On 02/08/2021 06:54, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> 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 directly
> 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.

It is a piece of legislation, not the wisdom of Solomon.

In a nutshell, you can watch a broadcast on a portable device,
OR you can charge the internal battery of the portable device,
but you can't do both at the same time.

Whether you think it is sensible or not doesn't change a single word of
the Act as approved by Parliament and enforced by the courts.

Whether it is easy to enforce it is another matter entirely.

Jim

On 02/08/2021 06:54, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> 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.

The rule is not about where the power comes from ultimately (which is in
fact the sun) but one about the process of deciding in a practical way
whether a device is a portable one normally resident in TV licensed
premises. It may be fuzzy round the edges but it generally works,
whether you can see the logic in it or not.

In article <impjbhFk5oiU1@mid.individual.net>,
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
> On 02/08/2021 06:54, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> > 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.

> The rule is not about where the power comes from ultimately (which is in
> fact the sun) but one about the process of deciding in a practical way
> whether a device is a portable one normally resident in TV licensed
> premises. It may be fuzzy round the edges but it generally works,
> whether you can see the logic in it or not.

I suspect that this particular bit of the legislation has been carried over
from the original radio licence days. It made good sense then.

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

charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
>
> > The rule is not about where the power comes from ultimately (which is in
> > fact the sun) but one about the process of deciding in a practical way
> > whether a device is a portable one normally resident in TV licensed
> > premises. It may be fuzzy round the edges but it generally works,
> > whether you can see the logic in it or not.
>
> I suspect that this particular bit of the legislation has been carried over
> from the original radio licence days. It made good sense then.
>
Yes, but a radio licence wasn't intended to generate revenue, it was
an actual licence to make sure people operated their radio receivers
responsibly. It was like a dog licence or a radio control transmitter
licence.

--
Chris Green
·

In article <onmkth-jgi4.ln1@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net>
wrote:
> charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > The rule is not about where the power comes from ultimately (which is
> > > in fact the sun) but one about the process of deciding in a
> > > practical way whether a device is a portable one normally resident
> > > in TV licensed premises. It may be fuzzy round the edges but it
> > > generally works, whether you can see the logic in it or not.
> >
> > I suspect that this particular bit of the legislation has been carried
> > over from the original radio licence days. It made good sense then.
> >
> Yes, but a radio licence wasn't intended to generate revenue, it was an
> actual licence to make sure people operated their radio receivers
> responsibly. It was like a dog licence or a radio control transmitter
> licence.

It was used to fund the BBC.

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

On 02/08/2021 07:57, Norman Wells wrote:
> where the power comes from ultimately (which is in fact the sun

Not if it was nuclear; then it would have been your local, historic,
supernova. I think the same is the case for geothermal power. I'm not
sure of the exact mechanism to spin up the solar system for tidal power.

charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
> In article <onmkth-jgi4.ln1@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net>
> wrote:
> > charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > The rule is not about where the power comes from ultimately (which is
> > > > in fact the sun) but one about the process of deciding in a
> > > > practical way whether a device is a portable one normally resident
> > > > in TV licensed premises. It may be fuzzy round the edges but it
> > > > generally works, whether you can see the logic in it or not.
> > >
> > > I suspect that this particular bit of the legislation has been carried
> > > over from the original radio licence days. It made good sense then.
> > >
> > Yes, but a radio licence wasn't intended to generate revenue, it was an
> > actual licence to make sure people operated their radio receivers
> > responsibly. It was like a dog licence or a radio control transmitter
> > licence.
>
> It was used to fund the BBC.
>
I didn't think the radio licence was used to fund the BBC (British
Broadcasting Company as it was initially) but a little research
suggests you are quite right though the license fee was shared with
the Post Office and much of the BBC's income was from selling radios:-

However, the main source of its income was from the sale of radio
receiving sets and transmitters manufactured by its shareholding
member companies as well as from a portion of the government (GPO)
licence fee that had to be purchased by BBC listeners.

--
Chris Green
·

On 01/08/2021 20:37, JNugent wrote:
> 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.

A shared house presumably has a single tenancy, but an occupant might
say he lives in the "top flat". He might even give that out as a postal
address.

Mail addressed to a bedsitter (with its own tenancy) might sometimes
give the flat number and sometimes not, as it all ends up on the hall table.

--
Max Demian

On 01/08/2021 20:38, JNugent wrote:
> 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...

>>>> 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.

But each of the tenants is his/her own householder...

--
Max Demian

On 02/08/2021 08:47, charles wrote:
> In article <impjbhFk5oiU1@mid.individual.net>,
> Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>> On 02/08/2021 06:54, Roderick Stewart wrote:

>>> 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.

>> The rule is not about where the power comes from ultimately (which is in
>> fact the sun) but one about the process of deciding in a practical way
>> whether a device is a portable one normally resident in TV licensed
>> premises. It may be fuzzy round the edges but it generally works,
>> whether you can see the logic in it or not.
>
> I suspect that this particular bit of the legislation has been carried over
> from the original radio licence days. It made good sense then.

People powered radios (including valve radios) with rechargeable
batteries. Apart from the 2V accumulator for the filaments (probably
charged at the local bicycle shop), sometimes they bought lots of little
lead acid accumulators for HT, which they would have charged from the
mains if they had it.

I expect people argued about this matter even before there was any TV.
(Suppose you take your valve radio (with internal rechargeable
batteries) to the house of a friend (who has no licence as he has no
radio) so you can listen to a sports commentary together. The batteries
fade out while you are there so you connect the charger up to the mains.)

--
Max Demian

On 02/08/2021 11:43, David Woolley wrote:
> I'm not
> sure of the exact mechanism to spin up the solar system for tidal power.

When matter condensed after the Big Bang it wasn't homogeneous. The
rest is history.

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

On 02/08/2021 12:57, Max Demian wrote:
> On 01/08/2021 20:37, JNugent wrote:
>> 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.
>
> A shared house presumably has a single tenancy, but an occupant might
> say he lives in the "top flat". He might even give that out as a postal
> address.
>
> Mail addressed to a bedsitter (with its own tenancy) might sometimes
> give the flat number and sometimes not, as it all ends up on the hall table.
>
I once ended up in an odd situation, where there was a house on three
floors, where originally the house owner and his family lived on the top
two floors and his parents (who had mobility problems) occupied the
ground floor. Then the house owner got transferred to another branch so
moved out with his family, and they decided to keep the middle floor
empty so that they had somewhere to stay when they visited the parents,
and to let the top floor which would help pay the mortgage. I was
tipped off by a workmate that the flat was being offered, and I applied,
and was invited by the owner to look at it. It had no front door, other
than the main one to the house which the ground floor residents used,
and the flat looked OK, and secure enough because it was up a couple of
flights of stairs which the parents on the ground floor would never
attempt. Then I was invited for a cup of tea in the ground floor front
room and chatted socially with the owner and his parents. I got the
flat and lived there for 4 years, and I found out a lot later that the
cup of tea was the decider, because it was the parents who gave a Yes or
No to who they wanted sharing their house.

It was an informal arrangement - I didn't have a formal rental
agreement, just had an obligation to pay the lady on the ground floor my
rent cheque once a month, and that usually led to a cup of tea and a
chat so I got to know them socially too.

Interestingly, soon after I moved in and went onto the Electoral
Register I started to get "advice" from TV Licensing (addressed to The
Occupier, The Flat) on how to obtain my TV licence. As I had no TV and
no intention of getting one, I decided to wind them up with replies like
"Thank you for your interest but I have decided not to follow your
advice", and watched as each new approach from TV Licensing got a bit
more aggressive. Eventually they sent me a copy of the section of the
Act explaining when a licence is necessary, and I wrote back that the
"If you don't have a means of watching TV broadcasts" section applied to
me. I never heard from them again, though I did see a "Detector Van"
(or at least the van with a big aerial on the roof, I have no idea if it
did anything) in the streets nearby for a couple of weeks afterwards.

However, it did occur to me having read this thread, that because I
didn't have a front door and I didn't have a formal rental agreement, I
would probably have been covered by the licence for the ground floor had
I wanted a TV.

Jim

In article <e32lth-6p75.ln1@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net>
wrote:
> charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
> > In article <onmkth-jgi4.ln1@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net>
> > wrote:
> > > charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The rule is not about where the power comes from ultimately
> > > > > (which is in fact the sun) but one about the process of deciding
> > > > > in a practical way whether a device is a portable one normally
> > > > > resident in TV licensed premises. It may be fuzzy round the
> > > > > edges but it generally works, whether you can see the logic in it
> > > > > or not.
> > > >
> > > > I suspect that this particular bit of the legislation has been
> > > > carried over from the original radio licence days. It made good
> > > > sense then.
> > > >
> > > Yes, but a radio licence wasn't intended to generate revenue, it was
> > > an actual licence to make sure people operated their radio receivers
> > > responsibly. It was like a dog licence or a radio control
> > > transmitter licence.
> >
> > It was used to fund the BBC.
> >
> I didn't think the radio licence was used to fund the BBC (British
> Broadcasting Company as it was initially) but a little research suggests
> you are quite right though the license fee was shared with the Post
> Office and much of the BBC's income was from selling radios:-

That was the Company's business, not the Corporation's.

Quoting from Pawley:

The income of the company was derived partly from a half-share in the
ten-shilling fee for broadast receiver licences and partly froma royalties
paid by the the member firms on all receiving sets sold by them. The
royalty amounted to about 10% of the selling proce of receivers and also on
certain components that could be used by home constructors.

From January 1925 the BBC's share of the licence fee increased to 7s 6d and
royalty payments ceased

> However, the main source of its income was from the sale of radio
> receiving sets and transmitters manufactured by its shareholding
> member companies as well as from a portion of the government (GPO)
> licence fee that had to be purchased by BBC listeners.

Once the BBC became the Corporation, there were no shareholders.

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

In article <D6KdnfLsEYEyfpr8nZ2dnUU78KHNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>,
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> On 02/08/2021 08:47, charles wrote:
> > In article <impjbhFk5oiU1@mid.individual.net>,
> > Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
> >> On 02/08/2021 06:54, Roderick Stewart wrote:

> >>> 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.

> >> The rule is not about where the power comes from ultimately (which is in
> >> fact the sun) but one about the process of deciding in a practical way
> >> whether a device is a portable one normally resident in TV licensed
> >> premises. It may be fuzzy round the edges but it generally works,
> >> whether you can see the logic in it or not.
> >
> > I suspect that this particular bit of the legislation has been carried over
> > from the original radio licence days. It made good sense then.

> People powered radios (including valve radios) with rechargeable
> batteries. Apart from the 2V accumulator for the filaments (probably
> charged at the local bicycle shop), sometimes they bought lots of little
> lead acid accumulators for HT, which they would have charged from the
> mains if they had it.

> I expect people argued about this matter even before there was any TV.
> (Suppose you take your valve radio (with internal rechargeable
> batteries) to the house of a friend (who has no licence as he has no
> radio) so you can listen to a sports commentary together. The batteries
> fade out while you are there so you connect the charger up to the mains.)

My parents had a battery operated radio which they got a s a weddingb
presentbin 1939. Dry battery - a special two part (LT & HT) EverReady one.

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

On 02/08/2021 13:38, Indy Jess John wrote:
> It had no front door, other than the main one to the house which the
> ground floor residents used

I'm pretty sure that would be a fire safety breach. I believe there
should be a self closing fire door between the flat and the rest of the
building, given that is not safe to escape through second floor windows.
I think the stairs also need to be protected from fire.

I would think converting it into a flat would have triggered full
building regulation requirements, even if the house was, previously, too
old for them to apply.

On 02/08/2021 11:43, David Woolley wrote:
> On 02/08/2021 07:57, Norman Wells wrote:
>> where the power comes from ultimately (which is in fact the sun
>
> Not if it was nuclear; then it would have been your local, historic,
> supernova.  I think the same is the case for geothermal power.  I'm not
> sure of the exact mechanism to spin up the solar system for tidal power.

Then the legislators were well advised not to mention it..

On 02/08/2021 01:08 pm, Max Demian wrote:
> On 01/08/2021 20:38, JNugent wrote:
>> 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...
>
>>>>> 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.
>
> But each of the tenants is his/her own householder...

