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

Kurtis_Blue

The_Safordian wrote: »

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.
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

Look Mr Shakey is clearly just winding the TVL up because he has far too much time, and why not at least he is taking action, if you are just going to whine then just let it go, not every one is out to get you, some of us, like Mr Shakey, just simply have faaar to much time...

The_Safordian

Kurtis_Blue wrote: »

Look Mr Shakey is clearly just winding the TVL up because he has far too much time, and why not at least he is taking action, if you are just going to whine then just let it go, not every one is out to get you, some of us, like Mr Shakey, just simply have faaar to much time...

They went for him remember. Now the fact is he won them in a court of law and any decent member of the British public would respect this but you being on the BBC payroll have to be different. I'm guessing he should be guilty until your employer says otherwise like the letters they send out :mad:

Again why not give those reading this a laugh by telling them you don't work for the BBC or one of their PR firms

JimmyTheWig

M.Shakey wrote: »

I can see that you obviously support the 'other side'.

I'm not on any "side".
I pay for my TV licence. I watch TV. I think the BBC is the best broadcaster we've got in this country. I don't know much about TV abroad so can't comment on that. I'd hate to think of all TV in this country being funded by advertising.
But at the same time I think that the TV licence is very expensive. It does sound like they harass people who don't watch TV. Is that the fault of TVL or is that the fault of those who watch TV without a licence? I don't know.

I would hate to be 'up against you' directly.

Don't worry. "TheWig" is not a reference to the judicory.

Better for me that the enemy waste time and effort on usless discourse.

Why? Why waste their time? Why waste their (our) money?

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.

Did you ever watch Jonathon Creek? (Not live, of course!) It's a matter of drawing the only logical conclusion from what is presented. Two videos are different. One must be edited. The person doing the editing must have done it to get at the other person. It's an extreme length to go to just to get at the other person. You hate them more than they hate you. Therefore I suspect you did the editing.

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)

Now, this is the bit I don't understand.
What happened?
Did they present the video evidence, you present the video evidence and the magistrate believe them?
Or was losing at the Magistrate's Court all part of your plan? Did you want it to go to Crown Court?


And I still don't understand why.
Were you hoping to set a precident in court? Do you think you have? What precident?
Or were you just wanting to waste their time and money?

Popperwell

I think the License fee is good value but in my financial state I don't know whether I can afford the license so until I see what I have coming in I have switched off the tv, the old satellite receiver and unplugged all equipment from the electric socket, cancelled Sky and now only listen to the radio and might watch a little tv via the internet.

Though I have been told that the satelite box will eventually when they switch the Sky channels off become a Freesat box and there will be lots of free to air channels still to view(If I pay the license fee again)

The_Safordian

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

I'm not on any "side".
I pay for my TV licence. I watch TV. I think the BBC is the best broadcaster we've got in this country.

So when the BBC TV Licence is abolished you are free to choose to subscribe to a voluntary subscription of it and the rest of us are free not too

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

It does sound like they harass people who don't watch TV. Is that the fault of TVL or is that the fault of those who watch TV without a licence? I don't know.

It's the fault of the BBC because they are behind it due to the fact they have no legal mandate to harass, threaten or intimidate the British public like they currently do.

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Why? Why waste their time? Why waste their (our) money?

It's not ours, not everyone bends to fund the BBC.

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

It's an extreme length to go to just to get at the other person.

And yet they done it because I'm guessing a report would need to be written to the BBC explaining why they lost in the high court!

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Did they present the video evidence, you present the video evidence and the magistrate believe them?

READ WHAT THEY SAID ON THE LINK

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Or was losing at the Magistrate's Court all part of your plan? Did you want it to go to Crown Court?

Most Magistrate Courts are in the BBC's pockets due to the BBC giving them magazines and taking them on courses something of which wouldn't be allowed in the higher court.

Proof here before you deny this

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

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

And I still don't understand why.

Knowing his story I'm guessing it was to get them off his back once and for all

The_Safordian

Popperwell wrote: »

I think the License fee is good value but in my financial state I don't know whether I can afford the license so until I see what I have coming in I have switched off the tv

That sounds rather odd. If the BBC TV Licence was abolished you'd still be able to watch genuine Free To Air TV but you admit you can't now because of the BBC TV Licence.

Also make sure your TV is detuned because if their goons call with a search warrant they will have you even if the TV is switched off.

I advise you to check here, read what others have done in your position.

Popperwell wrote: »

and might watch a little tv via the internet.

If its live they would try having you for that alone so be carefull what you say to them. Zero communication leaves them with nothing on you

Popperwell wrote: »

Though I have been told that the satelite box will eventually when they switch the Sky channels off become a Freesat box and there will be lots of free to air channels still to view(If I pay the license fee again)

Back to the BBC again...................still think its good value

JimmyTheWig

The_Safordian wrote: »

So when the BBC TV Licence is abolished you are free to choice to subscribe to a voluntary subscription of it and the rest of us are free not too

Correct. My favoured method of funding for the BBC would be part of direct taxation - so those who can afford it would pay more - but if that's not going to happen I'd choose the way it is now. But if it was a case of paying for it if we wanted it then I think I'd pay.

It's the fault of the BBC because they are behind it due to the fact they have no legal mandate to harass, threaten or intimidate the British public like they currently do.

My point, playing devil's advocate, was that if no-one tried to swindle the system by watching and not paying then they wouldn't need to use such tactics.

It's not ours, not everyone bends to fund the BBC.

It's mine, certainly, and by "ours" I meant "those of us who pay".

And yet they done it because I'm guessing a report would need to be written to the BBC explaining why they lost in the high court!

I don't understand this. Who "done it"? Someone at the BBC? I don't think so. I think Shakey has as good as admitted as much here.

READ WHAT THEY SAID ON THE LINK

What link? Who said? What did they say?

Most Magistrate Courts are in the BBC's pockets due to the BBC giving them magazines and taking them on courses something of which wouldn't be allowed in the higher court.

Proof here before you deny this

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

A magistrate in the pocket of the BBC because the BBC send out a crappy looking 4-page flier? I can't imagine many of them even read it!

Knowing his story I'm guessing it was to get them off his back once and for all

If they were unfairly harassing him, why not take them to court and/or the national press?

JimmyTheWig

The_Safordian wrote: »

Also make sure your TV is detuned because if their goons call with a search warrant they will have you even if the TV is switched off.

So are there documented cases where they've successfully prosecuted on the evidence of a tuned TV that wasn't connected to an aerial (or equivalent)?

I'm reasonably technical, but I wouldn't have a clue how to detune a Sky box. It doesn't seem reasonable, then, that Popperwell could get done just because he could watch TV if he connected up all his equipment.

giraffe69

So when the BBC TV Licence is abolished you are free to choose to subscribe to a voluntary subscription of it and the rest of us are free not too

Have you reason to think it will be abolished(other than in your drug fuelled mind?)

Most Magistrate Courts are in the BBC's pockets due to the BBC giving them magazines

Corruptible for a magazine! Nurse, take him back to his bed please.

The_Safordian

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Correct. My favoured method of funding for the BBC would be part of direct taxation - so those who can afford it would pay more - but if that's not going to happen I'd choose the way it is now. But if it was a case of paying for it if we wanted it then I think I'd pay.

But what about those who believe in competition. Also there is zero need for a state broadcaster with all the channels we have. The people who keep pushing it tend to be leftists who have a history of wanting others to subsidise them however TV is taking it to far.

FYO I do not have Cable or Satellite but would still be expected to subsidise Eastenders for you and that's just plain wrong.

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

My point, playing devil's advocate, was that if no-one tried to swindle the system by watching and not paying then they wouldn't need to use such tactics.

No the point is they knocked on his door with a search warrant and have harassed him ever since. Now considering that I think it was only right he took them to a higher court where the BBC are like fish out of water. I've told him before I personalty think they had a vendetta against him, they just wouldn't leave him alone.


Remember too it was them who monitored websites and found his video clip on Youtube, this I believe that started round 2 which they won but in the Higher Court (round 3) they lost.

Tell them to leave the guy alone !!!!!!

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

I don't understand this. Who "done it"? Someone at the BBC? I don't think so. I think Shakey has as good as admitted as much here.

Capita/TVL which the BBC admits have overall responsibility

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

What link? Who said? What did they say?

Once again

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

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

A magistrate in the pocket of the BBC because the BBC send out a crappy looking 4-page flier? I can't imagine many of them even read it!

It's a court of law, no third parties should be trying to brainwash them with magazines and offering courses etc, its not aloud in higher courts for a reason. Decent Magistrates like the one in the link admit this too.

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

If they were unfairly harassing him, why not take them to court and/or the national press?

He has and is :wall: