TV licensing threats

[Deleted User]

Kayak10 wrote: »

TVL of course have a trapped ( in more than one sense ) audience sadly

Not entirely.

The only trapped audience, is those people who choose to pay the LF, and those who choose to interact with them.

I, for one, am not part of their trapped audience.

Kayak10

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

Still not sure what you mean.

You agree they don't trust anyone, or you agree they are right not to trust anyone?

Agree they DONT trust anyone NOT that they are right not to They do not work on the premiss Innocent until PROVEN guilty

Cornucopia

The reality is that their powers are very limited. However, that in itself is what gives rise to some of the problems.

Kayak's letters are an example of this. They are worded as threats because they cannot be worded as legal instructions. It also promotes a culture of subterfuge amongst both the BBC policy-makers and the foot-soldiers of the entertainment apocalypse.

People are justified in being wary of them - sometimes the weakened animal is the more dangerous for it.

Kayak10

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

Not entirely.

The only trapped audience, is those people who choose to pay the LF, and those who choose to interact with them.

I, for one, am not part of their trapped audience.

Just don't speak to soon One day it will back fire on you sadly
As I said I'm paying as it took me several months to pay the last fine AND I believe the fine goes up on each time they catch you :-(

Cornucopia

Done properly and consistently, ignoring them CANNOT fail.

Kayak10

Cornucopia wrote: »

The reality is that their powers are very limited. However, that in itself is what gives rise to some of the problems.

Kayak's letters are an example of this. They are worded as threats because they cannot be worded as legal instructions. It also promotes a cultural of subterfuge amongst both the BBC policy-makers and the foot-soldiers of the entertainment apocalypse.

People are justified in being wary of them - sometimes the weakened animal is the more dangerous for it.

I'm not 100% certain but I understand they do have more powers
I'm not sure how it's worded but I think it's along the lines of its a police offence or at least the police can get involved Different to any other debt to a company Unless of course it can been shown as fraud
I'm sure someone will correct me :-(

Kayak10

Cornucopia wrote: »

Done properly and consistently, ignoring them CANNOT fail.

As Murhpy found out with his partner Your living in cloud cuckoo land if you believe that They WILL eventually catch up with you As they did me and it cost dear when they did :-(

Cornucopia

Kayak10 wrote: »

I'm not 100% certain but I understand they do have more powers
I'm not sure how it's worded but I think it's along the lines of its a police offence or at least the police can get involved Different to any other debt to a company Unless of course it can been shown as fraud
I'm sure someone will correct me :-(

They have very few powers.

The main one being the Search Warrant application process. Even then, they use that very, very rarely - it costs them money and goodwill with the Courts and the Police.

Everything else - the letters, the "visits", the management of accounts, licences and debts - all of that is based upon the same legal provisions open to any "normal" company.

Cornucopia

Kayak10 wrote: »

As Murhpy found out with his partner Your living in cloud cuckoo land if you believe that They WILL eventually catch up with you As they did me and it cost dear when they did :-(

Murphy's partner was evading. Ignoring them is a strategy for people who are LLF (legally licence-free). It is infallible, if done properly - especially with single-person households.

What is your reasoning for believing otherwise?

Or perhaps I should throw your philosophy back at you? You are not LLF, Bedsit Bob and I have maybe 20 years experience of being LLF between us. Who is best placed to sum up the situation and give advice?

[Deleted User]

Kayak10 wrote: »

Just don't speak to soon One day it will back fire on you sadly.

How can it backfire on me, when I (a) am not breaking the law, and (b) not interacting with them :huh: