 |
| Read about the inspiration behind this particular image here. |
TV Licensing's PR harlots have been spending the past few weeks busting myths on their Twitter feed.
This latest campaign, designed to educate and inform members of the public, comes as somewhat of a surprise when TV Licensing has spent decades peddling its own myths (and downright lies) in order to reinforce the facade that it has an efficient and far-reaching enforcement regime.
One myth that you will never see TV Licensing attempting to bust, is the falsehood that a TV licence is needed simply to own a TV set (or PC, laptop, tablet, mobile phone or whatever).
Under current legislation, a TV licence is only required for those properties where equipment is installed or used to receive TV programmes at the same time as they are broadcast to the wider public.
We have gone to the trouble of underlining a key sentence in the paragraph above. It is the act of installing or using equipment to receive TV programmes that is licensable. Mere possession of any sort of equipment, even that capable of receiving TV programmes, does not require a TV licence.
That last sentence takes a bit of getting your head around, particularly if you're a newbie to the weird and wonderful world of TV Licensing bullshit. As luck would have it, the TV Licensing Blog has previously obtained official confirmation that our interpretation above is correct.
An email by Alison Roberts, the TV Licensing Operations Director, states the following: "Legally, the ownership of a television receiver does not require a TV licence. Therefore if you choose not to switch on your television receiver for twelve months, you do not require a TV licence for that period.
"Under the Communications Act 2003, a TV licence is only required to watch or record live television programmes".
This information was disclosed by the BBC to the TV Licensing Blog under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (BBC reference number: RFI20140730).
We also draw to readers' attention a very important piece of case law - the 1987 House of Lords ruling in the case of Jeffrey Rudd vs. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Cutting to the heart of the matter, the House of Lords ruled that a person can only be convicted of TV licence evasion if it can be proved that a TV receiver was actually used without a valid licence and was not just available for use.
We also draw to readers' attention a very important piece of case law - the 1987 House of Lords ruling in the case of Jeffrey Rudd vs. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Cutting to the heart of the matter, the House of Lords ruled that a person can only be convicted of TV licence evasion if it can be proved that a TV receiver was actually used without a valid licence and was not just available for use.
If you've found this article useful please consider using our Amazon link for your shopping or downloading our free ebook.
1 comment:
I just keep paying the license, I don't technically need one right now as I don't have a TV but the hassle of getting letters from these people and requests to come and check my home I had last time I was in this situation means that it is easier just to pay... As before, I am considering getting a tablet or a TV or something but it might take a few months, and last time I got a sarky letter from them when I told them I wanted a license after all just as they were asking to come to my place to see...like I was lying to them, which I wasn't...
So I am paying them months for no TV to avoid that situation of feeling in their grasp!
As long as David Attenborough gets some of my money to make more programmes I suppose I will live with that,,
Post a Comment