Fined £275 for watching YOUTUBE

Flyboy152

And yet people still evade the licence fee.

TVLicenceEvader

Ive been evading the licence fee for years..

Its easy ladies and gentlemen.DONT ANSWER THE DOOR !

[Deleted User]

Flyboy152 wrote: »

And yet people still evade the licence fee.

Not understanding your point :huh:

shaun_from_Africa

And yet people still evade the licence fee.

And many people drive without insurance, an MOT or driving licence, yet I have never once had a visit from someone demanding that I either provide proof of my insurance, MOT or licence or prove that I don't take a vehicle on the highway.
They may well ask for these documents if they see me driving or have a reasonable ground to suspect that I have done so, but not otherwise

Just because some people evade the licence fee doesn't give TVL the right to use bullyboy tactics against people when they have zero proof that those people have done anything wrong.

Flyboy152

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

And many people drive without insurance, an MOT or driving licence, yet I have never once had a visit from someone demanding that I either provide proof of my insurance, MOT or licence or prove that I don't take a vehicle on the highway.
They may well ask for these documents if they see me driving or have a reasonable ground to suspect that I have done so, but not otherwise

Seeing as you can't take your television for a drive, it would seem reasonable that you are asked for these things here the item is used.

Just because some people evade the licence fee doesn't give TVL the right to use bullyboy tactics against people when they have zero proof that those people have done anything wrong.

I have never said that they should, I have, however, maintained that if you watch television you should pay for the privilege like the vast majority of the population. Why should we pay for those who can't be bothered to get a licence, or are so far up themselves that they pretend to be legal warriors, with so little clue about how it all works. These are the same people who invade courtrooms and disrupt proceeding's with shouting at District Judges, playing mythical legal games, by pretending to not know their own names.

shaun_from_Africa

I have, however, maintained that if you watch television you should pay for the privilege like the vast majority of the population

I too agree with this, as do most of the posters on here.
What I don't agree with is the targeting of totally innocent householders when there is zero evidence against them and the only reason they are being targeted is because they don't have a licence, and not because they don't have a licence but do have a TV.

Seeing as you can't take your television for a drive, it would seem reasonable that you are asked for these things here the item is used

.
But that is the whole point. They are not asking where the item is used. They are asking for it where some people use it. The people that don't own a TV don't use one in their house.

How about a shotgun or certain exotic pets
These also need licences, yet the police or DEFRA don't turn up on doorsteps asking why the householder doesn't have a licence.
They may well call if they have reasonable suspicion, but they won't just cold call in the hope of catching someone.

Cornucopia

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Seeing as you can't take your television for a drive, it would seem reasonable that you are asked for these things here the item is used.

Certainly, if you have a TV licence, then the BBC's agents can ask you to present it. And they would do so at your front-door. However, the licence is issued subject to the condition upon the BBC that it does not provide right of entry.

However this right of enquiry is a condition of the licence itself. So, no licence, no right to enquire. The BBC is not given specific powers to make such enquiries, and not having a licence is not evidence of an offence, anyway.

I have never said that they should, I have, however, maintained that if you watch television you should pay for the privilege like the vast majority of the population. Why should we pay for those who can't be bothered to get a licence, or are so far up themselves that they pretend to be legal warriors, with so little clue about how it all works. These are the same people who invade courtrooms and disrupt proceeding's with shouting at District Judges, playing mythical legal games, by pretending to not know their own names.

I don't see anyone here advocating Free-Man approaches. The law that we are talking about is common law and legislation - neither of those are the kind of "voodoo" you imply.

Common law is particularly effective against "TVL". It's the origin of all the case law on the sanctity of one's home, and permits tactics like the withdrawal of the implied right of access (and related strategies).

Legislation, too, like PACE and HRA is also relevant.

shaun_from_Africa

Just because some people evade the licence fee doesn't give TVL the right to use bullyboy tactics against people when they have zero proof that those people have done anything wrong.

Flyboy152 wrote: »

I have never said that they should

You may not have said that they should, but this is exactly what many people consider their actions to be.
IMO, sending threatening letters stating that inspectors will be calling, threating legal action and threatening to fine someone when they have no proof that they have done anything wrong can't be considered as anything but bully boy tactics.

[Deleted User]

Flyboy152 wrote: »

I have, however, maintained that if you watch television you should pay for the privilege like the vast majority of the population.

I don't watch live TV and, as a consequence, BBC/TVL can have no proof that I do.

BBC/TVL's default position is that every household needs a TV Licence, and that it is up to those who don't have a licence, to state they don't need one, at which point a home visit is scheduled.

That is, according to British law, the wrong way round.

It is not up to me to prove I'm not breaking the law.

It is up to BBC/TVL to prove I am.

pineapple

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

BBC/TVL's default position is that every household needs a TV Licence, and that it is up to those who don't have a licence, to state they don't need one, at which point a home visit is scheduled.

That is, according British law, the wrong way round.

It is not up to me to prove I'm not breaking the law.

It is up to BBC/TVL to prove I am.

And there you have it in a nutshell BB. The principle, for me, is the issue - irrespective of the cost of the fee. Which is why I will never even speak to anyone who comes knocking on my door demanding 'proof'. That and the well documented instances of fraud and entrapment of course.
In fact I don't answer the door to cold callers in the first place. It's just common sense - particularly for single women .