TV licensing threats

OldMotherTucker

I guess it's not worth the hassle or stress for me to demand they prove otherwise.

If the guy had been ars3y with me (or my sitting room untidy), I knew I didn't have to let him in.I can understand if other people don't want someone coming into their house.

It's imporatnt that everyone knows their rights but also it's important that everyone also knows that if they inform TVL, they don't have to put up with hassle , threats or stress.

I've had more disbelief from posters in DT when I've stated we don't watch telly

Cornucopia

The problem is that BBC/TVL seem to go out of their way to misstate their powers.

Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be illegal for a public authority to do this (either that or it is an obscure piece of law I haven't understood). It probably should be. Most authorities would never dream of doing this, but where they do, they are a menace.

There are also a sub-set of TVL field staff who have behaved corruptly, and TVL management does not appear to have robust procedures for managing the issue. I wouldn't want to risk letting one of them into my home on that basis.

bugslet

OldMotherTucker wrote: »

I guess it's not worth the hassle or stress for me to demand they prove otherwise.

If the guy had been ars3y with me (or my sitting room untidy), I knew I didn't have to let him in.I can understand if other people don't want someone coming into their house.

It's imporatnt that everyone knows their rights but also it's important that everyone also knows that if they inform TVL, they don't have to put up with hassle , threats or stress.

I've had more disbelief from posters in DT when I've stated we don't watch telly

That's how I feel pretty much. Never had a letter having been TV less ( and broadband less ) for 18 months now. Of course that might change, but I haven't got one, so I don't care if they want to come in ( provided my knickers arent drying on the radiator - I have standards, dontcha know:o)

OldMotherTucker

Cornucopia wrote: »

The problem is that BBC/TVL seem to go out of their way to misstate their powers.

Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be illegal for a public authority to do this (either that or it is an obscure piece of law I haven't understood). It probably should be.

There are also a sub-set of TVL field staff who are known to be corrupt. I wouldn't want to risk letting one of them into my home.

That wasn't my experience but then I do think that informing them first heads the problem off at the pass for most people.

Cornucopia

OldMotherTucker wrote: »

That wasn't my experience but then I do think that informing them first heads the problem off at the pass for most people.

I'm afraid it doesn't. If you think about it, if all evaders had to do was pick up the phone or fill in the on-line form, TVL would be scuppered. They cannot therefore automatically believe anyone who claims not to need a licence.

If you want to take pro-active action, I would suggest a legal remedy. There are now nearly 10000 households that have withdrawn the implied right of access from TVL, I would suggest joining them, or using a more exotic WOIRA variant that includes additional protection against search warrants.

[Deleted User]

OldMotherTucker wrote: »

I rang the 0300 number, listened to options, went straight through to an advisor, answered a few questions and they updated their system.

You think it appropriate, to be expected to confirm your innocence?

Personally, I see it as the beginning of a long and slippery slope.

I would have quite happily let him into my living room - nothing to hide!

Others have taken that approach, only to finish up in court, on a trumped up charge.

Also, do you really think it wise, to invite a stranger (a male one at that) into your home?

[Deleted User]

bugslet wrote: »

so I don't care if they want to come in ( provided my knickers arent drying on the radiator - I have standards, dontcha know )

Do you really think it wise, to invite a stranger (a male one at that) into your home?

[Deleted User]

OldMotherTucker wrote: »

That wasn't my experience but then I do think that informing them first heads the problem off at the pass for most people.

That's assuming you consider a monthly Threat-O-gram, and the occasional knock on the door, to be a problem.

Cornucopia

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

That's assuming you consider a monthly Threat-O-gram, and the occasional knock on the door, to be a problem.

For some people it will be, for others, not.

It's another hall-mark of an authoritarian regime: divide and conquer.

edit: I wonder if there is a solution to all of this (short of the abolition of TVL)?

I wonder what their reaction would be to the offer of a "visit without prejudice"? ie. they could come and inspect the TV with the aim of "updating their database", which is what they claim to want to do. But they would have already given a signed undertaking that they will not present evidence of any potential offence.

The idea is two-fold: one to prevent oneself being "fitted-up", and two to prevent prosecution for a minor technical misunderstanding of the rules. (Especially since they refuse to publish any detailed rules). It also would tee them up to be aware that they are dealing with someone who understands what is going on.

Wonder if they would go for that?

[Deleted User]

Cornucopia wrote: »

Wonder if they would go for that?

I doubt it.

They are, after all, commission salesmen, so the opportunity to sell a licence/get a prosecution, isn't going to be surrender voluntarily.