The Student Room Group
Voting for TSRs Ultimate Study Playlist is NOW OPEN >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Voting for TSRs Ultimate Study Playlist is NOW OPEN >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

TV Licensing loophole for students...

Scroll to see replies

Reply 60
Avatar for z33
z33
21
I think if they were really legit they'd makw it so you'd have to get a license from them before they broadcast to your house.

Not them broadcasting to your house and then going and checking if you watch that makes 0 sense.

But that would be too much effort to do.
Original post by HaramiSalami
''but my magical van from the future detected electromagnetic waves proving that it was plugged in at the time, pay the court a fine or serve your sentence''
:rofl:

the outsourcing to private companies makes it so much worse as they have an incentive to get as much money as possible.
Original post by HaramiSalami
You need evidence to get a warrant from the magistrate, it's not like he's your cousin and you phone him up whenever you need a favour.

Even if it's tuned it, does not prove you've been illegally watching top of the pops with Jimmy Savile before cooling off with some Rolf Harris, you sound like such a bore, probably watch the Queen's speech on Christmas and video'd the royal wedding :rofl:


Ive already explained what they have to prove. They simply go in and swear a statement normally saying they have seen or heard television equipment being used. Yes they will just ring the courp up, its not complicate its only a warrant.

Not for me to say its for a magistrate to decide based on the evidence before them whether they are satisfiedthat television equipment has been used illegally. If it was conveniently pretuned then they would have some explaining to do. Im just explaining how it works and what they have to prove. Go and look it up for yourself.
Original post by 999tigger
Ive already explained what they have to prove. They simply go in and swear a statement normally saying they have seen or heard television equipment being used. Yes they will just ring the courp up, its not complicate its only a warrant.

Not for me to say its for a magistrate to decide based on the evidence before them whether they are satisfiedthat television equipment has been used illegally. If it was conveniently pretuned then they would have some explaining to do. Im just explaining how it works and what they have to prove. Go and look it up for yourself.


So they should commit perjury? Ok :yy:


Most TV's auto-tune and again, it's up to them to prove, you don't have to explain anything.
Original post by lawyer3c
:rofl:

the outsourcing to private companies makes it so much worse as they have an incentive to get as much money as possible.


That's absolutely disgraceful, the only thing worse than government thuggery, is the government outsourcing it's thuggery to the private sector. I think state schools should teach pupils their rights much more, that is a more important aspect of negotiating life effectively than some of the things on the curriculum.
(edited 7 years ago)
I don't get this can someone explain
Original post by HaramiSalami
So they should commit perjury? Ok :yy:


Most TV's auto-tune and again, it's up to them to prove, you don't have to explain anything.


They should tell the truth, but they only have to show reasonable suspicion when presenting their evidence. What a weird statement by you.

The magistrates can make their own minds up based on the evidence. If the person wants to be silent about it thats fine, but the magistrates can then draw their own conclusions about that silence.
Original post by HaramiSalami

Most TV's auto-tune and again, it's up to them to prove, you don't have to explain anything.

exactly, the burden of proof is on them to show that, on balance of probabilities, you watched BBC programmes w/o a licence, not on you to show you didnt
Original post by 999tigger
They should tell the truth, but they only have to show reasonable suspicion when presenting their evidence. What a weird statement by you.



If they haven't actually heard a television and they tell the magistrate they have, they are committing a serious criminal offence. It's illegal to lie in a witness statement ffs.

Original post by 999tigger

The magistrates can make their own minds up based on the evidence. If the person wants to be silent about it thats fine, but the magistrates can then draw their own conclusions about that silence.


You're not obliged to allow these failed fascist tossers into your home any more than you're obliged to welcome Jehovah's Witnesses, door to door salesmen or Alex deLarge and his Droogs. It's not suspicious to ask them to leave, because they are not police officers, they have no legal authority, no jurisdiction, they are nothing.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by lawyer3c
exactly, the burden of proof is on them to show that, on balance of probabilities, you watched BBC programmes w/o a licence, not on you to show you didnt


Didn't realise it was BoP tho.
Original post by HaramiSalami
Didn't realise it was BoP tho.

the burden of proof is still on the prosecution, though

courts are already up to their necks in litigation, chances are they won't be giving out search warrants willy nilly
Original post by Random.guy
Can anyone explain to me what the point of the TV license is. I lived abroad as an expat and when I came back to the UK this baffled me. Why should I pay to watch shows on my TV or laptop etc. if I am already paying the TV companies Sky, ITV etc. money to watch the programmes they have on offer? This makes no sense at all, abroad we just paid a subscription like we do here for netflix for access to the shows yet this TV license just seems to me like an additional tax for which we get nothing out of it.:hmmmm:


The TV Licence is and always has been to pay for programmes by the BBC on television and radio. The BBC is the only broadcaster which doesn't have any revenue from advertisements so they have to get their money from somewhere. The annual Licence Fee pays for the commissioning of new programmes,salaries,etc. Personally, I think it's a small price worth paying. After having lived in several countries with dire TV channels and endless soul destroying advertisements over and over again ,I find BBC programmes, with no interruption , to be most welcome.
http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/forum/index.php/topic,5925.0.html is worth a read for the ins and outs of TV licencing.


