Stop paying your TV Licence fee NOW???

geordie_joe

charlie555 wrote: »

Exactly, that's the point I was making.

Believing the licence fee to be an iniquitous, anacronistic poll tax is not a justification in law for not paying it.

Believing it grossly unfair to pay a flat rate car tax even though you only drive 10 miles a year is not a justification for not paying it.

Which is the more valid justification is a matter of personal opinion.

That's a fair point, but sometimes it takes people to fight against something in order to get it changed.

I don't agree with people using this as an excuse to not pay for a TV license just to save them selves some money, but if they are doing it to protest against the license and get it abolished then good luck to them.

If it wasn't for protesters women wouldn't have the vote, or equal rights, we'd still be paying poll tax and the yanks would still have cruise missiles at Greenham Common.

Dreamnine

I don't pay- why would I? Just to have some ar5sehole invite me every 5 minutes to check out their website.

They DO advertise- their own liberal take on the news.

EU_Truth

As certain people have already mentioned the subject of 'the law' regarding the TV Licence, I'd like to add some other legal/interesting facts, if I may, to add some balance to this thorny issue.

- It's a fact that no-one has ever been convicted on TV Licence based 'detection evidence', i.e. the hand held scanners, TV Licence vans, etc. It is highly unlikely that this technology does exist, if it did then a defendent would have the legal right to put it under scrutiny (like speeding camera technology for example). Think about it: if this so-called technology is just propaganda (the BBC don't engage in that now do they? ) then they would get laughed out of court when a defendent decided to question it.

- The frequent 'news articles' that you see in the newspapers about 'Manchester in the league of shame' or 'Norwich in the league of shame' etc. etc. are actually produce by PR agencies (contracted by Capita PLC). There is a surprising similarity between them:

- http://www.4ni.co.uk/northern_ireland_news.asp?id=5737
- http://magherafelt.northernconstitution.co.uk/articles/news/1199/tv-licence-dodgers-league-of-shame/
- http://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk/free/Donny-makes-it-to-TV.4317782.jp
- http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/Peterborough-stays-top-of-TV.4306058.jp

- It's a fact that people convict themselves - not the TV Licence salesmen (officers). The PACE guidelines that you are 'interviewed' under have very little legal weight as you are not under any legal obligation to comply (a Police officer interviewing you is a completely separate matter). People are cohersed into believing that the officer questioning them is an authority - they are not. TV Licencing officers are not an authority and have the same legal rights as a postman or paper delivery boy. They have commission to earn, which explains their sometimes heavy handed approach. You have no legal requirement to cooperate with them in anyway whatsoever. You have every right to just slam the door in their face/politely ask them to leave.

Dreamnine

EU_Truth wrote: »

As certain people have already mentioned the subject of 'the law' regarding the TV Licence, I'd like to add some other legal/interesting facts, if I may, to add some balance to this thorny issue.

- It's a fact that no-one has ever been convicted on TV Licence based 'detection evidence', i.e. the hand held scanners, TV Licence vans, etc. It is highly unlikely that this technology does exist, if it did then a defendent would have the legal right to put it under scrutiny (like speeding camera technology for example). Think about it: if this so-called technology is just propaganda (the BBC don't engage in that now do they? ) then they would get laughed out of court when a defendent decided to question it.

- The frequent 'news articles' that you see in the newspapers about 'Manchester in the league of shame' or 'Norwich in the league of shame' etc. etc. are actually produce by PR agencies (contracted by Capita PLC). There is a surprising similarity between them:

- http://www.4ni.co.uk/northern_ireland_news.asp?id=5737
- http://magherafelt.northernconstitution.co.uk/articles/news/1199/tv-licence-dodgers-league-of-shame/
- http://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk/free/Donny-makes-it-to-TV.4317782.jp
- http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/Peterborough-stays-top-of-TV.4306058.jp

- It's a fact that people convict themselves - not the TV Licence salesmen (officers). The PACE guidelines that you are 'interviewed' under have very little legal weight as you are not under any legal obligation to comply (a Police officer interviewing you is a completely separate matter). People are cohersed into believing that the officer questioning them is an authority - they are not. TV Licencing officers are not an authority and have the same legal rights as a postman or paper delivery boy. They have commission to earn, which explains their sometimes heavy handed approach. You have no legal requirement to cooperate with them in way whatsoever. You have every right to just slam the door in their face/politely ask them to leave.

I skip out the polite part.

TrickyDicky

EU_Truth wrote: »

- It's a fact that no-one has ever been convicted on TV Licence based 'detection evidence', i.e. the hand held scanners, TV Licence vans, etc. It is highly unlikely that this technology does exist, if it did then a defendent would have the legal right to put it under scrutiny (like speeding camera technology for example). Think about it: if this so-called technology is just propaganda (the BBC don't engage in that now do they? ) then they would get laughed out of court when a defendent decided to question it.

The vans/scanners may/may not exist, but the technology is pretty simple, especially for analogue TV sets. As each channel's video/sound is sent on a carrier signal, your TV set has to have an oscilator to take out the carrier freuqency. This oscillator actually transmits a weak signal back out of your aerial, making detection of which channel you are watching quite easy.

But usually its just easier to let people crumble when threatened with a letter.

EU_Truth

TrickyDicky wrote: »

The vans/scanners may/may not exist, but the technology is pretty simple, especially for analogue TV sets. As each channel's video/sound is sent on a carrier signal, your TV set has to have an oscilator to take out the carrier freuqency. This oscillator actually transmits a weak signal back out of your aerial, making detection of which channel you are watching quite easy.

But usually its just easier to let people crumble when threatened with a letter.

Agree with you on that. Am I right in saying, though, that the technology is not very accurate - say if you live high rise flats or in a terraced house?

TrickyDicky

EU_Truth wrote: »

Agree with you on that. Am I right in saying, though, that the technology is not very accurate - say if you live high rise flats or in a terraced house?

It will depend if the aerial is shared. They will be able to tell some people are watching what channels, but not who.

uktyler

You can write to Capita, and tell them that you withdraw the right to access your property, and this will stp the visits. We allowed the 'enforcement oddicer' into our house, as we don't watch TV. He then insisted he had the right to look in all rooms, and was very rude about it. We will never allow these people on our property again.

I'm annoyed because we get the same threatening letters month after month, even though we called to inform them that we don't need a license, its just a big waste of money, which is not getting spent on TV programming.

EU_Truth

Before letting once of these 'officers' into your homes to look around, you may like to consider one fact.

Capita actively employ ex-offenders under the Rehabilitation Of Offenders Act 1974. Since threatening behaviour and intimidation are pre-requesites for being a TV Licencing Officer, this recruitment policy is of no surprise.

The Home Office are very secretive about who they deem to be rehabilitated and safe to the public. Due to the sheer incompetence of the Home Office over the years (losing data, laptops, etc.) it is just not worth the risk of letting these people into your property.

A very good example of law-abiding citizens who've learnt the hard way that reasoning with Capita/TV Licencing is a waste of time is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32Sa1DgmCww

geordie_joe

EU_Truth wrote: »

- It's a fact that no-one has ever been convicted on TV Licence based 'detection evidence', i.e. the hand held scanners, TV Licence vans, etc.

The technology certainly exists, I've seen it in action many times. However I doubt very much the TV License people have it. Why would they need it, they just knock on a door that is not listed as having a license and claim their equipment has detected them watching a TV.

They already assume everyone in the country has a TV and is watching it, so why go to the expense of actually buying the equipment when all they have to do is claim they have it and it detected a TV in the house.