TV licensing threats

[Deleted User]

Cornucopia wrote: »

In fairness, typing "TVL summons" into google gives this excellent blog post as the first result...

http://tv-licensing.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/tv-licence-summons-what-to-do.html

Trouble is, by the time most people Google "TVL summons", they're already received one, as a result of answering the questions and signing the form.

wiogs

Kayak10 wrote: »

I know that site is a couple years old But I guess you didn't scroll down and read some of the bits I read BEFORE like others took a pop at me
The main bit I was referring to is how the BBC hijacked the TV licence to fund them as it was not originally set up to fund the BBC and all their inept operations over the years

Where in my post did I "take a pop at you"?

I commented on the fact that the information was out of date and that hopefully people would not believe it.

The only mention of you was the fact that you had linked to the site.

Kayak10

wiogs wrote: »

Where in my post did I "take a pop at you"?

I commented on the fact that the information was out of date and that hopefully people would not believe it.

The only mention of you was the fact that you had linked to the site.

So you don't think saying " the link was out of date and hopefully people won't believe it " is NOT taking a pop at what i said ?

How can you say " it is out of date " when the bit I referred to will NEVER " be out of date "
May be you should read towards the end of that link which is where my comments came from instead of the beginning only then I hope you will you accept the comments I made as date less

wiogs

Kayak10 wrote: »

So you don't think saying " the link was out of date and hopefully people won't believe it " is NOT taking a pop at what i said ?

How can you say " it is out of date " when the bit I referred to will NEVER " be out of date "
May be you should read towards the end of that link which is where my comments came from instead of the beginning only then I hope you will you accept the comments I made as date less

For starters you have misquoted me what I said was "As Bedsit Bob says that site is seriously out of date and the information contained in the section you mention is wrong."

I was specifically referring to the section on "The TV Licence and the Law" which is out of date and incorrect.

Is there another part of that site you linked to that you mean?

Cornucopia

This is how misinformation spreads. There is no need to quote Spiderbomb, because there are a number of accurate resources around the web. And quoting Spiderbomb to bolster existing views that are factually incorrect is an exercise in futility.

Anyone quotes an out of date source is not "doing their bit" to improve the general level of understanding amongst the general public, which as Bedsit Bob rightly says is half (or more) of the battle on this topic.

I've done as much as I can as a LLF person (in fact, hopefully I've gone the extra mile). But I've never been on the wrong side of TVL. The real key to this issue is how those people who do find themselves in that position deal with it.

Cornucopia

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

Trouble is, by the time most people Google "TVL summons", they're already received one, as a result of answering the questions and signing the form.

True, but even starting at the point of the "interview" or the summons would give people some scope to defend themselves. At the moment, most of them have given up before the matter has even entered the courtroom.

ricky_v

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

Thankfully the British legal system doesn't work like that.

For example, you don't have to prove that you don't need a shotgun certificate, by telling the police you have no shotguns and letting in a Firearms Enquiry Officer into your home to check for shotguns.

For example, you don't have to prove to the Environment Agency that you don't need a rod licence, by telling the agency you have no fishing rods and letting in a Water Bailiff to check for fishing rods.

Kayak10

wiogs wrote: »

For starters you have misquoted me what I said was "As Bedsit Bob says that site is seriously out of date and the information contained in the section you mention is wrong."

I was specifically referring to the section on "The TV Licence and the Law" which is out of date and incorrect.

Is there another part of that site you linked to that you mean?

As I said the reason for the link was towards the end about how the BBC took over the licence It was never started to fund the inept people ( that's being polite ) that run the BBC

Kayak10

Cornucopia wrote: »

True, but even starting at the point of the "interview" or the summons would give people some scope to defend themselves. At the moment, most of them have given up before the matter has even entered the courtroom.

May be its lack of knowledge ( in my case at the time and I'm sure many others ) and before anyone slings arrows at me I repeat the whole point of this thread is to highlight and let others know about the aggressive nature if TVL letters and the hope of getting them stopped or at least toned down On that note I understand Ms Doubtfire is away until end of July so I inform those that might be interested when I get a reply from her

Kayak10

ricky_v wrote: »

Thankfully the British legal system doesn't work like that.

For example, you don't have to prove that you don't need a shotgun certificate, by telling the police you have no shotguns and letting in a Firearms Enquiry Officer into your home to check for shotguns.

For example, you don't have to prove to the Environment Agency that you don't need a rod licence, by telling the agency you have no fishing rods and letting in a Water Bailiff to check for fishing rods.

This sort of post is how and why the ORIGINAL thread is totally lost among all the writers If only those that want to comment stick to the main thread a lot of " misinformation " would never have been put on MSE