Author Topic: Tandem fatalities in Bristol  (Read 5117 times)

Kim

  • Timelord
    • Fediverse
Re: Tandem fatlities in Bristol
« Reply #25 on: 26 May, 2013, 09:57:54 pm »
If you buy a TV the shop must inform the TV Licensing folk...

I bought a NAS (literally an embedded server appliance thing, not a tuner in sight) and PC World informed the TV Licencing folk.  I assume it had been flagged in some database because it proclaimed ability to store video files as a feature.   :facepalm:

Cudzoziemiec

  • Ride adventurously and stop for a brew.
Re: Tandem fatalities in Bristol
« Reply #26 on: 27 May, 2013, 04:25:51 pm »
A TV licence is a tax on TV ownership, for which you become liable by owning a TV, rather than a licence to watch television. It's entirely possible to own an untaxed, un-MOTed, uninsured motor vehicle, not have a driving licence, and still not break the law (because you never drive on the road, or you have a chauffeur, Harvey Jones style, or whatever). However, it would be rare, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to coordinate DVLA with local plod so that a visit is made when an unlicenced driver buys a car.

None of which alters the fact that this driver had been caught driving while banned 11 times.
Riding a concrete path through the nebulous and chaotic future.

hellymedic

  • Just do it!
Re: Tandem fatalities in Bristol
« Reply #27 on: 27 May, 2013, 04:52:26 pm »
A TV that is used only to watch pre-recorded videos does not need a licence. The license is to receive broadcasts at the time they are transmitted.

Re: Tandem fatalities in Bristol
« Reply #28 on: 27 May, 2013, 05:28:44 pm »
Oh don't start this one again (by the way hellymedic is 100% correct)

Anyway a TV licence is more analogous to a road fund licence* than a driving licence, otherwise each person in the house would need a TV licence before they could watch it.


* ETA - that was deliberate. A TV licence is a tax, as is VED.
Quote from: tiermat
that's not science, it's semantics.