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

41 to 60 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
Diverting to new thread - to consider the funding of the BBC rather than simply sniping from our usual entrenched positions -

http://www.theanswerb.../Question1123551.html
If the BBC service was on a subscription basis, how many people would pay for it?

Not me, for one.
I loved his version of 'Green Door'.
Maggiebee mentions her 95 year old dad being hounded. I thought the tv licence was free to over 75's or has something changed
Elgreco

It is only free to over 75 year olds if it is signed by their parents.
"use a (cheaper) computer monitor without a tuner and remove all temptation"

Do (cheap) computer monitors come with SCART and HDMI connections?
-- answer removed --
sunny-dave says "if you have a TV then man-up and pay"

I have a TV. It's analogue and my area has completed DSO, so it's incapable of receiving live broadcasts.

It also doesn't have a working tuner.

Should I buy a TV Licence?
Hi bed-sit bob. I'm wonering what you use the TV for then?
There are many people who genuinely don't need a TV licence and are hounded. At the same time I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands of people who deliberately avoid payment and use various tactics to thwart the licensing officials. I suppose it's difficult in many cases for the authorities to know which cases are genuine and which aren't.

It should definitely be scrapped in favour of another method of funding the BBC. (I also suggest the BBC should be put on notice that its funding will be reduced by say 5% pa in real terms over a 10 year period)
I use it for DVDs, videos, and as a monitor for my computer.

All perfectly legal without a licence.

BTW. Going back to sunny-dave's suggestion to "use a (cheaper) computer monitor without a tuner", assuming you could connect a DVD/BluRay player to a cheap monitor, how would you get sound?
Factor30 says "There are many people who genuinely don't need a TV licence and are hounded. At the same time I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands of people who deliberately avoid payment and use various tactics to thwart the licensing officials."

According to BBC/TVL, when they visit those who state they don't need a licence, 1 in 5 turn out to need a licence.

That means the vast majority (4 in 5) are telling the truth, so why do they assume every household needs a licence, when it's clearly not the case?
How else could they do it, bed-sit bob?
Having said that in my expereince they don't hound everyone. My children live away from home for a few years and don't have a TV and have never had anything more than a letter reminding them that they may need a licence.
Only 1 in 100 people at a rough guess smuggle goods into the country but we all accept that our bags may get searched at the airport.
They could start by following the legal principle of "innocent until proven guilty".

BBC/TVL assume everyone who isn't licensed is an evader, unless/until said unlicensed people prove they aren't.

"Only 1 in 100 people at a rough guess smuggle goods into the country but we all accept that our bags may get searched at the airport."

Slight difference there, in that you are a customer of the airline, ferry etc. company, and travel subject to their terms and conditions.

I'm not a customer of BBC/TVL, so I'm not subject to their terms and conditions.
"They could start by following the legal principle of "innocent until proven guilty".
BBC/TVL assume everyone who isn't licensed is an evader, unless/until said unlicensed people prove they aren't. "

I have sympathy with that but given that the authorities are tasked with ensuring all due revenues are paid I don't see how else they can do it. Are you saying that people who have TV have been prosecuted and convicted? Or are you just talking about people who have a set but claim not to watch TV on it
Other organisations are similar tasked, but they don't go around randomly accusing people of criminal behaviour, with zero evidence.

The police don't assume every household without a Firearm Certificate, has an illegal gun.

The NRA don't assume every household without a fishing licence, is fishing illegally.

The DVLA don't assume everyone who doesn't hold a Driving Licence, is driving illegally.

BBC/TVL, however, assume anyone who doesn't have a TV Licence, is watching TV illegally.

As for you last question, there's a third category of people, which is those who have neither been prosecuted and convicted, nor made a claim of non-live use.
Hi bedsit-bob.
You say "there's a third category of people, which is those who have neither been prosecuted and convicted, nor made a claim of non-live use".
I don't understand this point, sorry. I can't see what the problem is you are referring to. Or are you saying these people get unwanted letters visits but are never prosecuted.

I'm still not clear what your counter suggestion is regarding how possible evasion (and we accept it happens on quite a scale) should be investigated and tackled- are you saying they should accept someone's word for it that they don't meet the requirements for a licence?
factor30 says "Or are you saying these people get unwanted letters visits but are never prosecuted."

That's exactly what I'm saying. Vast numbers of letters are sent out (about 83 million a year), a great many to totally innocent people.

factor30 says "are you saying they should accept someone's word for it that they don't meet the requirements for a licence?"

Yes, unless/until they have evidence to the contrary.

That's the principle of UK law, "innocent until proven guilty".

BBC/TVL's default position, however, is "guilty until proven innocent".

They expect people, against whom there is not a single shed of evidence, to prove their innocence.
Well it would be nice if everyone was honest but, whilst most people are, too many are not. if they just took everyone's word for it many more people would realise they could easily avoid the licence fee and they would stop paying and join the freeloaders.

But as I have said before it seems an unfair and inefficient way to fund the BBC, and should be replaced by central funding paid for perhaps by an increase in VAT/tax.
(Yes I know that will also be seen as unfair to those who don't watch TV but it no more unfair than for example childless adults funding the education system .)

By the way, whilst I'm sure some people are hounded unfairly I wonder if the problem is overstated. have never known anyone personally who has ever had a problem- if they don't have a TV set capable of receiving channels they just tick the relevant box on the form and never receive visits from 'the mob'.
sometimes tvs have an aerial attached, maybe thats what he cut.

41 to 60 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.