Received 20th February:
https://ibb.co/7trHykC9
When does this (four such harassing letters received since November)
become unlawful?
On 23/02/2026 16:07, Peter Able wrote:
Received 20th February:
https://ibb.co/7trHykC9
When does this (four such harassing letters received since November)
become unlawful?
When you pay them what you owe, probably.
On 24/02/2026 08:04, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/02/2026 16:07, Peter Able wrote:I suspect that any electronic payment system would reject an attempt to execute a payment of -u0.00.
Received 20th February:
https://ibb.co/7trHykC9
When does this (four such harassing letters received since November)
become unlawful?
When you pay them what you owe, probably.
On 24/02/2026 08:04, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/02/2026 16:07, Peter Able wrote:I suspect that any electronic payment system would reject an attempt to execute a payment of -u0.00.
Received 20th February:
https://ibb.co/7trHykC9
When does this (four such harassing letters received since November)
become unlawful?
When you pay them what you owe, probably.
On 24/02/2026 19:19, Peter Able wrote:
On 24/02/2026 08:04, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/02/2026 16:07, Peter Able wrote:I suspect that any electronic payment system would reject an attempt
Received 20th February:
https://ibb.co/7trHykC9
When does this (four such harassing letters received since November)
become unlawful?
When you pay them what you owe, probably.
to execute a payment of -u0.00.
On what basis do you say you owe them nothing?
At least statistically, that's unlikely.
On 24/02/2026 08:04, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/02/2026 16:07, Peter Able wrote:I suspect that any electronic payment system would reject an attempt to execute a payment of -u0.00.
Received 20th February:
https://ibb.co/7trHykC9
When does this (four such harassing letters received since November)
become unlawful?
When you pay them what you owe, probably.
On 25/02/2026 08:29, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:19, Peter Able wrote:I submit
On 24/02/2026 08:04, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/02/2026 16:07, Peter Able wrote:I suspect that any electronic payment system would reject an attempt
Received 20th February:
https://ibb.co/7trHykC9
When does this (four such harassing letters received since
November) become unlawful?
When you pay them what you owe, probably.
to execute a payment of -u0.00.
On what basis do you say you owe them nothing?
At least statistically, that's unlikely.
https://ibb.co/8DzYcYJ2
to
https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/telling-us- you-dont-need-a-tv-licence
every time I receive TVL correspondence.
On 24/02/2026 19:19, Peter Able wrote:
On 24/02/2026 08:04, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/02/2026 16:07, Peter Able wrote:I suspect that any electronic payment system would reject an attempt
Received 20th February:
https://ibb.co/7trHykC9
When does this (four such harassing letters received since November)
become unlawful?
When you pay them what you owe, probably.
to execute a payment of -u0.00.
Some years back, I found it profitable to mail them to say that they
were welcome to come and inspect my gaff, but recommended making an appointment as the address is a farm property complete with dogs in the yard, an aggressive bull, exposed silage pits and frequent shooting
parties.
They never took up my offer...
On 24/02/2026 19:19, Peter Able wrote:
On 24/02/2026 08:04, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/02/2026 16:07, Peter Able wrote:
Received 20th February:
https://ibb.co/7trHykC9
When does this (four such harassing letters received since November)
become unlawful?
When you pay them what you owe, probably.
I suspect that any electronic payment system would reject an attempt
to execute a payment of -u0.00.
On what basis do you say you owe them nothing?
At least statistically, that's unlikely.
On 25/02/2026 10:27, Les. Hayward wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:19, Peter Able wrote:
On 24/02/2026 08:04, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/02/2026 16:07, Peter Able wrote:I suspect that any electronic payment system would reject an attempt
Received 20th February:
https://ibb.co/7trHykC9
When does this (four such harassing letters received since
November) become unlawful?
When you pay them what you owe, probably.
to execute a payment of -u0.00.
Some years back, I found it profitable to mail them to say that they
were welcome to come and inspect my gaff, but recommended making an
appointment as the address is a farm property complete with dogs in
the yard, an aggressive bull, exposed silage pits and frequent
shooting parties.
They never took up my offer...
Should they always believe such dog and bull stories though?
On 25/02/2026 11:15, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/02/2026 10:27, Les. Hayward wrote:Well, in principle it was genuine info! I also added that there were a number of TV receivers around, either for repair or student training in
On 24/02/2026 19:19, Peter Able wrote:
On 24/02/2026 08:04, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/02/2026 16:07, Peter Able wrote:I suspect that any electronic payment system would reject an attempt
Received 20th February:
https://ibb.co/7trHykC9
When does this (four such harassing letters received since
November) become unlawful?
When you pay them what you owe, probably.
to execute a payment of -u0.00.
Some years back, I found it profitable to mail them to say that they
were welcome to come and inspect my gaff, but recommended making an
appointment as the address is a farm property complete with dogs in
the yard, an aggressive bull, exposed silage pits and frequent
shooting parties.
They never took up my offer...
Should they always believe such dog and bull stories though?
the field of radio technology (which was entirely true.)
On 25/02/2026 08:29 am, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:19, Peter Able wrote:
On 24/02/2026 08:04, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/02/2026 16:07, Peter Able wrote:
Received 20th February:
https://ibb.co/7trHykC9
When does this (four such harassing letters received since
November) become unlawful?
When you pay them what you owe, probably.
I suspect that any electronic payment system would reject an attempt
to execute a payment of -u0.00.
On what basis do you say you owe them nothing?
Only two possibilities there:
(a) He has already bought a BBC Tax "licence"
(b) He has not watched (at home) any broadcast television or used the iPlayer.
Is there a third?
On 25/02/2026 17:48, Les. Hayward wrote:
On 25/02/2026 11:15, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/02/2026 10:27, Les. Hayward wrote:Well, in principle it was genuine info! I also added that there were a
On 24/02/2026 19:19, Peter Able wrote:
On 24/02/2026 08:04, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/02/2026 16:07, Peter Able wrote:I suspect that any electronic payment system would reject an
Received 20th February:
https://ibb.co/7trHykC9
When does this (four such harassing letters received since
November) become unlawful?
When you pay them what you owe, probably.
attempt to execute a payment of -u0.00.
Some years back, I found it profitable to mail them to say that they
were welcome to come and inspect my gaff, but recommended making an
appointment as the address is a farm property complete with dogs in
the yard, an aggressive bull, exposed silage pits and frequent
shooting parties.
They never took up my offer...
Should they always believe such dog and bull stories though?
number of TV receivers around, either for repair or student training
in the field of radio technology (which was entirely true.)
What is something that is 'in principle' true?
On 25/02/2026 09:38, JNugent wrote:
On 25/02/2026 08:29 am, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:19, Peter Able wrote:
On 24/02/2026 08:04, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/02/2026 16:07, Peter Able wrote:
Received 20th February:
https://ibb.co/7trHykC9
When does this (four such harassing letters received since
November) become unlawful?
When you pay them what you owe, probably.
I suspect that any electronic payment system would reject an attempt
to execute a payment of -u0.00.
On what basis do you say you owe them nothing?
Only two possibilities there:
(a) He has already bought a BBC Tax "licence"
(b) He has not watched (at home) any broadcast television or used the
iPlayer.
Is there a third?
The answer is, basically, (b) - since the end of August 2021.
On 25/02/2026 18:46, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/02/2026 17:48, Les. Hayward wrote:I did not in fact have a bull...
On 25/02/2026 11:15, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/02/2026 10:27, Les. Hayward wrote:Well, in principle it was genuine info! I also added that there were
On 24/02/2026 19:19, Peter Able wrote:
On 24/02/2026 08:04, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/02/2026 16:07, Peter Able wrote:I suspect that any electronic payment system would reject an
Received 20th February:
https://ibb.co/7trHykC9
When does this (four such harassing letters received since
November) become unlawful?
When you pay them what you owe, probably.
attempt to execute a payment of -u0.00.
Some years back, I found it profitable to mail them to say that
they were welcome to come and inspect my gaff, but recommended
making an appointment as the address is a farm property complete
with dogs in the yard, an aggressive bull, exposed silage pits and
frequent shooting parties.
They never took up my offer...
Should they always believe such dog and bull stories though?
a number of TV receivers around, either for repair or student
training in the field of radio technology (which was entirely true.)
What is something that is 'in principle' true?
On 26/02/2026 10:14, Peter Able wrote:
On 25/02/2026 09:38, JNugent wrote:
On 25/02/2026 08:29 am, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:19, Peter Able wrote:
On 24/02/2026 08:04, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/02/2026 16:07, Peter Able wrote:
Received 20th February:
https://ibb.co/7trHykC9
When does this (four such harassing letters received since
November) become unlawful?
When you pay them what you owe, probably.
I suspect that any electronic payment system would reject an
attempt to execute a payment of -u0.00.
On what basis do you say you owe them nothing?
Only two possibilities there:
(a) He has already bought a BBC Tax "licence"
(b) He has not watched (at home) any broadcast television or used the
iPlayer.
Is there a third?
The answer is, basically, (b) - since the end of August 2021.
What do you mean 'basically'?
That word implies not absolutely wholly,
In any case, a licence is required for more than is stated in (b) above.
On 26/02/2026 10:49, Les. Hayward wrote:
On 25/02/2026 18:46, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/02/2026 17:48, Les. Hayward wrote:I did not in fact have a bull...
On 25/02/2026 11:15, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/02/2026 10:27, Les. Hayward wrote:Well, in principle it was genuine info! I also added that there were
On 24/02/2026 19:19, Peter Able wrote:
On 24/02/2026 08:04, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/02/2026 16:07, Peter Able wrote:I suspect that any electronic payment system would reject an
Received 20th February:
https://ibb.co/7trHykC9
When does this (four such harassing letters received since
November) become unlawful?
When you pay them what you owe, probably.
attempt to execute a payment of -u0.00.
Some years back, I found it profitable to mail them to say that
they were welcome to come and inspect my gaff, but recommended
making an appointment as the address is a farm property complete
with dogs in the yard, an aggressive bull, exposed silage pits and >>>>>> frequent shooting parties.
They never took up my offer...
Should they always believe such dog and bull stories though?
a number of TV receivers around, either for repair or student
training in the field of radio technology (which was entirely true.)
What is something that is 'in principle' true?
Or any of the rest?
On 26/02/2026 10:45, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/02/2026 10:14, Peter Able wrote:
On 25/02/2026 09:38, JNugent wrote:
On 25/02/2026 08:29 am, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:19, Peter Able wrote:
On 24/02/2026 08:04, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/02/2026 16:07, Peter Able wrote:
Received 20th February:
https://ibb.co/7trHykC9
When does this (four such harassing letters received since
November) become unlawful?
When you pay them what you owe, probably.
I suspect that any electronic payment system would reject an
attempt to execute a payment of -u0.00.
On what basis do you say you owe them nothing?
Only two possibilities there:
(a) He has already bought a BBC Tax "licence"
(b) He has not watched (at home) any broadcast television or used
the iPlayer.
Is there a third?
The answer is, basically, (b) - since the end of August 2021.
What do you mean 'basically'?
That word implies not absolutely wholly,
Correct.
For example a comprehensive (b) would have mentioned the
iPlayer S4C-specific exemption and the right to use iPlayer other than
to watch, Download or Record programme material
On 26/02/2026 12:02, Peter Able wrote:
On 26/02/2026 10:45, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/02/2026 10:14, Peter Able wrote:
On 25/02/2026 09:38, JNugent wrote:
On 25/02/2026 08:29 am, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:19, Peter Able wrote:
On 24/02/2026 08:04, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/02/2026 16:07, Peter Able wrote:
Received 20th February:
https://ibb.co/7trHykC9
When does this (four such harassing letters received since
November) become unlawful?
When you pay them what you owe, probably.
I suspect that any electronic payment system would reject an
attempt to execute a payment of -u0.00.
On what basis do you say you owe them nothing?
Only two possibilities there:
(a) He has already bought a BBC Tax "licence"
(b) He has not watched (at home) any broadcast television or used
the iPlayer.
Is there a third?
The answer is, basically, (b) - since the end of August 2021.
What do you mean 'basically'?
That word implies not absolutely wholly,
Correct.
So, what you said is just misleading.
For example a comprehensive (b) would have mentioned the iPlayer
S4C-specific exemption and the right to use iPlayer other than to
watch, Download or Record programme material
iPlayer exists to do just those things and, as far as I'm aware, does nothing else.
So, using iPlayer at all, apart from watching S4C on catch-up (ie not
live or as live), which seems a rather isolated existence, requires a licence.
Perhaps you'd now tell us honestly, which you seem to have avoided so
far, just what you use all the screens at the premises (including
phones, tablets, laptops, PCs, TVs, video recorders etc) for as regards
any programmes made for television.
Then we'll be able to have a better idea of whether you need a licence.
On 26/02/2026 15:16, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/02/2026 12:02, Peter Able wrote:
On 26/02/2026 10:45, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/02/2026 10:14, Peter Able wrote:
On 25/02/2026 09:38, JNugent wrote:
On 25/02/2026 08:29 am, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:19, Peter Able wrote:
On 24/02/2026 08:04, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/02/2026 16:07, Peter Able wrote:
Received 20th February:
https://ibb.co/7trHykC9
When does this (four such harassing letters received since >>>>>>>>>> November) become unlawful?
When you pay them what you owe, probably.
I suspect that any electronic payment system would reject an
attempt to execute a payment of -u0.00.
On what basis do you say you owe them nothing?
Only two possibilities there:
(a) He has already bought a BBC Tax "licence"
(b) He has not watched (at home) any broadcast television or used >>>>>> the iPlayer.
Is there a third?
The answer is, basically, (b) - since the end of August 2021.
What do you mean 'basically'?
That word implies not absolutely wholly,
Correct.
So, what you said is just misleading.
What "what you said"?
For example a comprehensive (b) would have mentioned the iPlayer S4C-
specific exemption and the right to use iPlayer other than to watch,
Download or Record programme material
iPlayer exists to do just those things and, as far as I'm aware, does
nothing else.
As far as you're aware, Norman.
So, using iPlayer at all, apart from watching S4C on catch-up (ie not
live or as live), which seems a rather isolated existence, requires a
licence.
In your opinion, Norman.
Personally, I've found it very easy, and very
liberating, to give up all activities which demand a Television Licence.
Perhaps you'd now tell us honestly, which you seem to have avoided soYou seem to have a very comprehensive knowledge of my circumstances
far, just what you use all the screens at the premises (including
phones, tablets, laptops, PCs, TVs, video recorders etc) for as
regards any programmes made for television.
yet little with regard to legislation regarding TV licensing
- or is it that you are just a troll?
Then we'll be able to have a better idea of whether you need a licence.
I've already done that:
https://ibb.co/8DzYcYJ2
And the reply from TVL is:
"Based on your answers, it looks like you don't need a TV Licence"
O
Why have you got iPlayer if you have, and for what do you use it?
On 26/02/2026 12:02, Peter Able wrote:
On 26/02/2026 10:45, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/02/2026 10:14, Peter Able wrote:
On 25/02/2026 09:38, JNugent wrote:
On 25/02/2026 08:29 am, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:19, Peter Able wrote:
On 24/02/2026 08:04, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/02/2026 16:07, Peter Able wrote:
Received 20th February:
https://ibb.co/7trHykC9
When does this (four such harassing letters received since
November) become unlawful?
When you pay them what you owe, probably.
I suspect that any electronic payment system would reject an
attempt to execute a payment of -u0.00.
On what basis do you say you owe them nothing?
Only two possibilities there:
(a) He has already bought a BBC Tax "licence"
(b) He has not watched (at home) any broadcast television or used
the iPlayer.
Is there a third?
The answer is, basically, (b) - since the end of August 2021.
What do you mean 'basically'?
That word implies not absolutely wholly,
Correct.
So, what you said is just misleading.
For example a comprehensive (b) would have mentioned the iPlayer S4C-
specific exemption and the right to use iPlayer other than to watch,
Download or Record programme material
iPlayer exists to do just those things and, as far as I'm aware, does nothing else.
So, using iPlayer at all, apart from watching S4C on catch-up (ie not
live or as live), which seems a rather isolated existence, requires a licence.
Perhaps you'd now tell us honestly, which you seem to have avoided so
far, just what you use all the screens at the premises (including
phones, tablets, laptops, PCs, TVs, video recorders etc) for as regards
any programmes made for television.
On 26/02/2026 16:27, Peter Able wrote:
On 26/02/2026 15:16, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/02/2026 12:02, Peter Able wrote:
On 26/02/2026 10:45, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/02/2026 10:14, Peter Able wrote:
On 25/02/2026 09:38, JNugent wrote:
On 25/02/2026 08:29 am, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/02/2026 19:19, Peter Able wrote:
On 24/02/2026 08:04, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/02/2026 16:07, Peter Able wrote:
Received 20th February:
https://ibb.co/7trHykC9
When does this (four such harassing letters received since >>>>>>>>>>> November) become unlawful?
When you pay them what you owe, probably.
I suspect that any electronic payment system would reject an >>>>>>>>> attempt to execute a payment of -u0.00.
On what basis do you say you owe them nothing?
Only two possibilities there:
(a) He has already bought a BBC Tax "licence"
(b) He has not watched (at home) any broadcast television or used >>>>>>> the iPlayer.
Is there a third?
The answer is, basically, (b) - since the end of August 2021.
What do you mean 'basically'?
That word implies not absolutely wholly,
Correct.
So, what you said is just misleading.
What "what you said"?
It's all there above.
For example a comprehensive (b) would have mentioned the iPlayer
S4C- specific exemption and the right to use iPlayer other than to
watch, Download or Record programme material
iPlayer exists to do just those things and, as far as I'm aware, does
nothing else.
As far as you're aware, Norman.
Why have you got iPlayer if you have, and for what do you use it?
So, using iPlayer at all, apart from watching S4C on catch-up (ie not
live or as live), which seems a rather isolated existence, requires a
licence.
In your opinion, Norman.
No, it's not 'in my opinion' but the legal fact of the matter.
Personally, I've found it very easy, and very liberating, to give up
all activities which demand a Television Licence.
So you say.-a What we were trying to establish, though, is whether you
have succeeded.
Perhaps you'd now tell us honestly, which you seem to have avoided soYou seem to have a very comprehensive knowledge of my circumstances
far, just what you use all the screens at the premises (including
phones, tablets, laptops, PCs, TVs, video recorders etc) for as
regards any programmes made for television.
Not so.-a I wouldn't have asked what I-a did if I had.-a Would you care to tell us now please?
-a-
yet little with regard to legislation regarding TV licensing
Hardly.-a Everything I've said here has been based on the licensing law.
- or is it that you are just a troll?
I think those who don't and won't answer simple relevant questions fit
that designation rather more than me.
Then we'll be able to have a better idea of whether you need a licence.
I've already done that:
https://ibb.co/8DzYcYJ2
And the reply from TVL is:
"Based on your answers, it looks like you don't need a TV Licence"
'Based on your answers' to them, of course it does.
I also don't have a TV licence, I believe I have no legal obligation to
get one. I just had a look at iPlayer to see if I was missing anything, apparently not. BBC output is just sad compared to what it once was.
Perhaps you'd now tell us honestly, which you seem to have avoided so
far, just what you use all the screens at the premises (including
phones, tablets, laptops, PCs, TVs, video recorders etc) for as
regards any programmes made for television.
YouTube, AmazonPrime, NetFlix, Rumble, various sites providing their own video.
Also watching recordings, BitTorrent etc might be a copyright violation,
but it is not a violation of the TV licence.
Many young people don't watch BBC or live content, and never have.
The licence model just doesn't work. If you want everyone to pay, make
that a legal requirement, or let the BBC fund itself.
My preference would be to fund a cheap simple information service out of taxation and let the expensive stuff be handled by subscription or adverts.
On 2/26/26 18:58, Norman Wells wrote:
iPlayer is a normal website. If you look at the BBC News website it has links that take you to iPlayer without you intending it. I don't think
Why have you got iPlayer if you have, and for what do you use it?
it lets you play stuff without registering, but it lets you look at what
is available.
On 25/02/2026 11:15, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/02/2026 10:27, Les. Hayward wrote:Well, in principle it was genuine info! I also added that there were a >number of TV receivers around, either for repair or student training in
On 24/02/2026 19:19, Peter Able wrote:
On 24/02/2026 08:04, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/02/2026 16:07, Peter Able wrote:I suspect that any electronic payment system would reject an attempt
Received 20th February:
https://ibb.co/7trHykC9
When does this (four such harassing letters received since
November) become unlawful?
When you pay them what you owe, probably.
to execute a payment of -u0.00.
Some years back, I found it profitable to mail them to say that they
were welcome to come and inspect my gaff, but recommended making an
appointment as the address is a farm property complete with dogs in
the yard, an aggressive bull, exposed silage pits and frequent
shooting parties.
They never took up my offer...
Should they always believe such dog and bull stories though?
the field of radio technology (which was entirely true.)
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 17:48:51 +0000, "Les. Hayward"
<les@nospam.invalid> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 11:15, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/02/2026 10:27, Les. Hayward wrote:Well, in principle it was genuine info! I also added that there were a
On 24/02/2026 19:19, Peter Able wrote:
On 24/02/2026 08:04, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/02/2026 16:07, Peter Able wrote:I suspect that any electronic payment system would reject an attempt >>>>> to execute a payment of -u0.00.
Received 20th February:
https://ibb.co/7trHykC9
When does this (four such harassing letters received since
November) become unlawful?
When you pay them what you owe, probably.
Some years back, I found it profitable to mail them to say that they
were welcome to come and inspect my gaff, but recommended making an
appointment as the address is a farm property complete with dogs in
the yard, an aggressive bull, exposed silage pits and frequent
shooting parties.
They never took up my offer...
Should they always believe such dog and bull stories though?
number of TV receivers around, either for repair or student training in
the field of radio technology (which was entirely true.)
Does that work not require switching the receivers on and checking
that they are receiving service?
On 2/26/26 18:58, Norman Wells wrote:
O
Why have you got iPlayer if you have, and for what do you use it?
iPlayer is a normal website. If you look at the BBC News website it has links that take you to iPlayer without you intending it. I don't think
it lets you play stuff without registering, but it lets you look at what
is available.
On 27/02/2026 13:35, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 17:48:51 +0000, "Les. Hayward"No, you could work with a signal generator or a test card generator, or
<les@nospam.invalid> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 11:15, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/02/2026 10:27, Les. Hayward wrote:Well, in principle it was genuine info! I also added that there were a
On 24/02/2026 19:19, Peter Able wrote:
On 24/02/2026 08:04, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/02/2026 16:07, Peter Able wrote:I suspect that any electronic payment system would reject an attempt >>>>>> to execute a payment of -u0.00.
Received 20th February:
https://ibb.co/7trHykC9
When does this (four such harassing letters received since
November) become unlawful?
When you pay them what you owe, probably.
Some years back, I found it profitable to mail them to say that they >>>>> were welcome to come and inspect my gaff, but recommended making an
appointment as the address is a farm property complete with dogs in
the yard, an aggressive bull, exposed silage pits and frequent
shooting parties.
They never took up my offer...
Should they always believe such dog and bull stories though?
number of TV receivers around, either for repair or student training in
the field of radio technology (which was entirely true.)
Does that work not require switching the receivers on and checking
that they are receiving service?
just modulate some RF from a normal video signal,
On 27/02/2026 11:30, Pancho wrote:
I also don't have a TV licence, I believe I have no legal obligation
to get one. I just had a look at iPlayer to see if I was missing
anything, apparently not. BBC output is just sad compared to what it
once was.
Perhaps you'd now tell us honestly, which you seem to have avoided so
far, just what you use all the screens at the premises (including
phones, tablets, laptops, PCs, TVs, video recorders etc) for as
regards any programmes made for television.
YouTube, AmazonPrime, NetFlix, Rumble, various sites providing their
own video.
Also watching recordings, BitTorrent etc might be a copyright
violation, but it is not a violation of the TV licence.
And you don't care about that?-a If not, why not?
Many young people don't watch BBC or live content, and never have.
The licence model just doesn't work. If you want everyone to pay, make
that a legal requirement, or let the BBC fund itself.
My preference would be to fund a cheap simple information service out
of taxation and let the expensive stuff be handled by subscription or
adverts.
Ah, so you want the news, and you want it free.
Anything else, like some sport for example?
Do you *never* watch anything live or as live at present?-a If not, it
seems a somewhat strange and unnecessary desire if the licence fee is abolished.
On 27/02/2026 11:30, Pancho wrote:
I also don't have a TV licence, I believe I have no legal obligation
to get one. I just had a look at iPlayer to see if I was missing
anything, apparently not. BBC output is just sad compared to what it
once was.
Perhaps you'd now tell us honestly, which you seem to have avoided so
far, just what you use all the screens at the premises (including
phones, tablets, laptops, PCs, TVs, video recorders etc) for as
regards any programmes made for television.
YouTube, AmazonPrime, NetFlix, Rumble, various sites providing their
own video.
Also watching recordings, BitTorrent etc might be a copyright
violation, but it is not a violation of the TV licence.
And you don't care about that?-a If not, why not?
Many young people don't watch BBC or live content, and never have.
The licence model just doesn't work. If you want everyone to pay, make
that a legal requirement, or let the BBC fund itself.
My preference would be to fund a cheap simple information service out
of taxation and let the expensive stuff be handled by subscription or
adverts.
Ah, so you want the news, and you want it free.
Anything else, like some sport for example?
Do you *never* watch anything live or as live at present?-a If not, it
seems a somewhat strange and unnecessary desire if the licence fee is abolished.
On 27/02/2026 11:34 am, Pancho wrote:
On 2/26/26 18:58, Norman Wells wrote:
O
Why have you got iPlayer if you have, and for what do you use it?
iPlayer is a normal website. If you look at the BBC News website it
has links that take you to iPlayer without you intending it. I don't
think it lets you play stuff without registering, but it lets you look
at what is available.
Anything from BBC TV is accessible only after clicking to say that you
have a "TV licence" (ie, that you have paid the BBC Tax).
I'm not sure whether the same applies to BBC Sounds (effectively the
iPlayer for radio, for which one does not need a "licence").
On 27/02/2026 20:54, Les. Hayward wrote:
On 27/02/2026 13:35, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 17:48:51 +0000, "Les. Hayward"No, you could work with a signal generator or a test card generator,
<les@nospam.invalid> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 11:15, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/02/2026 10:27, Les. Hayward wrote:Well, in principle it was genuine info! I also added that there were a >>>> number of TV receivers around, either for repair or student training in >>>> the field of radio technology (which was entirely true.)
On 24/02/2026 19:19, Peter Able wrote:
On 24/02/2026 08:04, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/02/2026 16:07, Peter Able wrote:I suspect that any electronic payment system would reject an attempt >>>>>>> to execute a payment of -u0.00.
Received 20th February:
https://ibb.co/7trHykC9
When does this (four such harassing letters received since
November) become unlawful?
When you pay them what you owe, probably.
Some years back, I found it profitable to mail them to say that they >>>>>> were welcome to come and inspect my gaff, but recommended making an >>>>>> appointment as the address is a farm property complete with dogs in >>>>>> the yard, an aggressive bull, exposed silage pits and frequent
shooting parties.
They never took up my offer...
Should they always believe such dog and bull stories though?
Does that work not require switching the receivers on and checking
that they are receiving service?
or just modulate some RF from a normal video signal,
Does that count as 'radio technology'?-a It doesn't seem like it to me.
On 27/02/2026 15:16, JNugent wrote:policies/radio-tv-licence
On 27/02/2026 11:34 am, Pancho wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/help/questions/about-bbc-sounds-and-our-
On 2/26/26 18:58, Norman Wells wrote:
O
Why have you got iPlayer if you have, and for what do you use it?
iPlayer is a normal website. If you look at the BBC News website it
has links that take you to iPlayer without you intending it. I don't
think it lets you play stuff without registering, but it lets you look
at what is available.
Anything from BBC TV is accessible only after clicking to say that you
have a "TV licence" (ie, that you have paid the BBC Tax).
I'm not sure whether the same applies to BBC Sounds (effectively the
iPlayer for radio, for which one does not need a "licence").
"Do I need a TV licence to listen to BBC radio online?
"You don't need a TV licence to use BBC Sounds. The law applies to
watching and downloading TV programmes, including via BBC iPlayer."
So, No.
On 2/27/26 13:05, Norman Wells wrote:
On 27/02/2026 11:30, Pancho wrote:
I also don't have a TV licence, I believe I have no legal obligation
to get one. I just had a look at iPlayer to see if I was missing
anything, apparently not. BBC output is just sad compared to what it
once was.
Perhaps you'd now tell us honestly, which you seem to have avoided
so far, just what you use all the screens at the premises (including
phones, tablets, laptops, PCs, TVs, video recorders etc) for as
regards any programmes made for television.
YouTube, AmazonPrime, NetFlix, Rumble, various sites providing their
own video.
Also watching recordings, BitTorrent etc might be a copyright
violation, but it is not a violation of the TV licence.
And you don't care about that?-a If not, why not?
Whether I care or not isn't pertinent to the need for a TVL.
FWIW, I'm ambivalent. The justifications for copyright are very complex.
I'm really not qualified to comment on the reasonableness of the current system.
Many young people don't watch BBC or live content, and never have.
The licence model just doesn't work. If you want everyone to pay,
make that a legal requirement, or let the BBC fund itself.
My preference would be to fund a cheap simple information service out
of taxation and let the expensive stuff be handled by subscription or
adverts.
Ah, so you want the news, and you want it free.
It's a webpage. If it is free I read it, but I read the BBC less and
less each year.
Anything else, like some sport for example?
Sport is something to do, not to watch. If I really wanted to watch live sport I could go and watch it at a pub, but I don't.
Do you *never* watch anything live or as live at present?-a If not, it
seems a somewhat strange and unnecessary desire if the licence fee is
abolished.
I never watch live. What is important about live, as opposed to one hour old?
I would like not to get a threatening letter every month. Plus, I could
use a good cheap public information service,
On 27/02/2026 21:09, Norman Wells wrote:
On 27/02/2026 20:54, Les. Hayward wrote:As an electronics engineer, I can assure you that it does!
On 27/02/2026 13:35, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 17:48:51 +0000, "Les. Hayward"No, you could work with a signal generator or a test card generator,
<les@nospam.invalid> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 11:15, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/02/2026 10:27, Les. Hayward wrote:Well, in principle it was genuine info! I also added that there were a >>>>> number of TV receivers around, either for repair or student
On 24/02/2026 19:19, Peter Able wrote:
On 24/02/2026 08:04, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/02/2026 16:07, Peter Able wrote:I suspect that any electronic payment system would reject an
Received 20th February:
https://ibb.co/7trHykC9
When does this (four such harassing letters received since >>>>>>>>>> November) become unlawful?
When you pay them what you owe, probably.
attempt
to execute a payment of -u0.00.
Some years back, I found it profitable to mail them to say that they >>>>>>> were welcome to come and inspect my gaff, but recommended making an >>>>>>> appointment as the address is a farm property complete with dogs in >>>>>>> the yard, an aggressive bull, exposed silage pits and frequent
shooting parties.
They never took up my offer...
Should they always believe such dog and bull stories though?
training in
the field of radio technology (which was entirely true.)
Does that work not require switching the receivers on and checking
that they are receiving service?
or just modulate some RF from a normal video signal,
Does that count as 'radio technology'?-a It doesn't seem like it to me.
On 28/02/2026 16:31, Les. Hayward wrote:
On 27/02/2026 21:09, Norman Wells wrote:
On 27/02/2026 20:54, Les. Hayward wrote:As an electronics engineer, I can assure you that it does!
On 27/02/2026 13:35, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 17:48:51 +0000, "Les. Hayward"No, you could work with a signal generator or a test card generator,
<les@nospam.invalid> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 11:15, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/02/2026 10:27, Les. Hayward wrote:Well, in principle it was genuine info! I also added that there
On 24/02/2026 19:19, Peter Able wrote:
On 24/02/2026 08:04, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/02/2026 16:07, Peter Able wrote:I suspect that any electronic payment system would reject an >>>>>>>>> attempt
Received 20th February:
https://ibb.co/7trHykC9
When does this (four such harassing letters received since >>>>>>>>>>> November) become unlawful?
When you pay them what you owe, probably.
to execute a payment of -u0.00.
Some years back, I found it profitable to mail them to say that >>>>>>>> they
were welcome to come and inspect my gaff, but recommended making an >>>>>>>> appointment as the address is a farm property complete with dogs in >>>>>>>> the yard, an aggressive bull, exposed silage pits and frequent >>>>>>>> shooting parties.
They never took up my offer...
Should they always believe such dog and bull stories though?
were a
number of TV receivers around, either for repair or student
training in
the field of radio technology (which was entirely true.)
Does that work not require switching the receivers on and checking
that they are receiving service?
or just modulate some RF from a normal video signal,
Does that count as 'radio technology'?-a It doesn't seem like it to me.
Normally, however, regardless of what he *could* do, a repairer or
trainer of others would not restrict himself in that way, would he?-a He would want to ensure that the TV receivers were actually capable of receiving broadcast signals which is what they are almost invariably
used for.
If I were an inspector, I'd be thinking it very likely that the farm had
a cockerel to go with the bull.
On 28/02/2026 00:30, Pancho wrote:
On 2/27/26 13:05, Norman Wells wrote:
On 27/02/2026 11:30, Pancho wrote:
I also don't have a TV licence, I believe I have no legal obligation
to get one. I just had a look at iPlayer to see if I was missing
anything, apparently not. BBC output is just sad compared to what it
once was.
Perhaps you'd now tell us honestly, which you seem to have avoided
so far, just what you use all the screens at the premises
(including phones, tablets, laptops, PCs, TVs, video recorders etc) >>>>> for as regards any programmes made for television.
YouTube, AmazonPrime, NetFlix, Rumble, various sites providing their
own video.
Also watching recordings, BitTorrent etc might be a copyright
violation, but it is not a violation of the TV licence.
And you don't care about that?-a If not, why not?
Whether I care or not isn't pertinent to the need for a TVL.
FWIW, I'm ambivalent. The justifications for copyright are very
complex. I'm really not qualified to comment on the reasonableness of
the current system.
How very convenient!-a It means in your own mind you're free to do
whatever you want.
But the justification for copyright is not in the least complex.-a It
boils down to this: why should you be free to use the creative efforts
of others, whose livelihoods may well depend on them, for free and
without even a by-your-leave?
Many young people don't watch BBC or live content, and never have.
The licence model just doesn't work. If you want everyone to pay,
make that a legal requirement, or let the BBC fund itself.
My preference would be to fund a cheap simple information service
out of taxation and let the expensive stuff be handled by
subscription or adverts.
Ah, so you want the news, and you want it free.
It's a webpage. If it is free I read it, but I read the BBC less and
less each year.
So, why do you want a 'cheap simple information service' provided out of taxation?-a It seems from what you self-certify that you manage perfectly well without it and don't need it at all.
Anything else, like some sport for example?
Sport is something to do, not to watch. If I really wanted to watch
live sport I could go and watch it at a pub, but I don't.
Do you *never* watch anything live or as live at present?-a If not, it
seems a somewhat strange and unnecessary desire if the licence fee is
abolished.
I never watch live. What is important about live, as opposed to one
hour old?
A lot of people like immediacy.
I would like not to get a threatening letter every month. Plus, I
could use a good cheap public information service,
Which you want everyone else to pay for.
On 28/02/2026 16:52, Norman Wells wrote:
If I were an inspector, I'd be thinking it very likely that the farmI am of the opinion that your continued input to the debate is entirely vexatious. I therefore withdraw from it.
had a cockerel to go with the bull.
On 28/02/2026 23:12, Les. Hayward wrote:
On 28/02/2026 16:52, Norman Wells wrote:
If I were an inspector, I'd be thinking it very likely that the farmI am of the opinion that your continued input to the debate is
had a cockerel to go with the bull.
entirely vexatious. I therefore withdraw from it.
