On 31/07/2021 11:52, NY wrote:
> "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,

Which it wouldn't do, because any criminal who stole it could do that in
the hope of keeping the cards live so that they can exploit them.

What the credit card companies would do is immediately cancel the cards
so that no-one can use them.

> in case the owner phoned to cancel the cards, and to say that I'd handed
> it in to X police station.

As would any dishonest crook.

> 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?

If they can. It's their job.

> 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".

That's the way to do it!

On 31/07/2021 15:06, JNugent 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.

Well, that's *your* definition. But it's a matter for the courts, who
may disagree. Indeed, there are probably decided cases on the point
already.

> 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".

The law doesn't concern itself with households either. Ax regards TV
licensing, it concerns itself with 'premises' which are what are
actually licensed.

>>> 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).

They need separate licences for their bit, ie the bit to which they
control access.

> 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,

Well, it is, obviously. For the time they're away they therefore need
an independent licence.

but
> wouldn't want to take the risk of a conviction for a son or daughter in
> order to test that.

On Sat, 31 Jul 2021 19:59:28 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>But it isn't TVs that are licensed but premises.

Unless it's a TV running from an internal battery in different
premises but is owned (owned or operated?) by someone who lives in the
licensed premises, except when they don't.

I wonder if it makes a difference in which premises the battery is
charged? The fact that a TV being powered by the charge in its battery
can sometimes determine its eligibility for a licence would suggest
that it may be relevant where the charge comes from.

If in such premises you were to charge the battery either in a
separate charger or with the TV switched off, and then unplug the
charger before switching the TV on to watch a programme, the energy
source would be exactly the same as if you had it powered directly
from the mains. Just saying...

You don't have to pursue the logic of an inconsistent and ridiculous
scheme very far to see how inconsistent and ridiculous it truly is.

Rod.

On Sun, 1 Aug 2021 00:18:30 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>> 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".
>
>That's the way to do it!

Except that a dishonest person finding a phone might do exactly that
in order to buy a bit of extra time.

There's probably no absolutely perfect foolproof way to guarantee
trust. Apparently even Jim Browning can be fooled -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIWV5fSaUB8

(It's 21 minutes long, but fascinating, and cautionary).

I suppose in the end all you can do is to seek some kind of human
contact in which you can see a face and/or hear a voice and trust your
experience and instinct and hope for the best.

Rod.

In article <imkd2iFi2ccU1@mid.individual.net>, Norman Wells
<hex@unseen.ac.am> 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.

Norf Lundon, innit?

So far as I'm concerned, places like Yorkshire are the South. 8-]

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 01/08/2021 12:14 am, Norman Wells wrote:
> 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.

When there is only one set (irrespective of how it is located), no more
than one licence can be required. It doesn't matter whether the location
is a domestic sitting room, a public house bar or the common room in a
hall of residence or HMO let to students.

On 01/08/2021 12:26 am, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 31/07/2021 15:06, JNugent 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.
>
> Well, that's *your* definition.  But it's a matter for the courts, who
> may disagree.  Indeed, there are probably decided cases on the point
> already.
>
>> 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".
>
> The law doesn't concern itself with households either.  Ax regards TV
> licensing, it concerns itself with 'premises' which are what are
> actually licensed.

"Premises" as a term, is easily-distinguishable from "building" /
"edifice", etc.

A pair of traditional semi-detached houses is a single building, but
contains two sets of premises (unless converted into flats, when the
number of "premises" will be higher). Terraced houses comprise as many
separate sets of premises as there are self-contained accommodation
units. Blocks of purpose-built flats, ditto.

>>>> 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).
>
> They need separate licences for their bit, ie the bit to which they
> control access.
>
>> 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,
>
> Well, it is, obviously.  For the time they're away they therefore need
> an independent licence.
>
>  but
>> wouldn't want to take the risk of a conviction for a son or daughter
>> in order to test that.

On 01/08/2021 07:52, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jul 2021 19:59:28 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>> But it isn't TVs that are licensed but premises.
>
> Unless it's a TV running from an internal battery in different
> premises but is owned (owned or operated?) by someone who lives in the
> licensed premises, except when they don't.
>
> I wonder if it makes a difference in which premises the battery is
> charged? The fact that a TV being powered by the charge in its battery
> can sometimes determine its eligibility for a licence would suggest
> that it may be relevant where the charge comes from.
>
> If in such premises you were to charge the battery either in a
> separate charger or with the TV switched off, and then unplug the
> charger before switching the TV on to watch a programme, the energy
> source would be exactly the same as if you had it powered directly
> from the mains. Just saying...
>
> You don't have to pursue the logic of an inconsistent and ridiculous
> scheme very far to see how inconsistent and ridiculous it truly is.
>
> Rod.

However ridiculous you think the scheme is, others think otherwise, and
the law makes it apply to you as well as to everyone else.

You'll find the answer to your rather inconsequential question about
charging location here:

https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/understanding-your-tv-licence-top3

On 01/08/2021 09:53, JNugent wrote:
> On 01/08/2021 12:14 am, Norman Wells wrote:
>> 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.
>
> When there is only one set (irrespective of how it is located), no more
> than one licence can be required. It doesn't matter whether the location
> is a domestic sitting room, a public house bar or the common room in a
> hall of residence or HMO let to students.

If it's moved to different premises, those premises need to be licensed.
The licence doesn't follow the set but applies to the premises in
which it is installed and used.

On 01/08/2021 09:59, JNugent wrote:
> On 01/08/2021 12:26 am, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 31/07/2021 15:06, JNugent 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.
>>
>> Well, that's *your* definition.  But it's a matter for the courts, who
>> may disagree.  Indeed, there are probably decided cases on the point
>> already.
>>
>>> 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".
>>
>> The law doesn't concern itself with households either.  Ax regards TV
>> licensing, it concerns itself with 'premises' which are what are
>> actually licensed.
>
> "Premises" as a term, is easily-distinguishable from "building" /
> "edifice", etc.
>
> A pair of traditional semi-detached houses is a single building, but
> contains two sets of premises (unless converted into flats, when the
> number of "premises" will be higher). Terraced houses comprise as many
> separate sets of premises as there are self-contained accommodation
> units. Blocks of purpose-built flats, ditto.

Never said otherwise.

On 01/08/2021 09:53, JNugent wrote:
> On 01/08/2021 12:14 am, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 31/07/2021 23:14, JNugent wrote:

>>> 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.
>
> When there is only one set (irrespective of how it is located), no more
> than one licence can be required. It doesn't matter whether the location
> is a domestic sitting room, a public house bar or the common room in a
> hall of residence or HMO let to students.

What if the hall of residence (or student house) has more than one TV
lounge so the TVs can be tuned into different programmes at once?

--
Max Demian

On 31/07/2021 22:53, David Woolley wrote:
> 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.)

I've lived in bedsitter houses where the bedsitters don't have locks on
the doors, and it's even more likely if it is a shared house with a
single rental agreement.

What if two tenants have TVs in their rooms, but don't allow a third
tenant (without a TV) to view them? How many TV licences are required?

--
Max Demian

On 01/08/2021 10:17 am, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 01/08/2021 09:59, JNugent wrote:
>> On 01/08/2021 12:26 am, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> On 31/07/2021 15:06, JNugent 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.
>>>
>>> Well, that's *your* definition.  But it's a matter for the courts,
>>> who may disagree.  Indeed, there are probably decided cases on the
>>> point already.
>>>
>>>> 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".
>>>
>>> The law doesn't concern itself with households either.  Ax regards TV
>>> licensing, it concerns itself with 'premises' which are what are
>>> actually licensed.
>>
>> "Premises" as a term, is easily-distinguishable from "building" /
>> "edifice", etc.
>>
>> A pair of traditional semi-detached houses is a single building, but
>> contains two sets of premises (unless converted into flats, when the
>> number of "premises" will be higher). Terraced houses comprise as many
>> separate sets of premises as there are self-contained accommodation
>> units. Blocks of purpose-built flats, ditto.
>
> Never said otherwise.

