Sorry to be the bringer of bad news, folks, but Spooks is to end after Series 10.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/au ... pooks-axed
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/au ... pooks-axed
Spooks to End
- Thread starter Bouncy Castle
- Start date
Quatermass said:
Tonyblack said:
Nah, I can do without. Especially since I got yet another threatening letter from the TV licence people this morning. 
I don't watch TV because I don't want to - not because I object to buying a licence. I object to be hounded by the licence people because I choose not to own a TV set.
It works like this Meer. They have a record of every address in Britain and every licence. Their computer throws out addresses that aren't covered by a licence and those addresses are sent a series of progressively more threatening letters.
If you (like me) don't have a TV set you are expected to contact the licence people and tell them unless you want to continue getting the letters. But even if you do that, they don't believe you and they send someone around to confirm that you aren't lying.
So, just because I choose not to have a TV set, I have to fork out on a stamp to tell them that I don't have one and then I have to inconvenience myself by having an inspector come to my home and searching it to make sure I don't have a TV set.
Even if I did all that, I would only be spared the threatening letters for a period of three years.
Now there's such a thing in this country as being innocent until proven guilty. I should not have to prove that I am innocent just to satisfy a bunch of lazy bureaucrats. Their officers do not have a statutary right of entry and I, frankly, don't see why I should have to allow some stranger into my home so they can nose around.
This has become a matter of principle to me now.
If you (like me) don't have a TV set you are expected to contact the licence people and tell them unless you want to continue getting the letters. But even if you do that, they don't believe you and they send someone around to confirm that you aren't lying.
So, just because I choose not to have a TV set, I have to fork out on a stamp to tell them that I don't have one and then I have to inconvenience myself by having an inspector come to my home and searching it to make sure I don't have a TV set.
Even if I did all that, I would only be spared the threatening letters for a period of three years.
Now there's such a thing in this country as being innocent until proven guilty. I should not have to prove that I am innocent just to satisfy a bunch of lazy bureaucrats. Their officers do not have a statutary right of entry and I, frankly, don't see why I should have to allow some stranger into my home so they can nose around.
This has become a matter of principle to me now.
No! You only need a licence if you watch TV live on your computer. This is from the TV Licence website:
That means you can legally watch iPlayer shows as long as you don't watch them as they are being transmitted. The burden of proof would be on them to show that you did otherwise. To do that they would have to confiscate your computer and to do that they would need a search warrant.
I never watch TV shows live on the iPlayer.
That means you can legally watch iPlayer shows as long as you don't watch them as they are being transmitted. The burden of proof would be on them to show that you did otherwise. To do that they would have to confiscate your computer and to do that they would need a search warrant.
I never watch TV shows live on the iPlayer.
