TV / television licensing MEGATHREAD

[Magilla]

anyone who pays for a tv licence now is out of thier minds

 

Nonsense, I pay because it's extremely good value for money and because of the BBC's commitment to public service.

[dosxuk]

I believe in whats right and whats wrong . The fact the BBC have lied to us for thirty years about people who we grew up thinking they were our hero's and half of them were pedophiles , was enough evidence for me not pay it.Regardless of my credit rating or criminal record.

EVIDENTLY you have no children or you wouldn't be defending the corrupt license fee,and you be trying to protect them from the lies we were subjected to.

 

I hope you're also refusing to pay any of your taxes, as they fund the Police and NHS who are equally as guilty of the charges you are levelling at the BBC.

[Magilla]

I believe in whats right and whats wrong . The fact the BBC have lied to us for thirty years about people who we grew up thinking they were our hero's and half of them were pedophiles , was enough evidence for me not pay it.

 

If you're daft enough to make a TV personality your hero then it's fairly obvious that at some point you were always going to disappointed.

 

Also, it's worth mentioning that the police and social services weren't interested in Saville either, have you decided to give up paying your N.I contributions also?

 

I don't accept that as sponging.

 

If you watch BBC output but don't pay for it, then it is sponging.

[neeeeeeeeeek]

I believe in whats right and whats wrong . The fact the BBC have lied to us for thirty years about people who we grew up thinking they were our hero's and half of them were pedophiles , was enough evidence for me not pay it.Regardless of my credit rating or criminal record.

EVIDENTLY you have no children or you wouldn't be defending the corrupt license fee,and you be trying to protect them from the lies we were subjected to.

I don't accept that as sponging.

 

 

You sound like one of the morons who hounded a pediatrician out of their home after getting them confused with a pedophile!

 

I would love for you get prosecuted, just so you can stand up in court and come out with that guff as your self righteous reason for not buying one!

[Total Chaos]

And yet there are tens of thousands of them convicted every year.

 

Yes, but only because they sign and plead guilty there and then and admit they have been caught watching TV without a license.

 

---------- Post added 02-04-2014 at 18:14 ----------

 

Except they do have a power to enter and search premised if they obtain a warrant under s366 of the Telecommunications Act 2003.

 

 

 

 

So according to the Act yes they can seek to obtain a warrant if they so wish and yes this entitles a person the BBC or their authorised agent i.e Capita to enter and search the premises. So really your reasoning if thats what it is called doesnt stack up.

 

It will stack up even less when the licence fee is decriminalised because they will have to prove much less and you will just get summary judgment against you. You wont get a criminal record then but they will mess up your credit rating if that is of concern to you. Your annecdotal evidence probably happens becayse in most cases they cant be bothered to obtain a warrant. I wouldnt get so ccomfy with the strength of your free man arguments though because in most cases they wont work. If you dont mind a criminal record then that's cool, but it does happen.

 

 

No doubt Mt Amberleaf can enlighten the rest of us with how he would deal with someone who obtains a warrant. Waits ....

 

It's just all words.i'm guessing you also believe in TV detector vans.I will agree to disagree.When they knock on my door with a valid warrant and fine me,then i will believe you.I think it's been about 2 yrs now since i stopped paying........................................still waiting for the that knock on the door..............zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz and so are some of my friends and family.Some of which have not paid for over a year.

 

---------- Post added 02-04-2014 at 18:23 ----------

 

Except they do have a power to enter and search premised if they obtain a warrant under s366 of the Telecommunications Act 2003.

 

 

 

 

So according to the Act yes they can seek to obtain a warrant if they so wish and yes this entitles a person the BBC or their authorised agent i.e Capita to enter and search the premises. So really your reasoning if thats what it is called doesnt stack up.

 

It will stack up even less when the licence fee is decriminalised because they will have to prove much less and you will just get summary judgment against you. You wont get a criminal record then but they will mess up your credit rating if that is of concern to you. Your annecdotal evidence probably happens becayse in most cases they cant be bothered to obtain a warrant. I wouldnt get so ccomfy with the strength of your free man arguments though because in most cases they wont work. If you dont mind a criminal record then that's cool, but it does happen.

 

No doubt Mt Amberleaf can enlighten the rest of us with how he would deal with someone who obtains a warrant. Waits ....

 

i know of three who have been fined and it never went on there criminal record.You do know it's called brain washing,people believe all the crap you have been posting because it has been drilled into the british public since 1946.When it becomes a civil matter it will cost them thousands in court costs per person,just to collect £145.so what are they going to do in 2016 then?

Edited April 2, 2014 by Total Chaos

[dosxuk]

Yes, but only because they sign and plead guilty there and then and admit they have been caught watching TV without a license.

 

People who sign up and admit their law breaking to the inspectors don't get convicted.

 

Only those who end up going to court get convicted, generally after following the advice of the "only idiots pay the licence fee" brigade. It's these people who number in the tens of thousands, not the ones who when actually approached just pay up.

[Magilla]

You do know it's called brain washing,people believe all the crap you have been posting because it has been drilled into the british public since 1946.

 

Or.. they see it as part of their civic duty to support a pretty good public service.

 

The irony in your use of the words "brain washing" isn't lost.

