Good Bye to my TV Licence

sja75

Was an interesting video. I can recall them speaking through an opened window and not opening the door. Perhaps that has some relevancy regarding obstruction.

Cornucopia

This one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRQTkOk__48

sja75

Thats it. I briefly watched it last time. Going have good watch now...

poppasmurf_bewdley

teajug wrote: »

Was tenants having a licence part of your assessment? If you were doing assessment for me, you would have notices that I had a TV and would have thought that it was working unless you ask of course and if you did not ask I would be classed as having a working TV on your observations. People can have tv's but that does not mean that they are working. Was it only council tenants that you notice things like tv's. I expect that you would be there to do some sort of assessment would you have to do the same with priviate landlords tenants and did they all have TV's as well.... just curious.

http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/home/2013/05/revealed-2525-council-staff-earning-100000.html

Also people can see what their council's are spending their tax money, as council have to publich expenditure over £500. Also check out what their council directors are earning it will be an eye opener.
:T:T

My, my, you are a curious person.

Just to satisfy your curiosity, I was working on Government surveys for more than 10 years, including the British Crime Survey, the DCMS survey, spending and household surveys, holiday and transport surveys, etc, etc, and as such including visits to every type of home all chosen at random and ranged from bishops palaces (yes really) to the most run down council estates where bodyguards were needed (yes really again).

Hope that answers your curiosity.

sja75

Cornucopia wrote: »

This one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRQTkOk__48

Still somewhat murky. I suppose TVL left of their own volition and could have enforced entry perhaps.

Cornucopia

Could have - under the law, yes. Under BBC policy, no.

All the (small number of) SWs that I am aware of in recent history are questionable in various respects.

Most notably, they have failed to secure evidence for a successful conviction. If they had to add the PR and financial costs of broken doors to this poor record, it would be a disaster for them.

DUTR

Halifax81 wrote: »

I don't need to talk about my life or what I'be achieved in life it has no relevance to this forum.

Its money saving which this forum is about hence the post to say I'm now saving £42 a month by ditching live TV.

Good for you if you would let the inspector in but its my choice not to

It's the way you are twisting your figures, ditching subscription TV yes you save 42gbp per month but the TVL does not cost that. As you say it's a money saving forum and I'm open to hassle free ideas to save money. Not subscribing to pay TV eg VM or Sky, yes I agree with the idea there, the TVL thing is just too much agro IMO for my own personal circumstance, but other readers may adopt this stance, at least you can all seek attention and counselling on this board.

DUTR

ValHaller wrote: »

Yes, tiger eyes does have a link. It is to the Daily Telegraph and you included the link in the quote.

Can you draw my attention to the part about assault, that bit I seem to have not observed but willing to stand corrected.

sja75

Interestingly the chaps in the video didn't mention BBC policy regards this. Or perhaps they were aware of this fact to further their points.

Halifax81

DUTR wrote: »

It's the way you are twisting your figures, ditching subscription TV yes you save 42gbp per month but the TVL does not cost that. As you say it's a money saving forum and I'm open to hassle free ideas to save money. Not subscribing to pay TV eg VM or Sky, yes I agree with the idea there, the TVL thing is just too much agro IMO for my own personal circumstance, but other readers may adopt this stance, at least you can all seek attention and counselling on this board.

The figures aren't been twisted that's how much i'm saving along with having no TV licence, there isn't any aggro caused from not having one if you don't need one, it just means a number of letters will be sent out every so often and a visit form someone to attempt to check up on you.

I don't need to seek attention or counselling as I know I don't legally need one and the purpose of the message was about money saving which again is what the forum is about.

If you don't like the topic then don't respond to the messages, everything that has been discussed is above board and legal otherwise I wouldn't have posted