On 02/06/2023 14:05, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 11:08:58 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>> On 02/06/2023 10:43, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>> On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 14:04:55 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 01/06/2023 11:17, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 10:33:09 +0100, "Brian Gaff" <brian1gaff@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Under the current arrangements its hard to ditch bbc, as its a licence to
>>>>>> own a receiver.
>>>>>
>>>>> No it isn't. It's a licence to *use* a receiver to receive television
>>>>> *broadcasts*. You don't need a licence to own one.
>>>>
>>>> You actually need a licence to 'install' a television receiver too,
>>>> whatever that means these days.
>>>
>>> What if you 'install' one while you have a licence, and then cancel
>>> the licence? You wouldn't then need to install a TV without a licence
>>> because you'd just be using what was already there.
>>
>> Well, what the law says is:
>>
>> "A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the
>> installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence"
>>
>> It's a matter for debate whether 'be installed' is passive and means
>> present in an installed state, or whether it is active and only covers
>> the process of installation whatever that may be.
>
> Good. Then there's room to dispute any fatuous accusation.
>
>>> What if I 'install' a TV set as a display monitor and don't connect
>>> the tuner? What if the tuner is connected but I don't use it?
>>
>> If it has a tuned in tuner, it is clearly capable of receiving TV
>> signals with minimal effort, and I would say that's the critical point.
>> Otherwise, you could just pull the aerial out of the back or turn it off
>> and allege it wasn't installed, which I don't think would attract much
>> sympathy in court.
>
> I couldn't pull the aerial out of my TV set because there isn't one
> plugged into it. The Freeview disk recorders still have aerial feeds
> plugged in but they've been switched off for more than a year, and I
> have no intention of unplugging anything to appease someone who has no
> right to ask. As I'm not obliged to prove any of this to anyone, and
> nobody has the untrammelled right to inspect it, I can't imagine how
> the matter would ever get near a court.
>
> Having the capability to do something is not the same as doing it.
>
>>> It's all academic anyway, as nobody has the right to enter your home
>>> to inspect how you have your hi-fi/AV equipment set up. It's an
>>> absolutely ridiculous system.
>>
>> Detection is different from illegality.
>
> Understood and agreed, but so what? I'm not doing anything illegal,

Well, you may be, even if you think you aren't. You see, the Freeview
disk recorders are themselves 'television receivers' and are clearly
tuned in and capable of acting as such by the simple expedient of
turning them on.

> and if anyone thought I was, the burden of proof would be upon them. I
> think the principle of 'innocent unless proven guilty' still applies.

On 02/06/2023 13:49, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 12:15:50 +0100, Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>
>> On 02/06/2023 10:43, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>>
>>> It's all academic anyway, as nobody has the right to enter your home
>>> to inspect how you have your hi-fi/AV equipment set up.
>>>
>>
>> Enforcement officers rarely seek and get a warrant from the
>> Magistrates/Sheriffs but when they do so they are most definitely
>> entitled to enter and search your home.
>
> Wouldn't they have to be accompanied by a police officer?

They are routinely accompanied by uniformed constables but that is
because of the risk of a breach of the peace. It is not a requirement
of the law.

> It would
> then actually be the police officer who obtains and serves the
> warrant.

The relevant law is section 366 of the Communications Act 2003 (Powers
to enforce TV licensing). That provides that the people who can apply
for and get a warrant are anyone authorised for that purpose by the BBC
or OFCOM. No mention of the police anywhere and AFAIK neither OFCOM nor
the BBC authorise them.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/366

> As far as I know, the 'licence enforcement officers' despite
> their grandiose title are actually just salesmen and have no more
> legal rights than any other member of the general public.

Again, see s.366 of the 2003 Act and note especially the reference to
"persons authorised for the purpose by the BBC or by OFCOM".

