Man in court for not paying TV Licence

Status
Not open for further replies.
First off, we don't know why he was in court for TV License, many people don't pay it however not many people go to court, there's more than likely something we're not being told going on. On another hand, BBC TV License officials don't have the legal right to enter property unless granted access via warrant from a judge, however this has only happened a few times as the judge realises it's a load of **** and shouldn't even exist and BBC should rely on advertisement to fund their garbage, however I'm going off on a tangent, what I'm trying to say is, the silly git wouldn't even be in court if he knew his legal rights, so he should pay the court costs and accept he got lucky.

-An Anti-BBC
 
I dont have a TV license, I made a declaration that I didnt need one on the website and a week later a guy turned up. I invited him in, took him into the living room and showed him my TV, showed him that only my HP Microserver was connected to it. It said that was absolutely fine and filled in some bits on his PDA and gave me a receipt to confirm he had been and that he had found I don't need a license.

I still have an aerial and a sky dish but as he saw they weren't connected to anything he didnt have a problem with it.

Dont really see what all the fuss is about.

B
 
LateX'Dog said:
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/04/uk-man-wins-court-victory-over-bbc-for.html

Ohhhh this could get interesting.
Click to expand...

Not all that interesting, the judge said he couldn't rule on the defence that Mr Rooke was presenting but for reasons best known to himself decided not to make Mr Rooke pay the Licence Fee or an additional penalty but he did have to pay court costs.

That's not actually a measure of validation for what Mr Rooke presented, it's probably more accurately a dismissal as it's a) not a proper defence and b) not worth the court time to make a decision on a matter that it can't legitimately rule on. I think he's lucky to get away with just the court costs but since they're higher than if he'd just paid the Licence Fee while it's not quite a Pyrrhic victory it's heading in that direction.

Boycie said:
I dont have a TV license, I made a declaration that I didnt need one on the website and a week later a guy turned up. I invited him in, took him into the living room and showed him my TV, showed him that only my HP Microserver was connected to it. It said that was absolutely fine and filled in some bits on his PDA and gave me a receipt to confirm he had been and that he had found I don't need a license.

I still have an aerial and a sky dish but as he saw they weren't connected to anything he didnt have a problem with it.

Dont really see what all the fuss is about.

B
Click to expand...

Why would you do that and not rant and rage about how it's a totally unfair intrusion on your life? You should have denied him entry and kept ignoring the letters like any reasonable and right thinking member of society would do. This approach of facing the issue could never have worked...

Or maybe it's this kind of lateral thinking that just might be crazy enough to sort it out quickly and easily.
 
semi-pro waster said:
Why would you do that and not rant and rage about how it's a totally unfair intrusion on your life? You should have denied him entry and kept ignoring the letters like any reasonable and right thinking member of society would do. This approach of facing the issue could never have worked...

Or maybe it's this kind of lateral thinking that just might be crazy enough to sort it out quickly and easily.
Click to expand...

Sarcasm aside, I tell them to **** off on principle despite a rasperry pi being the only thing connected to my TV. It's not really that much effort.
 
Net closing around Britain’s No 1 TV Licence Evader

A man who has never bought a TV licence but who watches hundreds of hours of television a year, is just days away from capture, TV Licensing has announced.

The man – known only as No 1 Licence Evader (1LE) – has even goaded TV Licensing by sneaking into the BBC Television Centre and watching the entire 60 episodes of The Wire before being disturbed.

‘Our extensive database reveals that this serial licence evader owned a black-and-white portable in 1958 and didn’t even have a licence for that. For the past half-century he has watched thousands of hours, many in colour, of television with impunity,’ a TV Licensing spokesman said, ‘but his days are numbered.

‘A fleet of our detector vans is closing in on his location and we have received information about his movements through the usual channels.’

1LE has been spotted in various parts of the UK watching television in shop windows – a sighting of him watching Strictly Come Dancing in Dixon’s in Devizes, and the Simpsons in Curry’s in Walsall. Sometimes he takes a chair with him and spends hours glued to up to twenty screens and taking in several different programmes simultaneously.

‘He has been known to enter an electrical retailer’s showroom under the pretence of buying a television set, leaving abruptly when his programme has ended,’ the spokesman said. ‘He has visited relatives, friends, an ex-wife, a very sick patient in hospital, and neighbours under various pretexts. His one and only purpose for these visits is, of course, free television.’