IF they catch you watching live telly without a licence then you'll nearly always have the option to buy a licence then and there - they very rarely bother with prosecution and even if they do then £1,000 fines are the maximum and rarely issued by magistrates.

IF you do want to get a TV licence then it is a good idea to be legally licence free (ie don't watch live TV or iplayer) for a month or so after arriving at uni and then paying for your licence quarterly. You'll only then need to pay for 3 quarters and wont pay for a licence over the summer months (the weekly and monthly instalment payments front load your licence so you pay for a years licence in the first 6 months and the annual payment is a whole year up front so with any of those options you will end up overpaying if you only need a term time licence).
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by HaramiSalami
If they haven't actually heard a television and they tell the magistrate they have, they are committing a serious criminal offence. It's illegal to lie in a witness statement ffs.

You're not obliged to allow these failed fascist tossers into your home any more than you're obliged to welcome Jehovah's Witnesses, door to door salesmen or Alex deLarge and his Droogs. It's not suspicious to ask them to leave, because they are not police officers, they have no legal authority, no jurisdiction, they are nothing.


I never suggested that they should lie. I said the test was one of reasonable supsicion, which it is.

I never suggested you did have to let them in only that they cna apply for a warrant and if satisfued they will then have one issued which allows them to enter your home. thats how warrants work. No idea why you are making all these irrelevant points about things that werent even raised or suggested.

To gain entry they need a warrant. If they get one then they have the right to carry out the activities described in the warrant. Thats the only legal authority they need. Why would you find that such a difficult concept? If you wnat to call them fascists, then feel free. Sure they have heard it all before.
Oh and anything watched on BoB is covered by the subscription fees paid by your university:
http://bufvc.ac.uk/tvandradio/bob

(and if your university doesn't subscribe then get on to your library!)
Original post by 999tigger

I never suggested you did have to let them in only that they cna apply for a warrant and if satisfued they will then have one issued which allows them to enter your home. thats how warrants work. No idea why you are making all these irrelevant points about things that werent even raised or suggested.
what would be the basis for them to obtain a warrant? the fact that that household doesn't have a tv licence and refused them entry is not exactly persuasive - no one is obliged to allow some random person from a private company with no authority to enter their house

regardless, even if a warrant was granted, by the time it was granted the occupants of the house in question could easily just unplug the tv box and claim the tv is just used for a PlayStation or something
Original post by 999tigger
I never suggested that they should lie. I said the test was one of reasonable supsicion, which it is.

I never suggested you did have to let them in only that they cna apply for a warrant and if satisfued they will then have one issued which allows them to enter your home. thats how warrants work. No idea why you are making all these irrelevant points about things that werent even raised or suggested.

To gain entry they need a warrant. If they get one then they have the right to carry out the activities described in the warrant. Thats the only legal authority they need. Why would you find that such a difficult concept? If you wnat to call them fascists, then feel free. Sure they have heard it all before.


FFS, refusing them entry is not remotely close to reasonable suspicious.
Original post by lawyer3c
what would be the basis for them to obtain a warrant? the fact that that household doesn't have a tv licence and refused them entry is not exactly persuasive - no one is obliged to allow some random person from a private company with no authority to enter their house

regardless, even if a warrant was granted, by the time it was granted the occupants of the house in question could easily just unplug the tv box and claim the tv is just used for a PlayStation or something


Reasonable suspicion they believe TV equipment is being used at the address. Normallt through observing or hearing such equipment.

Refusing entrty or not having a licence is insufficient. Nobody said you should feel obliged about letting someone without authority enteer your dwelling, thats just a point raised by you.

Yes they could just unplug or hide the TV, but people are caught and convicted just the same even free men of the land. Its about 200,000 a year.

If you were a licence inspector then as its your job, you wouldnt go to the hassle of getting a warrant or prosecuting unless you had the requisite level of evidence. Yes they might hide the TV on that visit, but they keep coming back if they are that interested. Am sure there are hundreds of thousands without a licence who do evade, but there are also plenty who are convicted and then fined accordingly. All seems a lot of hassle, except of you get to call someone a fascist.
Original post by HaramiSalami
FFS, refusing them entry is not remotely close to reasonable suspicious.


I never said it was , just you making things up again.

Its enough to put an inspector on alert that they might do a return visit though.
Original post by 999tigger
Reasonable suspicion they believe TV equipment is being used at the address. Normallt through observing or hearing such equipment.

Refusing entrty or not having a licence is insufficient. Nobody said you should feel obliged about letting someone without authority enteer your dwelling, thats just a point raised by you.

Yes they could just unplug or hide the TV, but people are caught and convicted just the same even free men of the land. Its about 200,000 a year.

If you were a licence inspector then as its your job, you wouldnt go to the hassle of getting a warrant or prosecuting unless you had the requisite level of evidence. Yes they might hide the TV on that visit, but they keep coming back if they are that interested. Am sure there are hundreds of thousands without a licence who do evade, but there are also plenty who are convicted and then fined accordingly. All seems a lot of hassle, except of you get to call someone a fascist.


You don't even need to hide the TV, just unplug it :yawn:


Most people who are caught are poor, poorly educated people who are not hardened criminals but normal working class folks, unaware of their rights and are absolutely terrified of authority figures which is why I think it's vital we raise awareness of just how little, these nasty little thugs can do.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you