This, basically.
lol tvlicensing
- Thread starter arknor
- Start date
This, basically.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 35,717
Register that you don't require a TV license and you won't get letters or problems unless you do require one.
https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/nln/index.aspx
https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/nln/index.aspx
Last edited:
Whats going on in here ?, i started reading this thread about 4 months ago. and lost interest, but it seems somthing is going on.. fill me in guys !, i want in!
+1 I haven't been on the forums that long, but god damn this thread just won't die!
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 10,371
- Location
- Billericay, UK
A 'Freeman' and a conspiracy theorist and thrown this thread on it's head.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
Some people have found that registering that you don't have a tv causes more visits and more letters.
Once they have searched your house like your are a convict, then after 6 months you get a knock on the door from another capita harassment agent asking to search your house again, only this time he has your name.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 35,717
For me it was register once a year and no calls or letters.
It's not like you're being treated as a convict at all is it? It's for validation purposes?
What's to stop everyone writing to that and saying "I don't have a TV License" and saving £120~ a year... Surely some validation needs to happen?
That's not treating your like a convict, that's making sure you AREN'T a convict by lying about your usage.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
As i refuse to let them enter my home. Letting them know i don't have a TV and then refusing entry will lead to more problems than just ignoring them.
interestingly enough - I've just cancelled my DD for my licence, since I object on principle to having to pay 6 months in advance (I'm paid up till the end of Nov. so I'll make another 2 month payment then.) I wonder how long it will take them to start sending me harassing letters...
Why though? I can understand refusing to let them enter your own, it's your home.
However, if it's purely to stop a few letters and their harass tactics - I'd let them enter, show them I either have no TV, or no signal into the house and tell them to sling their hook. Everything else needs to be proven on their side - The fact you are being co-operative isn't really helping, if anything I'd imagine it would put more of a "target" on you, making you look guilty.
Associate
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 558
Apologies werewolf, you were right, I remember it was around the time that ITV was done for these phone scams, The BBC's issue was that they kept over £100.000 back instead of giving it to the charities, It was flagged up after an audit was conducted. It come out after that their was no criminal intention in keeping the money back but if that was any of us, you know we would be done for fraud.
The BBC censored Jimmy Savils peado claims on his tribute, why would an organization do that or even show a tribute show after all this come out, No one can say that the BBC didn't know what was happening, someone knew but kept quiet.
I have a question regarding the TVL and the Communications Act 2003, So people say an Act is a Law and not statute? If I admitted to a local bobby that I watch TV but don't pay a TVL would he/she arrest me ? If not, why not ?
Why would this Act be any different from any other Act if its a criminal offence ? Surely the police can't pick and choose what Acts they act on, an offence is an offence and its up to the CPS if they charge you or not.
The BBC censored Jimmy Savils peado claims on his tribute, why would an organization do that or even show a tribute show after all this come out, No one can say that the BBC didn't know what was happening, someone knew but kept quiet.
I have a question regarding the TVL and the Communications Act 2003, So people say an Act is a Law and not statute? If I admitted to a local bobby that I watch TV but don't pay a TVL would he/she arrest me ? If not, why not ?
Why would this Act be any different from any other Act if its a criminal offence ? Surely the police can't pick and choose what Acts they act on, an offence is an offence and its up to the CPS if they charge you or not.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 35,717
If you're talking about the Newsnight investigation, the BBC did what any good news organisation will do when one of the main sources behind the claims turns out to be less reliable than a 1970's Skoda that's been left by the seaside.
They dropped the programme because at the time they only had a couple of people come forward, one of whom made claims about a CPS letter that the CPS said didn't exist (and would have gone against all their policies for such cases), and she didn't produce it for the programme - thus throwing everything else she said in massive doubt.
It later turned out, when that newspaper that is known to love the BBC, namely the Daily mail saw it that the letter was indeed fake.
So the BBC is guilty of basically dropping a programme that at the time had been in production for months without managing to find enough to go forward with.
ITV however started where the BBC left off several months later, thus had much of the same information the BBC ended with before they started spending money on it - and if they'd spent as much time/money on it as the BBC had, and still hadn't made any more headroom they would have dropped it as well.
I don't see any "protection" or "cover up" there, what I see is an investigative journalism program that had run out of resources and hadn't got enough to keep the producers satisfied that they had enough to go on with.
The sort of thing that probably happens dozens of times a year but rarely makes the news (except possibly as a "BBC wastes loads of money on failed investigations" article).
Because it's not an arrestable offence from memory...
Like speeding isn't (from memory) an arrestable offence on it's own.
Not to mention the police aren't the ones charged with enforcing the TVL, as another organisation has been charged with dealing with it (the same as happens with things like environmental concerns, from memory).
not an arrestable offence.
i also think it would come under civil law and not criminal law.
It's very much criminal, it is a TAX. Its officially recognised as a tax and has been for ages.
But you're right as far as i know, its not an arrestable offence. Police also have discretion.
If you don't pay you can end up in jail.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 558
This is all very messed up in my opinion, this is why common law should be acted on instead of policies (statutes / acts). This would make people act more responsible if the punishment were more severe. But how would the country generate revenue if it weren't for all these statutes ?
To me if you break a law under common law then you deserve to have your collar felt, all these statutes are just silly, far too complex and money spinners rolled all into one but that's how its been designed which I find very clever.
So a TVL goon arrives at your door with the police and with a warrant, not a search order which someone had posted earlier, I have seen a copy of someone else's which states its a warrant and stamped by a judge at a magistrates court which gives them the power to enter your home.
What do you do ? You peacefully resist by stating "I do not give consent"
You should always say "I'm not obliged to answer any of your questions"
You should then ask "Under what Authority and under what law are you Acting"
You should now know what Law he's acting which is an Act which is not common law, so you say "Acts are statutes which require the consent of the governed, in other words they need your consent.
At the end of the day the police officer is only there with the TVL to prevent breach of peace which is under common law.
Should the police Officer Arrest you under Obstructing an Officer in his Duty, you would ask "Duty to who ? because it isn't a Duty to the public so who is it to ?
I can't guarantee you would not be arrested but i've read and seen other cases where nothing as happened, the TVL have just left with no search. It's powerful stuff all this. the courts and police are all together as a profit money making corporations. Imagine if it become widely accepted by the courts, the police would lose their powers, the revenue would dry up. Its all about Status and keeping us all in check, so how do they do this ? buy taking away something which we deem valuable = money.
I do know of a case where a chief inspector as over ruled a statute law, it seems the higher the ranking the officer the more they know, it comes down to common sense.
I do believe something will give one day, everyone knows what's going on, politicians, police, judges ect.
To me if you break a law under common law then you deserve to have your collar felt, all these statutes are just silly, far too complex and money spinners rolled all into one but that's how its been designed which I find very clever.
So a TVL goon arrives at your door with the police and with a warrant, not a search order which someone had posted earlier, I have seen a copy of someone else's which states its a warrant and stamped by a judge at a magistrates court which gives them the power to enter your home.
What do you do ? You peacefully resist by stating "I do not give consent"
You should always say "I'm not obliged to answer any of your questions"
You should then ask "Under what Authority and under what law are you Acting"
You should now know what Law he's acting which is an Act which is not common law, so you say "Acts are statutes which require the consent of the governed, in other words they need your consent.
At the end of the day the police officer is only there with the TVL to prevent breach of peace which is under common law.
Should the police Officer Arrest you under Obstructing an Officer in his Duty, you would ask "Duty to who ? because it isn't a Duty to the public so who is it to ?
I can't guarantee you would not be arrested but i've read and seen other cases where nothing as happened, the TVL have just left with no search. It's powerful stuff all this. the courts and police are all together as a profit money making corporations. Imagine if it become widely accepted by the courts, the police would lose their powers, the revenue would dry up. Its all about Status and keeping us all in check, so how do they do this ? buy taking away something which we deem valuable = money.
I do know of a case where a chief inspector as over ruled a statute law, it seems the higher the ranking the officer the more they know, it comes down to common sense.
I do believe something will give one day, everyone knows what's going on, politicians, police, judges ect.
Lol you are still talking utter nonsense.
The only reason it works is they do not force entry. As proved by a freedom of information act.
The police have nothing to do with it and as said are purely there for breech of the peace. It is down to tvl not the police on searching.
Not because of the utter rubbish you are posting.
Oh and it is a search warrant they turn up with.
I expect the reason they don't force entry s its utterly pointless. As you can legally own tv receiving devices without a license. So unless you happened to open the door and leave the tv on they gain nothing apart from PR nightmare.
You can even have a digi box attached and tuned in, as yu are allowed to view radio channels on a digibox with n o tv license.
The only reason it works is they do not force entry. As proved by a freedom of information act.
The police have nothing to do with it and as said are purely there for breech of the peace. It is down to tvl not the police on searching.
Not because of the utter rubbish you are posting.
Oh and it is a search warrant they turn up with.
I expect the reason they don't force entry s its utterly pointless. As you can legally own tv receiving devices without a license. So unless you happened to open the door and leave the tv on they gain nothing apart from PR nightmare.
You can even have a digi box attached and tuned in, as yu are allowed to view radio channels on a digibox with n o tv license.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 558
Believe what you want to believe Glaucus, I said it was a search warrant that they get, I did not say they use a search order, someone else said that.
it seems you are right.
and apparently the bbc are responsible for 12% of all criminal prosecutions in a year - crazy really. they should classify it differently and hand out a normal fine instead.
Associate
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 558
Were all adults and i'm sure we all have our views and opinions at the end of the day, I am just posting what i've witnessed and read which i've found quite interesting regarding how our society is changing. I'm not insane haha, wasn't it shakespear who said "the world is a stage" ?
Anyway i apologise for taking this thread off topic and if i've offended anyone, if a mod wants to delete my posts then that's fine.
Anyway i apologise for taking this thread off topic and if i've offended anyone, if a mod wants to delete my posts then that's fine.