Not necessarily as described above.

On 02/08/2021 01:23 pm, Max Demian wrote:
> On 02/08/2021 08:47, charles wrote:
>> In article <impjbhFk5oiU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>     Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>> On 02/08/2021 06:54, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
>>>> 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.
>
>>> The rule is not about where the power comes from ultimately (which is in
>>> fact the sun) but one about the process of deciding in a practical way
>>> whether a device is a portable one normally resident in TV licensed
>>> premises.  It may be fuzzy round the edges but it generally works,
>>> whether you can see the logic in it or not.
>>
>> I suspect that this particular bit of the legislation has been carried
>> over
>> from the original radio licence days. It made good sense then.
>
> People powered radios (including valve radios) with rechargeable
> batteries. Apart from the 2V accumulator for the filaments (probably
> charged at the local bicycle shop), sometimes they bought lots of little
> lead acid accumulators for HT, which they would have charged from the
> mains if they had it.
>
> I expect people argued about this matter even before there was any TV.
> (Suppose you take your valve radio (with internal rechargeable
> batteries) to the house of a friend (who has no licence as he has no
> radio) so you can listen to a sports commentary together. The batteries
> fade out while you are there so you connect the charger up to the mains.)

Isn't the law about what is possible and the usual, rather than the
unusual, circumstances in which the set [is / was / used to be / might
sometimes be] used?

On 02/08/2021 01:38 pm, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 02/08/2021 12:57, Max Demian wrote:
>> On 01/08/2021 20:37, JNugent wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> A shared house presumably has a single tenancy, but an occupant might
>> say he lives in the "top flat". He might even give that out as a postal
>> address.
>>
>> Mail addressed to a bedsitter (with its own tenancy) might sometimes
>> give the flat number and sometimes not, as it all ends up on the hall
>> table.
>>
> I once ended up in an odd situation, where there was a house on three
> floors, where originally the house owner and his family lived on the top
> two floors and his parents (who had mobility problems) occupied the
> ground floor.  Then the house owner got transferred to another branch so
> moved out with his family, and they decided to keep the middle floor
> empty so that they had somewhere to stay when they visited the parents,
> and to let the top floor which would help pay the mortgage.  I was
> tipped off by a workmate that the flat was being offered, and I applied,
> and was invited by the owner to look at it.  It had no front door, other
> than the main one to the house which the ground floor residents used,
> and the flat looked OK, and secure enough because it was up a couple of
> flights of stairs which the parents on the ground floor would never
> attempt.  Then I was invited for a cup of tea in the ground floor front
> room and chatted socially with the owner and his parents.  I got the
> flat and lived there for 4 years, and I found out a lot later that the
> cup of tea was the decider, because it was the parents who gave a Yes or
> No to who they wanted sharing their house.
>
> It was an informal arrangement - I didn't have a formal rental
> agreement, just had an obligation to pay the lady on the ground floor my
> rent cheque once a month, and that usually led to a cup of tea and a
> chat so I got to know them socially too.
>
> Interestingly, soon after I moved in and went onto the Electoral
> Register I started to get "advice" from TV Licensing (addressed to The
> Occupier, The Flat) on how to obtain my TV licence.  As I had no TV and
> no intention of getting one, I decided to wind them up with replies like
> "Thank you for your interest but I have decided not to follow your
> advice", and watched as each new approach from TV Licensing got a bit
> more aggressive.  Eventually they sent me a copy of the section of the
> Act explaining when a licence is necessary, and I wrote back that the
> "If you don't have a means of watching TV broadcasts" section applied to
> me.  I never heard from them again, though I did see a "Detector Van"
> (or at least the van with a big aerial on the roof, I have no idea if it
> did anything) in the streets nearby for a couple of weeks afterwards.
>
> However, it did occur to me having read this thread, that because I
> didn't have a front door and I didn't have a formal rental agreement, I
> would probably have been covered by the licence for the ground floor had
> I wanted a TV.

A self-catering lodger?

Reading between the lines, it doesn't sound as though you had your own
individual electricity, water and gas supplies and you probably weren't
assessed for rates / water rates either.

