"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:imis57F8lcdU1@mid.individual.net...
> If you find a wallet on a bus or train, I think most people's moral
> compass would direct them to hand it in not take it for themselves even
> though there's virtually no chance of being discovered.

I think most people who are essentially law-abiding might go for a middle
ground - return the wallet (or hand it in to the police) but take a small
"finder's fee" out of any banknotes that were in the wallet.

Sometimes finders really do go the extra mile. My parents have a friend who
was walking the Coast-to-Coast path and dropped his wallet somewhere along
the way. The first he knew about it was a phone call from one of his card
companies to say that someone had found the wallet and had phoned the
company to report this so they could contact him and say "don't worry -
don't cancel your cards - it's safe at X address". The finder had been
walking in the opposite direction but offered to walk back in the direction
he had just come, to meet the friend half-way to hand over the wallet. I
imagine he got a large finder's fee ;-)

NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
> news:imkdf5Fi4fgU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>> Not for one household, if by that you mean 'house', nor is it necessary.
>> The licence covers the premises.
>>
>>> OK, we had to when we had offspring at university, but that neatly
>>> self-classifies as multiple households.
>>
>> I'm not quite sure who you think requires two licences for what then, or
>> why it's wrong.
>
> What is the exact situation in a "house of multiple occupancy" - eg a
> student house? Is that covered by a single licence, or does each student
> need a separate licence because there is a lock on each student's bedroom
> door, turning them into separate households? Or does it depend where the TV
> is - in each bedroom (separate licence) or in shared lounge (one licence
> that everyone contributes to)?
>
> How are hotels licensed? Do they pay at a reduced "block-booking" rate but
> per bedroom?
>
> And the black-and-white rate should really apply to the display technology
> rather than the recording technology - a B&W TV with a PVR that has no means
> of extracting and sharing recordings with a friend should be charged at B&W
> rate because that's how you will be viewing TV - whether live or recorded.
> But they say that all recorders must be paid for as colour, even if you can
> only view the recordings in B&W.
>
> All a bit of a mess.
>
>

In an HMO (or student halls etc) if the person’s room is behind an
individually lockable door then a separate licence is required. Likewise if
each person has a separate tenancy agreement.

On 31/07/2021 09:37, NY wrote:
> "Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:pmc8gg1cpnq5esomgkgndcvopk2oiekbcg@4ax.com...
>
>> It seems an absurdity to me that the obligation to buy a viewing
>> licence should ever depend on the power source for the equipment,
>> rather than what you are viewing, because it is the material you are
>> viewing that the licence is supposed to pay for, but sometimes it
>> does. If that can be regarded as making sense, then it is no less
>> sensible to wonder about the capacity of the battery if there can be
>> circumstances where it is present but not providing the power.
>
> Yes I've never understood the logic for making a distinction between
> permanently-installed mains-powered equipment and portable equipment
> which can be powered either by mains or by battery - or rather why they
> make an exemption only if the portable equipment is being powered by its
> battery.
>
> I imagine they want to make provision for people who have a TV licence
> at home and want to watch TV when they are away from home camping or
> caravanning. But the "powered by internal battery" restriction is weird,
> because it means you can't power it from the car battery (either as 12
> V, or as 240 V via a mains inverter) - as if it makes a difference one
> way or the other.

The provision was there to distinguish those who were genuinely using
portable equipment away from their homes from those who would exploit
any loophole by having permanent installations in two places that they
would claim were covered by one licence.

It was a reasonable line to draw even if it was a bit fuzzy round the
edges. And it all springs from the principle adopted that it would be
premises that were licensed not people. If people were to be licensed
instead, that would raise a whole raft of other problems.

"Tweed" <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:se33dh$qjr$1@dont-email.me...

> In an HMO (or student halls etc) if the person’s room is behind an
> individually lockable door then a separate licence is required. Likewise
> if
> each person has a separate tenancy agreement.

What about if the only TV is in a communal part of the house to which all
the residents (who have individually-lockable doors) have access. I presume
that is regarded as being a single household and that all the residents
don't need to buy separate licences for the *same* TV.

Can halls of residence negotiate a reduced-rate block-booking per-room
licence (charged for as part of the room-rental), as hotels do?