In that case, we have been in agreement all along.

On 01/08/2021 10:14 am, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 01/08/2021 09:53, JNugent wrote:
>> On 01/08/2021 12:14 am, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> When there is only one set (irrespective of how it is located), no
>> more than one licence can be required. It doesn't matter whether the
>> location is a domestic sitting room, a public house bar or the common
>> room in a hall of residence or HMO let to students.
>
> If it's moved to different premises, those premises need to be licensed.
>  The licence doesn't follow the set but applies to the premises in
> which it is installed and used.

I wonder how many people have ever been in the habit of moving a TV set
from one house to another, merely for convenience of watching? Even a
modern (and lightweight) flat-screen set of any size doesn't exactly
lend itself to being treated as a "portable".

As for the rule about needing a separate (non-location-dependent)
licence for an actual portable (WTMM) set, good luck to the BBC in
getting any traction with the viewing public on distinctions between
sets powered by internal batteries and those powered by connection to a
car battery, inverter, etc, or even to the mains.

On 01/08/2021 11:05 am, Max Demian wrote:
> On 01/08/2021 09:53, JNugent wrote:
>> On 01/08/2021 12:14 am, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> On 31/07/2021 23:14, JNugent wrote:
>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> When there is only one set (irrespective of how it is located), no
>> more than one licence can be required. It doesn't matter whether the
>> location is a domestic sitting room, a public house bar or the common
>> room in a hall of residence or HMO let to students.
>
> What if the hall of residence (or student house) has more than one TV
> lounge so the TVs can be tuned into different programmes at once?

Would that still be one address?

On Sun, 1 Aug 2021 11:16:01 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:

>On 31/07/2021 22:53, David Woolley wrote:
>> 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.)
>
>I've lived in bedsitter houses where the bedsitters don't have locks on
>the doors, and it's even more likely if it is a shared house with a
>single rental agreement.
>
>What if two tenants have TVs in their rooms, but don't allow a third
>tenant (without a TV) to view them? How many TV licences are required?

Depends on the tenancy agreement. It is covered in the url reference
which Norman Wells gave way back.

If you are still puzzled, try uk. legal (where you will get many more
uninformed opinions than you get here), and then try the difficult
option - DYOR.

--
brightside S9

On 01/08/2021 11:46, JNugent wrote:
> On 01/08/2021 11:05 am, Max Demian wrote:
>> On 01/08/2021 09:53, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 01/08/2021 12:14 am, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>> On 31/07/2021 23:14, JNugent wrote:
>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> When there is only one set (irrespective of how it is located), no
>>> more than one licence can be required. It doesn't matter whether the
>>> location is a domestic sitting room, a public house bar or the common
>>> room in a hall of residence or HMO let to students.
>>
>> What if the hall of residence (or student house) has more than one TV
>> lounge so the TVs can be tuned into different programmes at once?
>
> Would that still be one address?

Probably. What's an address? Sometimes separate rooms/bedsitters are
designated "flat 1" &c., sometimes not.

--
Max Demian

On 01/08/2021 11:05, Max Demian wrote:
> On 01/08/2021 09:53, JNugent wrote:
>> On 01/08/2021 12:14 am, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> On 31/07/2021 23:14, JNugent wrote:
>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> When there is only one set (irrespective of how it is located), no
>> more than one licence can be required. It doesn't matter whether the
>> location is a domestic sitting room, a public house bar or the common
>> room in a hall of residence or HMO let to students.
>
> What if the hall of residence (or student house) has more than one TV
> lounge so the TVs can be tuned into different programmes at once?

