Discussion:
Tv Licence Law Question - Please assist!
(too old to reply)
Iridology 101
2005-08-05 10:50:32 UTC
Permalink
Hello all.

Can anyone tell me what it entails to dispense with not pay ing a tv
licence - is it enough to not have a tv aerial on your property so you are
unable to receive a signal?

Thanks in advance
Grant


__________________________________________
First they came for the communists
and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist

Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist

Next they came for the Catholics
and I did not speak out - because I was not a Catholic

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Pastor Niemoeller
Protestant minister and victim of the Nazis
George
2005-08-05 11:23:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Iridology 101
Hello all.
Can anyone tell me what it entails to dispense with not pay ing a tv
licence - is it enough to not have a tv aerial on your property so you
are unable to receive a signal?
Thanks in advance
Grant
This may sound perfectly obvious, but the only reason for not having a TV
Licence is not to have a television !
That is - not be using a television set anywhere in the property -
whether it needs an aerial or not.
The detector vans can tell if you are using a TV set in the premises -
they can even tell which channel you are watching!
The detector vans carry a list of every address not shown to have a TV
licence - they concentrate their enforcement on these addresses - they do
not even look to see if there is an exterior aerial.

George
Jim
2005-08-05 11:49:19 UTC
Permalink
George wrote...
Post by George
Post by Iridology 101
Can anyone tell me what it entails to dispense with not pay ing a tv
licence - is it enough to not have a tv aerial on your property so you
are unable to receive a signal?
This may sound perfectly obvious, but the only reason for not having a TV
Licence is not to have a television !
Rubbish!
Post by George
That is - not be using a television set anywhere in the property -
whether it needs an aerial or not.
You can have a TV set without a licence for watching videos or playing the
Playstation. You cannot use the TV for receiving *broadcast* TV signals.

The most reliable way to have a TV set without a licence is to remove any
aerial, and de-tune the (TV) channels.
Jan Hyde
2005-08-05 12:39:25 UTC
Permalink
George <***@homenet.com>'s wild thoughts were released
on Fri, 05 Aug 2005 11:23:04 GMT bearing the following
Post by George
Post by Iridology 101
Hello all.
Can anyone tell me what it entails to dispense with not pay ing a tv
licence - is it enough to not have a tv aerial on your property so you
are unable to receive a signal?
Thanks in advance
Grant
This may sound perfectly obvious, but the only reason for not having a TV
Licence is not to have a television !
It might sound obvious but it would be completely wrong.
Post by George
That is - not be using a television set anywhere in the property -
whether it needs an aerial or not.
Nope, there are many valid ways in which a TV can be used
without any requiremnt for a TV Licence. The TVLA will
confirm this for you should you choose not to believe me.
Post by George
The detector vans can tell if you are using a TV set in the premises -
they can even tell which channel you are watching!
They can tell which channel *someone* is watching, not
necessarily you, which makes it difficult to use as
evidence.
Post by George
The detector vans carry a list of every address not shown to have a TV
licence - they concentrate their enforcement on these addresses - they do
not even look to see if there is an exterior aerial.
The vans don't but the TVLA has a list of most addresses and
many that don't even exist. It's true they won't care if
there is an aerial on your roof or not. They operate on one
premise alone. If you don't have a TV Licence then you must
be investigated.



Jan Hyde (VB MVP)
--
Barque : Noise made by dyslexic dogs (Jan Hyde)

[Abolish the TV Licence - http://www.tvlicensing.biz/]
Anon
2005-08-05 20:01:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
Post by Iridology 101
Hello all.
Can anyone tell me what it entails to dispense with not pay ing a tv
licence - is it enough to not have a tv aerial on your property so you
are unable to receive a signal?
Thanks in advance
Grant
This may sound perfectly obvious, but the only reason for not having a TV
Licence is not to have a television !
That is - not be using a television set anywhere in the property -
whether it needs an aerial or not.
The detector vans can tell if you are using a TV set in the premises -
they can even tell which channel you are watching!
Yeah, right. Perhaps you could tell us whether anyone has ever - that's
*ever* been convicted on the evidence of a detector van?
Martin Milan
2005-08-07 22:24:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
This may sound perfectly obvious, but the only reason for not having a
TV Licence is not to have a television !
That is - not be using a television set anywhere in the property -
whether it needs an aerial or not.
The detector vans can tell if you are using a TV set in the premises -
they can even tell which channel you are watching!
The detector vans carry a list of every address not shown to have a TV
licence - they concentrate their enforcement on these addresses - they
do not even look to see if there is an exterior aerial.
George
Thanks George for that inciteful example of TVL propaganda.

