interesting if true

[chesters1]

not value when every foreigner within 500 miles gets it all for bugger all and a few channels we cant even get from the bbc and thats just on satellite never mind online

Edited May 23, 2011 by chesters1

[Ken L]

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

 

Not if you don't watch and arn't interested in it.

 

I got used to not watching telly during my three month absences from the country and never got back into the habit.

I haven't even used the i-player since I got back in April.

The "capable of reciving signals" argument doesn't wash. The stuff that TV Licencing keep sending to me makes it perfectly clear that a licence is only required if you watch or record programs as they are being broadcast.

[chesters1]

it may not wash but its the law

 

"You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder"

 

 

as for broadcast this is the relevant word ,does it mean "live" or any time? if something is broadcast it could be a repeat but we dont get 5p back evertime it is so broadcast must mean anything you can receive at any time on anything that could receive it

Edited May 23, 2011 by chesters1

[Huge_Vitae]

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

Ummmmmmm, not wishing to start 'some' off, but rather quoting the same statute, the ECHR says that no person should face a bigger penalty for denying an offence than for admitting it, so, it is illegal for any person to say, 'plead guilty now and pay £80, or pay £80 quid later but who am I to interpret the law.

[chesters1]

Ummmmmmm, not wishing to start 'some' off, but rather quoting the same statute, the ECHR says that no person should face a bigger penalty for denying an offence than for admitting it, so, it is illegal for any person to say, 'plead guilty now and pay £80, or pay £80 quid later but who am I to interpret the law.

 

not sure they do say that but you tend to get costs and reparation to the "hurt party?" added on plus the fine could be far higher depending if the magistrate was treated well by the ushers earlier ,so i have no doubt if you go to court it could be thrown out if you can prove it wasn't you or get a bill for more than £80

so if you cannot prove your innocence logic says pay now not later and grit your teeth.

 

this is what the system hopes for thousands of innocent people forking out money because they fear going to court with the result they could pay more

 

if you cannot prove your innocence to the officer doling out the on the spot fines i doubt you could when he's got his notebook out in court with another copper backing him up no doubt

 

 

lets change the scenario ,a few years ago i was walking around the pond and 2 EA geezers demanded to see my licence ,i remarked i wasnt fishing and they grudgingly left ,but what happens if they took me to court how could i prove i wasn't fishing ,an angler by a pond the evidence is weighted on their side i'm afraid their word as "officers" against mine!

 

its very strange this "official" thing ,parents have no problem with me talking to their kids because i am an "official" of the club ,there's some strange "officials" that notice this quirk i'm sure and exploit it by coming officials

Edited May 23, 2011 by chesters1

[Ken L]

"You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder"

 

Erm, that's what I said. You don't need a licence in order to own equipment capable of watching or recording TV as it's being broadcast, you need a licence to actually do it - and they would therefore have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that that is what you have done.

 

I have the kit but I don't use it to watch broadcast TV, it's not tuned in and it's not wired to an arial - and I'm very careful about how I use my PC.

 

Same goes with fishing. You don't need a licence to own a rod but you do need one to use it.

[chesters1]

but if two blokes say you were how could you prove you were not? ,they would just say "mlud we caught him watching the news" and that's it.

you may have cut the aerial after you were caught

 

the law is designed to make you guilty if it were not why isn't the laws available to everyone so they can avoid breaking them?

"innocence isnt an excuse in law" but they sure hide the laws away to make it hard to follow them ,are you going to buy ever single one to ensure you never get caught out?

http://www.lawbooks-online.com/

 

 

thats what the law depends on you do not so you pay high prices to solicitors and criminal lawyers if you dont you get ripped apart by the other side and still get fined and get hefty costs as well.

the countries full of case where no evidence is produced ,take coppers with hand held speed cameras ,they will say you sped and dole out a fine or you go to court they need to prove nothing in nearly every case

Edited May 23, 2011 by chesters1

[Ken L]

Does a modern TV have an internal clock ?

Everything from washing machines to fridges seems to these days.

 

I'll have to have a word with my mate in forensics. He's a bit of an expert on such things and I know that questions such as "can you tell me why you used your washing machine at 04:30 in the morning, 20 minutes after the murder of your ex-wife ?" have cropped up in court before now.

[chesters1]

modern ones may well have but only if its forced to by some big brother governments ,your phone use does ofcourse as its in law its use is listed somewhere but this is two way communication not just a receiver,perhaps these internet tv's though have more information stored as they must use some sort of ISP to connect to.

as for the washing machines certainly not ours but we can hear the 80 year old next door having a wee so our washing machine at 4.30 definitely would be noticed

 

printers have a memory of sorts even my old laserjet notes stuff down to its page use but to when its used probably not and i presume outside a timer and onboard clock a tv doesnt note exactly when its used but no doubt very shortly it will

 

my daughter and old man only have TV's connected to PS3's and seemed to satisfy the licence people but strictly speaking if the inspector swore they were watching tv i doubt if either could prove they were not ,the evidence in the hardware stakes is hard to dispute even harder to prove you dont have one of these

 

http://uk.playstation.com/playtv/

 

its not down to evidence i expect its all down to the word of an "official" against an individual who is thought to be lying even when they are not purely to escape a fine

Edited May 23, 2011 by chesters1

[Ken L]

The trouble with devices like PS3TV are that even though you may be watching TV with a 10 minute delay, the machine is recording programs as they are broadcast into its buffer. I definatly wouldn't fancy trying to defend that in court.