One 'premises' requires one licence, in which you can have as many TVs
as you want tuned into whatever you want.

Just like at home.

"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:64CdnW7hlaz16Zv8nZ2dnUU78U3NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
> On 31/07/2021 22:53, David Woolley wrote:
>> 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.)
>
> I've lived in bedsitter houses where the bedsitters don't have locks on
> the doors, and it's even more likely if it is a shared house with a single
> rental agreement.

I would suggest that one tenancy equals one household

regardless of whether you have locks on your room or not

On 01/08/2021 16:36, tim... wrote:
> "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:64CdnW7hlaz16Zv8nZ2dnUU78U3NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
>> On 31/07/2021 22:53, David Woolley wrote:
>>> 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.)
>>
>> I've lived in bedsitter houses where the bedsitters don't have locks
>> on the doors, and it's even more likely if it is a shared house with a
>> single rental agreement.
>
> I would suggest that one tenancy equals one household
>
> regardless of whether you have locks on your room or not

So who licenses the TV in the common lounge?

--
Max Demian

On Sun, 1 Aug 2021 10:09:51 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>On 01/08/2021 07:52, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Jul 2021 19:59:28 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> But it isn't TVs that are licensed but premises.
>>
>> Unless it's a TV running from an internal battery in different
>> premises but is owned (owned or operated?) by someone who lives in the
>> licensed premises, except when they don't.
>>
>> I wonder if it makes a difference in which premises the battery is
>> charged? The fact that a TV being powered by the charge in its battery
>> can sometimes determine its eligibility for a licence would suggest
>> that it may be relevant where the charge comes from.
>>
>> If in such premises you were to charge the battery either in a
>> separate charger or with the TV switched off, and then unplug the
>> charger before switching the TV on to watch a programme, the energy
>> source would be exactly the same as if you had it powered directly
>> from the mains. Just saying...
>>
>> You don't have to pursue the logic of an inconsistent and ridiculous
>> scheme very far to see how inconsistent and ridiculous it truly is.
>>
>> Rod.
>
>However ridiculous you think the scheme is, others think otherwise, and
>the law makes it apply to you as well as to everyone else.
>
>You'll find the answer to your rather inconsequential question about
>charging location here:
>
>https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/understanding-your-tv-licence-top3

I can't see any answer to my question about charging. What it does say
is that exemptions include -

"Any device powered solely by its own internal batteries (i.e. it is
not connected to an aerial or plugged into the mains)".

This doesn't say anything about where or when the battery is charged.
If there is something I've missed, please point it out.

Rod.

On 01/08/2021 02:29 pm, Max Demian wrote:
> On 01/08/2021 11:46, JNugent wrote:
>> On 01/08/2021 11:05 am, Max Demian wrote:
>>> On 01/08/2021 09:53, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 01/08/2021 12:14 am, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>> On 31/07/2021 23:14, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> When there is only one set (irrespective of how it is located), no
>>>> more than one licence can be required. It doesn't matter whether the
>>>> location is a domestic sitting room, a public house bar or the
>>>> common room in a hall of residence or HMO let to students.
>>>
>>> What if the hall of residence (or student house) has more than one TV
>>> lounge so the TVs can be tuned into different programmes at once?
>>
>> Would that still be one address?
>
> Probably. What's an address? Sometimes separate rooms/bedsitters are
> designated "flat 1" &c., sometimes not.

An address is a place to which post may be directed (even if it all
lands up together inside the main door). A good alternative would be a
tenancy.

On 01/08/2021 04:40 pm, Max Demian wrote:
> On 01/08/2021 16:36, tim... wrote:
>> "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>> news:64CdnW7hlaz16Zv8nZ2dnUU78U3NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
>>> On 31/07/2021 22:53, David Woolley wrote:
>>>> 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.)
>>>
>>> I've lived in bedsitter houses where the bedsitters don't have locks
>>> on the doors, and it's even more likely if it is a shared house with
>>> a single rental agreement.
>>
>> I would suggest that one tenancy equals one household
>>
>> regardless of whether you have locks on your room or not
>
> So who licenses the TV in the common lounge?

The householder.

On 01/08/2021 19:00, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Aug 2021 10:09:51 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>> On 01/08/2021 07:52, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>> On Sat, 31 Jul 2021 19:59:28 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> But it isn't TVs that are licensed but premises.
>>>
>>> Unless it's a TV running from an internal battery in different
>>> premises but is owned (owned or operated?) by someone who lives in the
>>> licensed premises, except when they don't.
>>>
>>> I wonder if it makes a difference in which premises the battery is
>>> charged? The fact that a TV being powered by the charge in its battery
>>> can sometimes determine its eligibility for a licence would suggest
>>> that it may be relevant where the charge comes from.
>>>
>>> If in such premises you were to charge the battery either in a
>>> separate charger or with the TV switched off, and then unplug the
>>> charger before switching the TV on to watch a programme, the energy
>>> source would be exactly the same as if you had it powered directly
>>> from the mains. Just saying...
>>>
>>> You don't have to pursue the logic of an inconsistent and ridiculous
>>> scheme very far to see how inconsistent and ridiculous it truly is.
>>>
>>> Rod.
>>
>> However ridiculous you think the scheme is, others think otherwise, and
>> the law makes it apply to you as well as to everyone else.
>>
>> You'll find the answer to your rather inconsequential question about
>> charging location here:
>>
>> https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/understanding-your-tv-licence-top3
>
> I can't see any answer to my question about charging. What it does say
> is that exemptions include -
>
> "Any device powered solely by its own internal batteries (i.e. it is
> not connected to an aerial or plugged into the mains)".
>
> This doesn't say anything about where or when the battery is charged.

Then it's not relevant.

On Sun, 1 Aug 2021 20:58:05 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>On 01/08/2021 19:00, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 Aug 2021 10:09:51 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/08/2021 07:52, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 31 Jul 2021 19:59:28 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But it isn't TVs that are licensed but premises.
>>>>
>>>> Unless it's a TV running from an internal battery in different
>>>> premises but is owned (owned or operated?) by someone who lives in the
>>>> licensed premises, except when they don't.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if it makes a difference in which premises the battery is
>>>> charged? The fact that a TV being powered by the charge in its battery
>>>> can sometimes determine its eligibility for a licence would suggest
>>>> that it may be relevant where the charge comes from.
>>>>
>>>> If in such premises you were to charge the battery either in a
>>>> separate charger or with the TV switched off, and then unplug the
>>>> charger before switching the TV on to watch a programme, the energy
>>>> source would be exactly the same as if you had it powered directly
>>>> from the mains. Just saying...
>>>>
>>>> You don't have to pursue the logic of an inconsistent and ridiculous
>>>> scheme very far to see how inconsistent and ridiculous it truly is.
>>>>
>>>> Rod.
>>>
>>> However ridiculous you think the scheme is, others think otherwise, and
>>> the law makes it apply to you as well as to everyone else.
>>>
>>> You'll find the answer to your rather inconsequential question about
>>> charging location here:
>>>
>>> https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/understanding-your-tv-licence-top3
>>
>> I can't see any answer to my question about charging. What it does say
>> is that exemptions include -
>>
>> "Any device powered solely by its own internal batteries (i.e. it is
>> not connected to an aerial or plugged into the mains)".
>>
>> This doesn't say anything about where or when the battery is charged.
>
>Then it's not relevant.

Then if it's not relevant to the rule it's very silly. As I pointed
out earlier, charging an internal battery while the device is switched
off (or removing it to charge it separately) and then switching off
the charger and using the battery to power the device achieves exactly
the same thing in material terms as to run the device itself dirctly
from the exactly same wall socket. The power comes from the same place
in either instance. The rule about the power source says it matters,
but in reality it's nonsense.

Rod.