Post Polio Syndrome And Arthritis Of...
Body & Soul3 mins ago
Tv Licence Loophole ? What Is Live Tv.
On th news today they were interviewing a man who claimed he didn't need to pay his TV licence as ; I quote " I never watch anything live ! I only watch things like i player or are on the Internet which have been recorded
elsewhere. I personally never record anything. " Therefore at no time did he watch anything 'live ' as specified on the TV licence.
No one from the TV Licencing Authority was prepared to be interviewed so
there was no further discussion, but it occurred to me how much of our programmes are truly live. maybe the odd sporting event , or the odd 'live '
interview but I'm told even that has a 10 second delay so that anything obcene can be bleeped out. Films, documentaries , shows of all sorts, all the repeats etc. None are live.
This only leaves a few spectacles , fireworks, carnivals, jubilie , royal events etc, that can be called live , and then they in turn are repeated.
Has the interviewee got a case ?
elsewhere. I personally never record anything. " Therefore at no time did he watch anything 'live ' as specified on the TV licence.
No one from the TV Licencing Authority was prepared to be interviewed so
there was no further discussion, but it occurred to me how much of our programmes are truly live. maybe the odd sporting event , or the odd 'live '
interview but I'm told even that has a 10 second delay so that anything obcene can be bleeped out. Films, documentaries , shows of all sorts, all the repeats etc. None are live.
This only leaves a few spectacles , fireworks, carnivals, jubilie , royal events etc, that can be called live , and then they in turn are repeated.
Has the interviewee got a case ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by modeller. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
By 'live' they mean ''if you don’t watch or record television programmes as they are being shown on TV'':
http://
http://
Does it not say watch the television programmes .One time a mate told me that the licence people knocked on a persons door and they were watching television in colour ,their information was the was a black and white licence purched for this address .The owner said it was black and white but the kids must have been watching a colour video ..The licence guy did not swallow had a fair old laugh and advised a colour licence be bought pronto
"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 others have said, "live" in this context means "as originally broadcast"
If he's only watching iPlayer he doesn't need a licence, despite the fact that he's availing himself of the services of the BBC.
You also need a licence if you own a TV, even if you don't watch the BBC.
The rule about mobile phones is interesting. I wonder how that is enforced ...
As others have said, "live" in this context means "as originally broadcast"
If he's only watching iPlayer he doesn't need a licence, despite the fact that he's availing himself of the services of the BBC.
You also need a licence if you own a TV, even if you don't watch the BBC.
The rule about mobile phones is interesting. I wonder how that is enforced ...
>>>Wrong. We own a tv but have no aerial/dish etc. No need for us to buy a TV Licence.
While I agree that you won't be prosecuted for not having a licence, you almost certainly technically need one, since you've 'installed' a television set. Section 363 of the Telecommunication Act 2003 says "A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this Part."
The word 'installed' isn't defined, whereas the word 'use' is, with an option left open to the Secretary of State to change that definition without any need for primary legislation. (i.e. if the Secretary of State decides that viewing 'non-live' TV should henceforth require a licence, he doesn't need to seek the full consent of Parliament; he can simply make a new Regulation to the effect).
While I agree that you won't be prosecuted for not having a licence, you almost certainly technically need one, since you've 'installed' a television set. Section 363 of the Telecommunication Act 2003 says "A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this Part."
The word 'installed' isn't defined, whereas the word 'use' is, with an option left open to the Secretary of State to change that definition without any need for primary legislation. (i.e. if the Secretary of State decides that viewing 'non-live' TV should henceforth require a licence, he doesn't need to seek the full consent of Parliament; he can simply make a new Regulation to the effect).
Minor type above ('cos I was thinking of the wording of the previous legislation). It's now the 'Communications Act', not the 'Telecommunications Act'. The relevant part is Section 4:
http://
http://
There's lots of helpful information about this issue on the tv licensing website http://
Its only illegal if you watch or record as it is being broadcast live, and it doeasnt matter on what device you watch it on, its the word LIVE that is the crux.
You can watch legally whatever you want on whatever you want as long as its on catchup and not live or somebody with a licence has recorded it live and gives it to you to watch at a later time.
The Blatantly Biased C***S wanted a tax on all purchased Computers etc because of all the catchup.
as you correctly pointed out most of the garbage broadcast is repeats anyway.
apart from a few things there is absolutely no reason why watching something the next day or wheneve makes any difference.
even the news is 24h on the internet and far better than the non stop rolling news on the BBC channels etc
You can watch legally whatever you want on whatever you want as long as its on catchup and not live or somebody with a licence has recorded it live and gives it to you to watch at a later time.
