TV licensing threats

Kayak10

4justice wrote: »

I have to agree that the tone of the BBC TVL letters is shocking, and rude. They assume that anyone without licence is guilty. I've been LLF for two and a half years now. I've just had the first visit from the TVL [STRIKE]inspector[/STRIKE] salesman. I was out so he left a very rude leaflet printed in red "Your address is unlicensed. I called to find out why". The BBC TVL has no legal right to know why I do not have a tv licence, that's my private business, all they need to know is that I fully comply with the Communications Act 2003 and neither watch or record live tv.
I have of course already told the BBC this but the arrogrant cretins want you to keep telling them.
Now I've just had the "fake court" letter telling me about what happens if they take me to court, for a crime I have not committed!
Ironic that the BBC is full of Watchdog/Rogue Traders slagging off heavy handed tactics by other people, when they are up to the same time.

4justise
The " letters " are certainly NOT fake as I and Murphys partner found out They most certainly DO follow it through to court
Not sure if you put it But as to how the door step lot being " no different than safe style " As I've said before TVL comes under criminal law as apposed to civil law that's how if need be they can get the police involved

[Deleted User]

Kayak10 wrote: »

The " letters " are certainly NOT fake as I and Murphys partner found out They most certainly DO follow it through to court.

The letters have no legal relevance.

It is interacting with TVL which does the damage.

Almost without exception, prosecutions are based on a doorstep confession.

Total non-contact is extremely effective.

As I've said before TVL comes under criminal law as opposed to civil law that's how if need be they can get the police involved

LF evasion is a non-arrestable, summary offence, prosecuted, not by the police or the CPS, but by BBC/TVL.

As a result, the police only attend if some other offence occurs/is alleged, or (to keep the peace) if a Search Warrant is being executed.

Kayak10

Just found this site and it's got some interesting stuff on it Scroll down to Tv licence and the law
http://www.spiderbomb.com/tv/lawlicence.html

[Deleted User]

Interesting, though somewhat out of date.

The WTA has been superseded, by the Communications Act 2003.

Also, whereas the WTA doesn't contain reference to the BBC, the Communications Act does.

This is because operation and enforcement of the LF, is now under the control of the BBC.

Also, unlike the WTA, the Communications Act does not require a licence, merely for the act of owning a TV.

Lord_Baltimore

I remember reading somewhere recently that Nick Clegg reclaims the cost of his telly license on expenses. So we pay for our License and his. How can I reclaim the cost of mine?

[Deleted User]

Not just Nick Clegg.

Plenty of MPs reclaim their licences.

wiogs

Kayak10 wrote: »

Just found this site and it's got some interesting stuff on it Scroll down to Tv licence and the law
http://www.spiderbomb.com/tv/lawlicence.html

As Bedsit Bob says that site is seriously out of date and the information contained in the section you mention is wrong.

Could make people who have no need of a licence rush out and buy one if they believed what is written there.

Cornucopia

Kayak10 wrote: »

4justise
The " letters " are certainly NOT fake...

Before you start contradicting other posters, you would be well advised to at least understand why they say what they are saying.

The letters are fake in the sense that (like the Wonga letters) the identity of the sender is obscured, their content has no legal weight, and some of the claims within the letters are false or wildly exaggerated with the intention of creating a sense of menace.

And that menace is not just false/exaggerated, but also subject to mitigation by wide-ranging legal protections that are deliberately omitted.

ricky_v

Cornucopia wrote: »

The letters are fake in the sense that (like the Wonga letters) the identity of the sender is obscured, their content has no legal weight, and some of the claims within the letters are false or wildly exaggerated with the intention of creating a sense of menace.

The letters are not fake. It appears that I've left them no alternative but to proceed with the final stages of their investigation 5 times, and a hearing is going to be set at my local court 6 times. I've never been so terrified of a BBC owned trademark in my life!:p

Cornucopia

ricky_v wrote: »

The letters are not fake. It appears that I've left them no alternative but to proceed with the final stages of their investigation 5 times, and a hearing is going to be set at my local court 6 times. I've never been so terrified of a BBC owned trademark in my life!:p

Easy now - I'm not sure that the thread can handle so much irony.