TV Licence article Discussion

Zapito

Cornucopia wrote: »

I am quite happy to meet people halfway (or even further). Not corporations, though.

Is it just corporations, or all kinds of collective? What about clubs? Societies? Companies? Tribes? Nations? Species?

The most likely candidate is this lady:

Hang on. I thought you'd rejected the "individual" concept as "the enemy" in favour of the "hive brain" or something. Anyway, she's more like it in my book.

Right ... on my letters, replace "Dear TV Licensing" throughout with "Dear Pippa Doubtfire". Let's make it personal.

Hey, hang on, I'm supposed to be against you! Slippin' an' slidin' through a vile pond of rhetoric. And loving every splosh!

It's an interesting question, though. I'd always assumed multiple corporate failures in order to get to where TVL are, but could it be the malign influence of one individual?

Absolutely,

And was I right or was I right???

This is the point: the TVL process is broken in both directions - too harsh on the innocent, too soft on the guilty.

The term "own worst enemy" comes to mind.

for them, TVL ticks all the boxes, and many just end up buying Licences they don't need.

I'm still confused about your motivation. If people are happy to pay, then why shouldn't they? Just because someone pays doesn't automatically mean they've been bullied into paying. For loads and loads of people (eg me) the BBC licence is great value.

Try to imagine that the BBC are not going to give out any useful information - that will really help.

Partly depends on the questions they are asked.

You're laying down the law and generally warding them off.

That's attacking behaviour, not defensive.

Isn't that rude, or are you moving away from the notion that responding to them is "just good manners"?

Not at all. My letters are written in the same kind of language as they write theirs. On the reasonable basis that no-one actually wants to be rude, I'm assuming that's simply the kind of language they understand, even like. So it's the height of good manners on my part.

[Deleted User]

Zapito wrote: »

Of course. But to do so is courteous

When they are courteous to me, I'll consider being courteous to them.

probably sensible as well.

Given the case I linked to earlier, I would seriously doubt that.

To be helpful, which in my experience is generally a rewarding way to proceed.

Not against an organisation which takes the assumption of guilt as its starting point.

That only applies in situations involving habeas corpus, eg court proceedings. It does not preclude suspicion or even accusation.

I disagree. BBC/TVL begin from the assumption that you are guilty, which is completely the wrong way around.

[Deleted User]

Cornucopia wrote: »

Although I note that the section of BBC/TVL that deals with LLF people is called "Customer Relations".

Not only that, but they even label the copy of the Search Warrant they leave with the occupier "Customer Copy". :doh:

[Deleted User]

Zapito wrote: »

Is your way working for you?

Very much so. :cool:

Yeah, but there's more than one way to skin a rabbit (actually not sure there really is - but you get my point).

Actually, you're right. There is indeed, more than one way to skin a rabbit.

Zapito

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

When they are courteous .... the wrong way around.

I'm afraid you are coming across to me just as uptight as they are, BB; a mirror image of them!

Not against an organisation which takes the assumption of guilt as its starting point.

Seems to me you are simply allowing them to call all the shots. Maybe you should think of a way to take control of the situation.

BBC/TVL begin from the assumption that you are guilty, which is completely the wrong way around.

But they are the way they are. No point wishing they were something different. You have to start from what is, not what you want to be. So, how can you manipulate the situation to your own advantage? :question:

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

... they even label the copy of the Search Warrant they leave with the occupier "Customer Copy". :doh:

Now that is interesting. I feel sure something could be made of that...





I don't understand.

Why am I helping you people?

:mad:

[Deleted User]

Zapito wrote: »

Maybe you should think of a way to take control of the situation.

I have.

I totally and completely ignore them.

It's served me well, for nigh on 6 years, and £1015-50.

Zapito

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

I have.

I totally and completely ignore them.

It's served me well, for nigh on 6 years, and £1015-50.

Brilliant. No complaints from you then. The system is working well. Glad to hear it.

Cornucopia

Zapito wrote: »

The system is working well.

Well, TVL won't be happy with Bob, because they can't get into his home and check for illicit TV watching.

Bob may or may not be happy throwing the threatening letters away each month, but even if he is, it's a waste of resources for them to be sent.

So no, the system is not working well.

Cornucopia

Zapito wrote: »

Why am I helping you people?

Err... you're not.

But they are the way they are. No point wishing they were something different.

That's an incredibly defeatist position. The law sets out a variety of ways in which UK citizens exist free of harassment by State agencies. All State agencies. Including BBC/TVL. They must be made to comply, because what they are doing is shameful, and sets an incredibly bad example to other organisations.

Zapito

Cornucopia wrote: »

Bob may or may not be happy throwing the threatening letters away each month, but even if he is, it's a waste of resources for them to be sent.

Well, it doesn't seem bad for him. And if they have sense (if!) then they need to either get a warrant and search his place or simply give up on him. As you imply, there's no sense in sending good correspondence after bad!

=================================================

Cornucopia wrote: »

Err... you're not.

Phew! That's a relief! Don't want to be seen as a traitor to my cause!

It was fun doing some big letters, anyway!

=================================================

Cornucopia wrote: »

That's an incredibly defeatist position. The law sets out a variety of ways in which UK citizens exist free of harassment by State agencies. All State agencies. Including BBC/TVL. They must be made to comply, because what they are doing is shameful, and sets an incredibly bad example to other organisations.

[strike]On the contrary. When you are banging your head against a wall, :wall: best look for a different way to get past the wall. It's results what counts, not pains what gains.[/strike]

Rather I mean: Yes, yes, you are right. Just keep on banging that head!

============================================

Cornucopia wrote: »

They must be made to comply, because what they are doing is shameful,

Now who does that possibly remind me of?





" Y-o-u - w-i-l-l - o-b-e-y "




Or should that be "You will pay"?

.