TV License Inspectors

biscit

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

We don't all pay for it.

Sorry, yes you're correct I was slightly inaccurate there.

biscit

The programme on balance in science programming below is very interesting:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/timc

It refers to the way the media in general (and the BBC in particular) tends to present science as a debate between two sides of the argument, even if there aren't really two sides to that argument.

Actually this is all a very interesting and informative series- I recommend it all.

The_Safordian

biscit wrote: »

Actually this is all a very interesting and informative series- I recommend it all.

If you are the same political persuasion as the BBC then yes you will agree with it all the way and you have billions to fund it because of the "unique way its funded".....................pay for us or else.

The Soviet Union would have loved to have something like the BBC

biscit

Just thought of an even worse example of BBC "bias". The BBC one logo used to be a spinning globe, which is pretty offensive to people who believe the world is flat.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

The_Safordian

biscit wrote: »

which is pretty offensive to people who believe the world is flat.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

When running out of arguments to defend the undefendable try making a joke, yes very original I've not see that one before

Do you post on Digitalspy by any chance?

biscit

The_Safordian wrote: »

Do you post on Digitalspy by any chance?

Not for ages, and very infrequently at that.

Azari

DS has become something of a joke.

Vast areas of wasted space because of their appalling layout and the TV forums are infested with Sky promoters.

Haven't looked in for many months, now.

DCodd

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

No it's not.

Innocent until proven guilty applies to the LF, as much as it does to other offences.

Not really. All they have to do is issue a demand / invoice then the onus is on the debtor to prove the debt is not valid.

Well that is the way we have had to defend the company against the PRS and PPL.

Azari

DCodd wrote: »

All they have to do is issue a demand / invoice then the onus is on the debtor to prove the debt is not valid.

Well that is the way we have had to defend the company against the PRS and PPL.

Then you have almost certainly been ill advised.

If someone issues you with an invoice and you ignore it the very first thing they would be expected to do in a court case is to prove that a debt actually exists.

[Deleted User]

DCodd wrote: »

Not really. All they have to do is issue a demand / invoice then the onus is on the debtor to prove the debt is not valid.

At which point you dispute the debt, and they have to show the debt is genuine and yours, which is going to be difficult for them without a signed credit agreement.

In truth, there is no debt.

ETA: In order to issue a demand/invoice, they need a name.

You can't issue a demand/invoice against "the current occupier".