Just to correct you on a few points... First of all, you do not need a
television license merely to own or use a television. You need a license
if, and only if, you have any equipment installed to actually receive
licensable transmissions. If you only have your TV hooked up to a games
station, or a DVD player - something of that ilk - then no problem...

The detector vans in which you seemingly place such faith are in truth
merely prettily decorated minibuses, and accordingly there has never
been a prosecution from a detector van's evidence. Prosecutions usually
go through because of signed statements made my persons on or in a
property.

The vans themselves do not carry a database of all the unlicensed
addresses, though TVL do possess such a database, which is then abused
to send threatening and harassing mail to people who have no need of a
license at all.

Martin
john boyle
2005-08-08 20:29:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Milan
The detector vans in which you seemingly place such faith are in truth
merely prettily decorated minibuses, and accordingly there has never
been a prosecution from a detector van's evidence. Prosecutions usually
go through because of signed statements made my persons on or in a
property.
The vans themselves do not carry a database of all the unlicensed
addresses, though TVL do possess such a database, which is then abused
to send threatening and harassing mail to people who have no need of a
license at all.
The vans have a list of those addresses which dont have licences ands
then snoop outside. If it detects a TV on inside then they send somebody
to break in. Nobody has ever claimed that the vans evidence alone
results in prosecution, but it can detect the smell. Its just the same
as no robber has ever been prosecuted on the evidence of a police dog.
--
John Boyle
Martin Milan
2005-08-09 20:40:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by john boyle
Post by Martin Milan
The detector vans in which you seemingly place such faith are in truth
merely prettily decorated minibuses, and accordingly there has never
been a prosecution from a detector van's evidence. Prosecutions
usually go through because of signed statements made my persons on or
in a property.
The vans themselves do not carry a database of all the unlicensed
addresses, though TVL do possess such a database, which is then abused
to send threatening and harassing mail to people who have no need of a
license at all.
The vans have a list of those addresses which dont have licences ands
then snoop outside. If it detects a TV on inside then they send
somebody to break in. Nobody has ever claimed that the vans evidence
alone results in prosecution, but it can detect the smell. Its just
the same as no robber has ever been prosecuted on the evidence of a
police dog.
I stand corrected. They have a database in squashed tree format.

Tell me John, just how do they differentiate a signal coming from one
propery from one coming from the neighbours? Let's remember, the ariels
on chimney stacks etc are often within inches of each other...

Martin.
Joe Soap
2005-08-09 20:48:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Milan
Tell me John, just how do they differentiate a signal coming from one
propery from one coming from the neighbours? Let's remember, the ariels
on chimney stacks etc are often within inches of each other...
The signals that would be detected emanate from the tuner/demodulator
within the set, not from the antenna on the roof or in the loft.
--
Joe Soap.
JUNK is stuff that you keep for 20 years,
then throw away a week before you need it.
Martin Milan
2005-08-09 22:23:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Soap
Post by Martin Milan
Tell me John, just how do they differentiate a signal coming from one
propery from one coming from the neighbours? Let's remember, the
ariels on chimney stacks etc are often within inches of each other...
The signals that would be detected emanate from the tuner/demodulator
within the set, not from the antenna on the roof or in the loft.
That might be where they are created, but I thought they were actually
transmitted through the ariel...

I'll bow to your knowledge though - it would not be unheard of for me to
be mistaken...

