Really Worried - The TV Licence - Unnecessary Trial

Cornucopia

gjchester wrote: »

Really off topic but if we did the fee per house would be put elsewhere. There used to be a Radio licence as well as a TV licence, it wasn't really removed as such just rolled into the TV licence when TV's became common.

Abolish the licence as is now and it would pop up elsewhere, possibly council tax...

So New Zealand and Portugal have a more effective democracy than we do? Sad.

Silk

bazzyb wrote: »

Your link confirms that I was correct with my figure of zero, as it states the following:

The offences of using a TV receiver without a valid licence and of failure to hold a valid vehicle excise duty licence (tax disc) are not punishable by imprisonment, so offenders cannot be sentenced to custody for these offences.

You are missing the point ....I posted in #130 "Depends how you look at it, yes they were sent down for defaulting on the fine but it was a direct result of not having a licence."


I also posted in reply to you in post #136 "Or should I say how many was it who were sent to prison as a result of not having a TV Licence and failing to pay the fine ? if you prefer that wording "


The situation remains that those people who were imprisoned was because they didn't have a licence and either refused or couldn't pay the fines.
If they had had a licence they wouldn't be in prison.

Cornucopia

Anyone who doesn't pay a court fine could end up in prison. There is nothing special about licence fee evasions.

gjchester

Cornucopia wrote: »

So New Zealand and Portugal have a more effective democracy than we do? Sad.

That wasn't really my point. More that the costs have to be paid, one way is a licence, the other is advertising, or it could be you have to pay a cable company who in turn pay the broadcaster.


Wikipedia says in Portugal its paid for via your 'leccy bill, and New Zealand via the government, so I guess from your taxes.
Iceland charge every taxpayer regardless of if they watch TV or listen to radio or not.
Malta abolished there TV licence by cutting the free to air TV service..


While the "licence" has gone your still paying for the service in one form or another, its only the way it's charged that has changed.

ALIBOBSY

gjchester wrote: »

Really off topic but if we did the fee per house would be put elsewhere. There used to be a Radio licence as well as a TV licence, it wasn't really removed as such just rolled into the TV licence when TV's became common.


Abolish the licence as is now and it would pop up elsewhere, possibly council tax...

Just make a phased reduction say 10% a year and let the bbc sort it out. If they go bust so be it.

I know of very few people under 50 who would miss it. My sons generation don't watch ANY live tv of any kind, we watch very little. If I could opt out of receiving it and paying the LF i would. On the other hand we have no issues paying for netflix and virgin as we get use out of it. The LF is past its time, get rid asap.

Ali x

Cornucopia

gjchester wrote: »

That wasn't really my point. More that the costs have to be paid, one way is a licence, the other is advertising, or it could be you have to pay a cable company who in turn pay the broadcaster.

We don't "need" the BBC in any real sense of the word. We certainly don't need it as a parasitic charge on the use of all other TV broadcasting.

Wikipedia says in Portugal its paid for via your 'leccy bill, and New Zealand via the government, so I guess from your taxes.
Iceland charge every taxpayer regardless of if they watch TV or listen to radio or not.
Malta abolished there TV licence by cutting the free to air TV service..

While the "licence" has gone your still paying for the service in one form or another, its only the way it's charged that has changed.

There are plenty of countries with no TV licence, and no equivalent to it, either.

The USA being the most obvious.

Silk

Cornucopia wrote: »

This isn't Ireland. Which makes the Irish situation irrelevant.
.

I never said we were in Ireland :rotfl:
I posted the figures out of interest

Cornucopia wrote: »

1. It's part of a wider moral mindlessness that some people seem to think is appropriate on these forums. If someone is in a tricky situation they want help and advice, not moralising and spite.

Are you accusing me of moralising and being spiteful ?

Cornucopia wrote: »

2. Why would you assume that the OP (or any given individual) would not pay a Court fine on agreed payment terms? I think it's offensive to imply that about someone you don't know.

Err where did I say that exactly :mad:

Cornucopia wrote: »

3. It's a completely separate step on the legal process. You might as well say that the someone could go to prison if they tried to bribe their way out of the situation.

It may well be, there is the connection though so what's your point ?

Cornucopia wrote: »

4. The BBC tells us that a lot of TVL defendants don't pay their fines. And yet only a tiny number are sent to prison. That indicates that there is a process or a filter there which we don't know the details of: it's not automatic.

Each sentencing is tried on it's own merit so without examining each case I doubt there will be many filters that could be identified

Cornucopia

Silk wrote: »

I never said we were in Ireland :rotfl:
I posted the figures out of interest

This thread is (well started as) someone specific asking for help - why is it necessary to add spurious details?

Are you accusing me of moralising and being spiteful ?

I'm saying that there is a moralistic tone to some people's posts on this forum. Can I suggest that you take the relevant steps not to contribute to that?

Err where did I say that exactly :mad:

I didn't say you said it. I said it was implied.

It may well be, there is the connection though so what's your point ?

There is no connection. It is a separate offence. Like I said, you might as well tell someone not to bribe the court officials, or not to attack them with a fish.

Each sentencing is tried on it's own merit so without examining each case I doubt there will be many filters that could be identified

How do you explain the figures, then?

Silk

Cornucopia wrote: »

This thread is (well started as) someone specific asking for help - why is it necessary to add spurious details?

The spurious detail was added out of interest I suggest if you don't find it interesting then ignore it

Cornucopia wrote: »

I'm saying that there is a moralistic tone to some people's posts on this forum. Can I suggest that you take the relevant steps not to contribute to that?

Care to point out my moralistic tone or spite :mad:

Cornucopia wrote: »

I didn't say you said it. I said it was implied.

Care to point out where it was implied ?

Cornucopia wrote: »

There is no connection. It is a separate offence. Like I said, you might as well tell someone not to bribe the court officials, or not to attack them with a fish

The connection is that if found guilty and fined then you have to pay otherwise there may be a chance of prison !

Cornucopia wrote: »

How do you explain the figures, then?

:rotfl:
The figures are from the MOJ why don't you ask them ?

Cornucopia

Silk wrote: »

The spurious detail was added out of interest I suggest if you don't find it interesting then ignore it

I will........