TV licence thread

[Waldo]

57 minutes ago, L00b said:

...and how does that person check what the CCTV records/has recorded/that it works, without turning the TV (or another) on?  

 

(put aside the obvious question: what would be the point of doing this, unless that person needs some serious psychological help? )

 

The burden of proof is on the accusation of course, and that is the reason why the BBC used to have detector vans.

 

I don't know if they still use them these days, but nowadays it's probably easier for the prosecution to obtain discovery of people's IP addresses and connection times from their ISP, and to correlate that data with iPlayer / catch-up TV services server data (as with the torrents-based infringements of old); or discovery of Sky membership <or anything else similar, proving that the person 'consumes' broadcasts, live or not; e.g. a family photo on Facebook showing the TV turned on in the background - and showing Strictly for bonus points >.

 

Then it doesn't matter if the person used a (connected) TV, a computer, a laptop, a tablet (...): BBC's got them bang to rights all the same.

They could check CCTV on a computer monitor. Wonder how the court would react to the possibility of wading through 1,000's (or possibly 10,000's) hours of video evidence of a TV not being switched on. I guess they wouldn't allow that.

 

Anyhow, silliness aside, good to hear that the BBC do have to prove consumption of broadcasts (rather than, you have a TV, you're nicked!).

Edited June 14, 2019 by Waldo

[ECCOnoob]

8 hours ago, Black Brick said:

 

I am sure some pensioners can afford to pay the TV licence but for many it will mean going without food. If it comes to that then I could not support the BBC with any enforcement against a single pensioner. The trauma it would cause could be the end of them. It could even mean the BBC before the courts for manslaughter.

What a load of crock.  

 

These so called destitute pensioners were paying the TV licence perfectly well until 2000 when money tree labour decided they would dangle another freebie to boost their vote share with the blue rinse crowd.   

 

The current licence is less than £13 a month.   42p a day.     If these pensioners are so brassic and so incapable in their affairs that they are choosing television over food then they need to be put into care not given a handout.

 

People bang on about TV being this vital lifeline that prevents loneliness and is some vital communication to the world but what's next?   Free telephone service?   Free internet service?   Free Sky Television to  expand the channel choice?      Its rediculous.  

 

IF YOU DONT WANT TO PAY DONT WATCH LIVE BROADCAST TELEVISION. 

 

Not exactly rocket science is it.

 

There are plenty of working people who are on low incomes and have to manage to get by too.   They dont get their lifestyle choices supported for free.

 

 

Edited June 14, 2019 by ECCOnoob

[Car Boot]

BBC GREED

 

Sending threatening letters demanding money and home visits by aggressive large men to a vulnerable elderly person near you.

 

SOON.

[Car Boot]

Deeply ashamed of the BBC.

 

It's greed is a stain on our nation.

[Magilla]

23 minutes ago, Car Boot said:

Deeply ashamed of the BBC.

 

It's greed is a stain on our nation.

Welcome to Brexit "everyone for themselves" Britain!

[ECCOnoob]

40 minutes ago, Car Boot said:

BBC GREED

 

Sending threatening letters demanding money and home visits by aggressive large men to a vulnerable elderly person near you.

 

SOON.

Greed my backside.   The UK is not alone in having a television licence and we are certainly not the most expensive.

 

Letters of increasingly threatning nature is exactly what businesses and organisations do when you dont pay them.    Threatening letters is what you deserve when you break the law and dont pay a fee which is a mandatory legal requirement. 

 

If a pensioner walks into Tesco and takes things without paying - should the store detectives just ignore them just because they are "vulnerable elderly" people???

 

If a pensioner racks up £1000 on a credit card and refuses to pay because they cannot afford it should the bailiffs leave them be just because they are "vulnerable elderly" people???

 

What about it that pensioner fails to pay a speeding or parking fine.   Should the authorities just let it lie because they are "vulnerable elderly" people???

 

What the hell is the difference with the TV licence.

 

THE LAW passed in our parliament by our elected representatives is clear.    Sec 363 (1) of the Communications Act 2003 is clear.   "...A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence..."   Sec 363 (4) also emphasises  "...A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine..."