Without making any personal allegations whatsoever, and just speaking generally, it is my view that most of those who do not pay for a
television licence do in fact need one.
On 2/28/26 15:02, Norman Wells wrote:
On 28/02/2026 00:30, Pancho wrote:
On 2/27/26 13:05, Norman Wells wrote:
On 27/02/2026 11:30, Pancho wrote:
I also don't have a TV licence, I believe I have no legal
obligation to get one. I just had a look at iPlayer to see if I was >>>>> missing anything, apparently not. BBC output is just sad compared
to what it once was.
Perhaps you'd now tell us honestly, which you seem to have avoided >>>>>> so far, just what you use all the screens at the premises
(including phones, tablets, laptops, PCs, TVs, video recorders
etc) for as regards any programmes made for television.
YouTube, AmazonPrime, NetFlix, Rumble, various sites providing
their own video.
Also watching recordings, BitTorrent etc might be a copyright
violation, but it is not a violation of the TV licence.
And you don't care about that?-a If not, why not?
Whether I care or not isn't pertinent to the need for a TVL.
FWIW, I'm ambivalent. The justifications for copyright are very
complex. I'm really not qualified to comment on the reasonableness of
the current system.
How very convenient!-a It means in your own mind you're free to do
whatever you want.
I'm not convinced in the justification for individuals to amass huge fortunes. Unfortunately this belief doesn't mean I'm free to withdraw
money from Elon Musk's bank account.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am the type of contemptible fellow who
would help myself to a bit of Elon's cash, if I could, consequence free.
To avoid further debate, I would not take money from a poor beggar in
the street. I'm not sure where I would draw the line, but I would draw it.
I thought we were discussing the TVL.
You were making an argument that
people who don't have licences must be doing so in breach of TVL requirements. I was just pointing out why this was no longer the case. Pointing out that there was a huge amount of exempt content out there.
The fact that you or I may disapprove of that content does not change
the fact that it doesn't require a TVL. For clarity, I don't actually
use all these content sources myself.
But the justification for copyright is not in the least complex.-a It
boils down to this: why should you be free to use the creative efforts
of others, whose livelihoods may well depend on them, for free and
without even a by-your-leave?
Defending their creative efforts for at least 70 years after they are dead?
Many young people don't watch BBC or live content, and never have.
The licence model just doesn't work. If you want everyone to pay,
make that a legal requirement, or let the BBC fund itself.
My preference would be to fund a cheap simple information service
out of taxation and let the expensive stuff be handled by
subscription or adverts.
Ah, so you want the news, and you want it free.
It's a webpage. If it is free I read it, but I read the BBC less and
less each year.
So, why do you want a 'cheap simple information service' provided out
of taxation?-a It seems from what you self-certify that you manage
perfectly well without it and don't need it at all.
That is one of the purposes of government. To organise community
services: roads, education, health, defence.
Some-a TV content benefits the nation, health care, election manifestos, education, exposure of misinformation. Services that are not
commercially viable. These services aren't necessarily expensive. The
BBC made the mistake of trying to compete with the private sector for audience share. Paying celebrities huge salaries to boost audience. The current BBC budget is bloated.
Anything else, like some sport for example?
Sport is something to do, not to watch. If I really wanted to watch
live sport I could go and watch it at a pub, but I don't.
Do you *never* watch anything live or as live at present?-a If not,
it seems a somewhat strange and unnecessary desire if the licence
fee is abolished.
I never watch live. What is important about live, as opposed to one
hour old?
A lot of people like immediacy.
Possibly, but why do they care? It seems to me the broadcast TV
emphasised live delivery, because it was an inherent characteristic of
the service. In real life, people like to chose when to watch.
I would like not to get a threatening letter every month. Plus, I
could use a good cheap public information service,
Which you want everyone else to pay for.
Well, I like roads, hospitals, too. Your argument seemed to be that
almost everyone required a TVL, in which case the most efficient way of funding it is via general taxation. Administering the TVL separately
costs money, so why bother?
On 01/03/2026 10:37, Norman Wells wrote:
On 28/02/2026 23:12, Les. Hayward wrote:
On 28/02/2026 16:52, Norman Wells wrote:
If I were an inspector, I'd be thinking it very likely that the farmI am of the opinion that your continued input to the debate is
had a cockerel to go with the bull.
entirely vexatious. I therefore withdraw from it.
Without making any personal allegations whatsoever, and just speaking
generally, it is my view that most of those who do not pay for a
television licence do in fact need one.
While I am certain you are indeed correct, I can think of a friend who doesn't have a TV and the only live event she watches every year is Wimbledon.
She is of the kind who would be willing to pay for a license for 2 weeks
but not for a year.
I can think of a friend who doesn't have a TV and the only live event she watches every year is Wimbledon.
On 2/28/26 15:02, Norman Wells wrote:
Well, I like roads, hospitals, too. Your argument seemed to be thatI would like not to get a threatening letter every month. Plus, I
could use a good cheap public information service,
Which you want everyone else to pay for.
almost everyone required a TVL, in which case the most efficient way of funding it is via general taxation. Administering the TVL separately
costs money, so why bother?
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 19:30:46 |
| Calls: | 810 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| D/L today: |
10 files (21,017K bytes) |
| Messages: | 194,291 |