TV Licence

[Boo Khaki]

Apologies, I'd always understood that non-payment is not a criminal offence in Scotland because Scots Law expressly prohibits private companies and individuals from threatening fines. 

It's a standard fixed-penalty if found guilty of non-payment, but not owning a licence is not in itself a criminal offence.

[Priti priti priti Patel]

2 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

https://youtu.be/3k3L82rCAhs

[Priti priti priti Patel]

1 hour ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

At least we know you won't be representing any master criminals.

Oh wait, you work in the city don't you?

I only mention being bang to rights because I can't see how I'd get off. I've no issue with representing master criminals, and the City is populated by the most masterful. Although I mainly get involved in disputes between themselves. I've purposefully chosen not to do white collar work. None of which is  to agree that I'm"high flying"... I just get paid reasonably for a shit muncher. 

[Boo Khaki]

From Wiki -

Quote

In Scotland, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Office undertakes prosecutions for TV licence evasion.^[180] Very few cases in Scotland come to court.

Instead of prosecution, in Scotland, TV licence fee evaders are usually asked by the Procurator Fiscal to pay a fiscal fine and a small number are simply given a warning. For example, in 2013–2014, just ten cases reached the courts whereas 12,969 people were asked to pay a fiscal fine, no action was taken in 275 cases, and 174 people were sent a warning. In addition, two people were asked to pay compensation and one person was offered the chance to pay a combination of fiscal fine and compensation.^[181] In 2013–14, almost all of the fiscal fines (12,603 out of 12,969) were at the level 2 rate of £75.^[181] In 2014–15, 13% of all fiscal fines in Scotland were issued for Communications Act offences, stated to be mainly TV licensing offences. The total number of fiscal fines imposed for these offences was 4,874.^[182] In 2015–16, 7,962 fiscal fines were issued for Communications Act offences, of which 72% were issued to women.^[183] In 2016–17, there were a total of 4,799 fiscal fines imposed for Communications Act offences.^[184]

In the years 2016/17 and 2017/18, prosecutions against suspected licence fee evaders were reduced to single figures. In 2016/17, 5 people were prosecuted of which 4 were found guilty. In the following year there were 6 prosecutions resulting in 5 guilty verdicts.^[185]

 

[Priti priti priti Patel]

Just now, Boo Khaki said:

From Wiki -

 

Fair enough. Scotland once again proving to be more liberal and sensible than the rest of the island.

[Boo Khaki]

I remember working with a woman about ten years back who was being chased by creditors. I can't recall what brought this about, but for some reason it emerged that she had an outstanding charge against her for some perceived wrongdoing. I can't seem to locate it on the net right now, but it was relayed to her in the manner that a 'Section 28' would be had it been B.O.P for example. I did a quick bit of google-fu and it turned out that this was the charge for non-payment of television licence. This came out of the blue to her, but I suspect her lack of knowledge was actually down to lack of capacity, and she simply didn't understand what was going on.

Anyway, she certainly wasn't being chased by the coppers in the way that you'd expect a criminal to be, I just found it odd that this was apparently relevant to credit checks and trying to open a bank account. 

[Theroadlesstravelled]

I wouldn’t be leaving my tea near any of you incase you steal the sugar out of it.

[Melanius Mullarkey]

9 hours ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

“Sorry Sarge but there seems to be an inflatable mattress blocking the door” 

[San Starko Rover]

Don’t pay it anymore and I don’t bother with live TV as it’s 99% utter shite anyway. Annoys me that you have to pay a licence fee to watch live tv, it should only be to watch BBC. Scrap the licence and make BBC a subscription service and see how many people buy their propaganda TV.

I’ll stick to Netflix and Amazon Prime which I choose to pay for. Only catch-up service I watch is Channel 4 as they have the occasional good series.

[The Mantis]

On 07/12/2020 at 14:16, ICTJohnboy said:

Given the amount of anti-Scottish, anti-independence bile that spews forth from the likes of Andrew Marr, Andrew Neil, Laura Kuenssberg, Nick Robinson, et all, I wouldn't blame anyone in Scotland for refusing to pay for a license.

BBC Scotland aren't much better.

 

I started filling in the online form in 2014 but you have to do it every 2 years. Eventually I just stopped as I thought ‘f**k them’. Now I get letters addressed to ’the occupier’ . Think I’ve got about 8 now and I’m just dying for Capita to come to the door so I can tell them to stick them up their erse. Also that I don’t want to support an organisation that shelters paedophiles.

Btw you don’t have to cut your cable or anything like that. You might want to start watching (watching is the actual offence, nothing else) in the future. There’s a fair bit of scaremongering involved so people think they can’t even own a tv and so on. Worth checking the masses of material online about what’s legal etc. 
The bottom line is that Capita are just a cowboy outfit who  get a cut for selling you a license, but they have about the same rights as somebody trying to sell you double glazing. 

[Ludo*1]

I watch the Friday BBC Championship game and that's about it. And even then, I've stopped since I moved into my new property. I hadn't set up a license within the first couple of weeks of moving into my new property and the threatening letters started. I've paid the license fee out of habit despite very rarely watching live TV, but they can now f**k themselves.

I'll still watch the BBC game should Dundee be involved, and I'd have got round to paying for the license until they started that scumbag behavior.

[Bigmouth Strikes Again]

3 hours ago, The Mantis said:

I started filling in the online form in 2014 but you have to do it every 2 years. Eventually I just stopped as I thought ‘f**k them’. Now I get letters addressed to ’the occupier’ . Think I’ve got about 8 now and I’m just dying for Capita to come to the door so I can tell them to stick them up their erse. Also that I don’t want to support an organisation that shelters paedophiles.

Btw you don’t have to cut your cable or anything like that. You might want to start watching (watching is the actual offence, nothing else) in the future. There’s a fair bit of scaremongering involved so people think they can’t even own a tv and so on. Worth checking the masses of material online about what’s legal etc. 
The bottom line is that Capita are just a cowboy outfit who  get a cut for selling you a license, but they have about the same rights as somebody trying to sell you double glazing. 

You would need to cut the cable, if by some miracle they got in his house, they could say you're hooked up to the aerial, so you're watching it.

Edited March 14, 2021 by Bigmouth Strikes Again

[strichener]

Taking down satellite dishes, cutting cables, taking down ariels. Complete waste of time ifnyou have a smart TV or computing device.  You need a TV licence for iPlayer so these 1990s methods of "proving" you don't watch telly are a little outdated.

. 

[The Mantis]

2 hours ago, Bigmouth Strikes Again said:

You would need to cut the cable, if by some miracle they got in his house, they could say you're hooked up to the aerial, so you're watching it.

Used to read a lot of forums on this but not recently, but surely the argument is they have to prove that you watch it. ( Which is why I’m saving the letters up as the tone of them assumes you’re guilty).  Another argument is if you only use your tv to listen to the radio which is free.  Maybe you can manually tune it to receive only radio. IMO what @strichener says lends weight to the argument against cutting/disabling etc.

[Boo Khaki]

The language is quite succinct. It states 'You require a licence if you intend to watch", hence why Capita can't credibly argue that you are liable simply by dint of the fact you own a TV/Smart Device/laptop/PC and do not have a licence. So in essence, yes, they have to categorically prove that you are watching live TV (good luck with that), or you have to essentially dob yourself in, which appears to overwhelmingly be how actual fines and prosecutions come about.

For example, there isn't a single instance of 'TV Detector' evidence being provided in court to pursue a prosecution. Odd, for something that they spend so much time putting the shiters up people about. Either it doesn't work, or it doesn't exist, but either way, the lack of it suggests again that there's actually not a thing Capita can realistically do to 'prove' you are watching TV without a licence, beyond witnessing it if you give them access to your property, or you yourself admitting to it.

[Wile E Coyote]

2 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

The language is quite succinct. It states 'You require a licence if you intend to watch", hence why Capita can't credibly argue that you are liable simply by dint of the fact you own a TV/Smart Device/laptop/PC and do not have a licence. So in essence, yes, they have to categorically prove that you are watching live TV (good luck with that), or you have to essentially dob yourself in, which appears to overwhelmingly be how actual fines and prosecutions come about.

For example, there isn't a single instance of 'TV Detector' evidence being provided in court to pursue a prosecution. Odd, for something that they spend so much time putting the shiters up people about. Either it doesn't work, or it doesn't exist, but either way, the lack of it suggests again that there's actually not a thing Capita can realistically do to 'prove' you are watching TV without a licence, beyond witnessing it if you give them access to your property, or you yourself admitting to it.

Detector vans do not exist. A TV is a receiver, not an emitter. There is nothing to detect..

Its amazing how the myth has grown about something that doesn't exist

[strichener]

38 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

The language is quite succinct. It states 'You require a licence if you intend to watch", hence why Capita can't credibly argue that you are liable simply by dint of the fact you own a TV/Smart Device/laptop/PC and do not have a licence. So in essence, yes, they have to categorically prove that you are watching live TV (good luck with that), or you have to essentially dob yourself in, which appears to overwhelmingly be how actual fines and prosecutions come about.

For example, there isn't a single instance of 'TV Detector' evidence being provided in court to pursue a prosecution. Odd, for something that they spend so much time putting the shiters up people about. Either it doesn't work, or it doesn't exist, but either way, the lack of it suggests again that there's actually not a thing Capita can realistically do to 'prove' you are watching TV without a licence, beyond witnessing it if you give them access to your property, or you yourself admitting to it.

Or look in your window.

Edited March 14, 2021 by strichener

[Wile E Coyote]

6 minutes ago, strichener said:

Or look in your window.

Yes. This is the reason I pay it. The layout of my house means if you stand on the pavement outside my house you can see my TV.

That and I have a 5 figure income and can afford it

[Boo Khaki]

14 hours ago, Wile E Coyote said:

Detector vans do not exist. A TV is a receiver, not an emitter. There is nothing to detect..

Its amazing how the myth has grown about something that doesn't exist

I'm aware of that, the point was that there's no indication that Capita do anything to actively 'detect' people who are watching without a licence. The prosecutions come through people who have either invited them in, admitted to watching, or are stupid enough to sit watching a set in full view of the street.