General : Crackdown as the number of homes without a TV licence increases to 7%.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

A lot of people pay magazine subscriptions or gym memberships and never use the products they are paying for.

When I first got cable, I had Sky, but took the basic cable TV service too as it was cheaper because it attracted a new customer offer.

As you say though, if people have got Sports/Cinema too it does look more suspicious.

You don't have to have a licence to attend the gym or read the magazines...

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Hugh

You don't have to have a licence to attend the gym or read the magazines...

I know, but my point is that you could claim (truthfully or otherwise) that you have a device that needs a licence for licenseable activity, but that you never use it for licenseable activity eg listening to the radio stations or that you don't use it at all.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I know, but my point is that you could claim (truthfully or otherwise) that you have a device that needs a licence for licenseable activity, but that you never use it for licenseable activity eg listening to the radio stations or that you don't use it at all.

You could argue it, then get found guilty...

I think people should just the licence instead of looking for loopholes. Non payers to be publically flogged (must be true what they say about you getting more right wing as you get older )

[RichardCoulter]

I'm just looking at it from the legal angle really without any moral slant.

If a licence was needed for using a dishwasher and someone purchased one, but decided not to use it and continue to wash up in the sink, they could argue that they didn't need a licence.

You're right though, claiming to do something that's perfectly possible, but unlikely (even if actually true) is no guarantee that you'd be found not guilty of committing the criminal offence of TV licence evasion. Is it worth it for little over three quid a week?

[Mythica]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I'm just looking at it from the legal angle really without any moral slant.

If a licence was needed for using a dishwasher and someone purchased one, but decided not to use it and continue to wash up in the sink, they could argue that they didn't need a licence.

You're right though, claiming to do something that's perfectly possible, but unlikely (even if actually true) is no guarantee that you'd be found not guilty of committing the criminal offence of TV licence evasion. Is it worth it for little over three quid a week?

If someone purchased a dishwasher, that's not a problem. If someone purchased a dishwasher and detergent and put the pots in the dishwasher, then it's harder to argue.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Mythica

If someone purchased a dishwasher, that's not a problem. If someone purchased a dishwasher and detergent and put the pots in the dishwasher, then it's harder to argue.

Very true.