> Do you think
> you or I could obtain a warrant to enter somebody else's home?
>
> Whoever is legally entitled to apply for warrants, I don't think
> they're just handed out like sweeties, otherwise the goons would just
> turn up with bundles of them and march in wherever they felt like it.
> There would surely have to be some reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing
> of some sort, at least partially based on evidence.
>

Indeed. Such warrants are very rare. But if someone turns up with one
I wouldn't advise telling them to piss off because nobody has the risk
to enter your home to look for TVs.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 14:55:14 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>> Having the capability to do something is not the same as doing it.
>>
>>>> It's all academic anyway, as nobody has the right to enter your home
>>>> to inspect how you have your hi-fi/AV equipment set up. It's an
>>>> absolutely ridiculous system.
>>>
>>> Detection is different from illegality.
>>
>> Understood and agreed, but so what? I'm not doing anything illegal,
>
>Well, you may be, even if you think you aren't. You see, the Freeview
>disk recorders are themselves 'television receivers' and are clearly
>tuned in and capable of acting as such by the simple expedient of
>turning them on.

Likewise, my TV set would be capable of receiving broadcasts by the
simple expedient of plugging an aerial into it and switching it on.

Also likewise, in my kitchen drawer I have a big sharp knife that
would be capable of being used as a murder weapon by the simple
expedient of sticking it into someone.

But I don't actually do naughty things, so my conscience is clear.

Rod.

On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 15:39:01 +0100, Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:

>> Whoever is legally entitled to apply for warrants, I don't think
>> they're just handed out like sweeties, otherwise the goons would just
>> turn up with bundles of them and march in wherever they felt like it.
>> There would surely have to be some reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing
>> of some sort, at least partially based on evidence.
>>
>
>Indeed. Such warrants are very rare. But if someone turns up with one
>I wouldn't advise telling them to piss off because nobody has the risk
>to enter your home to look for TVs.

In the extremely unlikely event that a police officer turned up with a
warrant, of course I'd comply with whatever it said. That's quite
different from somebody with no more legal rights than I have simply
turning up and asking to snoop round my home.

I have nothing to hide or be ashamed of, but I have no desire to open
my home to strangers.

Rod.

On Fri, 02 Jun 23 13:30:02 UTC, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk>
wrote:

>In article <cc5fad46-fbe6-3e56-c63d-0233d5ebf076@outlook.com>,
> Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>> On 02/06/2023 10:43, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> >
>> > It's all academic anyway, as nobody has the right to enter your home
>> > to inspect how you have your hi-fi/AV equipment set up.
>> >
>
>> Enforcement officers rarely seek and get a warrant from the
>> Magistrates/Sheriffs but when they do so they are most definitely
>> entitled to enter and search your home.
>
>HMRC Officers don't even need a warrant if they suspect contraband is
>being held on the premises.

My TV isn't contraband.

Rod.

On 02/06/2023 17:11, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 14:55:14 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>>> Having the capability to do something is not the same as doing it.
>>>
>>>>> It's all academic anyway, as nobody has the right to enter your home
>>>>> to inspect how you have your hi-fi/AV equipment set up. It's an
>>>>> absolutely ridiculous system.
>>>>
>>>> Detection is different from illegality.
>>>
>>> Understood and agreed, but so what? I'm not doing anything illegal,
>>
>> Well, you may be, even if you think you aren't. You see, the Freeview
>> disk recorders are themselves 'television receivers' and are clearly
>> tuned in and capable of acting as such by the simple expedient of
>> turning them on.
>
> Likewise, my TV set would be capable of receiving broadcasts by the
> simple expedient of plugging an aerial into it and switching it on.
>
> Also likewise, in my kitchen drawer I have a big sharp knife that
> would be capable of being used as a murder weapon by the simple
> expedient of sticking it into someone.
>
> But I don't actually do naughty things, so my conscience is clear.

Like I said, quite likely the only 'naughty thing' you have to do to
break the law is just having a TV set or a video recorder 'installed',
ie present and easily actuated. And you do seem to be doing just that.

In article <4m5k7ip20e6cepjcaprt7j7ahukp6ereoe@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jun 23 13:30:02 UTC, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk>
> wrote:

> >In article <cc5fad46-fbe6-3e56-c63d-0233d5ebf076@outlook.com>,
> > Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
> >> On 02/06/2023 10:43, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> >> >
> >> > It's all academic anyway, as nobody has the right to enter your home
> >> > to inspect how you have your hi-fi/AV equipment set up.
> >> >
> >
> >> Enforcement officers rarely seek and get a warrant from the
> >> Magistrates/Sheriffs but when they do so they are most definitely
> >> entitled to enter and search your home.
> >
> >HMRC Officers don't even need a warrant if they suspect contraband is
> >being held on the premises.

> My TV isn't contraband.

> Rod.

but they might suspect it is

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 31/05/2023 09:33, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> I joined Amazon Prime years ago when I checked how much stuff I was
> ordering from them anyway and realised the delivery savings would be
> worth having. I then realised they had a lot of TV and movies I could
> watch for nothing extra so I built a PC specifically for this (which
> has subsequently been replaced by various streaming devices).

Years ago I considered PRIME, a friend worked from home before it became
fashionable and got all his stationery supplies from AMAZON using the
PRIME free delivery service.

I did not use AMAZON much but thought it might be convenient then they
bundled the cost of their PRIME free delivery service with the PRIME TV
service, I looked what they had there and did not see anything of
interest to me.

Since then I have reduced my use of AMAZON because of the amount of
dodgy counterfeit goods they sell from 'traders' and I prefer to support
my local excellent bookshop.

On 01/06/2023 10:31, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> I must say I think you are right. In my view once one of the main
> characters becomes a producer the programme starts to go downhill as
> he/she will naturally push their own character forward all the time.

You also tend to find that they think they know better than experienced
production people - actors always seem to think they are experts at
everything!

On 02/06/2023 14:30, charles wrote:
> HMRC Officers don't even need a warrant if they suspect contraband is
> being held on the premises.

I think HMRC (and its predecessors) have always had more power than the
police, used to be also said that Traffic Commissioners had more power
than police but don't know if still true.

On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 17:20:43 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>On 02/06/2023 17:11, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 14:55:14 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Having the capability to do something is not the same as doing it.
>>>>
>>>>>> It's all academic anyway, as nobody has the right to enter your home
>>>>>> to inspect how you have your hi-fi/AV equipment set up. It's an
>>>>>> absolutely ridiculous system.
>>>>>
>>>>> Detection is different from illegality.
>>>>
>>>> Understood and agreed, but so what? I'm not doing anything illegal,
>>>
>>> Well, you may be, even if you think you aren't. You see, the Freeview
>>> disk recorders are themselves 'television receivers' and are clearly
>>> tuned in and capable of acting as such by the simple expedient of
>>> turning them on.
>>
>> Likewise, my TV set would be capable of receiving broadcasts by the
>> simple expedient of plugging an aerial into it and switching it on.
>>
>> Also likewise, in my kitchen drawer I have a big sharp knife that
>> would be capable of being used as a murder weapon by the simple
>> expedient of sticking it into someone.
>>
>> But I don't actually do naughty things, so my conscience is clear.
>
>Like I said, quite likely the only 'naughty thing' you have to do to
>break the law is just having a TV set or a video recorder 'installed',
>ie present and easily actuated. And you do seem to be doing just that.

Yes I am in possession of various things I *could* use to receive
broadcasts, but I actually use them for other things, so I don't care.
Almost every piece of electronics you can buy these days has more
capabilities than anyone actually uses, so I doubt if that sort of
nitpicking interpretation would get very far if anyone were foolish
enough to present it in court.

Incidentally, at no time have I said that I don't have a licence. You
seem to have assumed that. I've been paying for a BBC licence for more
than half a century, at first because I actually worked for the BBC
and didn't want to be sacked, and later because I watched a lot of BBC
programmes and thought they were good, but times have changed. The
proportion of my viewing that is from the BBC has greatly reduced
lately so it wouldn't be much loss to avoid it altogether. I am on the
point of making a decision about how much of it I think is actually
worth 13ukp per month when every other streaming service I subscribe
to costs quite a bit less.

Rod.

On Fri, 02 Jun 23 17:30:02 UTC, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk>
wrote:

>In article <4m5k7ip20e6cepjcaprt7j7ahukp6ereoe@4ax.com>,
> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Jun 23 13:30:02 UTC, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk>
>> wrote:
>
>> >In article <cc5fad46-fbe6-3e56-c63d-0233d5ebf076@outlook.com>,
>> > Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>> >> On 02/06/2023 10:43, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > It's all academic anyway, as nobody has the right to enter your home
>> >> > to inspect how you have your hi-fi/AV equipment set up.
>> >> >
>> >
>> >> Enforcement officers rarely seek and get a warrant from the
>> >> Magistrates/Sheriffs but when they do so they are most definitely
>> >> entitled to enter and search your home.
>> >
>> >HMRC Officers don't even need a warrant if they suspect contraband is
>> >being held on the premises.
>
>> My TV isn't contraband.
>
>> Rod.
>
> but they might suspect it is

I could show them the receipt.

Rod.

On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 07:57:13 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 31/05/2023 09:33, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> I joined Amazon Prime years ago when I checked how much stuff I was
>> ordering from them anyway and realised the delivery savings would be
>> worth having. I then realised they had a lot of TV and movies I could
>> watch for nothing extra so I built a PC specifically for this (which
>> has subsequently been replaced by various streaming devices).
>
>
>Years ago I considered PRIME, a friend worked from home before it became
>fashionable and got all his stationery supplies from AMAZON using the
>PRIME free delivery service.
>
>I did not use AMAZON much but thought it might be convenient then they
>bundled the cost of their PRIME free delivery service with the PRIME TV
>service, I looked what they had there and did not see anything of
>interest to me.
>
>Since then I have reduced my use of AMAZON because of the amount of
>dodgy counterfeit goods they sell from 'traders' and I prefer to support
>my local excellent bookshop.
>

Fair enough. Your money, your choice.

It's alarming that one company can achieve global dominance in the way
that Amazon has done without anyone seemingly having the will or the
means to control it, but they didn't get there by selling goods and
services that people didn't want or were too difficult to use, so I'm
not sure what could be done at this stage anyway. As things stand, I
find much of what they offer is useful to me and cheaper and less
bother than buying it anywhere else.

Rod.

On 03/06/2023 10:08, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 17:20:43 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>> On 02/06/2023 17:11, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 14:55:14 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Having the capability to do something is not the same as doing it.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's all academic anyway, as nobody has the right to enter your home
>>>>>>> to inspect how you have your hi-fi/AV equipment set up. It's an
>>>>>>> absolutely ridiculous system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Detection is different from illegality.
>>>>>
>>>>> Understood and agreed, but so what? I'm not doing anything illegal,
>>>>
>>>> Well, you may be, even if you think you aren't. You see, the Freeview
>>>> disk recorders are themselves 'television receivers' and are clearly
>>>> tuned in and capable of acting as such by the simple expedient of
>>>> turning them on.
>>>
>>> Likewise, my TV set would be capable of receiving broadcasts by the
>>> simple expedient of plugging an aerial into it and switching it on.
>>>
>>> Also likewise, in my kitchen drawer I have a big sharp knife that
>>> would be capable of being used as a murder weapon by the simple
>>> expedient of sticking it into someone.
>>>
>>> But I don't actually do naughty things, so my conscience is clear.
>>
>> Like I said, quite likely the only 'naughty thing' you have to do to
>> break the law is just having a TV set or a video recorder 'installed',
>> ie present and easily actuated. And you do seem to be doing just that.
>
> Yes I am in possession of various things I *could* use to receive
> broadcasts, but I actually use them for other things, so I don't care.

The Freeview disk recorders you have, though, are designed specifically
for for receiving television broadcasts.

> Almost every piece of electronics you can buy these days has more
> capabilities than anyone actually uses, so I doubt if that sort of
> nitpicking interpretation would get very far if anyone were foolish
> enough to present it in court.

It's not nitpicking at all to regard either a tuned in television or
Freeview recorder as a television receiver.

> Incidentally, at no time have I said that I don't have a licence. You
> seem to have assumed that. I've been paying for a BBC licence for more
> than half a century, at first because I actually worked for the BBC
> and didn't want to be sacked, and later because I watched a lot of BBC
> programmes and thought they were good, but times have changed. The
> proportion of my viewing that is from the BBC has greatly reduced
> lately so it wouldn't be much loss to avoid it altogether. I am on the
> point of making a decision about how much of it I think is actually
> worth 13ukp per month when every other streaming service I subscribe
> to costs quite a bit less.

Well, it's not a licence to watch the BBC, but a licence to install
and/or use a television receiver to watch any broadcast channel.

On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 11:40:06 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>> Almost every piece of electronics you can buy these days has more
>> capabilities than anyone actually uses, so I doubt if that sort of
>> nitpicking interpretation would get very far if anyone were foolish
>> enough to present it in court.
>
>It's not nitpicking at all to regard either a tuned in television or
>Freeview recorder as a television receiver.

It is nitpicking to declare someone guilty of an offence because of
something they're not doing, merely because they possess something
that could be used to do it, if they were doing it, which they're not.

Rod.

On 03/06/2023 12:16, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 11:40:06 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>>> Almost every piece of electronics you can buy these days has more
>>> capabilities than anyone actually uses, so I doubt if that sort of
>>> nitpicking interpretation would get very far if anyone were foolish
>>> enough to present it in court.
>>
>> It's not nitpicking at all to regard either a tuned in television or
>> Freeview recorder as a television receiver.
>
> It is nitpicking to declare someone guilty of an offence because of
> something they're not doing, merely because they possess something
> that could be used to do it, if they were doing it, which they're not.

There are actually many offences of mere possession.

On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 18:10:59 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>On 03/06/2023 12:16, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 11:40:06 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Almost every piece of electronics you can buy these days has more
>>>> capabilities than anyone actually uses, so I doubt if that sort of
>>>> nitpicking interpretation would get very far if anyone were foolish
>>>> enough to present it in court.
>>>
>>> It's not nitpicking at all to regard either a tuned in television or
>>> Freeview recorder as a television receiver.
>>
>> It is nitpicking to declare someone guilty of an offence because of
>> something they're not doing, merely because they possess something
>> that could be used to do it, if they were doing it, which they're not.
>
>There are actually many offences of mere possession.

Yes, for things like hard drugs, stolen property or firearms - but
televison sets? Have you ever heard of anyone being prosecuted for
"possession of a television set"?

Rod.

On 03/06/2023 06:10 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 03/06/2023 12:16, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 11:40:06 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Almost every piece of electronics you can buy these days has more
>>>> capabilities than anyone actually uses, so I doubt if that sort of
>>>> nitpicking interpretation would get very far if anyone were foolish
>>>> enough to present it in court.
>>>
>>> It's not nitpicking at all to regard either a tuned in television or
>>> Freeview recorder as a television receiver.
>>
>> It is nitpicking to declare someone guilty of an offence because of
>> something they're not doing, merely because they possess something
>> that could be used to do it, if they were doing it, which they're not.
>
> There are actually many offences of mere possession.

....but not one of possessing a Freeview recorder.

On 04/06/2023 16:15, JNugent wrote:
> On 03/06/2023 06:10 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 03/06/2023 12:16, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>> On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 11:40:06 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Almost every piece of electronics you can buy these days has more
>>>>> capabilities than anyone actually uses, so I doubt if that sort of
>>>>> nitpicking interpretation would get very far if anyone were foolish
>>>>> enough to present it in court.
>>>>
>>>> It's not nitpicking at all to regard either a tuned in television or
>>>> Freeview recorder as a television receiver.
>>>
>>> It is nitpicking to declare someone guilty of an offence because of
>>> something they're not doing, merely because they possess something
>>> that could be used to do it, if they were doing it, which they're not.
>>
>> There are actually many offences of mere possession.
>
> ...but not one of possessing a Freeview recorder.

You mean, apart from Section 363(1) of the Communications Act 2003?

Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
> On 04/06/2023 16:15, JNugent wrote:
>> On 03/06/2023 06:10 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> On 03/06/2023 12:16, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 11:40:06 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Almost every piece of electronics you can buy these days has more
>>>>>> capabilities than anyone actually uses, so I doubt if that sort of
>>>>>> nitpicking interpretation would get very far if anyone were foolish
>>>>>> enough to present it in court.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not nitpicking at all to regard either a tuned in television or
>>>>> Freeview recorder as a television receiver.
>>>>
>>>> It is nitpicking to declare someone guilty of an offence because of
>>>> something they're not doing, merely because they possess something
>>>> that could be used to do it, if they were doing it, which they're not.
>>>
>>> There are actually many offences of mere possession.
>>
>> ...but not one of possessing a Freeview recorder.
>
> You mean, apart from Section 363(1) of the Communications Act 2003?
>
>

Having one in a box up in the spare room isn’t an offence. Having one set
up with an aerial plugged in is. Interestingly, if you’ve got the machine
in the box in the spare room with a view to plugging it in next week you
are also guilty. (Section 3a)

363Licence required for use of TV receiver

(1)A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the
installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this
Part.

(2)A person who installs or uses a television receiver in contravention of
subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.

(3)A person with a television receiver in his possession or under his
control who—

(a)intends to install or use it in contravention of subsection (1), or

(b)knows, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that another person
intends to install or use it in contravention of that subsection,

is guilty of an offence.

On 04/06/2023 05:00 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 04/06/2023 16:15, JNugent wrote:
>> On 03/06/2023 06:10 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> On 03/06/2023 12:16, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 11:40:06 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Almost every piece of electronics you can buy these days has more
>>>>>> capabilities than anyone actually uses, so I doubt if that sort of
>>>>>> nitpicking interpretation would get very far if anyone were foolish
>>>>>> enough to present it in court.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not nitpicking at all to regard either a tuned in television or
>>>>> Freeview recorder as a television receiver.
>>>>
>>>> It is nitpicking to declare someone guilty of an offence because of
>>>> something they're not doing, merely because they possess something
>>>> that could be used to do it, if they were doing it, which they're not.
>>>
>>> There are actually many offences of mere possession.
>>
>> ...but not one of possessing a Freeview recorder.
>
> You mean, apart from Section 363(1) of the Communications Act 2003?

QUOTE:

363 Licence required for use of TV receiver

(1) A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the
installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under
this Part.
ENDQUOTE

Which bit forbids ownership or possession of a Freeview recorder (or,
for that matter, a television set) where no TV licence is held?

I have a relative who moved to the USA nearly ten years ago. He left all
his furniture and audio visual gear in storage (it's all gone from there
now).

One of the items was a Humax Freeview recorder (which I had given him as
a present a few years earlier). Oh... and a B&O TV. Was he breaking the
law by owning those items whilst not having a licence?

Was the storage company breaking the law by having them in its
possession, perhaps?

In article <ke3t0pFd55rU1@mid.individual.net>,
JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
> On 04/06/2023 05:00 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
> > On 04/06/2023 16:15, JNugent wrote:
> >> On 03/06/2023 06:10 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
> >>> On 03/06/2023 12:16, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 11:40:06 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Almost every piece of electronics you can buy these days has more
> >>>>>> capabilities than anyone actually uses, so I doubt if that sort of
> >>>>>> nitpicking interpretation would get very far if anyone were foolish
> >>>>>> enough to present it in court.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's not nitpicking at all to regard either a tuned in television or
> >>>>> Freeview recorder as a television receiver.
> >>>>
> >>>> It is nitpicking to declare someone guilty of an offence because of
> >>>> something they're not doing, merely because they possess something
> >>>> that could be used to do it, if they were doing it, which they're not.
> >>>
> >>> There are actually many offences of mere possession.
> >>
> >> ...but not one of possessing a Freeview recorder.
> >
> > You mean, apart from Section 363(1) of the Communications Act 2003?

