TV Licence article Discussion

[Deleted User]

Zapito wrote: »

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

Hardly.

While I'm content to ignore them, I still resent the implication that I'm an evader, despite there being not a shred of evidence that I am.

Also, BBC/TVL's whole approach is insulting and offensive, and I object to their behaviour toward others, who may feel less able to stand up for themselves.

[Deleted User]

Zapito wrote: »

And if they have sense (if!) then they need to either get a warrant and search his place

To do so, would be an abuse of the law, since they have no grounds for a warrant.

or simply give up on him.

That would be the sensible option, but after 68 months, approximately the same number of Threat-O-Grams, and 11 visits, I don't think we can really associate sensible with BBC/TVL.

Cornucopia

Zapito wrote: »

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!

Indeed, and one of the main flaws in the TVL system is the way that despite its self-appointed mission being to investigate every unlicensed licenceable place in the UK, it goes for years sometimes without resolving that issue at a particular address. (Not that there is anything to resolve, but I am thinking about it from their perspective).

[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!

The sensible approach is to spend some time on each idea as it comes up, and then go away and get on with your life for a while. In reality, it doesn't take up a vast amount of time to help a few victims, write a few complaint letters, etc. We've spent way more time discussing it here than I have on the actual issue in the same time period.

Now who does that possibly remind me of?


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

I'm sure Ms. Doubtfire is very kind to children and animals... just not to legally Licence-free people.

I say "made" to comply, because in a civilised society we cannot have these people running amok when they should be serving the public. We're going to see more and more of this, as companies explore how the public can be manipulated for power and/or profit. It's a shame that a right-leaning Government does not act decisively to stop it.

The maximum sentence for Misfeasance in Public Office is life imprisonment.

(See also: Private Parking Companies)

Zapito

Cornucopia wrote: »

The maximum sentence for Misfeasance in Public Office is life imprisonment.

Maybe I should include that on the draft letter.

TO: Pipa Doubtfire, TV Licensing

WARNING

You are hereby notified that you may be in danger of breaking the law, with the possibility of a maximum sentence of life imprisonment if found guilty of Misfeasance in Public Office.

The Household

Cornucopia

Yes - that sounds like fun.

I think the accusation sits best against a named authority figure, such as our friend, Ms. Doubtfire.

Zapito

Cornucopia wrote: »

Yes - that sounds like fun.

I think the accusation sits best against a named authority figure, such as our friend, Ms. Doubtfire.

Come now, that's not an "accusation". It is a mere statement of a possible outcome in the event of certain assumptions being realised.

Notwithstanding which, the post has now been edited according to your recommendation.

Cornucopia

Zapito wrote: »

Come now, that's not an "accusation". It is a mere statement of a possible outcome in the event of certain assumptions being realised.

I was aiming for higher standards than those employed by BBC/TVL.

Zapito

I don't recall getting an answer to this:

Zapito wrote: »

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?

Cornucopia

Zapito wrote: »

I don't recall getting an answer to this:

Do you want an answer? Isn't it obvious that they are all different things, and a potentially different approach is warranted in each case?

Zapito

Cornucopia wrote: »

Zapito wrote: »

I don't recall getting an answer to this:

Zapito wrote: »

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?

Do you want an answer? Isn't it obvious that they are all different things, and a potentially different approach is warranted in each case?

It appears to me that you apply different standards to people according to how they are grouped, with individuals at one end of the scale (with whom you are willing to compromise to some degree) and corporations at the other (no compromise permitted whatsoever). Well, I am interested to know how this works, what the gradations are and so on.

For me, these are all simply different styles of collections of people, with a "collection" of one person at one end of the spectrum and a collection of an indefinite quantity of people at the other. No matter how large the collective, however, it is still a collection of people, and requires and can be expected to respond to human interaction. At least, that is my perspective. However, it appears that for you it is different, that somehow by involving in a collection the individual people who comprise that collective are to be regarded, in some way, as less than (or at least different from) human, and that concept makes my spine prickle slightly.

What I would like to know is the details of graduation that you apply. You say you are willing to go "more than half way" with regard to an individual, but imply that you are willing to go no distance at all with regard to a corporation. So what I would be interested to know is, how would you treat other human collectives? Would you, for example, be prepared to meet a club or association less or more than halfway? What about a Limited Company? An ethnic group? A nation? Etc. And, moreover, what is the overall rule that you apply?

I am concerned that much of the trouble you perceive with the TVL people may a product of your refusal to recognise the humanity (and the fallibility which that implies) of those with whom you are dealing.