TV License Inspectors

giraffe69

You may make all the daft remarks that you want

Thank you for giving permission. If indeed they are daft I don't seem to have a monopoly and indeed face a considerable challenge for the daftness gold medal.

On your planet you have TV's facing the wall(because you are ordered to do so) and inspector's banging on front doors and demanding entrance, threatening fines, insulting and harassing innocent waifs and strays. I believe the inspectors have been known to eat babies as well.

There are some who think that the revenue collection team are appointed by Government to maximise revenue collection from TV licensing but be careful because as has been pointed out this is a cover for the evil BBC who are actually behind it all!

When I pay my licence fee I ask for none of it to go to Jonathan Ross and I was delighted to get a letter acceding to this and dispensing with his services. That's what I call a responsive organisation. My next request will be for them to ask the artist who draws horns on pictures of Mr Cameron to be sacked and I have no doubt they will either do that or put them also on Mr Ed to show balance.


My suggestion would be for you to move from your planet to Earth where these things do not happen except in fevered imaginations. Certain types of mushrooms are known to cause some of these hallucinations so if you'll take my advice I would lay off.


PS It would help if you could learn to use the quote button to make your posts readable if not very sensible.

kaya

LegalOccupier wrote: »

( 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.

lol , in order for anyone to get a warrant (including dibble) they must first convince a judge that a crime has been comitted, "i think he is a fibber m'lud and he hasn't purchased a licence from us" is unlikley to convince any judge that a crime has been comitted , and according to their own website detector van evidence has NEVER been used in any court case or to gain a conviction, my friend got taken to court and they said "we know you were watching eastenders" , my friend folded and paid up before it went into the actual court room, if it had gone into court however there is NO WAY they could have proved what he was watching or when as by there own admission they have never used detector van evidence, its all a giant bluff and they know 99% of people will back down and pay them , the charter to charge a fee was only ever granted to the BBC so despite their lies they cannot enforce a licence fee if you watch different channels

The_Safordian

kaya wrote: »

lol , in order for anyone to get a warrant (including dibble) they must first convince a judge that a crime has been comitted,

Unfortunately the BBC has a lot of the naive magistrates. They pay for courses for them and propaganda magazines to keep the Magistrates in their favor and this is why the BBC hates it going to a higher court where they tend to loose.

http://thejusticeofthepeace.blog.co.uk/2010/07/05/t-v-license-evasion-should-be-a-civil-matter-8917052/

http://thejusticeofthepeace.blog.co.uk/2011/04/10/tv-licensing-again-10980773/

http://thejusticeofthepeace.blog.co.uk/2011/11/01/t-v-licensing-in-all-its-arrogance-12100861/

It isn't unheard of for some of these magistrates to think a TV Licence is required to own a TV which is what the BBC wants them to think...................the problem is it isn't law and the magistrate in this blog knows it.

BBC-Died-in-1980

LegalOccupier wrote: »

( 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.

Correct, the BBC/Capita are semi-legalised thieves, time their robbing from the poor & making the rich, richer is ended.
Rob

The_Safordian

BBC-Died-in-1980 wrote: »

Correct, the BBC/Capita are semi-legalised thieves, time their robbing from the poor & making the rich, richer is ended.
Rob

It does tend to be mostly single perants and low income families who are persecuted

LegalOccupier

//

giraffe69 wrote: »

My suggestion would be for you to move from your planet to Earth where these things do not happen except in fevered imaginations. //


I bet they never give old disabled people a smack in your world and as you will know i am unable to post links being a newbie so check out youtube Ron Sinclair and eat some more of your mushrooms.

I can laugh at you which is something i never did watching Jonathan Ross.

LegalOccupier

There must be lots of us not on the same planet, from the press,

// Saturday, June 11, 2011

A PENSIONER says TV Licensing has hounded him with
more than 60 threatening letters over seven years – even
though he has had a licence all along.

Graham Rawson, 66, of Gray Street, Lincoln, is furious
the organisation persistently ignored his calls and letters
informing it that he was paying for his licence automatically
by direct debit.

Since 2004, he has received up to ten letters every year,
threatening to take him to court and fine him up to £1,000.

The barrage of letters even culminated in a visit from a
TV Licensing inspector in November last year when he
demanded that Mr Rawson hand over his television set. //

[Deleted User]

DCodd wrote: »

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.

LF evasion isn't a civil debt, hence an invoice/demand wouldn't apply.

LF evasion is a criminal offence, and as such, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, ie. as previously stated, innocent until proven guilty.

Also, as stated before, to bring a case, they need a name.

[Deleted User]

kaya wrote: »

in order for anyone to get a warrant (including dibble) they must first convince a judge that a crime has been comitted, "i think he is a fibber m'lud and he hasn't purchased a licence from us" is unlikley to convince any judge that a crime has been committed

Judges don't issue Search Warrants. JPs, sheriffs and lay magistrates issue them.

Oh, and the JP, sheriff or lay magistrate doesn't need to be convinced that a crime has been committed.

He/she merely needs to be satisfied, by information on oath, that there are reasonable grounds for believing that an offence is being committed.

the charter to charge a fee was only ever granted to the BBC so despite their lies they cannot enforce a licence fee if you watch different channels

And that is just plain wrong.

giraffe69

I have a TV it is facing the wall as advised by the BBC/TVL if i was not going to renew my licence

I can laugh at you which is something i never did watching Jonathan Ross.

You don't need a licence to laugh at me (yet) and of course when you watched Jonathan Ross it was

a. live
b. on DVD
c. through a chance meeting at Tesco's
d. watching the TV you didn't have a licence for

//

giraffe69 wrote: »

I assume this quoting business is just too hard to get the hang of?