The spokesman claims 1LE has even talked his ways into homes by pretending to be a TV engineer. ‘He spent a whole week with an elderly couple by telling them he had to check the line hold.’

But 1LE seems to have gone too far when he pretended to be an official from TV Licensing checking licences. ‘He would spend an hour looking at a licence. Of course, he had one eye on the television screen.’

The spokesman concluded:

‘Licence evaders should be aware that TV Licensing now has global reach. Recently we tracked down a licence evader living on the Afghan Pakistan border. He was very cross and threatened apocalyptic retribution, but we had to point out to him that you still need a TV licence even if you do just live in a cave and claim to watch only Aljazeera.’
 
UK Man Wins Court Case Against BBC/TV License For 9-11 WTC 7 Cover Up

LOL. What do the naysayers have to say about this one

Tony Rooke refused to pay a TV license fee because the BBC intentionally misrepresented facts about the 9/11 attacks, he alleged. It is widely known that the BBC reported the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 over 20 minutes before it occurred. WTC 7 was a 47-story skyscraper that was not hit by a plane on 9/11 but collapsed at free-fall speed later that day.

So Rooke said the BBC had to have had prior knowledge to a terror attack making them complicit in the attack. He presented the BBC footage to the judge along with a slew of other evidence, and the judge agreed that Rooke had a reasonable case to protest. Rooke was found not guilty and he was not fined for failure to pay the licensing fee.

For all intents and purposes a UK ccourt has just ruled that the BBC was complicit in the september 11th, 2001 attacks in the United States. Fantastic. A small victory but a huge symbolic victory and one you would have never otherwised have heard of. So I suggest to you the reader to get the word out on this one. Spread it far and wide. This is big ifonly symbolic. -Mort

http://beforeitsnews.com/9-11-and-g...bc-for-9-11-wtc-7-cover-up-video-2440298.html
Click to expand...
 
This has already been done to death.

The court case has NOTHING to do with cover ups.

Also Magic didn't you vanish after the complete embarrassment of the world not coming to an end. I would have registered with a name change by now :o
 
that the bbc reported the building which had been on fire for hours had collapsed early, possibly through confusion of the total event or possibly through the fact there was large structural damage previous to its total collapse.

it doesnt mean the bbc was a part of the attacks, it doesnt mean it was all preplanned, all his case means is he had a reasonable case to protest in respect to timing and how it was presented by the bbc.

the ridiculous conclusions and extrapolation from that site is just hilarious, such blatant spin.
 
dacads said:
Tired of hearing about BBC but glad this guy won the case
Click to expand...

He hasnt won sod all, dolnt read ct stes which twist the trith to lies, bbc wasnt even on trial.

To wuoote the other thread and i have no idea why mods havent locked this one yet.


semi-pro waster said:
Not all that interesting, the judge said he couldn't rule on the defence that Mr Rooke was presenting but for reasons best known to himself decided not to make Mr Rooke pay the Licence Fee or an additional penalty but he did have to pay court costs.

That's not actually a measure of validation for what Mr Rooke presented, it's probably more accurately a dismissal as it's a) not a proper defence and b) not worth the court time to make a decision on a matter that it can't legitimately rule on. I think he's lucky to get away with just the court costs but since they're higher than if he'd just paid the Licence Fee while it's not quite a Pyrrhic victory it's heading in that direction.



.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:


The BBC reported the collapse of WTC Building 7 on live TV 26 minutes before it actually happened. In fact the video footage of the BBC breaking this news about the supposed collapse shows WTC Building 7 still standing in the background in apparently near perfect physical condition with no significant fires visible.

Ocuk Warriors please debunk for me :)
 
You think reporers know which each building is?
Its extremly normal for confliicting reports when such events happen and natual disaasgters as well.
Is every single on eof them a CT as well? Or just confusion/bad reporting.

As usual selectiive memory.
Whcih big event be terrorist, nattuaral disaster or even police shoot out, hasnt had missleading info.
 
deanolfc said:
Tin Foil Hat Time.
Click to expand...

I'm worried my Tin Foil Hat may have been compromised by agents of the Shadow Government (possibly NSA/Google).

Is there something I can do to verify it is properly protecting me?

Sincerely,
a concerned citizen/nutjob
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom