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!
Visit from TV Licensing...
Comments
-
Move along bus now, nothing new noted here0
-
Cornucopia wrote: »Do you have a source for this - it's quite a damning statement.
It is true that more women than men are prosecuted for this offence, which makes it unique in our legal system.
This is more to do with the circumstances than the gullibility of women. A greater proportion of women are likely to be at home during the day for example. Also some couples choose which of them takes the rap, If you work near your firm you are less likely to want to appear as being prosecuted in the local rag than if you commute some distance.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
This is more to do with the circumstances than the gullibility of women.
Not really.
It's gullibility (as in being gullible enough to speak to them, answer their questions, allow them in, and sign their forms), which leads to prosecution.
If you don't do any of the above, you don't get prosecuted.0 -
Bedsit_Bob wrote: »Not really.
It's gullibility (as in being gullible enough to speak to them, answer their questions, allow them in, and sign their forms), which leads to prosecution.
If you don't do any of the above, you don't get prosecuted.
The easiest way to avoid signing the form is not to be there in the first place.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
-
Nothing new here regards TVL and nothing new in suggesting encryption...0
-
Nothing new here regards TVL and nothing new in suggesting encryption...
Why does there have to be anything new to make a topic worthy of discussion?
Clearly there are many people out there whose understanding of TVL matters is not as good as it could be. And there are people willing to help. This seems as good a place for those two groups to meet as any other. If you don't find that interesting, don't read the threads.
We could speculate about why the BBC as one of the biggest and wealthiest communications companies in the World is apparently unable to get a clear, concise message through to the population about the nature and role of TVL, and its powers, and citizens' rights...
I think we all know the answer to that one, but let me spell it out, anyway - it is that they want to deceive the public into compliance with a non-statutory enforcement regime. (Which in all likelihood is a breach of the Human Rights Act).
That in itself is good reason to keep the topic bubbling away. Who knows, perhaps someone in authority will finally take notice and take them to task.0 -
Bedsit_Bob wrote: »It's gullibility ..
What a charmingly old-fashioned view of women.
Not sure how much money I've "denied" the BBC, but I haven't had a licence since 1988..0 -
silverwhistle wrote: »What a charmingly old-fashioned view of women.
That women are over-represented as TVL defendants is a matter of fact. The only question is why? And there are only a limited number of possible answers.0 -
Nice bit of selective quoting there, silverwhistle.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454K Spending & Discounts
- 244.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.3K Life & Family
- 258.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards