For UK members. If you own a TV you must have a licence. WRONG!

page: 13
37
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 09:03 PM
link   
wow, the whole concept of paying for a license for watching tv still blows my mind,
being from a country where they stuff the idea of watching tv down your throat.

But, i would gladly pay a fee if they would take the commercials off. Would not hesitate.
one reason there are very few shows i pay attention to. Every 5 to 7 min it seems its time
for a commercial break, and they have gotten so stupid in nature its not even funny.




posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by scotsdavy1
 


firstly they will need to get over the threshold. that's your shout. if in the slightest possibility you allow them in and they find the dish connected to the decoder and tv ready for viewing then i assume they will take action. if you stress that you view only recorded content then apart from arguing the toss with you i assume the burden of proof lies with them. if the burden lies with you, you will have to show that all content watched was after initial broadcast of content. their argument may entail that you accessed the broadcasted index/menu to decide what programmes to record thus accessing real-time broadcast material. i know it may sound daft but in a court of law the plaintiff (tv licensing authority) will have all the tricks available at their disposal whereas you being the defendant will have to show beyond reasonable doubt that you only accessed 'post' broadcasted material.

my stepson was wrongly informed that he required a licence to watch dvd's and access the internet. he has no aerial connected and cannot watch 'as broadcast' material. next years license pot will be one less as he now knows better!

regards fakedirt



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by fakedirt
reply to post by scotsdavy1
 


firstly they will need to get over the threshold. that's your shout. if in the slightest possibility you allow them in and they find the dish connected to the decoder and tv ready for viewing then i assume they will take action. if you stress that you view only recorded content then apart from arguing the toss with you i assume the burden of proof lies with them. if the burden lies with you, you will have to show that all content watched was after initial broadcast of content. their argument may entail that you accessed the broadcasted index/menu to decide what programmes to record thus accessing real-time broadcast material. i know it may sound daft but in a court of law the plaintiff (tv licensing authority) will have all the tricks available at their disposal whereas you being the defendant will have to show beyond reasonable doubt that you only accessed 'post' broadcasted material.

my stepson was wrongly informed that he required a licence to watch dvd's and access the internet. he has no aerial connected and cannot watch 'as broadcast' material. next years license pot will be one less as he now knows better!

regards fakedirt


Very good info, I will take it into account as I said, I today cancelled the direct debit to them as I'm fed up paying for it. Getting rid of sky as well and will,be using Netflix instead which as you know is not 'live'
I have about 60-100tbs od films, movies and docs to watch anyway, but no,way will they be allowed in my house.
I can buy a magazine that tells me what's on so don't need to access the TV to so that.
Wouldn't be bad if the fee was for better programmes but its not as you know.
Thanks,again...
edit on 3-3-2013 by scotsdavy1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Living in LicenceLand nr uno...Sweden...We pay
for TV´s yes...
Dont think its ok though.
First they say its for the channels free from adds.
Then, when i say i dont WANT the channels..
They say its for the TV itself...
So, whats it gonna be, Channel or system...

I own several tvs YES
I pay for satelite...79$ for 30 something channels...
AND on top of that i have to pay an ADDITIONAL 70$
for the 2!!! channels addfree...2 frikking channels...

I dont

I just dont...
I pay the 79 but the other...HeJJ i dont even WATCH them....
Non of us doo...Seriously, the shows are so below its not
even funny.....



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by fakedirt
 





their argument may entail that you accessed the broadcasted index/menu to decide what programmes to record thus accessing real-time broadcast material.


Probably where the courts draw the line as to admissible evidence.

Good Samaritan sharing of TIVO disk content for the low income would probably be allowed providing it was not a large volume repeater operation (harder to prove). In the US public broadcasters solicit funds via telethon donation. People are free to donate or not, but some of the public broadcasting is far superior to commercial programming so there tend to be enough patrons and volunteers to cover costs.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by scotsdavy1
 


imo cancelling the dd will raise a flag at the central scrutiny commitat lol! let me know if they come a knocking.
best wishes f.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by fakedirt
reply to post by scotsdavy1
 


firstly they will need to get over the threshold. that's your shout. if in the slightest possibility you allow them in and they find the dish connected to the decoder and tv ready for viewing then i assume they will take action.



Rule Number 1. Under no circumstances should you allow ANYONE to enter your property. You are under no obligation to do so. Unless a baliff presents you with a signed (by a magistrate) x96 form, and it MUST be signed, no force can be used to gain entry. Tell them politely to f*off and close the door.


if you stress that you view only recorded content then apart from arguing the toss with you i assume the burden of proof lies with them. if the burden lies with you, you will have to show that all content watched was after initial broadcast of content. their argument may entail that you accessed the broadcasted index/menu to decide what programmes to record thus accessing real-time broadcast material.


Rule Number 2. Under no circumstances open your mouth. You are under no obligation to do so. The burden of proof is on them, end of. Note though, a licence IS required for the recording of live broadcasts, not to watch them (recorded). If you admit to recording a live broadcast to watch later, you have just inadvertently given them an admission of guilt and that is all they need.


i know it may sound daft but in a court of law the plaintiff (tv licensing authority) will have all the tricks available at their disposal whereas you being the defendant will have to show beyond reasonable doubt that you only accessed 'post' broadcasted material.


Capita, the private firm which holds the contract to enforce the TV Tax, will use any and all means to catch you out, including making crap up. One need only rememner 1 thing. Their proof almost always consists of photographic or video evidence of some using a television. There are no detector vans, and if there is, they have never been used as evidence in any case of TV Tax evasion, ever. This is why Rules 1 and 2 are of utmost importance.

Keep your door closed and your mouth shut and video everything. If someone knocks on your door and your not sure who it is, answer with a camera. If its one of their salesmen up to no good they wont like their unlawful antics being plastered all over youtube and they will simply walk away in a huff.


Another thing you can do, is remove their implied right of access to your property. You can do this in writing or verbaly over the phone. However you must use that exact wording. If a Capita employee steps foot on your property once this right has been removed, they will be guilty of criminal trespass. TV Licencing must confirm to you, in writing, that they have acknowledged the removal of their right of access, but they may stall. If so get on the phone to them and complain.

Winding them up has become a bit of a pastime for folk here, and to be honest it's a lot of fun.
edit on 3-3-2013 by threewisemonkeys because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by fakedirt
reply to post by scotsdavy1
 


imo cancelling the dd will raise a flag at the central scrutiny commitat lol! let me know if they come a knocking.
best wishes f.


Well I,recently paid for a full 4 weeks payment which was due so they won't know until the next bill comes around.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by threewisemonkeys

Originally posted by fakedirt
reply to post by scotsdavy1
 


firstly they will need to get over the threshold. that's your shout. if in the slightest possibility you allow them in and they find the dish connected to the decoder and tv ready for viewing then i assume they will take action.



Rule Number 1. Under no circumstances should you allow ANYONE to enter your property. You are under no obligation to do so. Unless a baliff presents you with a signed (by a magistrate) x96 form, and it MUST be signed, no force can be used to gain entry. Tell them politely to f*off and close the door.


if you stress that you view only recorded content then apart from arguing the toss with you i assume the burden of proof lies with them. if the burden lies with you, you will have to show that all content watched was after initial broadcast of content. their argument may entail that you accessed the broadcasted index/menu to decide what programmes to record thus accessing real-time broadcast material.


Rule Number 2. Under no circumstances open your mouth. You are under no obligation to do so. The burden of proof is on them, end of. Note though, a licence IS required for the recording of live broadcasts, not to watch them (recorded). If you admit to recording a live broadcast to watch later, you have just inadvertently given them an admission of guilt and that is all they need.


i know it may sound daft but in a court of law the plaintiff (tv licensing authority) will have all the tricks available at their disposal whereas you being the defendant will have to show beyond reasonable doubt that you only accessed 'post' broadcasted material.


Capita, the private firm which holds the contract to enforce the TV Tax, will use any and all means to catch you out, including making crap up. One need only rememner 1 thing. Their proof almost always consists of photographic or video evidence of some using a television. There are no detector vans, and if there is, they have never been used as evidence in any case of TV Tax evasion, ever. This is why Rules 1 and 2 are of utmost importance.

Keep your door closed and your mouth shut and video everything. If someone knocks on your door and your not sure who it is, answer with a camera. If its one of their salesmen up to no good they wont like their unlawful antics being plastered all over youtube and they will simply walk away in a huff.


Another thing you can do, is remove their implied right of access to your property. You can do this in writing or verbaly over the phone. However you must use that exact wording. If a Capita employee steps foot on your property once this right has been removed, they will be guilty of criminal trespass. TV Licencing must confirm to you, in writing, that they have acknowledged the removal of their right of access, but they may stall. If so get on the phone to them and complain.

Winding them up has become a bit of a pastime for folk here, and to be honest it's a lot of fun.
edit on 3-3-2013 by threewisemonkeys because: (no reason given)


Will tell them I only watch Netflix or recorded movies etc which is mainly true as our TV in UK is diabolical to say the least. I'm surprised I don't speak American because that and Australian or New Zealand shows is all we watch and of course the movies....



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by scotsdavy1
 


No, you do not tell them anything other than you do not require a tv licence. You do not need to say what you do or what you don't do, what you watch or don't watch. Simply say you don't need one and stand your ground. Oh, and don't be an idiot and watch eastenders at full volume while its being broadcast.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 05:08 PM
link   
"no evidence from a detector van has ever been used in court"


because the TV detector van, or more specifically it's supposed technical abilities, are a myth.
edit on 3/3/13 by RoScoLaz because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by RoScoLaz
 


That is exactly what I said. When a FOI request was put in to find out how effective detector vans were the BBC refused on the grounds that it would "reduce the effectiveness of tv detector vans". In other words, it is a "perceived deterrent". All in YOUR HEAD. Hilarious. Subsequent investigation showed that in all the cases of evasion brought before the court, not a single case used evidence submitted buy one of these vans. Not ever. They do not exist. Ok they might. But it will consist of an empty transit van and some stick on graphics, and that is about it. And that's without getting into the science required to detect a CRT to a location within a few feet never mind low radiation units like LCD or the frequency to which they are tuned. It was a con. Like the TV Licence.

And it is a tax. The ONS designated it as such. A TV tax.
edit on 3-3-2013 by threewisemonkeys because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Just came back from Manchester where I viewed the BBC's brand new Media City buildings. Very nice. They sure are good to themselves. That's our money they are spending on plush new offices. Don't remember them asking me if I approved.



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by pikestaff
The thing is with the British TV licence is that you can watch 4 channels that do not have damn adverts, or listen to radio stations that do not have adverts, they have to be paid for somehow, all those soccer fans who can watch a whole game without adverts, what a joy!!!! (or any other sport) perhaps that £150.00 (?) is worth it, than paying for a separate sport channel? I dont watch any sport myself, I'm into other types of programs.


What a horribly communist idea.

You say they have to get paid for some how. I agree. The people who are using said service pay for it, not other people.

And a TV License? Unbelievable, besides television is almost completely a dead medium these days



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Xieon
 


There are a couple of fatal flaws go his argument. Firstly, we don't all watch football. Those paying for a licence who do not are essentially subsidising those who do. Want football? Subscribe to Sky.

Secondly is this falsehood of no advertising. Simply not true. There is plenty of advertising on the BBC. They advertise their own programs, they advertise on behalf of charities, they advertise using product placement and then there's the sponsorship advertisements in most sporting events, like football, that are completely unavoidable.

No other broadcaster recieves licence fee cash, yet a licence is still required to view their channels, including their commercials. So no, the tv tax does not avoid having to view adverts. In fact you need a licence to watch commercials. The irony.
edit on 6-3-2013 by threewisemonkeys because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
37
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join