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

M.Shakey

Nilrem wrote: »

I'm actually laughing at that one

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

Glad to be of service.
You sure wont be getting any amusement from the BBC, but soon I will be going as I am tiring of feeding the trolls.

Kurtis_Blue

M.Shakey wrote: »

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

You dont seem to follow rational thought processes, if you state TVL edited your video and used that as evidence then I personally would have taken the original, or at the very least KEPT it, but you chose to delete it, mighty strange...

If you have the original video you state TVL tampered with then you could have them for contempt or perverting the course of Justice.

Surely that would be good for your cause, no? if you are serous about this you need to get your act together.

1. Learn about normal discussion without creating argument.

2. Stop deleting the one bit of quality evidence.

M.Shakey

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

So why, exactly, did they take you to court? To punish a political adversary
Why did it take a 4 day trial?
Because I pleaded 'Not Guilty' and there was much more 'evidence' thrown against me most of which was found to be 'inadmissible'

It seems as though TVL thought you were watching live TV. Why? Because of one unverified 'copy' of a video that they saw on YouTube
It seems as though the judge thought that there must have been at least some reason to believe them. No. The way it works is that you cant stop someone dragging you to Court however weak or spurious the case. The Judge, along with 2 Magistrates thought there was no case.Why? Because it was an 'unarguable case' in Law.

What's missing from the story? A conviction.

No I did not recieve or record any 'live' broadcasts on that date.
I do not need a licence.
I believe that the case was brought as a pathetic attempt to silence a political opponent.

Kurtis_Blue

M.Shakey wrote: »

I believe that the case was brought as a pathetic attempt to silence a political opponent.

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/

diamonds

Kurtis_Blue wrote: »

If you have the original video you state TVL tampered with then you could have them for contempt or perverting the course of Justice.

*10 points*

Kurtis_Blue

diamonds wrote: »

*10 points*

But he deleted it.

JimmyTheWig

M.Shakey wrote: »

there was much more 'evidence' thrown against me most of which was found to be 'inadmissible'
...
Because of one unverified 'copy' of a video that they saw on YouTube

I think I'm getting closer to understanding what happened, but why not give us the full story.

Are you saying that there was a video on YouTube (posted by you?) that made it look like you were watching live TV without a licence?
What was this video?
Did it show you watching live TV?
Was it made to look like you were watching live TV?

M.Shakey

Kurtis_Blue wrote: »

You dont seem to follow rational thought processes, if you state TVL edited your video and used that as evidence then I personally would have taken the original, or at the very least KEPT it, but you chose to delete it, mighty strange...

If you have the original video you state TVL tampered with then you could have them for contempt or perverting the course of Justice.

Surely that would be good for your cause, no? if you are serous about this you need to get your act together.

1. Learn about normal discussion without creating argument.

2. Stop deleting the one bit of quality evidence.

I think that you are just posting to waste my time and efforts.
If you read my comments in red it should become clearer to you.
I belive that I could prove that the video WAS 'tampered with' but by whom specifically ? Too many BBC agents handled the 'exhibit' to determine the exact culprit.

You say that you would have kept the original, well good for you. I personally did not even need the 'original' to win the case.
There was MUCH 'unused' evidence that went straight into the burn-bin at the Court room.

Good for my cause... Ha haaa... smashing the granny out of them in Crown Court not enough ???

My own advice to you...

1. Read more carefully.... slower if it helps.

2. Making assumptions is only good practice if you know all the facts.

3. Study logic and examples of falacious arguments.

Sorry if I stop feeding you I have other things to do now.

Bye 'brother' hope you go on to argue more heady subjects with more 'worthy' people.

Kurtis_Blue

HHmmm.
Wasting your time? you posted the strangely edited video, its obvious people will want to know more...you keep saying you have lots of evidence but where is it?
Why come on here if you are not open to discussion and discourse?
May be stick to the blogs where your evidence is not open to discussion...

M.Shakey

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

I think I'm getting closer to understanding what happened, but why not give us the full story.

Are you saying that there was a video on YouTube (posted by you?) that made it look like you were watching live TV without a licence?
What was this video?
Did it show you watching live TV?
Was it made to look like you were watching live TV?

Jimmy.. you are the most astute observant clued-up person so far.
If you dont work for Capita Legal then they should hire you IMMEDIATELY.
Did I force them to prosecute me ????

So you are suggesting that they were 'set up'...?????

Hmmmm wonder how?

Ha ha ha haaaaaa.......