 

When it becomes a civil matter it will cost them thousands in court costs per person,just to collect £145.so what are they going to do in 2016 then?

 

£145 + costs Though I think now that the burden of proof has been considerably lowered, so will the costs.

[Total Chaos]

]People who sign up and admit their law breaking to the inspectors don't get convicted[/b].

 

Only those who end up going to court get convicted, generally after following the advice of the "only idiots pay the licence fee" brigade. It's these people who number in the tens of thousands, not the ones who when actually approached just pay up.

 

The Op says he signed, so effectively admitting his law breaking and bought a license, BUT still gets a court summons and the 3 others I know was also told if they bought a license now they wouldn't hear anything else. But still received a summons and a fine of £145.So in real life, it kind of blows your theory out of the water.

 

Now lets look at all the stuff that has been cut and pasted. All the threatening stuff in black and white that WILL happen to us if we get caught without a license.

 

Me non payment for around 2 yrs = no court,no fine and no warrant.

 

friends and family,non payment for 1 yr + no court,no fine and no warrant.

 

A few non payers on here, I think one poster has not paid for over 4 yrs = no court,no fine and NO warrant.

 

Mmmm, I think I will stick to the freeman ways, as it's proved pretty sweet so far.

 

To the OP, the guy was aggressive etc, because he is just a salesman and gets paid commission per tv license he sells.

 

---------- Post added 02-04-2014 at 22:08 ----------

 

Or.. they see it as part of their civic duty to support a pretty good public service.

 

The irony in your use of the words "brain washing" isn't lost.

 

 

 

£145 + costs Though I think now that the burden of proof has been considerably lowered, so will the costs.

 

Nope the fine currently is just £145,no costs :-).so if it would make it easier for them to collect revenue/fines if it went civil, then why is the BBC bullying MPs not to change it :huh:and if it WAS a law and a criminal offense, why downgrade it, why would the magistrates want it to be a civil offense and turn there nose up at people breaking the law?

 

Like dosxuk quoted. If you sign and admit you have broken the law, you will not be convicted.999tigger quotes a law is a law, so if I stole hundreds of top of the range cars and I get caught and sign a piece of paper admitting my guilt, i will not be convicted. After all a law is a law.

[dosxuk]

The Op says he signed, so effectively admitting his law breaking and bought a license, BUT still gets a court summons

 

He also says he never actually paid for the licence:

 

The payment however did not work, for whatever reason which i was kind of thankful for as I then let tv licensing know i would not be needing a license.

 

and the 3 others I know was also told if they bought a license now they wouldn't hear anything else.

 

Did they also discover they'd not actually paid when checking?

 

But still received a summons and a fine of £145.So in real life, it kind of blows your theory out of the water.

 

My theory isn't a theory. It's quite easy to find out how many people are summonsed to court and convicted. If you go into court and state "I didn't have one, the inspector came round, I paid him the £145 for the licence and he went away", you're not going to walk out with a conviction, and TVL will end up with a slap on the wrist for bringing invalid cases in front of the courts.

 

Nope the fine currently is just £145,no costs :-).

 

That's the cost of a licence - it's not a fine - which only the courts can put in place, and they have a whole list of things which they have to use when setting fines. If you get a court imposed fine, it will almost certainly be a fine plus the costs of the prosecution against you.

 

so if it would make it easier for them to collect revenue/fines if it went civil

 

Because there's a much lower level of proof needed for a civil conviction as opposed to a criminal conviction. To get a criminal conviction TVL need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you have been receiving live television signals. In the civil world, the "beyond reasonable doubt" bit doesn't exist - simply verbally admitting you had Sky but no licence would likely be enough to convict you.

 

It's also important to remember you can still end up with a criminal record for a civil offence, if you refuse to comply with the instructions of the court.

 

then why is the BBC bullying MPs not to change it :huh:and if it WAS a law and a criminal offense, why downgrade it, why would the magistrates want it to be a civil offense and turn there nose up at people breaking the law?

 

Because of numerous factors, from politicians with relationships with competitors to the BBC who want it downsized, to magistrates who are frustrated with the current situation because so many people are breaking the law and clogging up the courts.

 

Like dosxuk quoted. If you sign and admit you have broken the law, you will not be convicted.999tigger quotes a law is a law, so if I stole hundreds of top of the range cars and I get caught and sign a piece of paper admitting my guilt, i will not be convicted. After all a law is a law.

 

If you were refusing to pay your water supplier, but when they turned up on the doorstep you agreed to pay, it would be a waste of their time and our money for them to also prosecute you. If you continue to refuse to pay, they'll take you to court and you could end up with a criminal record.

[amberleaf808]

Anyone still paying is a complete fool! simple!

 

---------- Post added 02-04-2014 at 23:10 ----------

 

That's the gist of it. Unless they can prove your guilt they can't do anything to you.

 

Hence why, when the inspector calls, it's best to simply shut the door on them- they want you to talk to them as that 'aids in their investigations'.

 

But it's their investigation and their problem- let them waste their time, but you're under no obligation to do or say anything.

 

And, of course, NEVER let them into your home. Shut the door and go about your day, they are a toothless organisation and can do nothing to incriminate you unless you actively assist them by allowing access or talking to them.

 

Bang ON... 100% correct!