On 31/07/2021 09:45, NY wrote:
> "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
> news:imkdf5Fi4fgU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>> Not for one household, if by that you mean 'house', nor is it
>> necessary. The licence covers the premises.
>>
>>> OK, we had to when we had offspring at university, but that neatly
>>> self-classifies as multiple households.
>>
>> I'm not quite sure who you think requires two licences for what then,
>> or why it's wrong.
>
> What is the exact situation in a "house of multiple occupancy" - eg a
> student house? Is that covered by a single licence, or does each student
> need a separate licence because there is a lock on each student's
> bedroom door, turning them into separate households? Or does it depend
> where the TV is - in each bedroom (separate licence) or in shared lounge
> (one licence that everyone contributes to)?
>
> How are hotels licensed? Do they pay at a reduced "block-booking" rate
> but per bedroom?
>
> And the black-and-white rate should really apply to the display
> technology rather than the recording technology - a B&W TV with a PVR
> that has no means of extracting and sharing recordings with a friend
> should be charged at B&W rate because that's how you will be viewing TV
> - whether live or recorded. But they say that all recorders must be paid
> for as colour, even if you can only view the recordings in B&W.
>
> All a bit of a mess.

Only if you can't be arsed to look it up and want to be spoon-fed and
resentful.

A lot of the answers you'll find here, which is where you should have
started:

https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/for-your-home/students-aud1?&WT.mc_id=mec_Search_Brand&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI2PvmnfmM8gIVM4FQBh30BQxwEAAYASAAEgJ1ufD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

On 31/07/2021 09:52, NY wrote:
> "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
> news:imis57F8lcdU1@mid.individual.net...

>> If you find a wallet on a bus or train, I think most people's moral
>> compass would direct them to hand it in not take it for themselves
>> even though there's virtually no chance of being discovered.
>
> I think most people who are essentially law-abiding might go for a
> middle ground - return the wallet (or hand it in to the police) but take
> a small "finder's fee" out of any banknotes that were in the wallet.

So, you're saying most people are thieves, and that's perfectly fine?

On 31/07/2021 09:52, NY wrote:
> I think most people who are essentially law-abiding might go for a middle
> ground - return the wallet (or hand it in to the police) but take a small
> "finder's fee" out of any banknotes that were in the wallet.
>
> Sometimes finders really do go the extra mile. My parents have a friend who
> was walking the Coast-to-Coast path and dropped his wallet somewhere along
> the way. The first he knew about it was a phone call from one of his card
> companies to say that someone had found the wallet and had phoned the
> company to report this so they could contact him and say "don't worry -
> don't cancel your cards - it's safe at X address". The finder had been
> walking in the opposite direction but offered to walk back in the direction
> he had just come, to meet the friend half-way to hand over the wallet. I
> imagine he got a large finder's fee

Could also be a dishhonest person wanting enough time to max out the
credit cards before they were cancelled. Surprised the credit card
agreed to pass on the message.

On 31/07/2021 09:45, NY wrote:
> What is the exact situation in a "house of multiple occupancy" - eg a
> student house? Is that covered by a single licence, or does each student
> need a separate licence because there is a lock on each student's bedroom
> door, turning them into separate households? Or does it depend where the TV
> is - in each bedroom (separate licence) or in shared lounge (one licence
> that everyone contributes to)?
>
> How are hotels licensed? Do they pay at a reduced "block-booking" rate but
> per bedroom?

I think that student accommodation can be quite strict about ensuring
sets are licensed.

Hotels pay by the number of rooms.

What is a hotel and mobile unit TV Licence and how do I apply?

If you are a hotel or provide guest accommodation, you may be able to
benefit from a reduced TV licence fee. If you have:

up to 15 units on a single site with TV equipment installed, you'll
only need to pay one fee of £159.
more than 15 units, you'll pay one fee for the first 15 and an
additional fee for every extra 5 units (or fewer). See our hotel TV
Licence calculator.

On 31/07/2021 10:16, Norman Wells wrote:
> So, you're saying most people are thieves, and that's perfectly fine?

And can the police be trusted to return the wallet?

"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:imkinvFj3viU3@mid.individual.net...
> On 31/07/2021 09:52, NY wrote:
>> "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
>> news:imis57F8lcdU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>>> If you find a wallet on a bus or train, I think most people's moral
>>> compass would direct them to hand it in not take it for themselves even
>>> though there's virtually no chance of being discovered.
>>
>> I think most people who are essentially law-abiding might go for a middle
>> ground - return the wallet (or hand it in to the police) but take a small
>> "finder's fee" out of any banknotes that were in the wallet.
>
> So, you're saying most people are thieves, and that's perfectly fine?

I'm not condoning it. I'm just commenting on human nature.

I've never lost my wallet, but my mum once left her purse in a phone box
after calling my dad - long before mobile phones. She may not have had a
credit card in those days (it was the early 1970s) so the only valuable
thing was the few banknotes and coins. She went back to the box and the
purse was gone, but when she got home, she'd had a phone call from the
person who had found it (there must have been something in the purse with
her address and phone number) who even offered to come round with it, until
he realised that he'd mis-read her address and the X street that he'd
assumed was in Wakefield (where the phone box was) was actually in Leeds - a
bit far to drive. But he gave her his address and she called in to collect
it the following day after dropping us off at school. It was during the
transition period when we were about to move from Leeds to Wakefield and my
sister and I had already started at our new school but we hadn't yet moved
house.

"MB" <MB@nospam.net> wrote in message news:se35ei$4mc$3@dont-email.me...
> On 31/07/2021 09:52, NY wrote:
>> I think most people who are essentially law-abiding might go for a middle
>> ground - return the wallet (or hand it in to the police) but take a small
>> "finder's fee" out of any banknotes that were in the wallet.
>>
>> Sometimes finders really do go the extra mile. My parents have a friend
>> who
>> was walking the Coast-to-Coast path and dropped his wallet somewhere
>> along
>> the way. The first he knew about it was a phone call from one of his card
>> companies to say that someone had found the wallet and had phoned the
>> company to report this so they could contact him and say "don't worry -
>> don't cancel your cards - it's safe at X address". The finder had been
>> walking in the opposite direction but offered to walk back in the
>> direction
>> he had just come, to meet the friend half-way to hand over the wallet. I
>> imagine he got a large finder's fee
>
> Could also be a dishhonest person wanting enough time to max out the
> credit cards before they were cancelled. Surprised the credit card agreed
> to pass on the message.

If I found a wallet, the first thing I'd do is phone a credit card company
so that they could pass on the message that the wallet was safe, in case the
owner phoned to cancel the cards, and to say that I'd handed it in to X
police station. I'd do it independently of the police in case the police
couldn't be bothered to contact the owner to say "it's safe with us". I'm
not sure what normal police procedure is with found items - do they actively
try to contact the owner or just wait for him to contact them?

My dad once left his phone in a pub where he and mum had been having lunch.
I got a phone call, apparently from him, and it was the barman on the phone.
He'd looked through dad's contact list and phoned the first number he found
to say "are you able to contact the owner to say the phone is safe with us".

On 31/07/2021 08:40, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 31/07/2021 03:09, williamwright wrote:
>> On 30/07/2021 18:45, Norman Wells wrote:
>>
>>> If you find a wallet on a bus or train, I think most people's moral
>>> compass would direct them to hand it in not take it for themselves
>>
>> Not round these parts
>
> Aye, it's grim up north.
>
>
You wouldn't leave your toe nail clippings unattended round these parts

Bill

On 31/07/2021 08:46 am, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 31/07/2021 00:51, JNugent wrote:
>> On 30/07/2021 06:45 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> On 30/07/2021 18:29, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 14:49:36 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> The legal need to buy a licence is based on what you watch or record,
>>>>>> not on the technology you use to do it, though oddly it is sometimes
>>>>>> based on the power source for said technology. If you use a portable
>>>>>> device away from home and already have a licence for your home, then
>>>>>> you don't need another licence for the portable device *as long as it
>>>>>> is powered by its own internal battery*.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oi! BBC! Good luck trying to enforce that one!
>>>>
>>>> The whole scheme is unenforceable anyway, considering it depends on
>>>> evidence that their inspectors don't have any means to collect.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you find a wallet on a bus or train, I think most people's moral
>>> compass would direct them to hand it in not take it for themselves
>>> even though there's virtually no chance of being discovered.
>>>
>>> The same morality, I suspect, applies to the TV licence.
>>
>> But surely not many people are going to buy two licences for one
>> household, irrespective of the Beeb's orders to do so?
>
> Not for one household, if by that you mean 'house', nor is it necessary.
>  The licence covers the premises.

The word "household" is used to refer to all the people who live
together in one building, with earners pooling resources and sharing
bills (as agreed), etc.

They might not be the only household within a particular house.

> If you mean one licence should cover all your sisters and your cousins
> and your aunts wherever they live, it seems perfectly reasonable that
> they should require separate licences.

They don't fall within the meaning of "household", which is not a
synonym either for "family" or "house / dwelling".

>> OK, we had to when we had offspring at university, but that neatly
>> self-classifies as multiple households.

> I'm not quite sure who you think requires two licences for what then, or
> why it's wrong.

People who don't live in the same household. The common London
phenomenon of a terraced house divided up into an upstairs and a
downstairs flat, for instance (and whether fully self-contained or not).

I'm not totally convinced that a student sojourning term-time in a hall
of residence is really a separate household from the parents' home to
which they will return for Christmas, Easter and Summer vacs, but
wouldn't want to take the risk of a conviction for a son or daughter in
order to test that.

On 31/07/2021 10:12 am, NY wrote:
> "Tweed" <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:se33dh$qjr$1@dont-email.me...
>
>> In an HMO (or student halls etc) if the person’s room is behind an
>> individually lockable door then a separate licence is required.
>> Likewise if
>> each person has a separate tenancy agreement.
>
> What about if the only TV is in a communal part of the house to which
> all the residents (who have individually-lockable doors) have access. I
> presume that is regarded as being a single household and that all the
> residents don't need to buy separate licences for the *same* TV.

One TV set could only require one licence.

> Can halls of residence negotiate a reduced-rate block-booking per-room
> licence (charged for as part of the room-rental), as hotels do?

Apparently not. That was made quite clear the last time I had reason to
inquire (seventeen years ago).

JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 31/07/2021 08:46 am, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 31/07/2021 00:51, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 30/07/2021 06:45 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>> On 30/07/2021 18:29, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 14:49:36 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The legal need to buy a licence is based on what you watch or record,
>>>>>>> not on the technology you use to do it, though oddly it is sometimes
>>>>>>> based on the power source for said technology. If you use a portable
>>>>>>> device away from home and already have a licence for your home, then
>>>>>>> you don't need another licence for the portable device *as long as it
>>>>>>> is powered by its own internal battery*.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oi! BBC! Good luck trying to enforce that one!
>>>>>
>>>>> The whole scheme is unenforceable anyway, considering it depends on
>>>>> evidence that their inspectors don't have any means to collect.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you find a wallet on a bus or train, I think most people's moral
>>>> compass would direct them to hand it in not take it for themselves
>>>> even though there's virtually no chance of being discovered.
>>>>
>>>> The same morality, I suspect, applies to the TV licence.
>>>
>>> But surely not many people are going to buy two licences for one
>>> household, irrespective of the Beeb's orders to do so?
>>
>> Not for one household, if by that you mean 'house', nor is it necessary.
>>  The licence covers the premises.
>
> The word "household" is used to refer to all the people who live
> together in one building, with earners pooling resources and sharing
> bills (as agreed), etc.
>
> They might not be the only household within a particular house.
>
>> If you mean one licence should cover all your sisters and your cousins
>> and your aunts wherever they live, it seems perfectly reasonable that
>> they should require separate licences.
>
> They don't fall within the meaning of "household", which is not a
> synonym either for "family" or "house / dwelling".
>
>>> OK, we had to when we had offspring at university, but that neatly
>>> self-classifies as multiple households.
>
>> I'm not quite sure who you think requires two licences for what then, or
>> why it's wrong.
>
> People who don't live in the same household. The common London
> phenomenon of a terraced house divided up into an upstairs and a
> downstairs flat, for instance (and whether fully self-contained or not).
>
> I'm not totally convinced that a student sojourning term-time in a hall
> of residence is really a separate household from the parents' home to
> which they will return for Christmas, Easter and Summer vacs, but
> wouldn't want to take the risk of a conviction for a son or daughter in
> order to test that.
>

Students in halls, in individually lockable rooms, do need a licence if
they use a TV or iPlayer within that room. It was like this in the eighties
when I was a student (not the iPlayer bit!) and still is. When my offspring
were at university the TVL website had each individual room number in a
drop down menu for that particular hall.

On 31/07/2021 03:23 pm, Tweed wrote:
> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 31/07/2021 08:46 am, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> On 31/07/2021 00:51, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 30/07/2021 06:45 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>> On 30/07/2021 18:29, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 14:49:36 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The legal need to buy a licence is based on what you watch or record,
>>>>>>>> not on the technology you use to do it, though oddly it is sometimes
>>>>>>>> based on the power source for said technology. If you use a portable
>>>>>>>> device away from home and already have a licence for your home, then
>>>>>>>> you don't need another licence for the portable device *as long as it
>>>>>>>> is powered by its own internal battery*.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oi! BBC! Good luck trying to enforce that one!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The whole scheme is unenforceable anyway, considering it depends on
>>>>>> evidence that their inspectors don't have any means to collect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you find a wallet on a bus or train, I think most people's moral
>>>>> compass would direct them to hand it in not take it for themselves
>>>>> even though there's virtually no chance of being discovered.
>>>>>
>>>>> The same morality, I suspect, applies to the TV licence.
>>>>
>>>> But surely not many people are going to buy two licences for one
>>>> household, irrespective of the Beeb's orders to do so?
>>>
>>> Not for one household, if by that you mean 'house', nor is it necessary.
>>>  The licence covers the premises.
>>
>> The word "household" is used to refer to all the people who live
>> together in one building, with earners pooling resources and sharing
>> bills (as agreed), etc.
>>
>> They might not be the only household within a particular house.
>>
>>> If you mean one licence should cover all your sisters and your cousins
>>> and your aunts wherever they live, it seems perfectly reasonable that
>>> they should require separate licences.
>>
>> They don't fall within the meaning of "household", which is not a
>> synonym either for "family" or "house / dwelling".
>>
>>>> OK, we had to when we had offspring at university, but that neatly
>>>> self-classifies as multiple households.
>>
>>> I'm not quite sure who you think requires two licences for what then, or
>>> why it's wrong.
>>
>> People who don't live in the same household. The common London
>> phenomenon of a terraced house divided up into an upstairs and a
>> downstairs flat, for instance (and whether fully self-contained or not).
>>
>> I'm not totally convinced that a student sojourning term-time in a hall
>> of residence is really a separate household from the parents' home to
>> which they will return for Christmas, Easter and Summer vacs, but
>> wouldn't want to take the risk of a conviction for a son or daughter in
>> order to test that.
>
> Students in halls, in individually lockable rooms, do need a licence if
> they use a TV or iPlayer within that room. It was like this in the eighties
> when I was a student (not the iPlayer bit!) and still is. When my offspring
> were at university the TVL website had each individual room number in a
> drop down menu for that particular hall.

That's the BBC's definition, certainly.

In article <iml5ktFmuqtU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 31/07/2021 03:23 pm, Tweed wrote:
> > JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >> On 31/07/2021 08:46 am, Norman Wells wrote:
> >>> On 31/07/2021 00:51, JNugent wrote:
> >>>> On 30/07/2021 06:45 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
> >>>>> On 30/07/2021 18:29, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> >>>>>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 14:49:36 +0100, JNugent
> >>>>>> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The legal need to buy a licence is based on what you watch or
> >>>>>>>> record, not on the technology you use to do it, though oddly it
> >>>>>>>> is sometimes based on the power source for said technology. If
> >>>>>>>> you use a portable device away from home and already have a
> >>>>>>>> licence for your home, then you don't need another licence for
> >>>>>>>> the portable device *as long as it is powered by its own
> >>>>>>>> internal battery*.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Oi! BBC! Good luck trying to enforce that one!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The whole scheme is unenforceable anyway, considering it depends
> >>>>>> on evidence that their inspectors don't have any means to collect.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you find a wallet on a bus or train, I think most people's moral
> >>>>> compass would direct them to hand it in not take it for themselves
> >>>>> even though there's virtually no chance of being discovered.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The same morality, I suspect, applies to the TV licence.
> >>>>
> >>>> But surely not many people are going to buy two licences for one
> >>>> household, irrespective of the Beeb's orders to do so?
> >>>
> >>> Not for one household, if by that you mean 'house', nor is it
> >>> necessary. The licence covers the premises.
> >>
> >> The word "household" is used to refer to all the people who live
> >> together in one building, with earners pooling resources and sharing
> >> bills (as agreed), etc.
> >>
> >> They might not be the only household within a particular house.
> >>
> >>> If you mean one licence should cover all your sisters and your
> >>> cousins and your aunts wherever they live, it seems perfectly
> >>> reasonable that they should require separate licences.
> >>
> >> They don't fall within the meaning of "household", which is not a
> >> synonym either for "family" or "house / dwelling".
> >>
> >>>> OK, we had to when we had offspring at university, but that neatly
> >>>> self-classifies as multiple households.
> >>
> >>> I'm not quite sure who you think requires two licences for what then,
> >>> or why it's wrong.
> >>
> >> People who don't live in the same household. The common London
> >> phenomenon of a terraced house divided up into an upstairs and a
> >> downstairs flat, for instance (and whether fully self-contained or
> >> not).
> >>
> >> I'm not totally convinced that a student sojourning term-time in a
> >> hall of residence is really a separate household from the parents'
> >> home to which they will return for Christmas, Easter and Summer vacs,
> >> but wouldn't want to take the risk of a conviction for a son or
> >> daughter in order to test that.
> >
> > Students in halls, in individually lockable rooms, do need a licence if
> > they use a TV or iPlayer within that room. It was like this in the
> > eighties when I was a student (not the iPlayer bit!) and still is. When
> > my offspring were at university the TVL website had each individual
> > room number in a drop down menu for that particular hall.

