Had a Visit from TV Licence Man

JJ_Egan

Reads as those that are watching without a licence get away with it now or do they .

jje

[Deleted User]

anotheruser wrote: »

If that's the case, why are people even bothering to pay the licence at all?

Honesty perhaps?
Perhaps they even (God forbid) think the BBC is actually worth paying for?

JJ_Egan wrote: »

Reads as those that are watching without a licence get away with it now or do they .

Trust me, plenty of people are still prosecuted for licence evasion each year.

JJ_Egan

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Trust me, plenty of people are still prosecuted for licence evasion each year.

Thats what i have read in the past xxx number from location A prosecuted .

jje

[Deleted User]

JJ_Egan wrote: »

Thats what i have read in the past xxx number from location A prosecuted .

I'm certain there is far more specific data available than that!

sniggings

Buzby wrote: »

The warrant is for the premises, not e person - so she will have to comply with it. If your TV can receive live broadcasts you will be pursued - as you have the capability and equipment to view. It will then be up to the judge to listen to your story and decide whether he believes your protestations of innocence.

In view of your earlier comment, I'd get one as it will be cheaper Han a fine.

what a load of rubbish, law is based on evidence not how well you can "protest" as you say, they have to produce evidence you have been watch/recording live TV you do not have to produce any evidence to say you haven't, only defend against any evidence they produce.

sniggings

esuhl wrote: »

If he had reasonable suspicion and the crime is considered serious enough

A warrant can only be issued based on Evidence not suspicion, be it reasonable or otherwise.

I sky dish outside your house is not enough, a TV in the window is not enough, the sound from a TV is not enough, warrants are very very rare and are mainly imo got through lies and when the householder talks to the TV goon at the door and the goon twists the householders words, but talk of warrants is a bit daft as said they are very rare and need good evidence that a crime is being committed.

sniggings

anotheruser wrote: »

Hold on a minute, so however crazy the OP seems, if they continue to refuse access then the TVL can't really do anything about it as they don't really get search warrants any more?

If that's the case, why are people even bothering to pay the licence at all? And are these people who get caught silly enough to admit / sign paperwork?
While I understand it is breaking the law, I bet nearly everyone breaks the law at least once a day. I stick to the speed limit on roads but I see hundreds going far quicker than the 70mph limit on the motorway and that's just one example.

I'm starting to see the TVL problem a bit more of a moral issue rather than legal.
For instance, it isn't exactly morally right to fleece Halifax out of £5 a month for not using their Reward Current account for the intended purpose. But then that is a whole other issue.

most people follow the law, it's as simple as that.

Yes, most convictions are because they sign the paperwork to say they were watching live TV or admit it in court,it sounds unbelievable but true, give someone a uniform and the public switch off their brains, most are women too.

[Deleted User]

sniggings wrote: »

give someone a uniform and the public switch off their brains, most are women too.

This comment is wrong on so many different levels. It encourages illegal activity, it makes sweeping remarks about the "public" and it's also utterly sexist.

System

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

This comment is wrong on so many different levels. It encourages illegal activity, it makes sweeping remarks about the "public" and it's also utterly sexist.

"sexist" wow are you serous? Watching catchup TV, DVDs or playing a games console doesn't require one of your BBC TV Licences

sniggings

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

This comment is wrong on so many different levels. It encourages illegal activity, it makes sweeping remarks about the "public" and it's also utterly sexist.

it is fact, most TV licence court cases are against women, that is a fact how on earth is that me being sexist :rotfl:

It is a well know that human nature reacts to uniforms in a certain way, giving them respect, authority automatically it's not a sweeping statement but again just a fact, I could list many studies on this but I can't be bothered so hope one will get you to use google to find others

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

those in uniform act a certain way and people react to others in uniforms a certain way, you may not agree but sorry it's fact not opinion or sexist for that matter

Edit

oh I missed the "encourages illegal activity" comment, you may not know it but in law you do not have to say anything that can be used against you, so admitting you have been breaking that law is not advisable and is even read to you before a court case starts or before you are arrested so are you also suggesting the police and courts are "encourages illegal activity" by telling the defended they do not have to admit to anything or even speak!