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

The_Safordian

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

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

I think its very interesting so far. I've come up against a couple of BBC people on and off here but M.Shakey points out he beat their BBC masters in court and it's been non stop on him, makes one wonder

If you really want to know the score read what the person claiming to be the TV Licence legal team said.

http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/forum/general-discussion/catastrophe-here-at-tvla/

JimmyTheWig

Thanks for the praise, Shakey, but you didn't answer my questions. Not sure if that's because you're playing some sort of game or because you've got something to hide. Neither of which particularly interest me, I'm afraid.

Now I see two possibilities...
1. You posted a video to YouTube and someone downloaded it and edited it to show you committing a crime and prosecuted you for that crime. But you have destroyed, and removed from YouTube, the evidence of the original video which would show that they had edited it.
2. You deliberately posted a video on YouTube that made it look like you'd been watching live TV so they would take you to court and you could prove them wrong as you knew what was wrong with the video they had.

Now, from what I understand, you're not new to this game. You've had various run-ins with TVL in the past. I'd go as far as to say you hate them. In which case I can't see that after them doing all of this to you, if scenario 1 is true, that you'd destroy all evidence of their wrong-doing. I think you'd either be taking it to the papers or taking them to court.

Which leads me to suspect scenario 2.
Now, are you one of these people who complains about money the BBC waste? Why, then, encourage them to waste all this money on a prosecution that you knew was phoney?

The_Safordian

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Thanks for the praise, Shakey, but you didn't answer my questions. Not sure if that's because you're playing some sort of game

The only people playing games here are you and your BBC pal. If you read what the person claiming to be the BBC's solicitor he goes into details.

These PR mind games wont work

Kurtis_Blue

The_Safordian wrote: »

The only people playing games here are you and your BBC pal. If you read what the person claiming to be the BBC's solicitor he goes into details.

These PR mind games wont work

I think you will find that the "bbcs" solicitor does not post poorly worded legal details on random web forums with smiley faces, when has a solicitor used smiley faces, get real.

M.Shakey

Safordian

Quite right.
I dont have to prove anything to the BBC shills that may populate this forum.

I had a legal team of at least 4 solicitors, one of whom was the head of Capita Legal, 3 different Barristers, 6 BBC paid lackeys as witnesses.... against me.

I was a 'litigant in person'...unrepresented.. who had to write reports, a 'skeleton' argument showing case Law and legal points, a defence statement, (unused as the case was), commission an 'expert witness' who produced a detailed report on the disputed 'video evidence' (which was accepted by the prosecution BTW)... and... I smoked them in CROWN COURT.

What do I have to prove here ?

My first post was directly connected the the OP thread.

I am amused at the discomfort of the BBS posse here and at how they jump to defend, blindly, without thinking.

Returning to the OP.. I have found (now tested in Court) a way to avoid paying the TVL... LEGALLY... and still watch TV 'content'.
Thats why I posted my Original Post.

The_Safordian

Kurtis_Blue wrote: »

I think you will find that the "bbcs" solicitor does not post poorly worded legal details on random web forums with smiley faces, when has a solicitor used smiley faces, get real.

No not unless it was to bait M.Shakey but that didn't work because once he found out it was taken off public view...............until the allotted days given by the court.

The point is that person knew a lot of details as you can clearly see.

I must add if you are nothing to do with the BBC your loyalty to them is very strange given all the facts you've heard

Kurtis_Blue

The_Safordian wrote: »

I must add if you are nothing to do with the BBC your loyalty to them is very strange given all the facts you've heard

I have no loyalty to the BBC, and have heard no facts just random edited videos showing nothing at all of value, and statements regarding what "the people" want.
Where this big idea of avoiding the TVL? if you don't receive a live feed you don't need one, nothing new there.

Remember people can have differing opinions from you, that is OK.
It does not mean its a big BBC conspiracy, that leads to paranoia.

JimmyTheWig

The_Safordian wrote: »

The only people playing games here are you and your BBC pal. If you read what the person claiming to be the BBC's solicitor he goes into details.

These PR mind games wont work

Me? Don't see what games I'm playing - I'm just trying to work out what Shakey is trying to tell us he's done.

Shakey, you don't have to prove anything here. In fact, you don't have to do anything here.
But if you've got something of interest to tell us, and it seems like you have, then come out and tell us it.


You've found a way of not paying the TV licence. By not watching TV. That's nothing new, is it? That never needed testing in court, did it?
You've found a way of demonstrating that you don't watch TV? By cutting your ariel cable? No, that wasn't enough - you still had the guy snooping round to check. The way you had of demonstrating that you don't watch live TV was by not having the ability to watch live TV when the guy came round. Again, that's nothing new, is it? That never needed testing in court, did it?

I don't know what went on in your court case, but I severely doubt that it has set a precedent for future cases. I doubt that there will ever be a case quite like yours again. I don't think that you've tested your "way" in court at all.

You may have found a way of proving that someone at TVL fabricated evidence against you. Now that would have been something important. But you don't seem particularly interested in that if that is what you've found. If they did this to you they could do it to others and so you'd be doing a public service in bringing attention to this.

You may have found a way of wasting a lot of public money. Well if that's the case then I'm not particularly interested in that. That's not helpful to anyone.


So, have you got anything to tell us?
If so, what is it?

The_Safordian

Kurtis_Blue wrote: »

I have no loyalty to the BBC, and have heard no facts just random edited videos showing nothing at all of value, and statements regarding what "the people" want.
Where this big idea of avoiding the TVL? if you don't receive a live feed you don't need one, nothing new there.

So you prefer to believe the BBC is whiter than white even after what the Judge said..................after all M never asked to be served with a warrant and harrased a second time which led him to the higher courts................this was your BBC pals that done this and LOST.

Kurtis_Blue wrote: »

I
Remember people can have differing opinions from you, that is OK.
It does not mean its a big BBC conspiracy, that leads to paranoia.

The people I've shown you that were taken to court even though they don't own TV's................tell me who's wrong there................I have a feeling you wont blame your employer for anything but those reading this can judge for themselves

M.Shakey

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Thanks for the praise, Shakey, but you didn't answer my questions. Not sure if that's because you're playing some sort of game or because you've got something to hide. Neither of which particularly interest me, I'm afraid.

Now I see two possibilities...
1. You posted a video to YouTube and someone downloaded it and edited it to show you committing a crime and prosecuted you for that crime. But you have destroyed, and removed from YouTube, the evidence of the original video which would show that they had edited it.
2. You deliberately posted a video on YouTube that made it look like you'd been watching live TV so they would take you to court and you could prove them wrong as you knew what was wrong with the video they had.

Now, from what I understand, you're not new to this game. You've had various run-ins with TVL in the past. I'd go as far as to say you hate them. In which case I can't see that after them doing all of this to you, if scenario 1 is true, that you'd destroy all evidence of their wrong-doing. I think you'd either be taking it to the papers or taking them to court.

Which leads me to suspect scenario 2.
Now, are you one of these people who complains about money the BBC waste? Why, then, encourage them to waste all this money on a prosecution that you knew was phoney?

Jimmy.. it was not false praise..
I can see that you obviously support the 'other side'.
I would hate to be 'up against you' directly.

I am playing games...(with the enemy).. its the nature of the beast...

'All warfare is based on deception' Sun Tsu.

I did not answer your questions.

Better for me that the enemy waste time and effort on usless discourse.
You are uncomfortably close to the truth, but that is all I will say for now.

Yes I HATE them with a passion, if you PM me I will explain why.

Your 2. is very good, but how do you make them prosecute ?
I did goad and provoke them quite a bit after the initial 'visit'.
Hubris perhaps ???
Yea.. that would work.!!

So..... you decide.... which one ???????

BTW if its 2. I take that as a big compliment, you certainly did not underestimate me as they did....if that version is true.

I enjoyed the encounter immesurably... from Doyle's visit, receiving the summons... the first case, (which I lost to the 'tame Magistrates' who incidentally had the SAME evidence to consider, bit of a shocker there I can tell), to the final scene in Crown Court.