Fined £275 for watching YOUTUBE

mcjordi

I havent had a knock on the door or a letter for a while.. i feel left out..

i dont have a license and wont buy one either dont watch live tv anymore as it rots the brain anyway.
Crapita can kiss me butt

Flyboy152

mcjordi wrote: »

I havent had a knock on the door or a letter for a while.. i feel left out..

i dont have a license and wont buy one either dont watch live tv anymore as it rots the brain anyway.
Crapita can kiss me butt

Out of a matter interest, what television do you watch?

Flyboy152

Cornucopia wrote: »

They are checking whether people are breaking the law. Except when their database is screwed-up and they go to premises that are licensed, thinking that they are not. (Apparently, this accounts for about 10% of "enquiries").

Either way, it seems from the dialog that followed from my original post that it remains true, as I said, that other agencies do not "drop by" to check whether we are breaking the law, or failing to pay the correct taxes. Just in case there is still confusion, I can confirm that by "drop by" I meant to people's homes, rather than their cars.

I'm sure there are some people who are hard done by with respect to their cars. I have some sympathy for them. However, there are good reasons to regulate car usage. Not so TVs. Furthermore, one's home-life is specifically protected in law. Not so one's "car-life".

Hopefully you can understand why some people choose not to be answerable to the BBC's agents in their own homes - not least because they don't have to. And this is not small business, either. In the latest figures, the BBC's agents are attempting around 4 million house-calls per year.

And as others have said, there are many agencies that visit the public to ensure they are not breaking the law. Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting, "la la la la la la la," is pointless and doesn't make the facts go away.

Cornucopia

Flyboy152 wrote: »

And as others have said, there are many agencies that visit the public to ensure they are not breaking the law.

And it's still the case that all but "TVL" recognise the sanctity of one's home - morally, culturally and legally.

Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting, "la la la la la la la," is pointless and doesn't make the facts go away.

I'm not sure what you mean by this? Ignoring "TVL" is an acceptable strategy under the law.

Cornucopia

halibut2209 wrote: »

Consider the fishing licence analogy brought up before.

No, the EA don't go to your house to check you have a licence even if you having a fishing rod, because that's not where you use it. But they do go to fishing areas and check that people have licences.

To quote you: Your reasoning is flawed. Doubly so.

In the first place, the EA are checking the licences of those who are actually fishing (possibly those with the necessary kit?). "TVL" want to check all unlicensed homes, including those with no TV.

Secondly, a home is not a public place. And it has specific protection and meaning to us - morally, culturally and legally. Or to put it another way, Article 8 of the ECHR provides that there shall be no interference by a public body with home and family life, subject to certain conditions that "TVL" do not meet.

You use a TV at home, so you are checked there. All this misdirection about other people not doing the same is pointless. If you need a licence for something, people are there to check at the place where that item is used.

That's too bad for "TVL", then, because although they can make nusiances of themselves, they cannot actually enter people's homes without permission. Again, why would anyone give permission for a non-statutory "visit" that probably amounts to an unlawful search under PACE?

halibut2209

So how are they supposed to know that there is no TV?

Cornucopia

halibut2209 wrote: »

So how are they supposed to know that there is no TV?

They don't need to know.

They only need to detect licence evasion. And they have detectors to do that (apparently).

If they don't really have detectors, and have been lying about them all these years, then they are hoist by their own petard, aren't they?

Flyboy152

Cornucopia wrote: »

And it's still the case that all but "TVL" recognise the sanctity of one's home - morally, culturally and legally.

I have no idea why you are fixating on people entering your home. If the police wanted to enter your home, to stop you committing a crime, would you give them the same attitude? The fact is, there are many different agencies who will visit you at home to establish whether you are telling the truth or not and I cannot, for the life of me, understand why anyone would object, unless they are actually being dishonest.

I'm not sure what you mean by this? Ignoring "TVL" is an acceptable strategy under the law.

I am not sure that you have a grasp on this.

Flyboy152

Cornucopia wrote: »

They don't need to know.

Err....yes they do.

They only need to detect licence evasion. And they have detectors to do that (apparently).

If they don't really have detectors, and have been lying about them all these years, then they are hoist by their own petard, aren't they?

And how is that going to change things?

Flyboy152

Cornucopia wrote: »

To quote you: Your reasoning is flawed. Doubly so.

In the first place, the EA are checking the licences of those who are actually fishing (possibly those with the necessary kit?). "TVL" want to check all unlicensed homes, including those with no TV.

Secondly, a home is not a public place. And it has specific protection and meaning to us - morally, culturally and legally. Or to put it another way, Article 8 of the ECHR provides that there shall be no interference by a public body with home and family life, subject to certain conditions that "TVL" do not meet.


That's too bad for "TVL", then, because although they can make nusiances of themselves, they cannot actually enter people's homes without permission. Again, why would anyone give permission for a non-statutory "visit" that probably amounts to an unlawful search under PACE?

I think it is hilarious that some people fundamentally object to the Human Rights Act, especially when it comes to Article Eight, but support it when it suits them. I remember the Broke Nazi Party doing the same recently. But, what these people always ignore is that there are provisions within Article Eight which allow the authorities to enter a property.