Fined £275 for watching YOUTUBE

halibut2209

"I'm watching television now via the US version of Netflix (Catchup)"

Are you allowed to do that in this country?

[Deleted User]

Flyboy152 wrote: »

If they believe that a crime is being committed, why shouldn't they have the power to stop it?

The law doesn't work on what you believe.

It works on what you can prove.

[Deleted User]

Flyboy152 wrote: »

and I cannot, for the life of me, understand why anyone would object, unless they are actually being dishonest.

Perhaps because we value our privacy.

There's also the matter of burden of proof, which lies with the accuser.

[Deleted User]

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Err....yes they do.

They may wish to know, but that's not the same as needing to know.

The_Safordian

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

Perhaps because we value our privacy.

There's also the matter of burden of proof, which lies with the accuser.

There is also the fact the BBC sales goons have been known to falsify the statements after getting a signature on them leaving you in (censored) street

missile

leaving you in (censored) street

I like that one.
Should it not be ? >

up (censored) creek without a paddle

[Deleted User]

!!!!!! wrote: »

2. They have a list, from retailers, of addresses that have bought TV/Freeview boxes etc.

They have no record of me buying a TV, Freeview box etc., since I've lived at this address, yet they still send me a monthly threat-o-gram.

In other words, despite not having any reason to believe I own (let alone watch) a TV, they continually write to, and visit me.

[Deleted User]

Flyboy152 wrote: »

If I didn't pay my cable bill they would sent far worse.

Would they?

Such as?

Cornucopia

There are two issues with the lack of clarity/consistency in the "TVL" communications....

1. The BBC has a moral duty to communicate effectively with the public. It seems to take this duty reasonably seriously in the context of its broadcasts, so why not in this context. It's important that public services explain themselves properly to the public.

2. Some of elements of the "TVL" communications either have legal implications, do not address legal implications that they should, or pretend to have legal relevance when they do not. It is unworthy of any public body to abuse the law in this way.

The simple truths are that "TVL" has no legal right to demand access to homes, or to demand information other than that require to issue a licence. Anyone being interviewed in connection with an offence has a Right to Silence and a Right to Counsel. The BBC needs to properly advise these rights and to give effect to them, It is arguably doing neither of these things at the moment.

pineapple

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

They have no record of me buying a TV, Freeview box etc., since I've lived at this address, yet they still send me a monthly threat-o-gram.

In other words, despite not having any reason to believe I own (let alone watch) a TV, they continually write to, and visit me.

Was it on this site that someone posted the analogy of theatening someone because they had no record of a fishing licence - or threatening someone because they have a rod but no licence?
It's like there is an assumption that anyone without a TV licence is defrauding the system and therefore fair game for harrassment. I don't know how anyone can deny this is wrong. Of course there will be many who are breaking the rules but that's no justification for the tactics used..
It's up to them to prove a TV signal with their little hand held devices, detector vans or whatever they claim to use. If people want to invite them into their homes, that's up to them. And it really is up to them. Unfortunately many don't realise that.
It's been shown time and time again that these commission led agency hirelings commit fraud - resulting in people being wrongly prosecuted or forking out for a licence not legally required. So on that basis and also because no one has a right to search my home without a search warrant (treating me like someone under suspicion), when I ditch the CRT TV I won't be inviting them in. I'll inform TV Licensing of course. But that's that.
One could argue that all of this is pretty small beer. But it's about principle. If we don't take a stand on the 'small' things, it's welcome to Orwell's Britain.
I've no objection to paying for content, but the TV licence in it's present form is overdue to be consigned to the great wheelie bin of history. In the meantime, much could be rectified by taking away the commission element of these characters - who are little more than modern day bounty hunters. But don't hold your breath.