Martin.
john boyle
2005-08-09 21:55:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Milan
Post by john boyle
The vans have a list of those addresses which dont have licences ands
then snoop outside. If it detects a TV on inside then they send
somebody to break in. Nobody has ever claimed that the vans evidence
alone results in prosecution, but it can detect the smell. Its just
the same as no robber has ever been prosecuted on the evidence of a
police dog.
I stand corrected. They have a database in squashed tree format.
Tell me John, just how do they differentiate a signal coming from one
propery from one coming from the neighbours? Let's remember, the ariels
on chimney stacks etc are often within inches of each other...
The aerials have nothing to do with it. It detects the energy from
within the TV itself.
--
John Boyle
Martin Milan
2005-08-09 22:35:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by john boyle
Post by Martin Milan
Post by john boyle
The vans have a list of those addresses which dont have licences
ands then snoop outside. If it detects a TV on inside then they send
somebody to break in. Nobody has ever claimed that the vans evidence
alone results in prosecution, but it can detect the smell. Its just
the same as no robber has ever been prosecuted on the evidence of a
police dog.
I stand corrected. They have a database in squashed tree format.
Tell me John, just how do they differentiate a signal coming from one
propery from one coming from the neighbours? Let's remember, the
ariels on chimney stacks etc are often within inches of each other...
The aerials have nothing to do with it. It detects the energy from
within the TV itself.
I thought the signal was transmitted from the ariel... My question
remains though - how do they differentiate signals? But okay then -
assuming transmission from the set itself - how can they tell which
house the offending set is in, if the tvs are both back to back against
a common wall.

I'm thinking signal echos and indirect paths, I'm thinking multiple
signals on the same frequency, and I'm thinking the TVL are not going to
have EM absorption data for both my wall and my neighbours (ruling out
triangulation). Oh yes - and the plans to our homes (more walls inside
the property causing more absorption)... Hell - while we're about it,
wouldn't accurate triangulation rely upon three detector vans - or at
the very least a constant signal strength at emission while the TVL
chaps drive to three seperate locations... How about background
radiation from this wonderful universe of ours?



I'm probably missing the point here, but go on - enlighten me...

The TVL's main weapon is not technological - it's psychological. It all
seems based on fear and harrassment - and yes - I do have a TV License -
though only because I share my home with an uncle who watches it.
Personally, I listen to radio more than anything, and could happily get
by without TV...

Martin.
john boyle
2005-08-09 23:58:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Milan
Post by john boyle
The aerials have nothing to do with it. It detects the energy from
within the TV itself.
I thought the signal was transmitted from the ariel...
No
Post by Martin Milan
My question
remains though - how do they differentiate signals? But okay then -
assuming transmission from the set itself - how can they tell which
house the offending set is in, if the tvs are both back to back against
a common wall.
The equipment is sufficiently accurate. In any event, if the TVs where
that close then it really makes no difference. The purpose of the
detector van is two fold. The first is to scare the unlicensed viewer
into buying a licence, the second is to save the hassle of knocking on
every door that doesnt have a licence. The van enables the jackboot men
to concentrate on those houses that have a TV on at that moment.
Knocking on the door and then speaking in a fashion that scares the
occupant, they gain entry and Bob's your uncle!
Post by Martin Milan
I'm thinking signal echos and indirect paths, I'm thinking multiple
signals on the same frequency, and I'm thinking the TVL are not going to
have EM absorption data for both my wall and my neighbours (ruling out
triangulation). Oh yes - and the plans to our homes (more walls inside
the property causing more absorption)... Hell - while we're about it,
wouldn't accurate triangulation rely upon three detector vans - or at
the very least a constant signal strength at emission while the TVL
chaps drive to three seperate locations...
No No No, you are getting this all out of hand. I think it was you who
said there were no prosecutions based on detector van evidence. Thats is
true. Its just a labour saving device for the inspectors.
Post by Martin Milan
How about background
radiation from this wonderful universe of ours?
Ahh, well that is uniform in a given area so is irrelevant.
Post by Martin Milan
I'm probably missing the point here, but go on - enlighten me...
Perhaps! see above
Post by Martin Milan
The TVL's main weapon is not technological - it's psychological. It all
seems based on fear and harrassment
I agree.
Post by Martin Milan
- and yes - I do have a TV License -
though only because I share my home with an uncle who watches it.
Personally, I listen to radio more than anything, and could happily get
by without TV...
WHAT!! NO PATRICK MOORE????????????????????
--
John Boyle
Martin Milan
2005-08-11 21:16:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by john boyle
Post by Martin Milan
Post by john boyle
The aerials have nothing to do with it. It detects the energy from
within the TV itself.
I thought the signal was transmitted from the ariel...
No
Post by Martin Milan
My question
remains though - how do they differentiate signals? But okay then -
assuming transmission from the set itself - how can they tell which
house the offending set is in, if the tvs are both back to back
against a common wall.
The equipment is sufficiently accurate. In any event, if the TVs where
that close then it really makes no difference. The purpose of the
detector van is two fold. The first is to scare the unlicensed viewer
into buying a licence, the second is to save the hassle of knocking on
every door that doesnt have a licence. The van enables the jackboot
men to concentrate on those houses that have a TV on at that moment.
Knocking on the door and then speaking in a fashion that scares the
occupant, they gain entry and Bob's your uncle!
And you find this conduct acceptable, do you? You might want to ask the
TVL roughly what proportion of their targets are female single parents.
I don't like the idea of them putting the frighteners on these people,
even if they have broken the law...

