tv licence court summons - non resident

mickaveli2001

2 Weeks ago? It was not 2 weeks ago

Nonetheless, I was asking advice on direct debit's and credit rating surrounding the cancellation of TV licence, not on the TV licence itself.

You say break the "law", but what "law" ? I'd love you to tell me, and before you return with the "Communications Act of 2003", you must be aware that a "law" and "statute" are 2 different things altogether especially when determining what is 'legal, and what is 'lawful'

Kurtis_Blue

mickaveli2001 wrote: »

2 Weeks ago? It was not 2 weeks ago

Nonetheless, I was asking advice on direct debit's and credit rating surrounding the cancellation of TV licence, not on the TV licence itself.

You say break the "law", but what "law" ? I'd love you to tell me, and before you return with the "Communications Act of 2003", you must be aware that a "law" and "statute" are 2 different things altogether especially when determining what is 'legal, and what is 'lawful'

lmfao, fine you want to advertise your services an aider and abetter on a public forum you should get a proper legal education, or at least more than the fortnights dodgy internet research you have undertaken.
:rotfl:

spacey2012

2 points.
The TV does not need to be watched, it only has to be capable of receiving a live signal.
If it is connected to an antenna and has a plug fitted that can be plugged in, it is capable of receiving live broadcast.
balance of probabilities will prove.
Second point, if a summons is issued, the court will ask name and address to be confirmed.
If she does not turn up, that opportunity is lost and the case will be heard in absence on evidence presented, which as nobody turned up, wont be your side of anything.
The top and bottom is once they have a name and signature, it's game over.
name and no signature, well probably 80/40 in their favour.
Make that 3 points, the Great leader of the "freeman defence movement", ended up in the nick !

mickaveli2001

Kurtis_Blue wrote: »

lmfao, fine you want to advertise your services an aider and abetter on a public forum you should get a proper legal education, or at least more than the fortnights dodgy internet research you have undertaken.
:rotfl:

Aider and abetter? :whistle:

Giving information is not aiding and abetting especially when there has been no injured party or crime committed. Quit trying to scare monger people here who want to save money.

There have been how-to-hack guides, how to make all sorts of explosives, stores that sell drug smoking devices. All of course permitted to do so. There have been websites up for years talking about avoiding speeding fines. Still up to this day and run by the same people who haven't been charged with anything

Kurtis_Blue

mickaveli2001 wrote: »

Aider and abetter? :whistle:

Giving information is not aiding and abetting especially when there has been no injured party or crime committed. Quit trying to scare monger people here who want to save money.

If you need any help or info on how to avoid prosecution in the future - Even if you have a TV and pay for no TV licence, then let me know


You have absoloutley no understanding of the law, at all, nil, nada.

Stop before you get you self in a heap of trouble, or more worryingly some one else who gets in trouble listening to your uneducated nonsense.

mickaveli2001

Kurtis_Blue wrote: »

If you need any help or info on how to avoid prosecution in the future - Even if you have a TV and pay for no TV licence, then let me know


You have absoloutley no understanding of the law, at all, nil, nada.

Stop before you get you self in a heap of trouble, or more worryingly some one else who gets in trouble listening to your uneducated nonsense.

I stated:

If you need any help or info on how to avoid prosecution in the future - Even if you have a TV and pay for no TV licence" then let me know

You do know that owning and having a TV do not necessarily constitute in having to "own" a TV licence? Or would you deliberately give out false information and allow people to believe they have to have a TV licence because they have a TV?

Read very carefully.. As someone who suggested I get a "proper legal" education, this is a crucial factor in any legal situation that's likely to create legal documentation or paperwork

You should also be made aware of the lies carried out by Capita Ltd staff members who have falsely accused and penalized those who in fact are not required to have TV licence but have still faced prosecution. They are renowned for cheating the system to receive their commission. What is wrong with providing people the help to avoid this?

Do you work for the BBC by any chance?

Cornucopia

spacey2012 wrote: »

well probably 80/40 in their favour.

I knew the odds were stacked against us - but that is ridiculous. :eek:

Kurtis_Blue

mickaveli2001 wrote: »

I stated:

If you need any help or info on how to avoid prosecution in the future - Even if you have a TV and pay for no TV licence" then let me know

You do know that owning and having a TV do not necessarily constitute in having to "own" a TV licence? Or would you deliberately give out false information and allow people to believe they have to have a TV licence because they have a TV?

Read very carefully.. As someone who suggested I get a "proper legal" education, this is a crucial factor in any legal situation that's likely to create legal documentation or paperwork

You should also be made aware of the lies carried out by Capita Ltd staff members who have falsely accused and penalized those who in fact are not required to have TV licence but have still faced prosecution. They are renowned for cheating the system to receive their commission. What is wrong with providing people the help to avoid this?

Do you work for the BBC by any chance?

Too funny, I know you are new on here so you dont know the form yet, every few months some one pops up with the same tired old arguments that they regurgitate from the same internet sites, and as son as any one disagrees its "do you work for the BBC?" :rotfl: same old story..

No I dont work for the BBC but I do worry about people offering themselves up as a sage on all things TVL who a couple of weeks ago new sweet....all especialy when its a serious business where people can get themselves in trouble.

If you are going to offer legal advice then at least have the courtesy of stating your legal background (nothing) when doing so, then people can make an informed choice.

Cornucopia

Can we just state for the record and the good of the forum:-

(With a few exceptions...) YOU NEED A UK TV LICENCE IF YOU WATCH OR RECORD TV BROADCASTS.

No one should be advocating or supporting the breaking of that law or any other.

If people are opposed to paying the licence, then there are lawful ways of achieving that. And as long as you are Legally Licence Free, then there are lawful ways of resisting BBC/TVL in their attempts to extract information from you.

The jury is out on Freeman "wisdom", but given that a senior advocate is presently in prison for non-payment of Council Tax, I think it's fair to say that it is presently unproven. Therefore it should not form any part of any legal advice given to those who might seek it here. And in this case, BBC/TVL are so powerless, it isn't even necessary.

mickaveli2001

You are correct. They are powerless. I do not advocate in breaking the law, but when you have a corporation that in itself breaks the law, and doesn't play fair, it's hardly right that we have to fork out our cash for it. You may be fine with bending over Kurtis, but we already currently get taxed around 74% (UK average) of what we earn. People are being pushed further down. When is enough enough?

This country allowed the expenses scandal, and still do. People calmly sat back while they illegally robbed the pension fund, and who will continue to rob more when they put all workers onto compulsory pensions (ie: Handing over more money to the government so that they can spend immediately) and this is just the start of it. What are we leaving for our children due to our negligence and accepting it? A nation of sheep begets a government of wolves

And Kurtis, Quit being condescending. This is my second registration name on here within 6 years. I re-registered here well over a year ago. By all accounts you are newer to the forum than me, however you have spent considerably more time posting here

I knew a bit. I had been considering canceling my licence for a long time given the fact I have friends who haven't paid in years and based on how easy they've had it. My biggest concern was with the direct debit I paid - I have a flawless credit rating, that I didn't want tarnished by TV license. That's what I wanted to know and was wary of. Like you, I continued to pay up