TV licensing threats

Cornucopia

Kayak10 wrote: »

So hopefully my efforts with my ORIGINAL THREAD good or bad will help others like I'm sure your trying to do :-)

There is no such thing as bad publicity.

Hopefully casual readers will spot the common misconceptions in the thread as well as the various corrections to them.

Kayak10

Kayak10 wrote: »

So hopefully my efforts with my ORIGINAL THREAD good or bad will help others like I'm sure your trying to do :-)

Ignore above I replied before watching I thought you meant the MSE tv licence came up as first on google
Have watched it's still there for now along with many others

Kayak10

adindas wrote: »

Well, misleading again.
The fact that you initiate the thread does not mean this thread belongs to you.
Prove it that I was wrong by quoting any guidelines, rules from the forum and not applying your own rules ....

People who own something will have full control of it, do not they. Similarly people who claim to own this thread If would have had full control of his thread ...

Keep in mind that this is a forum and not Q&A. This is a free forum where people could response with commentaries, suggestions ....

I do know I DONT own it
But what is the point of going into all sorts of directions from the ORIGINAL thread
If others want to discuss other points to TVL then surely like me should they not start their own and NOT jump on the one I started
How can it be " misleading " to want posters to stick to the ORIGINAL thread ?

Cornucopia

A thread reflects a discussion on a particular topic. It's not unreasonable for it to wobble around the original point to some extent. If it didn't it would possibly be dead after a few posts.

Typically, on MSE, threads raised about a particular issue will often include posts on the following:-

- how other people have handled the issue
- the background to the issue
- how well-founded the issue is in relation to the actual rules or laws
- how the issue could be handled in future/could have been better handled by the OP

These are all productive extensions to your post, and you probably would be less stressed if you didn't try to resist them.

[Deleted User]

Kayak10 wrote: »

As I've already said Head in sand Does NOT work Unless you can PROVE you don't watch or recorded live tv

You don't need to prove you don't watch/record live TV.

It's up to them, to prove you do.

Remember, "innocent until proven guilty".

[Deleted User]

Kayak10 wrote: »

I suggest you email copy of letter to Ms Doubtfire as she ASSURED me in her letter ( hard copy ) that they ARE going to STOP as of June

Then she was lying, because they haven't.

[Deleted User]

Cornucopia wrote: »

Apparently, they shouldn't ask you this question, certainly not if you don't enter the witness box.

That's correct.

Once the prosecution case has been completed, and the defence case begins, the defendant has three options.

They can make a sworn statement, after which they can be cross examined.

They can make an unsworn statement, or say nothing, in which cases they cannot be questioned.

Naturally, the first option carries the most evidential weight.

[Deleted User]

Kayak10 wrote: »

If your so clever at sorting these things out May be you SHOULD get your message out into the big wide world

That's what we are endeavouring to do.

[Deleted User]

Cornucopia wrote: »

Those are only a subset of the letters, but it's a good start.

Agreed.

There's also the accusatory letters they send to the unlicensed.

[Deleted User]

Cornucopia wrote: »

No, that's wrong on a number of counts.

Kayak10 wrote: »

Remember that is YOUR opinion

The legal principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is not anyone's opinion.

It's a matter of legal fact.