SIGN UP

Shakey wins his court case

Avatar Image
RebelSouls | 18:04 Tue 10th Apr 2012 | News
69 Answers
After many years of being hounded by the BBC TV licence mob the hero of YouTube wins his court case. The story will probably be in the national press soon but you can read a shortened version here.

http://tv-licensing.b...tious-pursuit-of.html


Well done Shakey.

Answers

21 to 40 of 69rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 Next Last

Avatar Image
what annoys me is their bully boy and legally incorrect attitude. When I moved in here, I removed my TV and anything valuable from the house I owned and left it empty for 4 months pending us making the final decision to "commit". After I had been back to the house to collect my mail to find officious "we are going to prosecute you" letters and called them several...
19:27 Tue 10th Apr 2012
Question Author
And all people who watch a live broadcast should pay for a TV Licence

Leave the others in peace, This is your BBC that is hounding innocent people
Licence evasion is pathetic - if you have a TV then man-up and pay - if not then you have my sincere apologies for doubting you.

But if you have a TV and claim not to watch it 'live' to avoid a legally imposed tax, then you are a freeloader ...
I'll take the BBC over a 1,000 pathetic 'shakeys' and his like any day
Question Author
But if you have a TV and claim not to watch it 'live' to avoid a legally imposed tax, then you are a freeloader ...


More and more people are ditching the TV licence and watching DVD's, Videos and playing games legally, They are not what you call Freeloaders that is just rubbish
Question Author
sunny-dave why is he pathetic , He has not lied and he has won his case.
Why do you need a TV tuner then - why do you need an aerial lead - use a (cheaper) computer monitor without a tuner and remove all temptation (and suspicion) .... I'm sure your ISP will also confirm that you are not watching iPlayer or similar live sevices.

I have no beef with genuine "no TV" households ... I just have my doubts about how many of them there really are.
By his own admission he had an aerial lead connected but "cut it two months ago when he knew the inspectors would be coming" - go figure why ...
Question Author
Your BBC lovies Official figures say 1 in 5 of the properties they visit need a Licence

So that is 4 innocent people hounded for every guilty one.


That is 4 innocent people that they should have left alone.
Yep - and why are they needing to visit anyone? Solely because of your mates in the 20% who are evading the licence ...

... if we all paid as required by law there would be no need for 'enforcement'.

If you don't like the law, then campaign to change it - otherwise be squeaky clean and prepared to prove it.
People seem to be forgetting that it is perfectly legal to use a TV set to listen to DAB radio broadcasts, as a lot of people opt to do.

sunny-dave: It is a fundamental tenet of British law that you are innocent until proved guilty. TV Licensing appear to forget that. To them everyone has a TV. Anyone who says they don't is a liar.

Contrary to your opinion just because a person own a TV set (or an aerial lead) does not mean they are using it for a licensable purpose. Likewise, just because I go shopping at Waitrose doesn't mean I'm going to shoplift; just because I own a carving knife doesn't mean I'm a violent criminal.
what annoys me is their bully boy and legally incorrect attitude. When I moved in here, I removed my TV and anything valuable from the house I owned and left it empty for 4 months pending us making the final decision to "commit". After I had been back to the house to collect my mail to find officious "we are going to prosecute you" letters and called them several times, I was informed that I had to prove that I was not there and had no tv there. WRONG. It is them who have to prove it. Unfortunately, some people would believe their claptrap and pay up. IN the end I told them I was sick of explaining the situation and to go ahead and prosecute me, although they never bothered.
I agree that for various reasons the TV licence is not the best way to fund the BBC - for example those who pay have to pay more to compensate for the freeloaders, it takes no account of how often you use the service, which channels you watch, it is expensive to collect, and leads to problems for many people who genuinely don't watch TV.
I also agree that it is wrong for the enforcers to hound those who genuinely shouldn't pay, although given that some freeloaders use the same excuses I can see that it is difficult to distinguish between the innocent and the freeloaders.
However despite reading loads of posts from RebelSouls over the years I never managed to get an answer on exactly what his issue was and why he feels so strongly
Question Author
sunny-dave: It is a fundamental tenet of British law that you are innocent until proved guilty. TV Licensing appear to forget that

I think Dave has also forgotten that
Question Author
Even a Barmaid knows the law better than the BBC and Dave

what annoys me is their bully boy and legally incorrect attitude. When I moved in here, I removed my TV and anything valuable from the house I owned and left it empty for 4 months pending us making the final decision to "commit". After I had been back to the house to collect my mail to find officious "we are going to prosecute you" letters and called them several times, I was informed that I had to prove that I was not there and had no tv there. WRONG. It is them who have to prove it. Unfortunately, some people would believe their claptrap and pay up. IN the end I told them I was sick of explaining the situation and to go ahead and prosecute me, although they never bothered.

I have things to do have a pleasant evening
Sigh ... people keep quoting specific cases - all of which I agree entirely with - I would be outraged if I was hounded to make me pay a tax which I was not liable for.

Please read all the posts where I make it abundantly clear that if you are not watching live TV, then I have no beef with you at all and would support you in your outrage about the BBC's enforcement procedures.

BUT BUT BUT - the whole purpose of 'shakey', his website, his blogs, his everything is to teach people how to EVADE (not avoid) paying a tax which they are legally obliged to pay. That is what gets me angry, that is what I object so strongly to.
I would agree with Factor 30. A licence fee was, once upon a time, the best way to fund a public broadcaster with a remit to innovate, educate and entertain.

Nowadays though, we probably do need to have a discussion about finding an alternate route to fund such a service, and probably a debate about the extent of that service too. The obvious answer, and one that broadcasters like SKY et al would love would be a subscription service, but that is unlikely to be able to fund the educational element.

I think that most people would prefer to keep a service like the BBC, one free of advertising and committed to making some of the most spectacular and educational documentaries, as well as their original drama and comedy output. Without a licence fee, how would the revenue be fairly raised?
I don't see anything at all in that post that encourages people not to pay. The masthead of that blog actually says "If you use equipment to receive or record live broadcast television programmes then the law requires you to have a licence and we encourage you to buy one."

Looks like they have a beef about TVLA's aggressive tactics more than anything else. A matter of civil liberties maybe?
Sunny-Dave, my post was not aimed at you. I just get very annoyed by these big corporations who tell the consumer a load of bull. Many consumers are completely taken in by it because they have trust and confidence in these organisations. I've always paid my TV licence, but to be hounded and threatened just because I had the temerity to move out of my house really got up my nose. Being asked to provide a copy of the tenancy agreement of the house I was then occupying and for it to be insinuated that I was lying because there was no tenancy agreement (hey, I'd just moved in with my boyfriend, it was hardly a contractual arrangement) just astounded me and being told I faced up to 6 months in prison if I couldn't prove it - (which is also a lie) just floored me. Perhaps if they were more honest in their dealings with the consumer, there wouldn't be people like Shakey who "take them on", by fair means or foul.
I would like to see an advert on the TV saying 'Have you ever been mis-sold a TV licence? if so you could be owed £ thousands in compensation, The Bloggs family of Nempnett Thrubwell got a cheque for £10,000 as they couldn't recieve TV where they lived but were forced to buy a licence'
Factor30 suggested that the current system is not the best way to fund the BBC (and certain other services) ... I tend to agree - it's an outdated model and ripe for reform.

Assuming the BBC could get guarantees about security of funding and lack of government interference, then general taxation looks the easiest option.

I've found a few figures (in a hurry, so apologies if they're wrong) :


VAT brings in £86bn and is difficult to avoid - it also bears hardest on the people who spend most on non-food-items.

The licence fee brings in about £3bn - switching it onto VAT would mean 20.7% VAT instead of 20%

Income tax is easier for the rich to avoid, but is by and large not paid by the poorest in society. It brings in around £155bn.

Adding TV funding to Income Tax is more difficult to calculate - depends so much on who gets hit. But if added pro rata it would move the basic rate from 20% to about 20.4%.

Are either of the above scenarios fairer and/or more acceptable than the current licensing regime?

21 to 40 of 69rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Shakey wins his court case

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.