How to get out of paying TV license (yes, REALLY)

Kurtis_Blue

M.Shakey wrote: »

There are no edits at 0.34 that I can see unless you have a different version.

Anyway what are you trying to prove here on this forum that a 4 day criminal Trial, with an additiona 4 PCHM hearing + 2 plea hearings that could not be proved then.

Surely the key question is still how the prosecution presented a video which displayed an 'image', (by coincidence that came from a BBC program ????), that was not transmitted till 7 minutes after they had stated it was being recieved by my 'equipment'. This was stated by a key witness under oath.
This could NOT be the case.

The video that I pointed directly to was an 'edited' version yes, but the portion presented to the Court in a pathetic effort to convict me, is still intact in the 'TVL version'.

And to answer your question directly..... sadly.... no..... the 'original' 30 minute 'uncut' and the other 'copies' that were 'pulled' are no more..... they were wiped.
I jus made the 'Fiddling about' version to show what !!!!!! the BBC agents who 'visit' are like.

Hmmm The video you uploaded to you tube has been edited to delete the part the inspector turns on the TV, you know that maybe it was 0.35, but I'm sure you dont need me to tell you that, really?

And you state you totally deleted the WHOLE video that you used as evidence in court and took the effort to post all over the internet, and are still doing so now 7 months later.

Thats pretty strange, why would you do that? surely it would be a great help to your cause.

An edited video is useless.

The_Safordian

flexrider wrote: »

Not entirely Read all the post but i presume that why the fees are so bleeding high anyway from people NOT paying their licensees others have to foot the bill?

gotta love good old blight e sometimes

as for the talk of you tube anyone can download a video off there? i dont get the your tube thing, how does the BBC know your account and password lol!! sorry had to ask

It proved BBC TV Licensing monitor websites including Youtube.

It proves the video they downloaded was tampered and a TV picture added to the TV.

Oh and believe it or not these "BBC" people think the fee's should be higher. No £3.7 BILLION a year isn't enough for them!

M.Shakey

flexrider wrote: »

Not entirely Read all the post but i presume that why the fees are so bleeding high anyway from people NOT paying their licensees others have to foot the bill?

gotta love good old blight e sometimes

as for the talk of you tube anyone can download a video off there? i dont get the your tube thing, how does the BBC know your account and password lol!! sorry had to ask

Thanks for paying for the BBC, but they dont need your LF money to survive it only gives them all the inflated wages and free world tours, (and taxi's) that they have become used to.
If you support the BBC, (or they support you), then please keep paying... this is the choice that I spoke of earlier... you choose... I dont.
I am LLF and am not slave to broadcasting schedules.
I can watch all TV content that is not broadcast 'live' and not pay the BBC a penny.
Love it......

Re YouTube, they downloaded the video using something called 'Keepvid'.
I personally use UTD as it is free and works perfectly.
In both these cases you dont need a 'password' you just need the URL of the video.

Hope this helps.

The_Safordian

Kurtis_Blue wrote: »

Hmmm The video you uploaded to you tube has been edited to delete the part the inspector turns on the TV, you know that maybe it was 0.35, but I'm sure you dont need me to tell you that, really?

Stikl showing a keen interest in one broadcaster over all the others, the one that just happens to have all the PR agencies online looking for discontent

M.Shakey

Kurtis_Blue wrote: »

Hmmm The video you uploaded to you tube has been edited to delete the part the inspector turns on the TV, you know that maybe it was 0.35, but I'm sure you dont need me to tell you that, really?

And you state you totally deleted the WHOLE video that you used as evidence 'Hmmm as there was no case to answer I gave NO EVIDENCE.' in court and took the effort to post all over the internet, and are still doing so now 7 months later.

Thats pretty strange, why would you do that? surely it would be a great help to your cause. I won the case.I had 'evidence' to present but it was not required, (as you well know).

An edited video is useless. As they found to their cost

In your twisted version of the Law I would have to prove my innocence ?

Nilrem

M.Shakey wrote: »

it only gives them all the inflated wages and free world tours, (and taxi's) that they have become used to.

I'm actually laughing at that one

Free word tours, would those be the ones required to do business?
It's damned hard for any broadcaster to make anything without travelling, it's also quite hard to do business with foreign companies (including suppliers) without travel
Let me guess Attenborough joined the BBC because he wanted to travel in luxury on the BBC dime?

