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
-
What "historic legal principles"?
- The sanctity of one's home (prevention from unwarranted State interference)
- The presumption of innocence (as it applies to State bodies taking your word for things)
- The right to a fair trial (including the right to be properly informed of your rights, the right to "equal arms", the right against self-incrimination)
- The presumption that when a State body demands something of a citizen, that it is either required by law, or the State body will make it clear that it isn't.
- The presumption that when an agent of the State approaches you, s/he does so in good faith, and that said individual is properly supervised so as to protect and warrant that good faith on behalf of the State.
- The presumption that when legislators create legislation, it is binding as much on large organisations, as it is on citizens.
- The presumption that when a large organisation tells you something important, it is actually the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.0 -
unholyangel wrote: »... EVERY trade has its crooks. Why would TVL be any different? However, just like every trade has its crooks, they also have honest people.
My issue is with the BBC. They must know the truth you've posted. And yet their supervision of Licence Fee field staff is almost non-existent. They send these people out to do a rotten job that will see them operating on the boundaries of the law (or over it), and they give them ridiculous targets and commission payments.
It is a recipe for disaster and the accounts of people being set up (whilst they are in the minority AFAIK) are truly sickening.
(And yes, I feel exactly the same way about all the other abuses of citizens by the State & large organisations).0 -
Cornucopia wrote: »My issue is with the BBC. They must know the truth you've posted. And yet their supervision of Licence Fee field staff is almost non-existent. They send these people out to do a rotten job that will see them operating on the boundaries of the law (or over it), and they give them ridiculous targets and commission payments.
They don't really supervise them - that's the point. It's outsourced to Capita who unfortunately had their contract renewed last year - despite the BBC Trust being critical of methods and staff incentives coming under scrutiny!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/supportservices/8929112/Capita-extends-BBC-licence-fee-contract.html
In Capita's own words
BBC TV Licensing
Through our current contract we have consistently delivered real value to the BBC, helping to drive down evasion and increase revenues collected. We now have an opportunity to build on these achievements and look forward to introducing additional innovation and techniques to deliver a highly customer centric service that creates further value to the BBC and its customers
I'm wondering what 'innovation' and 'techniques'? :eek:
How much further can they go?
Are we going to get Capita black ops jumping from helicopters onto our roofs with state of the art listening devices?
Should we be checking out the stationary sheep in the field opposite?
The mind boggles...0 -
-
It's like there is an assumption that anyone without a TV licence is defrauding the system and therefore fair game for harrassment.
It's not like they assume it.
They actually do assume that every address requires a Licence.I'll inform TV Licensing of course. But that's that.
Why bother informing them :huh:
They won't believe you anyway.0 -
-
-
Bedsit_Bob wrote: »In what way does a court determine guilt or innocence, based on what the prosecution believe?
That is not what your statement said, was it.
You wrote:
The law doesn't work on what you believe
However, the law does work on that basis. A police officer has a degree of discretion to enter premises, on the predication that they believe a crime is being committed. A jury convicts or acquits on the basis that they believe either the evidence of the prosecution or the defence.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 don't know I have that either, hence they still have have no reason to believe I own any receiving equipment.
Maybe they looked through your window.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