Paying for TV License

arknor · 2 Jan 2013 at 15:32

BadMojo said:
I got bored after 2 minutes. The TV guy had a warrant to gain entry, but was unable to gain entry because...? Did they (successfully) argue the warrant was unenforcable? Or did they simply decide not to enforce it for PR reasons?

I think they argued the warrant was a bunch of **** and not an actual criminal law so could only be enforced by consent of the occupier

The policeman said he wasn't there to enforce the warrant anyway just to keep the peace ?

TV licensing is all intimidation and no bark I guess with a lot of people they mention warrant and have a policeman so people just assume they are allowed in

£15 · 2 Jan 2013 at 16:21

I suspected as much with regard to the Police Officer.

But you're right on your last point; You'd have to know your rights and be confident to argue for them when confronted in such a manner. Most don't/wouldn't and they count on it to gain entry.

anything I don't mind · 2 Jan 2013 at 16:27

SDK^ said:
Re: video
If you had nothing to hide then why go through all the hassle of arguing for 20mins, plus all the time wasted when they come back.

It is called principles. Where you stand for something etc.

Why should people lose the freedom of not having their house searched because the BBC can not operate a voluntary services?

CosmicClown · 2 Jan 2013 at 16:48

arknor said:
The policeman said he wasn't there to enforce the warrant anyway just to keep the peace?

And that's all the policeman can do as it's not a criminal matter, it's a civil matter between the TV goons and the occupier of the home, police should just be there as a mediator of sorts and also be completely unbiased, his job is to prevent a breach of the peace and not to collude with corporate interests. Unfortunately nowadays it seems most police officers serve corporate interests rather than the people.

the shadow · 2 Jan 2013 at 16:55

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0mNItLHFA8

anything I don't mind · 2 Jan 2013 at 16:56

The BBC is barely corporate. Sure it is a registered corporation but any corporations that revenue is forced taxation is merely corporate or private only in name. It realy is just the media arm (or department) of the government and nothing more. State media, arguably why they had no problem protecting their own, just like the state. In the private sector, if someone does something illegal, the private corporations do not defend the person but make sure that the person is individually liable and not the corporation. The public sector always protects their own, even in cases of severe crime.

Basher · 2 Jan 2013 at 16:59

I like BBC content, so I do the right thing and pay for it.

spoffle · 2 Jan 2013 at 17:04

Basher said:
I like BBC content, so I do the right thing and pay for it.

You're implying that objecting to it and not paying is the "wrong" thing to do.

How you feel about BBC content and morals are different matters, the BBC doesn't care about your morals in this regard, so why should you?

Jay794 · 2 Jan 2013 at 17:04

Ceryndrion said:
If you watch live television, then you need a tv license. if you don't, then you don't. There's no need to debate it yet again, its a dead horse that's been flogged all too often.

Personally, I don't own a tv, thus don't need a license.. And I am perfectly able to function without it.

pretty much sums it up with the first post

however, how the hell do you function without a TV, what do you do all day? are you Amish?

Jason2 · 2 Jan 2013 at 17:07

Who would pay money to a corporation that protects pedophiles? No thank you.

=XDC=FluphyBunny · 2 Jan 2013 at 17:25

2blue4u said:
The main advantage to ending the TV Licence would be to stop these bloody threads. So much drivel, so much ignorance, so much pinko clap-trap. Get a life, people.

^^^^^

the shadow · 2 Jan 2013 at 17:36

BunnyKillBot · 2 Jan 2013 at 17:46

Basher said:
I like BBC content, so I do the right thing and pay for it.

Conclusion does not follow. While morality and the law may be distinct, 'liking' something does not effect a 'right' action. If you watch live broadcast television, you have a legal obligation to pay, and paying is the right action, by right of law. If you don't watch live broadcast television, you are under no legal obligation to pay, and paying is wrong by right of law, and in terms of morality neither here nor there. If you pay within a legal framework where you are legitimately entitled to not pay, you are a fool.

Basher · 2 Jan 2013 at 18:09

spoffle said:
You're implying that objecting to it and not paying is the "wrong" thing to do.

How you feel about BBC content and morals are different matters, the BBC doesn't care about your morals in this regard, so why should you?

Not paying it is wrong, yes (assuming you are using features that require you to pay)

arknor · 2 Jan 2013 at 18:16

Worth not getting a tv license if shes your local bobby on the beat

magick · 3 Jan 2013 at 10:06

arknor said:
I think they argued the warrant was a bunch of **** and not an actual criminal law so could only be enforced by consent of the occupier

The policeman said he wasn't there to enforce the warrant anyway just to keep the peace ?

TV licensing is all intimidation and no bark I guess with a lot of people they mention warrant and have a policeman so people just assume they are allowed in

If a warrant is issued for the TV licensing authority the police as a matter of policy will not force entry. They are just there to keep the peace.

EDIT

And a warrant will only be issued in very extreme circumstances like if you are rude or abusive and so on. It's difficult to get a Judge to issue a warrant for known crack houses let alone people not paying there TV license.

magick · 3 Jan 2013 at 10:07

Teknobry said:
If you remove their assumed right of access then can get awkward. Its rare to have a search warrant issued but in most cases it is done when their assumed right of access has been removed.

Either don't answer the door or if you do, do not give them any details whatsoever, don't even confirm or deny having a tv - it is none of their business!

In some cases removing there assumed right of access is necesary as they have been known to harrass people even after they've proven they don't have a TV or aren't using it to recieve live broadcasts.

Docaroo · 3 Jan 2013 at 10:28

I really despise the heavy handed techniques and letters that they use to try to collect the money.

In my new apartment I don't have a TV and won't get one as there's nothing on live TV I would ever want to watch.

However, I have had 5 or 6 threatening letters akin to debt collection letters. It's not my job to prove I don't have a TV so I am not communicating with them.

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? They blanketly assume that everyone has a TV and is therefore a criminal for not paying.

In the days of internet TV you don't need a licence or live TV anyway.

estebanrey · 3 Jan 2013 at 11:34

arknor said:
Worth not getting a tv license if shes your local bobby on the beat

Can't stand these kind of dicks. And no I'm not talking about the copper or the license man, I mean the guy filming.

"Oh look at me, beating the system and uploading it to Youtube, how hard am I?" :rolleyes:

Musty Pie · 3 Jan 2013 at 11:43

estebanrey said:
Can't stand these kind of dicks. And no I'm not talking about the copper or the license man, I mean the guy filming.

"Oh look at me, beating the system and uploading it to Youtube, how hard am I?"

I agree 100%

He made her uncomfortable when all she was trying to do was her job. Whether this guy is right or wrong to question her authority is something I will not get in to.

But talking to her like a **** is something that is not on regardless of the situation.