On 02/08/2021 01:56 pm, charles wrote:
> In article <D6KdnfLsEYEyfpr8nZ2dnUU78KHNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>,
> Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> On 02/08/2021 08:47, charles wrote:
>>> In article <impjbhFk5oiU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>> Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>> On 02/08/2021 06:54, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
>>>>> 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.
>
>>>> The rule is not about where the power comes from ultimately (which is in
>>>> fact the sun) but one about the process of deciding in a practical way
>>>> whether a device is a portable one normally resident in TV licensed
>>>> premises. It may be fuzzy round the edges but it generally works,
>>>> whether you can see the logic in it or not.
>>>
>>> I suspect that this particular bit of the legislation has been carried over
>>> from the original radio licence days. It made good sense then.
>
>> People powered radios (including valve radios) with rechargeable
>> batteries. Apart from the 2V accumulator for the filaments (probably
>> charged at the local bicycle shop), sometimes they bought lots of little
>> lead acid accumulators for HT, which they would have charged from the
>> mains if they had it.
>
>> I expect people argued about this matter even before there was any TV.
>> (Suppose you take your valve radio (with internal rechargeable
>> batteries) to the house of a friend (who has no licence as he has no
>> radio) so you can listen to a sports commentary together. The batteries
>> fade out while you are there so you connect the charger up to the mains.)
>
> My parents had a battery operated radio which they got a s a weddingb
> presentbin 1939. Dry battery - a special two part (LT & HT) EverReady one.

I can still remember, right up to the early sixties, the occasional aged
visitor to Percy Philips' record shop in Kensington, Liverpool, seeking
a charge for a glass-bodied accumulator for radio, the battery carried
via a wooden handle and short length of cable.

PP had started the business (from the front room of his house) as a
battery-charging service and a prominent sign advertised the service
until he ceased trading.

<https://www.percyphillips.com/>

Let the six photos run through their cycle.

On 02/08/2021 14:45, JNugent wrote:
>
> Reading between the lines, it doesn't sound as though you had your own
> individual electricity, water and gas supplies and you probably weren't
> assessed for rates / water rates either.

I had a coin in the slot electricity meter, and I suppose that could
have been just a sub-circuit off the house mains with a proper meter
which was billed and paid for. I never saw my coin meter emptied and I
never received an electricity bill, so it must have been a private meter
rather than one known to the electricity supplier.

There was no gas supply, and my rent included a share of the rates,
because it went up when the rates went up each April.

I suppose Self-Catering Lodger is a good description. There was nothing
to stop me going into any other rooms in the house, though I never did.
If you have that level of trust, you don't abuse it.

Jim

On Mon, 02 Aug 2021 16:23:18 +0100, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:

>There was nothing
>to stop me going into any other rooms in the house, though I never did.
>If you have that level of trust, you don't abuse it.

If only the world could be made to work that way...

Rod.

On Mon, 2 Aug 2021 11:43:59 +0100, David Woolley
<david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:

>On 02/08/2021 07:57, Norman Wells wrote:
>> where the power comes from ultimately (which is in fact the sun
>
>Not if it was nuclear; then it would have been your local, historic,
>supernova. I think the same is the case for geothermal power. I'm not
>sure of the exact mechanism to spin up the solar system for tidal power.

Arguably my car runs on solar power then, delayed for a few million
years but ultimately from the sun.

Rod.

Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Aug 2021 16:23:18 +0100, Indy Jess John
> <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>
>> There was nothing
>> to stop me going into any other rooms in the house, though I never did.
>> If you have that level of trust, you don't abuse it.
>
> If only the world could be made to work that way...
>
> Rod.
>

There seems to be two main groups of people: those that are by default
honest, “just because you can doesn’t mean you should”, and those that feel
they can do anything as long as as they don’t get caught. The latter group
contains a lot of people who would otherwise consider themselves upstanding
citizens (I don’t mug old ladies) but are quite happy to cheat on financial
matters especially the payment of taxes.

"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:FuedndN5HenKXZv8nZ2dnUU78LOdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
> 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?

https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/business-and-organisations/residential-landlords-aud15

Though TBH, I have never resided in a shared house where LL provide a telly
as part of the communal facilities.

It's an item just asking not to be there one day.

tim