3 ms·

I'm fairly sure that even if you own a box that can receive TV you don't need to pay the license if you don't actually use it to watch TV. Having said that, gi

I'm fairly sure that even if you own a box that can receive TV you don't need to pay the license if you don't actually use it to watch TV. Having said that, given the recent changes in the laws I would recommend getting a TV licence anyway since the burden of proof lies on you to prove you don't use the device rather than them to prove that you do. Furthermore enforcement it is a criminal matter which adds a level of annoyance if you get convicted.

kelnage 10y ago
On not needing a license if you have a TV but don't watch TV: that's exactly what I said. I disagree with your second point. I have not had a TV license for 4+ years now, even though I own several devices capable of receiving TV broadcasts. Every two years the TV licensing people get in touch and check that I still don't need a TV license. Very smooth, no issues. I'd be very interested if you could show me the part of the law where they assume guilt. Since it is a criminal conviction, the usual standard is they'd need to have evidence "beyond reasonable doubt".
- JupiterMoon 10y ago
  On first point apologies I misread your post. However with regards your chances if enforcement decides you have infringed... Some random statistics pulled from the newspaper hits on the first page of Google for "tv licensing conviction". 10% of cases in magistrates courts are TV licensing related (200,000 cases a year). If they decide that you are one of the people that they prosecute your case will take minutes to be heard on a day when the magistrate hears a lot of cases of cases. 90% of TV licensing cases that go to court end in conviction. Most of these cases are indeed open-and-shut (the classic is "why do I have to pay for a tv licence when I already pay Sky?" - which is pretty much an admission of guilt). Do you really expect a fair trial under these conditions?

kelnage 10y ago

On not needing a license if you have a TV but don't watch TV: that's exactly what I said. I disagree with your second point. I have not had a TV license for 4+ years now, even though I own several devices capable of receiving TV broadcasts. Every two years the TV licensing people get in touch and check that I still don't need a TV license. Very smooth, no issues. I'd be very interested if you could show me the part of the law where they assume guilt. Since it is a criminal conviction, the usual standard is they'd need to have evidence "beyond reasonable doubt".

JupiterMoon 10y ago
On first point apologies I misread your post. However with regards your chances if enforcement decides you have infringed... Some random statistics pulled from the newspaper hits on the first page of Google for "tv licensing conviction". 10% of cases in magistrates courts are TV licensing related (200,000 cases a year). If they decide that you are one of the people that they prosecute your case will take minutes to be heard on a day when the magistrate hears a lot of cases of cases. 90% of TV licensing cases that go to court end in conviction. Most of these cases are indeed open-and-shut (the classic is "why do I have to pay for a tv licence when I already pay Sky?" - which is pretty much an admission of guilt). Do you really expect a fair trial under these conditions?