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

The_Safordian

giraffe69 wrote: »

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

Considering public opinion polls have been steady at around 75% wanting it abolished and the BBC's empire keeps growing yes.

The fact you refer to people as druggies at the thought of you funding your own subscription suggests you are the deluded one.

giraffe69 wrote: »

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

Once again no one should be allowed to try influencing a court of law and only you guys seem to find that acceptable...............when not calling people druggies

BBC-Died-in-1980

Nilrem wrote: »

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.

I guess you must love Frozen Planet too? another BBC complete waste of money & pro global warming propoganda epic.

JimmyTheWig

The_Safordian wrote: »

Once again

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

Oh come on, you don't really think that was posted by a solicitor, do you?

The_Safordian

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Oh come on, you don't really think that was posted by a solicitor, do you?

Well I believe it was the final day and he knew a lot of information including names, times etc etc. Like I said I personally think it was done to bait M.Shakey but he didn't take it and the thread was removed until the allotted time given by the court.

M.Shakey

@ Jimmy

I admit nothing here.
This was part of the tactics they used, trying to get internet postings admitted as 'evidence'.

To answer one question.
No it was not part of the 'plan' to get convicted in Magistrates, they ignored the most compelling evidence entirely and convicted me on 'circumstatial evidence' on instructions from the Clerk of the Court.

When I said I was going to appeal his sphincter was heard performing sub-sonic contractions... there was NO WAY an UNBIASED bench would have convicted.
He seemed most worried that I was going to appeal on 'case stated', but I went for a re-trial.

Safordian was right in that I was trying to get them off my back once and for all... all the nonsense that the BBC posse's spout about 'Just co-operate..TVL are decent people really..only trying to do a decent job..no 'presumtion of guilt' sir..no never'... all RUBBISH.

Fact is .... if you dont pay 'tribute'... they will hound you unmercifully.

Again for Jimmy I sent you part one.... as a 'newbie' I cant post for another hour.. the whole message was too long.

JimmyTheWig

So what circumstantial evidence did they have?

JimmyTheWig

You know what's amusing me through this?
The fact that I really have no idea whether or not you watch/record live TV.
I'm torn 50/50.

Nilrem

[QUOTE=The Safordian;52876275
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.
l[/QUOTE]

Nurse pass the medication please.


I rally hope you think about what you've just said, as it's very very very close to libel on a fairly large scale.

Funny, well not so much funny, as hilarious, but libel none the same.

Most magistrates seem to hate the TVL block, but have no choice but to find in favour when there is:
No defence offered.
The proof is there.

It's not because they are "in the BBC's pocket", but because generally if there is the proof the law is fairly simple (and you can see how much the are in the BBC's pocked by the average level of the fine they impose - iirc it's below the licence fee cost).

But again, don't let facts get in the way.


P.S.
I know that some TVL inspectors are almost certainly dodgy - but that doesn't mean they all are.
I know some traffic wardens are nasty, narrow minded, petty people - I've yet to meet one of that type myself, I don't know how given I park in odd places (I often have a BB passenger).
Maybe there is a corrolation between how awkward people are in the first case with the enforcement people regardless of type or creed, and the results over time.
I've always gone for the polite approach and when in doubt ask a question - just like when querying the TVL, if I'm unsure of where to park legally with a BB for example, I'll try and find a warden and if I can't, I'll park on the "safe side" of caution.

Popperwell

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

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.

I thought that they could only do you if they pick up a signal/frequency as they pass your property and that as long as there is no power to the equipment and its disconnected that was enough.

If/when I can afford or want to watch tv again I'll buy a license. Until Mum passed away and was out of the home for a couple of weeks due to being in a Nursing Home because of her age it was free. I don't like not being able to afford the TV but I dare not use it until I know that I can afford it.

I'm even worried about paying the electric and gas bill, its like an ice box in here...

The_Safordian

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

You know what's amusing me through this?
The fact that I really have no idea whether or not you watch/record live TV.
I'm torn 50/50.

I've seen one of the earlier video's by the same goon and M shows him where the aerial is cut outside on the wall (I'm sure thats correct M?) if I'm not mistaken so he must have used a ladder at some point to do that.

Now I presume he filmed the visit so he had this evidence but the fact the BBC still went after him shows what a bunch of (censored) they really are........................The judges statement at the end also leaves no squirms as to who he blames & its not M