TV Licensing has made an extraordinary admission in a recent letter to TV licence refusnik Vladimir Bukovsky.
The sixty year old former Soviet dissident alleges BBC bias and has actively campaigned against the licence fee. His high profile and outspoken opposition to the fee has been a thorn in the side of Britain's national broadcaster.
Peter Hitchens of the Mail on Sunday has published the entire text of a letter received by Bukovsky from TV Licensing. It reads as follows:
"Reference: COM/410383/jw
Date: 3 August
Dear Mr. Bukovsky
Re: Television Licensing Requirements
Thank you for your letter of 17 July the contents of which are noted.
Whilst you are quite correct in pointing out that Section 363 of the Communications Act 2003 "the Act" states that 'a television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence', this section must be read in conjunction with the accompanying legislation.
In this regard it is important to note that Section 363 of the Act states that a 'television receiver means any apparatus of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State'. The definition of 'television receiver' as set out in Regulation 9 of the Communications Regulations 2004 (as amended) further defines a 'television receivers as 'any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for another purpose'.
Therefore, a TV licence is only required where a television set is installed or used for the purpose of receiving television programmes.
You have stated in your recent letter that you have not watched television since 2001, accordingly your television set is 'not installed or used for receiving television programme services' at this time.
Consequently, on the basis of the information that we have, our view is that you are not at this time committing an offence contrary to Section 363 of the Act.
Yours sincerely
John Williams
Customer Relations Manager"
The underlined paragraph is of potentially explosive consequences for TV Licensing - the acknowledgement that Bukovsky doesn't need a licence merely because he claims not to watch TV.
It's difficult to see how they could now harass Joe Public into proving his innocence when they're prepared to take Bukovsky's word at face value.
Of course anonymous Joe Public can easily be brushed under the carpet.
The sixty year old former Soviet dissident alleges BBC bias and has actively campaigned against the licence fee. His high profile and outspoken opposition to the fee has been a thorn in the side of Britain's national broadcaster.
Peter Hitchens of the Mail on Sunday has published the entire text of a letter received by Bukovsky from TV Licensing. It reads as follows:
"Reference: COM/410383/jw
Date: 3 August
Dear Mr. Bukovsky
Re: Television Licensing Requirements
Thank you for your letter of 17 July the contents of which are noted.
Whilst you are quite correct in pointing out that Section 363 of the Communications Act 2003 "the Act" states that 'a television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence', this section must be read in conjunction with the accompanying legislation.
In this regard it is important to note that Section 363 of the Act states that a 'television receiver means any apparatus of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State'. The definition of 'television receiver' as set out in Regulation 9 of the Communications Regulations 2004 (as amended) further defines a 'television receivers as 'any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for another purpose'.
Therefore, a TV licence is only required where a television set is installed or used for the purpose of receiving television programmes.
You have stated in your recent letter that you have not watched television since 2001, accordingly your television set is 'not installed or used for receiving television programme services' at this time.
Consequently, on the basis of the information that we have, our view is that you are not at this time committing an offence contrary to Section 363 of the Act.
Yours sincerely
John Williams
Customer Relations Manager"
The underlined paragraph is of potentially explosive consequences for TV Licensing - the acknowledgement that Bukovsky doesn't need a licence merely because he claims not to watch TV.
It's difficult to see how they could now harass Joe Public into proving his innocence when they're prepared to take Bukovsky's word at face value.
Of course anonymous Joe Public can easily be brushed under the carpet.
No comments:
Post a Comment