TV licensing threats

dave4545454

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

Exactly, I've been getting these powerless letters for years. There is no need for anyone to ever get a TV licence, they can only prosecute you if you sign a confession.

Let's hope the rest of the UK wake up and stop paying this criminal tv tax.

Kayak10

As I've said before I've tried the " ignore tactic " It doesn't work as I and I'm sure many thousands have found out By ending up in court and a nasty fine With NO DOORSTEP SIGNED CONFESSION Just IGNORED letters that ended up with a court summons
Many of you say this doesn't happen
How many thousands of aggressive letter receivers have you been in touch with to back up your comments ????

Cornucopia

Kayak10 wrote: »

As I've said before I've tried the " ignore tactic " It doesn't work...

You probably didn't do it properly.

... as I and I'm sure many thousands have found out By ending up in court and a nasty fine With NO DOORSTEP SIGNED CONFESSION Just IGNORED letters that ended up with a court summons

The Law requires evidence of an offence to be presented in Court. There is NO way around that requirement. In the case of TVL, this evidence consists mostly of confessions recorded on the 178 forms. As an alternative, and if the TVL staff personally witness evasion, they can make a signed statement to that effect. EVERY TVL case has evidence of this kind.

The only issue is a small number where the evidence is misplaced between cases or fabricated due to incompetence or corruption. If you have received a summons and no one in your household has had direct dealings with TVL at your premises then there has been a mistake, and you should have complained.

Obviously, if you know you are guilty, then the value of complaining is limited even if the case is technically flawed.

Many of you say this doesn't happen

It only happens in error.

How many thousands of aggressive letter receivers have you been in touch with to back up your comments ????

Literally thousands - I have helped many people with their TVL cases on another forum. I also understand the law and have sat in on many TVL cases in Court.

Cornucopia

An example of a TVL "ghost case"....

http://www.tamworthherald.co.uk/horror-court-listing/story-17041156-detail/story.html

Kayak10

dave4545454 wrote: »

Exactly, I've been getting these powerless letters for years. There is no need for anyone to ever get a TV licence, they can only prosecute you if you sign a confession.

Let's hope the rest of the UK wake up and stop paying this criminal tv tax.

Dave
If only folk on here talked from experience as I am and not assumption Yet again I will repeat When I was taken to court It happened because I did what many others said I should do ie dump letters in bin and bury head in sand I most certainly did not " sign a confession" or any thing else

Kayak10

Getting people's information by these firms is far easier than you seem to believe The so called data protection act is one of the most miss used and miss quoted acts out there
Any company only has to do a search on credit file company to get the name of a person
The latter letters and court letter were certainly addressed to me
As in Murphy's case his partner I believe " ignored everything " then ended up with a court fine as it was heard in her absence

Kayak10

Cornucopia wrote: »

An example of a TVL "ghost case"....

http://www.tamworthherald.co.uk/horror-court-listing/story-17041156-detail/story.html

I've just read that link and this is one paragraph from it that shows one of the points I'm trying to make and it's this

However, I feel some people may be paying these fines, costs and accepting a 'criminal record', through fear, or because they don't know how to deal with it
AND the writer also said another thing as follows

Also, I want to express how I think it is wrong for TV Licence evasion to carry such a harsh penalty as a 'criminal record', even if a person has truly evaded the TV Licence fee.

Theft of a few hundred pounds and criminal damage for example can carry a fixed penalty notice by the police to the sum of £80 and yet, people are being criminalised for what amounts to a very minor infringement of our laws, one that I feel needs to be addressed.

As we all know although I'm sure many will tell me it's " misinformation " and that is it happens like that because it's deemed Criminal law unlike the example that is civil law

Kayak10

Cornucopia wrote: »

You probably didn't do it properly

The only issue is a small number where the evidence is misplaced between cases or fabricated due to incompetence or corruption. If you have received a summons and no one in your household has had direct dealings with TVL at your premises then there has been a mistake, and you should have complained.

Obviously, if you know you are guilty, then the value of complaining is limited even if the case is technically flawed.

It only happens in error.

Literally thousands - I have helped many people with their TVL cases on another forum. I also understand the law and have sat in on many TVL cases in Court.

I can't dispute what you say because I wasn't there as YOU weren't there in the situations I've quoted

Cornucopia

Kayak10 wrote: »

Dave
If only folk on here talked from experience as I am and not assumption Yet again I will repeat When I was taken to court It happened because I did what many others said I should do ie dump letters in bin and bury head in sand

I certainly talk from experience. In fact my experience is vastly wider than yours, and includes an accurate understanding of the law in this area which has been picked up over 10 years of researching and listening to other, well-informed people.

The only thing I lack compared to you is direct experience of being prosecuted - though I think most people would say that was a good thing. In my over 10 years of being LLF, I've never even seen a TVL staff member face-to-face. That's how effective my approach is (which is combination of serving them with legal remedies and ignoring them).

I most certainly did not " sign a confession" or any thing else

But you did receive a summons. In which case, you really should have sought advice because it's a certainty that the evidence against you was incorrect.

Cornucopia

Kayak10 wrote: »

I've just read that link and this is one paragraph from it that shows one of the points I'm trying to make and it's this

However, I feel some people may be paying these fines, costs and accepting a 'criminal record', through fear, or because they don't know how to deal with it

Indeed - and that's what you did?

As we all know although I'm sure many will tell me it's " misinformation " and that is it happens like that because it's deemed Criminal law unlike the example that is civil law

What is it about that article that you think is misinformation? You do understand that it is broadly critical of BBC/TVL, and that it shows them to be (at best) dangerously incompetent in bringing charges against an innocent person in the absence of any accurate evidence against them whatsoever.

It also shows how failings in the Court system can dovetail with TVL issues to create a perfect storm of a completely unacceptable consequence for an innocent person.

I can tell you that I've helped with literally hundreds of such cases - and they always come back to negligence or corruption at TVL, or a combination of the two. (Although in my opinion, successful corrupt employee behaviour is always indicative of management negligence).

One of the underlying sadnesses about TVL is that the Courts are way too willing to treat many repeat occurrences of this as "mistakes". That's simply not consistent with their knowledge that the vast majority of defendants do not attend court. If they were taken more seriously, then the BBC could be made to improve its processes and to weed out rogue employees (though I understand they have a cultural issue with that kind of thing).