just as hard for you to dispute if there's someone at home

A Famously quoted statement of mine from a couple of years ago, "Can you tell me Mr. Prosecutor, where, in English Law it is neccessary for me to prove my Son's innosence rather than you prove him 'Guilty', I 'won' that one as well..............

[Janet]

It took me three years of blood, sweat and tears and constant letters and emails to convince them that I didn't have a TV...my, they are persistent!

 

Of course I have access via my PC, but I never watch anything live...I'm constantly playing catch-up when someone sends me a link...

 

I hope I'm staying within their rules!

 

Janet

[chesters1]

A Famously quoted statement of mine from a couple of years ago, "Can you tell me Mr. Prosecutor, where, in English Law it is neccessary for me to prove my Son's innosence rather than you prove him 'Guilty', I 'won' that one as well..............

when its you vs the cops you tend to need to prove yourself innocent

 

take on the spot fines do you fight it out in court and get a bigger fine o merely shut your trap and pay £80 the evidence for both is a coppers opinion in the main unless you can prove otherwise

for such offences you wont go to crown court usually so you wont have the chance of obliging jurors on your side ,it will be your word against at least one copper and in my experience even ones not that good at lying get believed by unqualified magistrates

Edited May 23, 2011 by chesters1

[barry luxton]

£140, odd quid for a licence, value for money?