TV License Inspectors

LegalOccupier

( giraffe69 Not only must the TV face the wall but the owner must hop on one leg whilst unplugging the set from the wall. I know because the inspector told me so. )

You may make all the daft remarks that you want till you have to deal with these people you have no idea another thing they say when you will not answer their questions for a statement is


( I'm going to get a search warrant to search these premises, you better make sure your TV is not on)

Some people have them banging on their front doors some people just sit back and make daft remarks.

DCodd

Azari wrote: »

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.

It is extremely easy to meet the requirements that "prove" a debt exists. In the case of the PRS, it was sufficient that a telephone operator "heard" music in the office and in the case of the PPL they heard the music on hold. These agencies share information and target people accordingly. We had to defend those claims.

I would suspect that hearing a TV would be grounds to claim that a TV licence is required, at which point it would need to be defended.

This is how they operate, it has been discussed numerous times in Parliament and the tactics of these agaencies have been critised by many Parliamentary reviews. However there is no Political will to bring them to book over it and all the while many people will just pay up for an easy life, they will still operate in this manner.

Azari

DCodd wrote: »

It is extremely easy to meet the requirements that "prove" a debt exists. In the case of the PRS, it was sufficient that a telephone operator "heard" music in the office and in the case of the PPL they heard the music on hold. These agencies share information and target people accordingly. We had to defend those claims.

So, what did the judge say when you denied that the music was played?

How did he or she expect you to prove a negative?

Whilst I can believe that the PRS might 'try it on', it seems very strange that a judge would play along with them.

If they 'proved' the debt, as you claim they did, then how did you manage to defend yourself?

Or were you found to owe the money?

DCodd

Azari wrote: »

So, what did the judge say when you denied that the music was played?

How did he or she expect you to prove a negative?

Whilst I can believe that the PRS might 'try it on', it seems very strange that a judge would play along with them.

If they 'proved' the debt, as you claim they did, then how did you manage to defend yourself?

Or were you found to owe the money?

We denied the claim, PRS dropped the case. With the PPL we had the providers of the music on hold confirm that they held all performance and broadcast rights. Neither claim required us to attend court as the cases were dropped but the claims were accepted by the courts in question and we did have to defend those claims. which was the point I was making.

Jeff_Bridges_hair

The_Safordian wrote: »

I can't believe someone can just jump into thread for the first time and add something so non-constructive :huh:

EDIT: I see the BBC is breaking its charter again. something for your "Godwins law"

"The BBC and an inconvenient truth about climate change: A devastating report lays bare the BBC’s endemic bias on global warming"

http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/devastating-report-lays-bare-the-bbcs-endemic-bias-on-global-warming/

Ill jump into any thread at any time i like thanks. That's the beauty of an open forum for discussion.

though I do believe you should try and read up on what 'Godwins Law' is before you try and attach a story to it.

Anyway Ill leave you to your petty squabbling chummmmmmp.

Is that your blog by the way?

The_Safordian

biscit wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

And the most constructive post of the year too........................................................not you, is the truth hurting

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

though I do believe you should try and read up on what 'Godwins Law' is before you try and attach a story to it.

No need too, it was created by a Socialist who felt threatened by people highlighting the links. I could go on and give other examples but I do not believe in hi-jacking threads

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

Is that your blog by the way?

No its a site I follow that has kept the BBC off my back for a long time

Jeff_Bridges_hair

The_Safordian wrote: »

No need too, it was created by a Socialist who felt threatened by people highlighting the links. I could go on and give other examples but I do not believe in hi-jacking threads

No one is high jacking any thread merely pointing out your stupidity for claiming the BBC were like the nazis which is not only wholly wrong but also downright disrespectful to those who lost their lives under his regime and also disrespectful to those who work within the BBC.

LegalOccupier

( also disrespectful to those who work within the BBC.)

Is it not disrespectful to bang on peoples front doors and give threats of a £1000 fine to innocent people.

Would you let a stranger search your house if you had done nothing wrong and had not broken any law just to stop the harassment

Don't tell me you would class this as being decent.

The_Safordian

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

No one is high jacking any thread merely pointing out your stupidity for claiming the BBC were like the nazis which is not only wholly wrong but also downright disrespectful to those who lost their lives under his regime and also disrespectful to those who work within the BBC.

Oh so you call people who give facts stupid. You know I've already said how rude, abusive and arrogant the fans of the BBC can be and a couple of BBC bods here prove that fact.

The Nazis were Socialists who relied on threats, intimidation and harassment. BBC TV Licensing are doing the same thing and no one can deny this because of the proof.

I will start being polite about your beloved BBC when they start treating the British public in the same way. I've had 21yrs of this from your beloved BBC so I have every right not to like them.

Now I suggest you stop trying to hi-jack threads because you object to people giving factual information about the BBC that can and has been backed up with proof.

LegalOccupier

( This your new alias is it ? created to back you up and hit your thanks button? great work)

You don't know how wrong you are, care to answer

( Is it not disrespectful to bang on peoples front doors and give threats of a £1000 fine to innocent people.

Would you let a stranger search your house if you had done nothing wrong and had not broken any law just to stop the harassment

Don't tell me you would class this as being decent. )