What's even funnier is that an awful lot of the travel the BBC do is as cheap as possible, but sometimes that cheap method looks expensive (IIRC it's sometimes cheaper to go first class if you've got baggage than budget due to the excess baggage costs, especially as is the case with news related travel, it has to be booked at short notice or there is limited choice of transport).

I really shouldn't bother posting in this thread, but it's amusing and at the moment I'll take any amusement I can.

almillar

Safordian you miss my point. I wasn't talking about the length of a US/UK show, like you're doing, and I don't make anything out to be huge..
I was saying that my example, Star Trek gets a 45 min slot on the Beeb, and a 1hr slot on Sky, with 3 ad breaks in between. Are you telling me that's better?!

My point about the 30 min shows US vs UK with 2 vs 1 ad break - you mentioned the BBC - I mentioned an ad break. See where you went wrong?! Again UK COMMERCIAL TV has ONE ad break compared to TWO in US, regardless of the length of the show. Which is better? Please try to answer this without mentioning the BBC. You seem obsessed!

BBC Worldwide is a commercial organisation, and self funded - AFAIK NO TVL money goes towards them.

M.Shakey

The_Safordian wrote: »

Stikl showing a keen interest in one broadcaster over all the others, the one that just happens to have all the PR agencies online looking for discontent

They cant gloss over a humilliating court defeat, and where the 'evidence' was so bad it produced a no case to answer verdict, (which was not challenged on appeal) 'brother' you wont be able to re-fight and win the case here, why would you want to in any case ?

diamonds

The_Safordian wrote: »

BBC Worldwide uses any profits they make to expand their own empire

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/feb/18/bbc-worldwide-lonely-planet-travel-guides

If the BBC can afford the 25% of Lonely Planet @ 42 million on top of the the almost 90 million it paid for the other 75% it begs the question why the BBC get anything from a TV Licence considering another 227 million went on redundancies over the same period.

Alone the redundancies and Lonely Planet are almost 400 million pounds !!!! Now in 2011 if approx 2.1 million (out of 60+million) paid £145 for a licence = the BBC have good dodgy accountants to grace itself as a charity with a legal obliged donations licences.

I'm not against the BBC, I'm against unfairness in a market place for consumers & businesses alike. BBC is a PRIME example.

Fairness at consumer level is a DIGITAL licence should be obtained for a few pound a month from internet, tv, mobile and broadband resources of one licence per household you must register your connections to the licence to activate. 40 million+ estimated licenced premisis pay a few quid a month over the unfair 2.1 million paying a massive fee.

The BBC should be placing servers in exchanges instead of moving traffic for iplayer across the UK network at OUR licence expense & rural broadband for ALL at exchanges should be funded by the BBC, not the every few years the jovernment throws out millions to which companies mainly get. It is known in business as LONG TERM PLANNING (BBC cant see past the Licence Fee FREEZE)

British Broadcasting.....the word CORPORATION is a business. What other "business" gets funded by the people ?

I do hope Scotland devolve BBC and do some of the above mentioned things, because Westminister & the BBC have failed, failed & failed again over time to address the real issues with licence payers, it's not the fee - its the UNFAIR cost of the fee over a small group of the TV watching public.

Even those on DWP low incomes at £5.60 a week on Jobseekers £67.50 a week ?? never mind any council tax weekly payment contribution (or rent in some cases), and weekly property maintainence not covered by housing benefit/allowance.
Yet who do the BBC usually take to court ? Those that should be excluded from BBC fees - the poorest in our country & they are being FINED for such - a DIGITAL licence would make it affordable to ALL regardless of income, reduce court for TVL & boost BBC income, give access tos broadband & reduce iplayer streaming cost, but oh no - not one idiot at the BBC top table in 10 years have a clue how to bring revenue in and really fulfil its obligations, via drafting changes to the legislation to lay before parliament....:rollseyes:

JimmyTheWig

I'm getting a little confused about this whole YouTube thing.

M.Shakey, at the time did you watch or record live TV?
Did you have equipment set up to watch or record live TV?
If the answer to these is "no" then I don't believe you need a TV licence.
You owned TVs, so I think it is valid that TVL take an interest in you. They came and had a look (at your request, which was good of them) and, presumably, didn't find that you were doing anything wrong.
You had a video that you took at the time showing that when they turned the TV on they didn't get a signal. But you don't have this video any more, only one that shows everything but them turning the TV on.

So why, exactly, did they take you to court?
Why did it take a 4 day trial?

It seems as though TVL thought you were watching live TV. Why?
It seems as though the judge thought that there must have been at least some reason to believe them. Why?

What's missing from the story?