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
-
Bedsit_Bob wrote: »The law doesn't work on what you believe.
It works on what you can prove.
Err.....yes it does.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 -
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.
You have a computer, though.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 -
You have a computer, though.
A computer is not legally in-scope as a TV set.
See:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/692/regulation/11/made0 -
As I have said, once you sign a contract with the TV "inspector" it is game over.
You try standing in front of a magistrate and explain why you signed a confession if you are not guilty.
All they need is a NAME + SIGNATURE
The rest they will do themselves.Hi, we’ve had to remove your signature. If you’re not sure why please read the forum rules or email the forum team if you’re still unsure - MSE ForumTeam0 -
As I have said, once you sign a contract with the TV "inspector" it is game over.
You try standing in front of a magistrate and explain why you signed a confession if you are not guilty.
All they need is a NAME + SIGNATURE
The rest they will do themselves.
There are a number of accounts on the web of people being tricked in various ways by "TVL" staff, such that they end up at the wrong end of a court room.
Whilst an apparent confession is powerful evidence, it seems unlikely (at least I hope it would be) that a Magistrate would not listen constructively if someone explained that they didn't understand, didn't say what was written, didn't actually sign it, etc. etc.
The word on the street is that some Magistrates loath the extended Licence fee sessions they have to preside over. Perhaps a little drama in the court-room would brighten their day?
0 -
It's a bit of a pain but has anyone tried videoing any encounters and having witnesses present? I'm thinking this needs some proactivity on our part.As I have said, once you sign a contract with the TV "inspector" it is game over.
You try standing in front of a magistrate and explain why you signed a confession if you are not guilty.
All they need is a NAME + SIGNATURE
The rest they will do themselves.0 -
It's a bit of a pain but has anyone tried videoing any encounters and having witnesses present? I'm thinking this needs some proactivity on our part.
Yes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKsUkGEIBck
After this they took him to court again even though no laws were broken and won. He then took BBC TV Licensing to a High Court and they got hammered because the law was followed to the T0 -
A lot of good people are active in their opposition to the BBC's maltreatment of legally licence free people.
I think they/we achieve a reasonable amount, though there is much more that could be done if there was greater co-ordination and (inevitably) money. However, the cause does not necessarily lend itself to that.
What's disappointing is the number of people who report getting prosecuted not because they are guilty (they aren't), but because they didn't know what was happening. I think that's a shame for the justice system and for the BBC.
I would urge anyone/everyone who is legally licence free (even if it's casually or just for a few days) to ensure that they understand exactly what powers "TVL" have against them (not many). And that they use the principles of an adversarial justice system for their benefit, rather than becoming a victim of them.0 -
Cornucopia wrote: »A computer is not legally in-scope as a TV set.
See:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/692/regulation/11/made
But it still has the potential to receive television signals. That said, if you do watch television via a computer, you will still be freeloading.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 -
The_Safordian wrote: »Yes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKsUkGEIBck
After this they took him to court again even though no laws were broken and won. He then took BBC TV Licensing to a High Court and they got hammered because the law was followed to the T
Well, he shouldn't have pretended to have digital television set for thirty years, should he.
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
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards