Criminal damage, theft, possession of drugs and TV licence evasion.

 

Can you spot the odd one out?

 

Given the subject of the TV Licensing Blog it's bound to be TV licence evasion, but do you know the reason why?

 

Well done if you spotted that the first three offences are commonly dealt with by way of a conditional discharge. For whatever reason the judiciary deems TV licence evasion, an offence with no victim whatsoever, more punishable than the likes of criminal damage and assault, where the victim is quite evident.

 

Great news earlier this week that the Magistrates' Court Sentencing Guidelines, which advise Magistrates' Courts in England and Wales how to pass sentence, will be updated in April to include the option of imposing a conditional discharge on anyone convicted of TV licence evasion.

 

Currently anyone convicted of TV licence evasion faces a fine of around half their relevant weekly income, which normally equates to somewhere in the region of £100. Repeat or long term offenders face a greater fine, but even then it is unlikely to be more than about £200. The theoretical maximum fine for TV licence evasion is £1,000, which TV Licensing mentions a lot for deterrent purposes.

 

In addition to the fine, the court normally orders the defendant to make a contribution towards TV Licensing's prosecution costs. TV Licensing makes an application for costs in every case, but the court can refuse or award a smaller sum.

 

From the beginning of April the minimum suggested penalty for TV licence evasion will be a conditional discharge. This penalty is likely to be used in the case of short term, first time or accidental offenders or those on low incomes.

 

Philip Davies, the plain speaking Conservative MP for Shipley, said: "There is a growing unhappiness about the licence fee and being forced to pay for something whether they want it or not."

 

He continued: "This is a further nail in the coffin of the licence fee, because the more it becomes unenforceable, the more the BBC will have to find another method of funding."

 

Andrew Bridgen, a fellow Conservative MP that campaigns against the TV licence fee, said: "If someone cannot afford to pay the £145.50 licence then they are highly unlikely to be in a position to pay a £1,000 fine. People are being criminalised where their only crime is being poor and this needs to stop."

 

The relaxation of penalties is a welcome move and one which the Magistrates' Association has been seeking for many years. With any luck it signifies a step closer to decriminalisation of this most trivial and unjust of offences.

 

http://tv-licensing.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/magistrates-review-tv-licence-evasion.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook&m=1

There isn't just one victim, all licence payers are victims since the funding for their program is reduced by the army of non-payers.

 

I don't buy the poverty excuse, the £2.80 a week is often equal to or much less than what they spend on beer daily and a fraction of the price of the cigarettes they often smoke. And it's peanuts compared to the viewing pleasure they get from the high popularity TV programs that they watch each week.

.

.

Wow..what a sweeping statement...flecc you seem to think everyone on low incomes/benifits drink everyday...£2.80 a week is a lot when your on a pittance anyway....£2.80 = 4 tins of beans..half dozen eggs...as for the tv licence..i refuse to help fund an orginisation that protects paedo,s...

Wow..what a sweeping statement...flecc you seem to think everyone on low incomes/benifits drink everyday...£2.80 a week is a lot when your on a pittance anyway....

 

I didn't infer drinking every day. I referred to the £2.80 a week for the licence being equal to a pint or a part of a packet of cigarettes, which would therefore be once a week.

 

I agree that £2.80 is a lot of money to waste on drinking alcohol or smoking when one is poor, but please don't try to convince me that most of the poor don't do those. There's an abundance of evidence that most do regularly.

.

Quote...the £2.80 a week is often equal to or much less than what they spend on beer daily...that infers THEY drink daily...whoever THEY are..think you been watching too much channel 5.

think you been watching too much channel 5.

 

I've no idea what that means, I'm a stranger to that channel, the advertised program titles are more than enough to keep me away.

.

the advertised program titles are more than enough to keep me away.

 

I expected to get opposition when I posted in support of the licence, knowing how unpopular it is.

 

I stick to my guns though, we have to pay for what we receive, even the absolute essentials of life like food, so I see nothing wrong in paying for the extras that cost others to produce.

 

There are many things people have to do without when they can't be afforded, and TV can be one of them, we aren't forced to have a set.

.

[ATTACH=full]17469[/ATTACH]

 

Issue 1, Spring 1997.

 

Was that a statement of program intentions?!

 

Judging from more recent program titles alone, largely unfulfilled it seems.

.

A tv can be used for other things besides watching progs....computer/games..home made vids etc...people are required to buy a licence because of the paedo protectors...if i could remove their channels from my tv ..i would.

people are required to buy a licence because of the paedo protectors...if i could remove their channels from my tv ..i would.

 

Goodness gracious! How’s about that, then? Now then, now then, we'll have none of that as it 'appens, guys and gals! woohoohoo.!

A tv can be used for other things besides watching progs....computer/games..home made vids etc...

