The declaration as quoted above demands that a device is capable ...... a broken TV is no longer capable of receiving the broadcast signals.
Then you should throw out your TV and not have it collecting dust in your home.
An analogue TV or a non-compatible Saorview TV is still capable of receiving TV signals even if those signals aren't available.
Even if your TV, STB, VCR, DVD Recorder (devices) are not connected to an aerial, satellite or cable network you are still required to have a licence.
The word 'capable' means that it was 'designed or modified to be able to ...' in this context. If a car is broken down it still needs road tax. The fact of the breakdown does not remove the requirement to be taxed, the criterion is whether it is on the public road.
If any TV is broken, it can be fixed. The law on this has been well tested. If it ever was a TV, it still is.
Not strictly true. If you declare a car to be off the road, you don't have to pay motor tax on it.
If you read the whole piece, I covered that point. Declaring a car 'off the road' when it is not - is equivalent to having a TV without a licence. If you have a TV, working or not, you need a licence. Saying it is broken is not a defence.
If a car is broken down it still needs road tax. The fact of the breakdown does not remove the requirement to be taxed, the criterion is whether it is on the public road.
I would only point out yet again, that this declaration does not mention 'designed for' as in the 1972 act.
It refers only to 'capable of' ...... and no broken device is capable of performing the function it was designed for.
So making a declaration on the basis of this wording, when possessing a broken device which was designed to receive and display TV broadcasts, is truthful and factual.
If the 'designed for' definition is still in place then why has it not been used for the declaration?
In practice the interpretation of the wording "capable of" has always included broken apparatus that could be fixed and disabled apparatus that could be re-enabled. In theory a court challenge could change that but i would suspect a judge would side with the established practice.
Seems rather weird ..... but I am not doubting you.
The declaration is for 'ordinary people' to read, and not those who are knowledgeable about legal interpretation of terms.
The 'normal use' interpretation would not be as you indicated.
I don't know if the wording of the 1972 act is still in play here, but if it is why would it not be used for this declaration?
I honestly find this rather odd.
Nevertheless, I would have no qualms about signing a declaration that a broken TV (or any other device) is not capable of performing the function for which it was designed and built.
.... all very odd ....
I've removed the tuner from our television, it only has scart and hdmi inputs now, I assume it is no longer a TV? I hate TV, and don't want to watch it, and certainly don't want to support RTE. We have no other devices in the house for television, and the tuner is in the bin, irreparably removed from the TV. I'm in the clear I assume?
As long as you don't have any STBs, Cable or Satellite TV, I assume so as long as you can prove it should you be asked.
We legitimately do not watch television in our household, it is muck most of it and with games, the internet, books etc. I have no desire to rot my brain with whatever trash is being used to fill up the hours. We don't have any kind of satellite TV or whatever, we have broadband and that is the only thing we will need.
I guess this post is a proof in itself, as are the pics I took of the nasty little tuner being ripped out by the solder joints, should it ever go to court.
So i've often pondered that if i remove the tuner then am I exempt. Now as someone mentioned, if the tuner is removed, does it no longer make it a TV? At the end of the day if it did go to court, the judge could just turn around and ask a professional if the tuner could be re- installed. Based on the answer he could rule that the TV licence is still applicable.
I did look down the other route of getting a 32 inch monitor. It's cheaper to buy a licence for ten years!
I can't get TV here, even if i wanted to. We are down in a dip and the management company forbids us from mounting a dish on the outside of the apartment block. Even if we did decide to go ahead and mount a dish we would have to mount the dish on the peoples apartment above us to get a signal.
All the content we watch is either streamed or downloaded. Not illegally either. I have a zune pass, an itunes account and a media server that myself and some of the neighbours share. We also have netflix. I think, in the future the law will be amended to reflect the way we watch media so that everybody pays.
On that basis he could equally rule that a monitor should be licenced ..... because it too can have a tuner attached ..... and much more easily by plugging in a STB.
I guess it all depends on the wording ...... if it is "capable" of receiving then the tunerless TV would not require a licence ..... but if the wording is 'designed for' then it probably would require a licence ..... but a judge could decide it doesn't and it would essentially be broken and not as it was designed
Whether it is worth the chance to an individual to go to court on the matter or not, is a personal decision.
It's "designed for". Doesn't matter if the TV's tuner is removed or if the TV is broken, you still need a license.
Designed by who?
I designed the TV to not be capable of receiving an analogue signal when I planned to and then did remove the tuner.