If they want entry to my home, they would need a warrant. If they forced
entry without one, I would be tempted to rightly conclude that my home
was under attack from individuals with the same legal authority as the
Betterware girl (ie none), and view them as actionable accordingly. One
clear verbal warning, and then removed through force.
Post by john boyle
Post by Martin Milan
I'm thinking signal echos and indirect paths, I'm thinking multiple
signals on the same frequency, and I'm thinking the TVL are not going
to have EM absorption data for both my wall and my neighbours (ruling
out triangulation). Oh yes - and the plans to our homes (more walls
inside the property causing more absorption)... Hell - while we're
about it, wouldn't accurate triangulation rely upon three detector
vans - or at the very least a constant signal strength at emission
while the TVL chaps drive to three seperate locations...
No No No, you are getting this all out of hand. I think it was you who
said there were no prosecutions based on detector van evidence. Thats
is true. Its just a labour saving device for the inspectors.
It is very much the point. They should be pursuing people with
reasonable evidence that they HAVE broken the law, rather than a mild
suspicion that they MAY have broken it.

They seem to take the view that they can write their offensive drivel to
anyone they like, and not worry about the considerable number of
innocent people they are harrassing with this drivel. I object to that,
and I'm bloody minded enough to take the view that if they wrote such a
letter to me, I would deliberately set out to have some fun and make
their lives as difficult as I possibly could.
Post by john boyle
Post by Martin Milan
How about background
radiation from this wonderful universe of ours?
Ahh, well that is uniform in a given area so is irrelevant.
Caught me with my pants down there - I wasn't thinking.
Post by john boyle
Post by Martin Milan
I'm probably missing the point here, but go on - enlighten me...
Perhaps! see above
Post by Martin Milan
The TVL's main weapon is not technological - it's psychological. It
all seems based on fear and harrassment
I agree.
Post by Martin Milan
- and yes - I do have a TV License -
though only because I share my home with an uncle who watches it.
Personally, I listen to radio more than anything, and could happily
get by without TV...
WHAT!! NO PATRICK MOORE????????????????????
No.

This is a very sad statement for a lad of my tender years (30), but I
have found many of the programmes on Radio 4 and Classic FM better
suited to my tastes...
john boyle
2005-08-11 22:47:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Milan
Post by john boyle
The equipment is sufficiently accurate. In any event, if the TVs where
that close then it really makes no difference. The purpose of the
detector van is two fold. The first is to scare the unlicensed viewer
into buying a licence, the second is to save the hassle of knocking on
every door that doesnt have a licence. The van enables the jackboot
men to concentrate on those houses that have a TV on at that moment.
Knocking on the door and then speaking in a fashion that scares the
occupant, they gain entry and Bob's your uncle!
And you find this conduct acceptable, do you?
I most certainly do not!!! I think its atrocious! What on earth gave you
that idea? Surely my sarcasm was noticeable?
Post by Martin Milan
You might want to ask the
TVL roughly what proportion of their targets are female single parents.
I don't like the idea of them putting the frighteners on these people,
even if they have broken the law...
If they want entry to my home, they would need a warrant. If they forced
entry without one, I would be tempted to rightly conclude that my home
was under attack from individuals with the same legal authority as the
Betterware girl (ie none), and view them as actionable accordingly. One
clear verbal warning, and then removed through force.
I concur!
Post by Martin Milan
Post by john boyle
No No No, you are getting this all out of hand. I think it was you who
said there were no prosecutions based on detector van evidence. Thats
is true. Its just a labour saving device for the inspectors.
It is very much the point. They should be pursuing people with
reasonable evidence that they HAVE broken the law, rather than a mild
suspicion that they MAY have broken it.
Wellllll,,,,,, I dont necessarily agree with that point. Its a bit like
speed cameras (which I detest as well before you fire another salvo at
me!)