> That's the BBC's definition, certainly.

They took on the wording from the Post Office.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 31/07/2021 03:23 pm, Tweed wrote:
>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>> On 31/07/2021 08:46 am, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>> On 31/07/2021 00:51, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> On 30/07/2021 06:45 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>> On 30/07/2021 18:29, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 14:49:36 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The legal need to buy a licence is based on what you watch or record,
>>>>>>>>> not on the technology you use to do it, though oddly it is sometimes
>>>>>>>>> based on the power source for said technology. If you use a portable
>>>>>>>>> device away from home and already have a licence for your home, then
>>>>>>>>> you don't need another licence for the portable device *as long as it
>>>>>>>>> is powered by its own internal battery*.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oi! BBC! Good luck trying to enforce that one!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The whole scheme is unenforceable anyway, considering it depends on
>>>>>>> evidence that their inspectors don't have any means to collect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you find a wallet on a bus or train, I think most people's moral
>>>>>> compass would direct them to hand it in not take it for themselves
>>>>>> even though there's virtually no chance of being discovered.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The same morality, I suspect, applies to the TV licence.
>>>>>
>>>>> But surely not many people are going to buy two licences for one
>>>>> household, irrespective of the Beeb's orders to do so?
>>>>
>>>> Not for one household, if by that you mean 'house', nor is it necessary.
>>>>  The licence covers the premises.
>>>
>>> The word "household" is used to refer to all the people who live
>>> together in one building, with earners pooling resources and sharing
>>> bills (as agreed), etc.
>>>
>>> They might not be the only household within a particular house.
>>>
>>>> If you mean one licence should cover all your sisters and your cousins
>>>> and your aunts wherever they live, it seems perfectly reasonable that
>>>> they should require separate licences.
>>>
>>> They don't fall within the meaning of "household", which is not a
>>> synonym either for "family" or "house / dwelling".
>>>
>>>>> OK, we had to when we had offspring at university, but that neatly
>>>>> self-classifies as multiple households.
>>>
>>>> I'm not quite sure who you think requires two licences for what then, or
>>>> why it's wrong.
>>>
>>> People who don't live in the same household. The common London
>>> phenomenon of a terraced house divided up into an upstairs and a
>>> downstairs flat, for instance (and whether fully self-contained or not).
>>>
>>> I'm not totally convinced that a student sojourning term-time in a hall
>>> of residence is really a separate household from the parents' home to
>>> which they will return for Christmas, Easter and Summer vacs, but
>>> wouldn't want to take the risk of a conviction for a son or daughter in
>>> order to test that.
>>
>> Students in halls, in individually lockable rooms, do need a licence if
>> they use a TV or iPlayer within that room. It was like this in the eighties
>> when I was a student (not the iPlayer bit!) and still is. When my offspring
>> were at university the TVL website had each individual room number in a
>> drop down menu for that particular hall.
>
> That's the BBC's definition, certainly.
>

And not countermanded by the Secretary of State. According to the the law
(communications act) the Secretary of State has the final say:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/part/4

364TV licences

(1)A licence for the purposes of section 363 (“a TV licence”)—

(a)may be issued by the BBC subject to such restrictions and conditions as
the BBC think fit; and

(b)must be issued subject to such restrictions and conditions as the
Secretary of State may require by a direction to the BBC.
————

B) overrides A)

