TV licensing threats

Cornucopia

Kayak10 wrote: »

Among others read post 392

So you received a summons out of the blue without having had any encounter with anyone who could have been from TVL.

That's a ghost case.

The only question is what evidence was used and where did it come from?

TVL doesn't operate by magic and it doesn't make up the rules as it goes along. If you had fought back at the time, you could have possibly had it thrown out. Presumably you didn't do that was because you didn't know, and you didn't think it worth fighting because you knew you were guilty.

Cornucopia

Kayak10 wrote: »

So send copy to Ms Doubtfire as I did with my letter dated 4 th July ( still waiting on response ) I'm sure if enough do she WILL make sure it does

Ms Doubtfire is well aware of the issues. She's seen at least two comprehensive complaints from me, and I've seen evidence of other similar complaints on the BBC website.

It's not rocket science - they know the issue. The UK does not have door-to-door inspections of innocent people to make sure they are not breaking the law. If it did, there are *much* more serious offences that generally take place in people's homes that the authorities could take this approach for.

There also nothing to stop the BBC/Ms Doubtfire from writing to all past complainants, or simply putting out a press release to announce a new era of friendlier letters. Let's hope the letters are not just friendlier, but more accurate and less frequent, too.

As to " government " I said LOCAL MP's as they are the ones that normal help their constituents In my view " the government " don't care because as already mentioned they get it back through their expenses Also as most this lot are millionaires Doubt if they find the need to evade or pay in instalments lol

I should have explained that I wrote to my MP, and *he* passed it on to the Minister and to the BBC's DG. So the complaint ended up at the BBC twice in two different departments. And still resulted in the same platitudes coming back.

I'm all for people complaining, though. There are plenty of angles on this issue that people might have a legitimate grievance about.

I'm simply saying: don't be disappointed if the complaint is unsuccessful.

Cornucopia

I think we're at the point where Kayak just doesn't know the answer to those questions. He says it was 5 years ago, and given that he didn't know they were relevant questions at that point, it's not that surprising that he's unable to answer now.

Given the spectre of electronic detection, I guess he thought they had caught him that way, and then obtained his name from electoral roll (or similar).

Now, we know they don't (can't) operate like that... but if you don't know - you don't know.

That detection evidence has never been used in a TVL trial is FACT. (Backed up by a statement from the BBC under FOI).

Kayak10

Cornucopia wrote: »

I think we're at the point where Kayak just doesn't know the answer to those questions. He says it was 5 years ago, and given that he didn't know they were relevant questions at that point, it's not that surprising that he's unable to answer now.

Given the spectre of electronic detection, I guess he thought they had caught him that way, and then obtained his name from electoral roll (or similar).

Now, we know they don't (can't) operate like that... but if you don't know - you don't know.

That detection evidence has never been used in a TVL trial is FACT. (Backed up by a statement from the BBC under FOI).

I am getting VERY FED UP with all the " what I do and don't know and what I did and didn't do :mad:
For the final time
THE WHOLE POINT OF MY THREAD WAS AND IS THE EVER INCREASING AGGRESIVE NATURE OF THE LETTERS TVL SEND OUT
All I was trying to do is find out how many through MSE web site agreed with me
As we all know when dealing with large organisations and the government in the main you need large numbers to make them sit up and think

But most folk on here take great pleasure in twisting the thread instead of either supporting me or not , if the later why even comment if you havent got something usefull to add to THE ORIGINAL THREAD :mad:

Kayak10

Cornucopia wrote: »

So you received a summons out of the blue without having had any encounter with anyone who could have been from TVL.

That's a ghost case.

The only question is what evidence was used and where did it come from?

TVL doesn't operate by magic and it doesn't make up the rules as it goes along. If you had fought back at the time, you could have possibly had it thrown out. Presumably you didn't do that was because you didn't know, and you didn't think it worth fighting because you knew you were guilty.

And I believe UNDER OATH IN A COURT OF LAW so to lie is risking much heavier problems Also rem I had just gone through one of my most stressful periods of my 50+ years of my life

Cornucopia

Who said anything about lying in Court?

Cornucopia

Kayak10 wrote: »

I am getting VERY FED UP with all the " what I do and don't know and what I did and didn't do :mad:

It comes with the territory, I'm afraid. This is a social place - you won't get away with a monologue or the dictation of an agenda. It simply doesn't work like that.

[Deleted User]

Kayak10 wrote: »

You have obviously been VERY lucky

Luck has nothing to do with it.

I simply obey the "no contact" rule.

I'm sure like me the many thousands that do end up in court would not agree with you

Almost without exception, those who end up in court, do so because they interacted with BBC/TVL.

Please tell me, when you signed the form they said you had to sign, were where you, and where was the TVL representative?

[Deleted User]

Kayak10 wrote: »

They CAN I'm sure obtain all the info they need to take someone to court

Cornucopia wrote: »

And yet they don't.

Quite so.

From a FOI response.

I can confirm under section 1(1) of the Act that the BBC does not use information provided by the Royal Mail, the electoral register, DVLA, broadband telecommunications companies or utility companies to determine the names of occupiers of properties that do not have a licence.

TV Licensing does use information provided by the Royal Mail, specifically the Postcode Address File (PAF) (which is a product offered under licence on a commercial basis), to keep the TV Licensing database accurate and up to date. However this information does not identify individuals living at an address

We make some limited use of census information for statistical purposes but the information we use is publicly available and we have no special access to census information nor does this involve the identification of individuals.

[Deleted User]

Kayak10 wrote: »

So why did my letter from her advise me that as of June this year the letters WILL be toned down.

And yet they haven't been :huh: