It is not an option nor is it pratical. An inspector does not have to verify the funtionality of a receiver - if it looks like a receiver to an inspector, you need a licence... Maybe not particularly practical but an option all the same.
It is not an option nor is it pratical. An inspector does not have to verify the funtionality of a receiver - if it looks like a receiver to an inspector, you need a licence... Maybe not particularly practical but an option all the same.
It is not an option nor is it pratical. An inspector does not have to verify the funtionality of a receiver - if it looks like a receiver to an inspector, you need a licence.
Incorrect. In law the inspector is the technical expert, and his view carries the weight of expert opinion in court; in the absence of contrary "expert opinion", his view is all that matters.... the inspectors view is irrelevant.
Incorrect. In law the inspector is the technical expert, and his view carries the weight of expert opinion in court; in the absence of contrary "expert opinion", his view is all that matters.
Unless the defendant in a TV licence prosecution can offer substantial expert credentials or expert opinion to the court it is unlikely their opinion will carry much weight, unfortunately.
Provided you don't have a sky/cable box, outdoor aerial or dish then you will be exempt.Is there somebody who can verify whether a TV licence is required if one only watches TV material on a computer and there is no television apparatus in the house??
Is there somebody who can verify whether a TV licence is required if one only watches TV material on a computer and there is no television apparatus in the house??