We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Fined £275 for watching YOUTUBE
Comments
-
I think the point being made (and indeed expressed in post #241) is that "TVL" do not have any rights under those Article 8 provisions.
And for full disclosure - I DO have a TV license, and always have since I have owned my own property. (Previously I lived with my parents, whereby THEY had a TV license).0 -
I think the point being made (and indeed expressed in post #241) is that "TVL" do not have any rights under those Article 8 provisions.
And for full disclosure - I DO have a TV license, and always have since I have owned my own property. (Previously I lived with my parents, whereby THEY had a TV license).
How so? If they believe that a crime is being committed, why shouldn't they have the power to stop it? Nonetheless, Cornucopia seems to be under the impression that no one, not anybody, has the right to enter their home to find out if they are breaking the law or not.
That said, of course, one cannot cite the Human Rights Act for their convenience one moment and denounce it the next, when it suits them.The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark0 -
Because my home has special protection in law.I have no idea why you are fixating on people entering your home.
I'm not committing a crime. If the Police wanted to do that, they would need reasonable suspicion of a crime actually taking place - first! "TVL" just want to harass people who are unlicensed, make them prove their innocence, and conduct a "fishing trip" for evidence - none of those things is acceptable.If the police wanted to enter your home, to stop you committing a crime, would you give them the same attitude?
But we already know that's not true. There are no other agencies in the UK that conduct door-to-door enquiries of people not suspected of an offence.The fact is, there are many different agencies who will visit you at home to establish whether you are telling the truth or not...
Because we have a noble system of laws, and I hate to see it being abused by a large organisation.... and I cannot, for the life of me, understand why anyone would object, unless they are actually being dishonest.0 -
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.
Sorry, but this is utterly ridiculous.
How can you possibly know whether I fundamentally object to the HRA but support it when it suits me?
And if other people do so, what relevance is it to me?
Can we have a rational discussion here or not?
The HRA is the Law. Whether you like that or not, the BBC, and everyone else is bound by it. That is what we should be discussing - and why cite the BNP? Don't the Tories have issues too?0 -
The Police do have that power and "TVL" do not. That is the Law.How so? If they believe that a crime is being committed, why shouldn't they have the power to stop it?
Are you "on something"? Quote me on the things I have actually said. :mad: If you're just going to make stuff up in place of genuine debate, then you need banning.Nonetheless, Cornucopia seems to be under the impression that no one, not anybody, has the right to enter their home to find out if they are breaking the law or not.
To be clear: there are no other agencies that go door-to-door seeking access to innocent people and their homes, for the purpose of checking whether they are evading a tax and/or breaking the law. It really is a matter of fact. If you dispute it, produce the facts that disprove it.
This is my 9th post - show me where in that I have denounced the HRA.That said, of course, one cannot cite the Human Rights Act for their convenience one moment and denounce it the next, when it suits them.
In fact, show me anything, anywhere that I have ever written that says that.0 -
If you hang around here long enough you'll soon come to realise that Flyboy's arguments will change when (s)he realises they are being lost.
And very rarely backs them up with documented evidence - but complains when others do the same.
(Flyboy's opinions are fact, whereas other's opinions are just that - opinions). 
0 -
Cornucopia wrote: »Who, the Police (do have that power) or "TVL" (don't have any significant powers at all).
Are you "on something"? Quote me on the things I have actually said. :mad: If you're just going to make stuff up in place of genuine debate, then you need banning.
To be clear: there are no other agencies that go door-to-door seeking access to innocent people and their homes, for the purpose of checking whether they are evading a tax and/or breaking the law. It really is a matter of fact. If you dispute it, produce the facts that disprove it.
This is my 9th post - show me where in that I have denounced the HRA.
In fact, show me anything, anywhere that I have ever written that says that.
I was going to ignore your rantings until I got to this. Shilling is an unpleasant activity and leads to an eventual self-destruction.The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark0 -
-
If you hang around here long enough you'll soon come to realise that Flyboy's arguments will change when (s)he realises they are being lost.
And very rarely backs them up with documented evidence - but complains when others do the same. (Flyboy's opinions are fact, whereas other's opinions are just that - opinions).
Oh no, not one of those.
0 -
No. The offence is defined in the 2003 Communications Act - receiving broadcast TV without a licence. There is no requirement on the BBC to undertake the much wider and more intrusive activity of making sure that everyone is telling the absolute truth. (Not that they have the power to do that, anyway).Err....yes they do.And how is that going to change things?
What needs to change? And if it's something important, why aren't the BBC asking for it?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards