TV Licence article Discussion

Zapito

beerleo wrote: »

By 'posh', I mean those who use Received Pronunciation (RP); especially the more affected extremes, e.g., Robert Peston. Regional or national accents or dialects can still be spoken with clarity.

RP is not my idea of "posh". My idea of a "posh accent" would be someone like Julian Clary, Julian Fellowes (a whole load of Julians in fact ), Brian Sewell, Joanna Lumley, etc.

RP is just a way of making it easy to be understood by folk of all regions and social groups. For example, a Cornish person might find it difficult to understand a Geordie accent, although both accents are regional and furthermore both would almost certainly be able to understand RP without difficulty (even if they couldn't speak it).

But there is a massive difference between a posh accent and a posh attitude! The fact someone may have a regional accent does not preclude them from having a posh attitude.

[Deleted User]

Zapito wrote: »

On the other hand it is appropriate for the licensing authority to take reasonable enforcement steps.

Only where there are reasonable grounds to suspect illegal behaviour.

Without reasonable grounds, they're on a fishing trip, and that is not acceptable.

Of course, if only those people who should pay would stop lying and cheating their way out of paying the licence then such steps would not be necessary.

Just because others are breaking the law, is not grounds to suspect I am.

If your objection is to reasonable enforcement activity the I would suggest directing your ire towards those people.

No, my ire is correctly directed at BBC/TVL, who, without any evidence whatsover, assume I'm breaking the law.

Zapito

Cornucopia wrote: »

Hopefully, you are now beginning to realise that the issues with BBC/TVL are neither arbitrary nor petty, nor really about evaders - they are about a major British institution wilfully disregarding historic legal principles as enacted by current legislation and case law.

Sorry chum. I think that's pure tosh.

Zapito

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

Without reasonable grounds, they're on a fishing trip, and that is not acceptable.

So you object to the TVLA writing you the occasional letter asking whether you watch TV. Well sorry pal, but that's just one small price of living in the UK. Like jury service is another. Some things just have to be, for the benefit of all.

enfield_freddy

Zapito wrote: »

So you object to the TVLA writing you the occasional letter asking whether you watch TV. Well sorry chum, but that's just one small price of living in the UK. Like jury service is another. Some things just have to be, for the betterment of all.

occasional letter NO , however I would prefer the letters not to contain threats , and to be finished with a name and a signature , NOT a 0845 telephone number.


even if you go online and clearly state you do not watch TV , THEY STILL WRITE TO YOU!!!!


occasional , NO multiple letters YES YES YES






"Well sorry chum, but that's just one small price of living in the UK. Like jury service is another. Some things just have to be, for the betterment of all"




what a load of cobblers !! jury service is organised by the government under statute law


not by some 2 bit company working from a call centre , and creaming off the money from the BBC




times have changed , the days of frightening people with placebo vans has gone , everyone and his dog knows about crapita , and there tactics and there rights


sack them , stop them leaching from the BBC , I bet they remove more funding from the BBC in costs , than the revenue they bring in ,

Cornucopia

cw18 wrote: »

Do I need a TV Licence to watch satellite programmes broadcast from outside the UK or Channel Islands?

The quote I gave is in the side bar on the most prominent page on this issue.

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one

As I say, I've read the legislation, and whilst it's slightly convoluted, it does suggest that streaming of live content is lawful without a Licence when the content concerned is not concurrently showing on a conventional channel in the UK.

It doesn't bother me either way, but I would like TVL to get it right, and get it consistent.

[Deleted User]

Zapito wrote: »

So you object to the TVLA writing you the occasional letter asking whether you watch TV.

Firstly, it's not an occasional letter, it's monthly, and some of them are quite aggressive and accusatory.

Secondly, there's the man/woman knocking on my door, wanting to search my home.

The police, NRA, DVLA, etc. don't turn up at my door, on a fishing trip, wanting to search my home, on the off chance I might be breaking the law.

enfield_freddy

capita has cost the BBC 560 million pounds

Cornucopia

Zapito wrote: »

Sorry chum. I think that's pure tosh.

You're entitled to your opinion. What is your reasoning though?

Let me break it down and ask you these questions...

- Isn't an investigation that takes place inside your home something that the Human Rights Act ought to cover? (BTW, the BBC use the word "investigation" (a lot) so let's not waste time on that).

- The case law regarding the test of "in accordance with the Law" from the HRA includes this: "there must be a specific legal rule or regime..." and "the law must be formulated with sufficient precision to enable the citizen to foresee the circumstances in which the law would or might be applied". So where is BBC/TVL's legislation, and what does it say?

- Isn't it right that any organisation that wants to subject the public to some kind of regime ought to clearly state the legal basis for it (which is basically what the legalese above says)?

- Isn't it right that when an organisation communicates with the public, they do so in the spirit of respect and transparency rather than designing ever more inventive forms of weasel words to try to deceive and threaten people?

As well as being issues for BBC/TVL, these are also broad issues of the day. As our society becomes ever more dominated by the administrative efforts of various organisations, and as those efforts more and more conflate administration with investigation and punishment with profits, it's vital that BBC/TVL set a good example and abide by the letter and the spirit of the Law.

Zapito

enfield_freddy wrote: »

occasional letter NO , however I would prefer the letters not to contain threats , and to be finished with a name and a signature , NOT a 0845 telephone number.

I agree. It should be a freepost envelope and/or a freephone number.

even if you go online and clearly state you do not watch TV , THEY STILL WRITE TO YOU!!!!

If you mean they are ignoring your online statement then yes, again, I agree.

not by some 2 bit company working from a call centre , and creaming off the money from the BBC

Obviously the enforcers have to be paid. But if there is excess "creaming off" then, again, I would agree. I would agree as a licence payer. If ripping-off is going on then I want it to be stopped, and if you have proof then I suggest you contact VLV.