Actually you don't have to chuck your TV out to exempt yourself from a licence.
Although they word it in such a way that most people will assume TV = need licence (clearly they do this on purpose), please note the boldificated part below:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TV Licence Agency
If you use a TV or any other device to receive or record TV programmes (for example, a VCR, set-top box, DVD recorder or PC with a broadcast card) - you need a TV Licence.
|
For example, upon my arrival, I found the reception in hall to be shit. Because of this, I don't have the aerial connected to the TV card in my PC, thus I don't have the ability to recieve TV, ergo I don't need a licence. And before any smartarse tries to correct me on this, I did take the time to check this out with the agency itself.
Why would you want a TV with no aerial? Games consoles, DVD/video watching, as a monitor (playback device for video editing), etc etc. The provision is there specifically to prevent the government taxing TV ownership itself. Unfortunately, they are still allowed to word it sneakily so that people who skim-read miss it, thus providing £++.
Another common misconception is that a TV in, say, the lounge of a shared flat with individual contracts (ie. licence required for each room) requires a licence. In fact, any licence for one of the contracted rooms also covers equipment in communal areas. Of course, if no-one has a licence then you still need to get one, but you may as well get one for one of the rooms rather than just licencing your lounge, seeing as it's covered either way.
I realise none of this helps the original question.
I'm sure the OP will shortly provide the topless shots to yahwe, and this will be resolved.
Also, has anyone else experienced the sheer stupidity of the agency's hired grunts?
After 4 letters, each increasingly threatening, each met with a phonecall from each person in the flat to explain that they didn't have a TV (or in my case, that I wasn't using it to recieve TV), they sent a grunt round to check. Twice.
On the first occasion we rolled our eyes and let him in.
By the second time, we were fed up of wasting our money phoning them to correct their database which clearly wasn't being updated anyway, so we refused him entry until he actually bothered to go get a policeman and a warrent, which he did. While he made an arse out of himself looking round the flat (and making me explain why I didn't need a ****ing licence for the millionth time), we informed the poor police officer of the agency's inability to keep any proper record of updates. He was less than impressed, especially when the grunt phoned the office to disprove our story, and miraculously they actually
did have the previous visit on record somewhere.
Can someone (ie. Yahwe) explain why the TV Licence lot are allowed to operate on the pretext of guilty until proven innocent?
I don't have any of the letters on me, but the gist of the last one was something like "Despite repeated requests you are still watching TV
illegally at <address>. An enforcement office will be visiting you shortly. If you would like to avoid the investigation, please call <number>."
What the hell? Why is it my responsibility to prove that I'm
not breaking the law? Last time I checked, that wasn't how the system was supposed to work. What happened to burden of proof?
It's the "debt collection" tone of the letters and the use of the word "illegal" in particular that really pisses me off.