> QUOTE:

> 363 Licence required for use of TV receiver

> (1) A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the
> installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under
> this Part.
> ENDQUOTE

> Which bit forbids ownership or possession of a Freeview recorder (or,
> for that matter, a television set) where no TV licence is held?

> I have a relative who moved to the USA nearly ten years ago. He left all
> his furniture and audio visual gear in storage (it's all gone from there
> now).

> One of the items was a Humax Freeview recorder (which I had given him as
> a present a few years earlier). Oh... and a B&O TV. Was he breaking the
> law by owning those items whilst not having a licence?

> Was the storage company breaking the law by having them in its
> possession, perhaps?

No, because they are not installed.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 16:13:56 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>> There are actually many offences of mere possession.
>>>
>>> ...but not one of possessing a Freeview recorder.
>>
>> You mean, apart from Section 363(1) of the Communications Act 2003?
>>
>>
>
>Having one in a box up in the spare room isn’t an offence. Having one set
>up with an aerial plugged in is. Interestingly, if you’ve got the machine
>in the box in the spare room with a view to plugging it in next week you
>are also guilty. (Section 3a)

What about having one that still has an aerial plugged in because you
used to use it but hasn't been powered for a couple of years and with
no view to do anything with it for the foreseeable future?

Rod.

Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 16:13:56 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> There are actually many offences of mere possession.
>>>>
>>>> ...but not one of possessing a Freeview recorder.
>>>
>>> You mean, apart from Section 363(1) of the Communications Act 2003?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Having one in a box up in the spare room isn’t an offence. Having one set
>> up with an aerial plugged in is. Interestingly, if you’ve got the machine
>> in the box in the spare room with a view to plugging it in next week you
>> are also guilty. (Section 3a)
>
> What about having one that still has an aerial plugged in because you
> used to use it but hasn't been powered for a couple of years and with
> no view to do anything with it for the foreseeable future?
>
> Rod.
>

It’s still installed

On 04/06/2023 05:15 pm, charles wrote:
> In article <ke3t0pFd55rU1@mid.individual.net>,
> JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
>> On 04/06/2023 05:00 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> On 04/06/2023 16:15, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 03/06/2023 06:10 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>> On 03/06/2023 12:16, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 11:40:06 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Almost every piece of electronics you can buy these days has more
>>>>>>>> capabilities than anyone actually uses, so I doubt if that sort of
>>>>>>>> nitpicking interpretation would get very far if anyone were foolish
>>>>>>>> enough to present it in court.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's not nitpicking at all to regard either a tuned in television or
>>>>>>> Freeview recorder as a television receiver.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is nitpicking to declare someone guilty of an offence because of
>>>>>> something they're not doing, merely because they possess something
>>>>>> that could be used to do it, if they were doing it, which they're not.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are actually many offences of mere possession.
>>>>
>>>> ...but not one of possessing a Freeview recorder.
>>>
>>> You mean, apart from Section 363(1) of the Communications Act 2003?
>
>> QUOTE:
>
>> 363 Licence required for use of TV receiver
>
>> (1) A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the
>> installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under
>> this Part.
>> ENDQUOTE
>
>> Which bit forbids ownership or possession of a Freeview recorder (or,
>> for that matter, a television set) where no TV licence is held?
>
>> I have a relative who moved to the USA nearly ten years ago. He left all
>> his furniture and audio visual gear in storage (it's all gone from there
>> now).
>
>> One of the items was a Humax Freeview recorder (which I had given him as
>> a present a few years earlier). Oh... and a B&O TV. Was he breaking the
>> law by owning those items whilst not having a licence?
>
>> Was the storage company breaking the law by having them in its
>> possession, perhaps?
>
> No, because they are not installed.

Installation doesn't enter this discussion. It is purely about ownership
and possession.

It arose dirctly, as you can see above, from a remark which went:

"There are actually many offences of mere possession."

The response to that was:

"...but not one of possessing a Freeview recorder".