TV license court summons

Neil49

DUTR wrote: »

The summons is for the period that there was no valid license, the DD mandate was completed to avoid future headaches.

Think back Stucowie, didn't you help carry her tv set into the property the day before the licensing guy visited? Prior to that she was so busy decorating she wouldn't have had time to watch the tv.

So the summons should be calculated on 1 day without a licence.

davidlizard

giraffe69 wrote: »

I'm very against income tax. Hang on this VAT is rubbish also. It's not a con. It's a way of raising revenue and it could be done a different way but your anarchistic tendencies won't help resolve the position.

Anarchistic tendencies worked well in getting another deeply unpopular tax - the poll tax - revoked in the early 1990s. Sometimes direct action does work.

The more and more people who start dissenting will start causing more questions to be asked about the viability of the TV licence as a way of funding the BBC.

davidlizard

Neil49 wrote: »

Think back Stucowie, didn't you help carry her tv set into the property the day before the licensing guy visited? Prior to that she was so busy decorating she wouldn't have had time to watch the tv.

So the summons should be calculated on 1 day without a licence.

Remember that you only require a licence for watching television, not simply owning one. Therefore if the OP was decorating, she could well have been too busy for TV and therefore not broken any law whatsoever. The BBC need proof that TV was being watched without a licence for a prosecution. The OP does not need to prove innocence - the BBC needs to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

However I suspect that the OPs partner has been tricked into self-incriminating herself by the BBC, which is their main source for gaining prosecutions and the licence salesmen their commission.

pineapple

It seems American spelling is taking over our country. It's LICENCE not LICENSE.
Anyway - back on topic that TV Licence Resistance site is a good place to start. Though I suspect it is a done deal by now.
Just as people were under no obligation to speak to Census Officers, they are under no obligation to speak to TV Licence bods - and certainly not let them in (unless they have a Warrant).
I am thinking of giving up my TV and licence. I will tell them once. If I get harrassed, I shall exercise my right not to communicate with them. Why is it, in the case of this ridiculous 'tax' our law seems to operate in reverse - ie presumed guilty unless proved innocent? :mad:

Spartacus_Mills

Kurtis_Blue wrote: »

It seems you have a strange view of democracy.

Democracy.

I doubt you even understand the term.

When has the TV License ever been subjected to a democratic mandate. It is forced on us and in this day and age we should not have to go without a TV to avoid having to pay it.

nsabournemouth. Good luck to you. Stick to your guns. Ignore the trolls.

katejo

nsabournemouth wrote: »

I don't pay the TV license, don't see why I should and why anyone should. It's the biggest con going. Write to them and revoke access to your property, when they turn up sue them for trespass.

They have NO LEGAL right to enter your home or even step foot past your wall / garden.

It's impossible for them to tell what you're watching, for all they know it could be catchup TV and you don't even need to pay the tax for it.

If you don't pay for a licence and you are watching live tv, then you are robbing those who do pay. Get some sense into your head and get a licence

robredz

BTW just for the record TVL is run by Capita for the BBC, and we know what they are like through their Equita and Ross 'n Roberts bailiffs

giraffe69

The more and more people who start dissenting will start causing more questions to be asked about the viability of the TV licence as a way of funding the BBC.

There is a difference between dissent and declining to pay. One is legitimate and the pother breaking the law.

robredz

giraffe69 wrote: »

There is a difference between dissent and declining to pay. One is legitimate and the pother breaking the law.

If someone ether doesn't own a TV, or has set one up so that it doesn't pick up live transmissions, and they don't view programmes as they are broadcast, then they DON'T NEED a TV licence.

One doesn't need a licence merely for OWNING a TV, although TVL would like you to think you do.

Buzby

You need to read the Broadcasting Act for the true definition (not the leaflets or 'interpretations' offered by TVL). A TV that is CAPABLE of receiving broadcasts, even thouh to aerial is attached, is enough to ensure a conviction. The issue of 'watching live' is a different problem, as the Act covers the 'installation' of a receiving device. A judge will need to be convinced the defender has never used it to watch live TV, and is able to use his discretion to believe if the defender is truthful. Only if the set is incapable of recieving live broadcasts, is there a slam-dunk walk. Neither do you have to be caught 'watching', although they usually like to fire it up to ensure it can as it makes the evidence chain easier.