 

A licence is only required for a television receiver, anyone can use a set as a monitor for these other purposes without a licence. With no aerial connected it's legal, but one can disconnect or have disconnected the aerial input or tuner to make that usage beyond dispute.

 

The anti-licence argument "But I don't watch BBC TV" is very widespread. However, the staggering viewing figures for some of their programs makes it easy to believe that most claiming that cannot be telling the truth.

.

A licence is only required for a television receiver, anyone can use a set as a monitor for these other purposes without a licence. With no aerial connected it's legal, but one can disconnect or have disconnected the aerial input or tuner to make that usage beyond dispute.

 

The anti-licence argument "But I don't watch BBC TV" is very widespread. However, the staggering viewing figures for some of their programs makes it easy to believe that most claiming that cannot be telling the truth.

.

 

My understanding of the act is any apparatus capable of receiving live broadcasts is subject to the licence requirement . If it can provide sound it is deemed a radio and if it can produce vision a tv. Merely removing an antenna would not suffice. So a vhs video recorder linked to a monitor meets this definition, as these contained tuners.

Add on boxes, USB TV sticks etc as used with computers are included in the definition.

I am speculating that older analogue only TVs would now be exempt because they cannot receive live broadcasts.

My understanding of the act is any apparatus capable of receiving live broadcasts is subject to the licence requirement . If it can provide sound it is deemed a radio and if it can produce vision a tv. Merely removing an antenna would not suffice. So a vhs video recorder linked to a monitor meets this definition, as these contained tuners.

Add on boxes, USB TV sticks etc as used with computers are included in the definition.

I am speculating that older analogue only TVs would now be exempt because they cannot receive live broadcasts.

 

Agreed, but if the aerial input is internally disconnected or the tuner is disabled as I've suggested, than the set is no longer a receiving apparatus under the meaning of the act.

 

Obviously if a recorder or similar with an incorporated tuner is connected, it's internal aerial connection or tuner must also be disabled to prevent receiving.

.

There isn't just one victim, all licence payers are victims since the funding for their program is reduced by the army of non-payers.

 

I don't buy the poverty excuse, the £2.80 a week is often equal to or much less than what they spend on beer daily and a fraction of the price of the cigarettes they often smoke. And it's peanuts compared to the viewing pleasure they get from the high popularity TV programs that they watch each week.

.

.

And..

They probably already have sky sports..... and how much is that..

There isn't just one victim, all licence payers are victims since the funding for their program is reduced by the army of non-payers.

 

I don't buy the poverty excuse, the £2.80 a week is often equal to or much less than what they spend on beer daily and a fraction of the price of the cigarettes they often smoke. And it's peanuts compared to the viewing pleasure they get from the high popularity TV programs that they watch each week.

.

.

http://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/don-8217-t-have-a-tv-licence-here-8217-s-how-you-can-still-watch-tv-legally/story-30084981-detail/story.html

 

i think when you pay for your tv licence you should get a code to log in to the site as would not be hard to do as it is all going to be on line sooner or later and sky is now also doing this if you cant have a dish.

 

i can watch all the virgin channels on line but have to log in each time.

 

tho the bbc wont like that as will cut there funding in half over night imo.

I have never understood the tv detector van thing.. if they assume that every household has a TV and send a bill to all that aren't registered they won't be far out.

I have never understood the tv detector van thing.. if they assume that every household has a TV and send a bill to all that aren't registered they won't be far out.

 

The French do it differently, there is a household tax , based on size of holding etc and they add the TV licence automatically onto that. They also send out a declaration form which one sends back if one is claiming an exemption, one needs to explicitly opt out . The range of exemption s include whether one does not have TV to whether you have multiple houses as one licence per household is the law.

i dont think there was any more vans than a handful if that tho these days could use ur ip address to see if you are watching iplayer or not but they dont do that?

 

every kid has a Mobil phone these days so there not going to go after them are they thus want every house to pay the licence fee if they use the service or not.

I have never understood the tv detector van thing.. if they assume that every household has a TV and send a bill to all that aren't registered they won't be far out.

 

Detector vans could be used when it was analogue TV but I understand can no longer reliably detect digital TV or position it within a building.

 

They do assume exactly as you suggested, sending demands to all not registered on their database.

.

whether you have multiple houses as one licence per household is the law.

 

Similar to the UK, except we allow a student studying away, such as in a university, to also have a TV under the home household licence.

.

my uncles friend had one of them goons out stating they had a van and could tell he had a tv in his house but he was over 75 so did not have to pay it anyway and wanted to see inside the house so said ok fine he has been dead for 2 months pmsl

my uncles friend had one of them goons out stating they had a van and could tell he had a tv in his house but he was over 75 so did not have to pay it anyway and wanted to see inside the house so said ok fine he has been dead for 2 months pmsl

 

That makes no sense to me ... Can you translate?