As most (but admittedly not all) people watch TV it is not unreasonable
to assume that an address with no licence might just have somebody there
watching an unlicensed set. The success rate of the vans is remarkably
high (apparently). By complete chance there is the half yearly article
in my local paper tonight describing how many people were nicked last
time the vans were here and watch out. They seem to feed a story to the
newspapers a week or so before they are due to panic people into buying
licences.
Post by Martin Milan
They seem to take the view that they can write their offensive drivel to
anyone they like, and not worry about the considerable number of
innocent people they are harrassing with this drivel. I object to that,
and I'm bloody minded enough to take the view that if they wrote such a
letter to me, I would deliberately set out to have some fun and make
their lives as difficult as I possibly could.
I agree. My office occupies what was a shop on ground floor and a
residential flat upstairs. It is now converted into a single suite of
offices. The old address for the flat continues to get very strong
letters from the licensing people asking me to send a form back
confirming I Havent got a TV. I just throw them away.
Post by Martin Milan
Post by john boyle
Post by Martin Milan
How about background
radiation from this wonderful universe of ours?
Ahh, well that is uniform in a given area so is irrelevant.
Caught me with my pants down there - I wasn't thinking.
Thats ok, Ill turn my back whilst you put them on again.
Post by Martin Milan
Post by john boyle
WHAT!! NO PATRICK MOORE????????????????????
No.
This is a very sad statement for a lad of my tender years (30), but I
have found many of the programmes on Radio 4 and Classic FM better
suited to my tastes...
PIP PIP!

All the best!
--
John Boyle
Martin Milan
2005-08-13 09:31:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by john boyle
Post by Martin Milan
And you find this conduct acceptable, do you?
I most certainly do not!!! I think its atrocious! What on earth gave
you that idea? Surely my sarcasm was noticeable?
To someone else perhaps - it passed me by completely...
Post by john boyle
Post by Martin Milan
It is very much the point. They should be pursuing people with
reasonable evidence that they HAVE broken the law, rather than a mild
suspicion that they MAY have broken it.
Wellllll,,,,,, I dont necessarily agree with that point. Its a bit
like speed cameras (which I detest as well before you fire another
salvo at me!)
S'alright - no salvos here...
Post by john boyle
As most (but admittedly not all) people watch TV it is not
unreasonable to assume that an address with no licence might just have
somebody there watching an unlicensed set.
The key word of course being "might" - as from your comment I can see
you would accept. But they shouldn't be pursuing people ust because
there is a possibility that they are breaking the law - they should wait
until they actually have some evidence to back that up... Of course, if
they actually work (which I still doubt), there is a role for detector
vans there...