On 31/07/2021 04:08 pm, Tweed wrote:
> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 31/07/2021 03:23 pm, Tweed wrote:
>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>> On 31/07/2021 08:46 am, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>> On 31/07/2021 00:51, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> On 30/07/2021 06:45 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>>> On 30/07/2021 18:29, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 14:49:36 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The legal need to buy a licence is based on what you watch or record,
>>>>>>>>>> not on the technology you use to do it, though oddly it is sometimes
>>>>>>>>>> based on the power source for said technology. If you use a portable
>>>>>>>>>> device away from home and already have a licence for your home, then
>>>>>>>>>> you don't need another licence for the portable device *as long as it
>>>>>>>>>> is powered by its own internal battery*.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oi! BBC! Good luck trying to enforce that one!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The whole scheme is unenforceable anyway, considering it depends on
>>>>>>>> evidence that their inspectors don't have any means to collect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you find a wallet on a bus or train, I think most people's moral
>>>>>>> compass would direct them to hand it in not take it for themselves
>>>>>>> even though there's virtually no chance of being discovered.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The same morality, I suspect, applies to the TV licence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But surely not many people are going to buy two licences for one
>>>>>> household, irrespective of the Beeb's orders to do so?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not for one household, if by that you mean 'house', nor is it necessary.
>>>>>  The licence covers the premises.
>>>>
>>>> The word "household" is used to refer to all the people who live
>>>> together in one building, with earners pooling resources and sharing
>>>> bills (as agreed), etc.
>>>>
>>>> They might not be the only household within a particular house.
>>>>
>>>>> If you mean one licence should cover all your sisters and your cousins
>>>>> and your aunts wherever they live, it seems perfectly reasonable that
>>>>> they should require separate licences.
>>>>
>>>> They don't fall within the meaning of "household", which is not a
>>>> synonym either for "family" or "house / dwelling".
>>>>
>>>>>> OK, we had to when we had offspring at university, but that neatly
>>>>>> self-classifies as multiple households.
>>>>
>>>>> I'm not quite sure who you think requires two licences for what then, or
>>>>> why it's wrong.
>>>>
>>>> People who don't live in the same household. The common London
>>>> phenomenon of a terraced house divided up into an upstairs and a
>>>> downstairs flat, for instance (and whether fully self-contained or not).
>>>>
>>>> I'm not totally convinced that a student sojourning term-time in a hall
>>>> of residence is really a separate household from the parents' home to
>>>> which they will return for Christmas, Easter and Summer vacs, but
>>>> wouldn't want to take the risk of a conviction for a son or daughter in
>>>> order to test that.
>>>
>>> Students in halls, in individually lockable rooms, do need a licence if
>>> they use a TV or iPlayer within that room. It was like this in the eighties
>>> when I was a student (not the iPlayer bit!) and still is. When my offspring
>>> were at university the TVL website had each individual room number in a
>>> drop down menu for that particular hall.
>>
>> That's the BBC's definition, certainly.
>>
>
> And not countermanded by the Secretary of State. According to the the law
> (communications act) the Secretary of State has the final say:
>
> https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/part/4
>
> 364TV licences
>
> (1)A licence for the purposes of section 363 (“a TV licence”)—
>
> (a)may be issued by the BBC subject to such restrictions and conditions as
> the BBC think fit; and
>
> (b)must be issued subject to such restrictions and conditions as the
> Secretary of State may require by a direction to the BBC.
> ————
>
> B) overrides A)

Adding restrictions and conditions to the issue of a TV licence would
not affect the question of whether it covers the holder (or a member of
the holder's household) to watch TV elsewhere.

It would have to be the opposite of "restrictions and conditions" that
were issued, more like "permissions" and even... [whisper it]... "rights".

On Sat, 31 Jul 2021 08:59:29 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>In an HMO (or student halls etc) if the person’s room is behind an
>individually lockable door then a separate licence is required. Likewise if
>each person has a separate tenancy agreement.

Yes, another anomaly. In order to count as an individual dwelling for
eligibility for a TV licence, a room or flat only needs to have a lock
on the door. To count as such for any other purpose, it would need to
have its own bathroom and kitchen. Good to know their priorities.

Rod.

On 31/07/2021 11:42, NY wrote:
> "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
> news:imkinvFj3viU3@mid.individual.net...
>> On 31/07/2021 09:52, NY wrote:
>>> "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
>>> news:imis57F8lcdU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>>> If you find a wallet on a bus or train, I think most people's moral
>>>> compass would direct them to hand it in not take it for themselves
>>>> even though there's virtually no chance of being discovered.
>>>
>>> I think most people who are essentially law-abiding might go for a
>>> middle ground - return the wallet (or hand it in to the police) but
>>> take a small "finder's fee" out of any banknotes that were in the
>>> wallet.
>>
>> So, you're saying most people are thieves, and that's perfectly fine?
>
> I'm not condoning it. I'm just commenting on human nature.

Except that, according to the sole example you know about, which you
describe below, your assessment of human nature seems to be wrong, and
mine right.

> I've never lost my wallet, but my mum once left her purse in a phone box
> after calling my dad - long before mobile phones. She may not have had a
> credit card in those days (it was the early 1970s) so the only valuable
> thing was the few banknotes and coins. She went back to the box and the
> purse was gone, but when she got home, she'd had a phone call from the
> person who had found it (there must have been something in the purse
> with her address and phone number) who even offered to come round with
> it, until he realised that he'd mis-read her address and the X street
> that he'd assumed was in Wakefield (where the phone box was) was
> actually in Leeds - a bit far to drive. But he gave her his address and
> she called in to collect it the following day after dropping us off at
> school. It was during the transition period when we were about to move
> from Leeds to Wakefield and my sister and I had already started at our
> new school but we hadn't yet moved house.