 

Now if you can just put your stupid and tiresome anti-bbc anti-tory knuckle headed bias to one side for a moment and see the facts.   Its not the BBC demanding the licence.  Pensoners are not being oppressed by Huw Edwards or Graham Norton or Hacker the CBBC dog.    Its the law.  Law set by our politicians and our parliament.  

 

Young or old - you break the law there are consequences.

 

What part of this are you failing to understand. 

 

Edited June 14, 2019 by ECCOnoob

[Car Boot]

11 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

Its what business do when you dont pay them.    Threatening letters is what you deserve when you break the law and dont pay a fee which is a mandatory legal requirement. 

 

If a pensioner walks into Tesco and takes things without paying - should the store detectives just ignore them just because they are "vulnerable elderly" people???

 

If a pensioner racks up £1000 on a credit card and refuses to pay because they cannot afford it should the bailiffs leave them be just because they are "vulnerable elderly" people???

 

What about it that pensioner fails to pay a speeding or parking fine.   Should the authorities just let it lie because they are "vulnerable elderly" people???

 

What the hell is the difference with the TV licence.

 

THE LAW passed in our parliament by our elected representatives is clear.    Sec 363 (1) of the Communications Act 2003 is clear.   "...A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence..."   Sec 363 (4) also emphasises  "...A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine..."

 

Now if you can just put your stupid and tiresome anti-bbc anti-tory knuckle headed bias to one side for a moment and see the facts.   Its not the BBC demanding the licence.  Pensoners are not being oppressed by Huw Edwards or Graham Norton or Hacker the CBBC dog.    Its the law.  Law set by our politicians and our parliament.  

 

Young or old - you break the law there are consequences.

 

What part of this are you failing to understand. 

 

I am not a customer of the BBC. 

 

I do not pay any money to the BBC and I don't break any laws. I do not watch live television broadcasts, I have Netflix. Cheaper and far superior content.

 

Yet the BBC sends me monthly threatening letters demanding payment for services I have no desire to receive. It also sends large men to my home to harass and intimidate me into paying for BBC content I have no desire to consume,

 

What business in the 21st century could get away with harassing and demanding money with menaces from people who are not, and have no desire to be, it's customers? None. Not a single one. But why equate the BBC with a business, when it has always claimed to be a public service anyway?

 

What part of this are you failing to understand? 

 

 

Edited June 14, 2019 by Car Boot

[Car Boot]

As for the Tories, there is not a single good reason why the entire leadership of that party shouldn't be rotting in a prison cell for the crimes they have committed against the working class and the poor of this country. 

[ECCOnoob]

13 minutes ago, Car Boot said:

I am not a customer of the BBC. 

 

I do not pay any money to the BBC and I don't break any laws. I do not watch live television broadcasts, I have Netflix. Cheaper and far superior content.

 

Yet the BBC sends me monthly threatening letters demanding payment for services I have no desire to receive. It also sends large men to my home to harass and intimidate me into paying for BBC content I have no desire to consume,

 

What business in the 21st century could get away with harassing and demanding money with menaces from people who are not, and have no desire to be, it's customers? None. Not a single one. But why equate the BBC with a business, when it has always claimed to be a public service anyway?

 

What part of this are you failing to understand? 

 

 

Why,  if it is happening so regular in both correspondence and personal visits, you have put up with it for so long to be honest? 

 

Surely by now given your obvious innoncence you should be looking at legal action against this harrassment. 

 

Im pretty surprised.   I thought you were more assertive to be honest.   You certainly give it out enough on here.

3 minutes ago, Car Boot said:

As for the Tories, there is not a single good reason why the entire leadership of that party shouldn't be rotting in a prison cell for the crimes they have committed against the working class and the poor of this country. 

Which are what exactly?  

 

Breached Acts and their accompanying statutes which can be referred to the DPP please.

Edited June 14, 2019 by ECCOnoob

[Car Boot]

1 minute ago, ECCOnoob said:

Why,  if it is happening so regular in both correspondence and personal visits, you have put up with it for so long to be honest? 

 

Surely by now given your obvious innoncence you should be looking at legal action against this harrassment. 

 

Im pretty surprise.   I thought you were more assertive to be honest.   You certainly give it out enough on here.

I don't have access to £billions of public money to fight my legal battles.

 

But the BBC does.