I have a license, the reason I've gotten involved in all this is I have
a friend in Birmingham who does not - but he's fully compliant with the
law. His case all along has been that they shouldn't be sending him all
these threats without some evidence,and if that means that they have to
bring a TV detector van out and sit at the bottom of his garden (ie on
the public highway), then fine... But why start writing all this abuse
to someone who is just as likely to be innocent?
Post by john boyle
The success rate of the vans is remarkably
high (apparently).
If your source for that is the TVL themselves, I'd disregard it.
Post by john boyle
By complete chance there is the half yearly article
in my local paper tonight describing how many people were nicked last
time the vans were here and watch out. They seem to feed a story to
the newspapers a week or so before they are due to panic people into
buying licences.
They have a habit of doing that - it's being talked about on
www.tvlicensing.biz in the forum) at the moment. You'd think any editor
worth his salt would object to his publication being used as a
propaganda tool, wouldn't you?
Post by john boyle
Post by Martin Milan
They seem to take the view that they can write their offensive drivel
to anyone they like, and not worry about the considerable number of
innocent people they are harrassing with this drivel. I object to
such a letter to me, I would deliberately set out to have some fun and
make their lives as difficult as I possibly could.
I agree. My office occupies what was a shop on ground floor and a
residential flat upstairs. It is now converted into a single suite of
offices. The old address for the flat continues to get very strong
letters from the licensing people asking me to send a form back
confirming I Havent got a TV. I just throw them away.
That's one way of doing things. My unlicensed friend and I happen (in
addition to the day jobs) to be directors of a small software company.
We have a plan to turn up at TVL's offices and demand to inspect their
machines to see if they have any of our unlicensed software running
there. Of course, they won't have - and indeed they aren't going to
allow us to look at their machines - we already know that... The idea is
to see HOW they prevent us from doing that, and if it's not an option
open to people who don't have TVs, point out the discrepancy. Might be
satisfying to send out some nice abusive mail as well...
Post by john boyle
Post by Martin Milan
Post by john boyle
Post by Martin Milan
How about background
radiation from this wonderful universe of ours?
Ahh, well that is uniform in a given area so is irrelevant.
Caught me with my pants down there - I wasn't thinking.
Thats ok, Ill turn my back whilst you put them on again.
A good idea.
Post by john boyle
Post by Martin Milan
Post by john boyle
WHAT!! NO PATRICK MOORE????????????????????
No.
This is a very sad statement for a lad of my tender years (30), but I
have found many of the programmes on Radio 4 and Classic FM better
suited to my tastes...
PIP PIP!
All the best!
Same to you!
Joe Soap
2005-08-13 09:40:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Milan
That's one way of doing things. My unlicensed friend and I happen (in
addition to the day jobs) to be directors of a small software company.
We have a plan to turn up at TVL's offices and demand to inspect their
machines to see if they have any of our unlicensed software running
there. Of course, they won't have - and indeed they aren't going to
allow us to look at their machines - we already know that... The idea is
to see HOW they prevent us from doing that, and if it's not an option
open to people who don't have TVs, point out the discrepancy. Might be
satisfying to send out some nice abusive mail as well...
As you know, you will be wasting your time. Their response will be similar
to mine when a TVL says "Can I see your telly license please", which is "No
you bloody well can't. Get off my property.", after which they invariably
turn tail and scamper.
--
Joe Soap.
JUNK is stuff that you keep for 20 years,
then throw away a week before you need it.
Martin Milan
2005-08-14 11:23:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Soap
Post by Martin Milan
That's one way of doing things. My unlicensed friend and I happen (in
addition to the day jobs) to be directors of a small software
company. We have a plan to turn up at TVL's offices and demand to
inspect their machines to see if they have any of our unlicensed
software running there. Of course, they won't have - and indeed they
aren't going to allow us to look at their machines - we already know
that... The idea is to see HOW they prevent us from doing that, and
if it's not an option open to people who don't have TVs, point out
the discrepancy. Might be satisfying to send out some nice abusive
mail as well...
As you know, you will be wasting your time. Their response will be
similar to mine when a TVL says "Can I see your telly license please",
which is "No you bloody well can't. Get off my property.", after which
they invariably turn tail and scamper.
True, but at least then we can accuse them hypocracy.

Jan Hyde
2005-08-05 12:35:28 UTC
Permalink
"Iridology 101" <***@ntlworld.com>'s wild thoughts
were released on Fri, 05 Aug 2005 10:50:32 GMT bearing the
Post by Iridology 101
Hello all.
Can anyone tell me what it entails to dispense with not pay ing a tv
licence - is it enough to not have a tv aerial on your property so you are
unable to receive a signal?
As Jim said, remove the aerial and detune the TV is the best
advice.

Check out the link in my sig for advice on the TV licence



Jan Hyde (VB MVP)
--
Consummate: To pull the wool over the eyes of a spouse. (Cynthia MacGregor)

[Abolish the TV Licence - http://www.tvlicensing.biz/]
R. Mark Clayton
2005-08-05 13:05:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Iridology 101
Hello all.
Can anyone tell me what it entails to dispense with not pay ing a tv
licence - is it enough to not have a tv aerial on your property so you are
unable to receive a signal?
Thanks in advance
Grant
The main [unwitting] victims of this tend to be students, who think that
they can use a TV away from home. They can, but it needs to be battery
operated. The most sensible way to achieve this is probably a self powered
external USB TV dongle for their PC.
SimonJ
2005-08-05 17:32:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Mark Clayton
The main [unwitting] victims of this tend to be students, who think that
they can use a TV away from home. They can, but it needs to be battery
operated.
So if you have a normal TV, powered by a car battery/inverter setup, would
it be legal?
R. Mark Clayton
2005-08-05 18:29:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by SimonJ
Post by R. Mark Clayton
The main [unwitting] victims of this tend to be students, who think that
they can use a TV away from home. They can, but it needs to be battery
operated.
So if you have a normal TV, powered by a car battery/inverter setup, would
it be legal?
Not sure, I think the batteries have to be in it or it has to be designed to
run of batteries - I had an old black and white portable that even had a
special [supplied] lead for the purpose.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...