The Blatantly Biased C***S wanted a tax on all purchased Computers etc because of all the catchup.
as you correctly pointed out most of the garbage broadcast is repeats anyway.
apart from a few things there is absolutely no reason why watching something the next day or wheneve makes any difference.
even the news is 24h on the internet and far better than the non stop rolling news on the BBC channels etc
#You don't need a licence if you don't use any of these devices to watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV - for example, if you use your TV only to watch DVDs or play video games, or you only watch ‘catch up’ services like BBC iPlayer or 4oD#
That's interesting #as they're being shown on TV# . Which appears to cover everything . It doesn't use the word 'Live ' at all.
I see in Sweden they are considering abolishing the TV fee and replacing it with increase in general taxation, because of the multiplicity of devices able to receive TV programmes.
That's interesting #as they're being shown on TV# . Which appears to cover everything . It doesn't use the word 'Live ' at all.
I see in Sweden they are considering abolishing the TV fee and replacing it with increase in general taxation, because of the multiplicity of devices able to receive TV programmes.
"I see in Sweden they are considering abolishing the TV fee and replacing it with increase in general taxation, because of the multiplicity of devices able to receive TV programmes. "
they could always get rid of the fee here and make the BBC function like other business do on the open market, lets see how good they are and how many people want their "services" if they go subscription like most other channels do.
but knowing how greedy the HMRC is and how quick the government is to throw away our money all that would happen is they would say "oh well you're a couple of hundred quid better off now , so we can now increase taxes on other things and get it out of you that way instead"
they could always get rid of the fee here and make the BBC function like other business do on the open market, lets see how good they are and how many people want their "services" if they go subscription like most other channels do.
but knowing how greedy the HMRC is and how quick the government is to throw away our money all that would happen is they would say "oh well you're a couple of hundred quid better off now , so we can now increase taxes on other things and get it out of you that way instead"
"...make the BBC function like other business do on the open market"
The purpose of the BBC is not to act in "the open market" - it is primarily a public service broadcaster meant to offer a diverse range of programming which also caters for small groups as well as the majority.
For decades commercial TV has been reducing its (extremely limited) public service obligations - it whinges about having to provide News programming, and see how much Arts and Religion is aired on ITV.
The purpose of the BBC is not to act in "the open market" - it is primarily a public service broadcaster meant to offer a diverse range of programming which also caters for small groups as well as the majority.
For decades commercial TV has been reducing its (extremely limited) public service obligations - it whinges about having to provide News programming, and see how much Arts and Religion is aired on ITV.
>>>they could always get rid of the fee here and make the BBC function like other business do on the open market, lets see how good they are and how many people want their "services" if they go subscription like most other channels do.
With the advent of internet advertising (and advertising through social media), the amount of advertising revenue available to TV broadcasters has dropped dramatically. (In real terms it's little more than 10% of what it was at its peak). Many channels struggle to stay on air. In particular, ITV1 has real difficulties.
Many commercial broadcasters have indicated that if the BBC is to be funded by advertising (thus reducing the amount of revenue available for others) they will have to close. Getting rid of the licence fee (or an alternative form of public funding) would result in the loss of many (possibly most) independent channels. Is that what you really want, Baz?
It should be remembered that the BBC already gets much of its funding through commercial activities, as it co-owns UKTV (Dave, Yesterday, Really, GOLD, Alibi, Blighty, Good Food, Home, Watch & Eden).
With the advent of internet advertising (and advertising through social media), the amount of advertising revenue available to TV broadcasters has dropped dramatically. (In real terms it's little more than 10% of what it was at its peak). Many channels struggle to stay on air. In particular, ITV1 has real difficulties.
Many commercial broadcasters have indicated that if the BBC is to be funded by advertising (thus reducing the amount of revenue available for others) they will have to close. Getting rid of the licence fee (or an alternative form of public funding) would result in the loss of many (possibly most) independent channels. Is that what you really want, Baz?
It should be remembered that the BBC already gets much of its funding through commercial activities, as it co-owns UKTV (Dave, Yesterday, Really, GOLD, Alibi, Blighty, Good Food, Home, Watch & Eden).
whe it started out it was a "Public Service Broadcaster" there was no competition everything was differnt etc etc.......but things have moved on and changed since then, but in order to keep charging a tax to fund them, that tag will be kept.
Break it up and those parts that could still be considered a "public service" , charge a much reduced tax to fund them and the rest is hived off, better still use the hived of now "self sufficient due to the extremely high demand for its products" to go towards funding the still "public service" parts.
how anybody can defend them, the way they are funded and operated in todays world of broadcasting and media production and distribution is totally beyond me.
Break it up and those parts that could still be considered a "public service" , charge a much reduced tax to fund them and the rest is hived off, better still use the hived of now "self sufficient due to the extremely high demand for its products" to go towards funding the still "public service" parts.
how anybody can defend them, the way they are funded and operated in todays world of broadcasting and media production and distribution is totally beyond me.
Latest Posts
Why Would A Young Woman Do This To...
Beauty12 mins ago
News18 mins ago
Crosswords20 mins ago
Crosswords20 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.