On 31/07/2021 15:08, JNugent wrote:
> On 31/07/2021 10:12 am, NY wrote:
>> "Tweed" <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:se33dh$qjr$1@dont-email.me...
>>
>>> In an HMO (or student halls etc) if the person’s room is behind an
>>> individually lockable door then a separate licence is required.
>>> Likewise if
>>> each person has a separate tenancy agreement.
>>
>> What about if the only TV is in a communal part of the house to which
>> all the residents (who have individually-lockable doors) have access.
>> I presume that is regarded as being a single household and that all
>> the residents don't need to buy separate licences for the *same* TV.
>
> One TV set could only require one licence.

Then, logically, all TV sets should require a separate licence.

But it isn't TVs that are licensed but premises. And it seems to have
been determined, probably by the courts in decided cases, that separate
flats or lockable accommodation count as separate premises.

>> Can halls of residence negotiate a reduced-rate block-booking per-room
>> licence (charged for as part of the room-rental), as hotels do?
>
> Apparently not. That was made quite clear the last time I had reason to
> inquire (seventeen years ago).
>

On 31/07/2021 19:26, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> Yes, another anomaly. In order to count as an individual dwelling for
> eligibility for a TV licence, a room or flat only needs to have a lock
> on the door. To count as such for any other purpose, it would need to
> have its own bathroom and kitchen. Good to know their priorities.

Not true. For security of tenure, you only need to have exclusive
access, and that tends to correlate with having a lock on the door.

(HMOs, like student houses, can either be done by having a group share
the whole property, with a right to access all of it, or by issuing
individual tenancies, with each person having exclusive access to a
room, but still sharing kitchens and bathrooms, etc.

In the former case, whilst the group may have security, any one of them
can terminate it for all.)

On 31/07/2021 07:59 pm, Norman Wells wrote:

> On 31/07/2021 15:08, JNugent wrote:
>> On 31/07/2021 10:12 am, NY wrote:
>>> "Tweed" <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:se33dh$qjr$1@dont-email.me...
>
>>>> In an HMO (or student halls etc) if the person’s room is behind an
>>>> individually lockable door then a separate licence is required.
>>>> Likewise if each person has a separate tenancy agreement.
>
>>> What about if the only TV is in a communal part of the house to which
>>> all the residents (who have individually-lockable doors) have access.
>>> I presume that is regarded as being a single household and that all
>>> the residents don't need to buy separate licences for the *same* TV.
>
>> One TV set could only require one licence.
>
> Then, logically, all TV sets should require a separate licence.

That's not logical at all.

We have more than one TV set here (plus any number of computing devices
capable of streaming the iPlayer) and the law requires us to have just
one licence.

Given that fact, one TV set could only require one licence (irrespective
of how many people might be gathered around it, as in the days of yore).

> But it isn't TVs that are licensed but premises.  And it seems to have
> been determined, probably by the courts in decided cases, that separate
> flats or lockable accommodation count as separate premises.

The question (as still visible, above) was whether *one* set, in a
common area of a house let to students, etc, required only one licence.
And the answer is that it could require only one licence.

>>> Can halls of residence negotiate a reduced-rate block-booking
>>> per-room licence (charged for as part of the room-rental), as hotels do?
>
>> Apparently not. That was made quite clear the last time I had reason
>> to inquire (seventeen years ago).

On 31/07/2021 23:14, JNugent wrote:
> On 31/07/2021 07:59 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 31/07/2021 15:08, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 31/07/2021 10:12 am, NY wrote:

>>>> What about if the only TV is in a communal part of the house to
>>>> which all the residents (who have individually-lockable doors) have
>>>> access. I presume that is regarded as being a single household and
>>>> that all the residents don't need to buy separate licences for the
>>>> *same* TV.
>>
>>> One TV set could only require one licence.
>>
>> Then, logically, all TV sets should require a separate licence.
>
> That's not logical at all.

It follows from the premise, so it is.

> We have more than one TV set here (plus any number of computing devices
> capable of streaming the iPlayer) and the law requires us to have just
> one licence.
>
> Given that fact, one TV set could only require one licence (irrespective
> of how many people might be gathered around it, as in the days of yore).

As I explained below.

>> But it isn't TVs that are licensed but premises.  And it seems to have
>> been determined, probably by the courts in decided cases, that
>> separate flats or lockable accommodation count as separate premises.
>
> The question (as still visible, above) was whether *one* set, in a
> common area of a house let to students, etc, required only one licence.
> And the answer is that it could require only one licence.

Whether it is a common area doesn't come into it. The common area is
one location that can be licensed.