Tv licence agent threatening behaviour

sad_dog_lady

dangerous dogs act...... only dogs in public are to be on lead or can be destroyed if bite person... on their own property dangerous dogs act does not apply.

Bamber19

sad_dog_lady wrote: »

dangerous dogs act...... only dogs in public are to be on lead or can be destroyed if bite person... on their own property dangerous dogs act does not apply.

You wouldn't be liable criminally but could still expect a civil action to be brought where having a sign on a gate of a property that is likely to have some sort of public access would be balanced against having violent dogs running free. The person attacked would likely have to take some proportional blame for their own actions but i wouldn't expect you to walk away without soem financial penalty.

In addition (I don't follow it so have no real idea whether it's been put aside or is ongoing) the Dog Control Bill, if it becomes law will cover dogs on private property also, but as I say I don't know what stage in the parliamentary process it is at currently.

[Deleted User]

cyberbob wrote: »

In all liklihood yes.

Your evidence for that is?

[Deleted User]

Gers wrote: »

Why should anyone have to 'prove' that they are not watching live broadcasts?

More to the point, how do you prove you aren't watching live broadcasts?

How do you prove a negative?

Farzackerly

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

More to the point, how do you prove you aren't watching live broadcasts?

How do you prove a negative?

The only way to convince the bu&&ers is to remove the aerial lead and demonstrate you can't receive the broadcast. Once they see that, they'll be happy enough - I know of one person who did just that, as they only watched DVDs and had no interest in broadcast TV. The licensing guy came in, saw, and left.

vicmorrow

Post #113 is over a year old.....why drag it up?

Farzackerly

vicmorrow wrote: »

Post #113 is over a year old.....why drag it up?

So what? It's always a topic of contention.

oldhand

Farzackerly wrote: »

So what? It's always a topic of contention.

correct and it does of course give me another chance to rant about the unfair legalised theft from Bloated Broadcasting Corporation.and to confirm I do not have a licence nor intend to buy one.......

Sue_1979

I have not had a TV for about 5 years yet I still constantly get reminding and warning letters. The TV inspector has been around 3 times in the last month alone (always in the day when I am at work). I have tried to phone them to tell them I do not have a TV but they say they will still come and check as it seems some people say they don't have a TV when they do!

So, in other words, it is completely a waste of time telling them you don't have a TV as they do not believe you and still send their inspectors arround. It is truely a case of them accussing you to be a criminal who uses a TV without a licence. They just don't seem to think that some of us do not want a TV !!

arcon5

oldhand wrote: »

correct and it does of course give me another chance to rant about the unfair legalised theft from Bloated Broadcasting Corporation.and to confirm I do not have a licence nor intend to buy one.......

you don't watch television then?