TV Licence Super Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ken
  • Start date Start date
casper_uk said:
The guy actually didn't do the right thing, and can easily finds him self arrested for not complying with the warrant. Go look up the black belt barrister video. The cop was there to keep the peace and ensure the warrant was executed, something he attempted to do a number of times by trying to get the guy to go inside. Outside his remit and no clue of the law? Seriously? The warrant was valid and it's only because crapita have a policy to remove them self and not cause a scene, that the guy wasn't placed under arrest! I completely hate the idea of a TV license etc, but the law is the law (it needs to change).

Click to expand...

Grow up for heavan,s sake man :(
 
One 48 said:
What planet are you on Pottsey?

What I see are some thugs from Capita with a rent a thug big bloke with folded arms in the background looking for trouble where there is clearly none. VERY VERY Intimidating.

The Cop that seems over eager to be a third party neutral person makes several attempts to try walk into the guys property, way and above his remit and a clue of the law.

There is so much wrong in this video and as for the Capita bullys sarcasm ... "oh it was Youtube" dripping with sarcasm comment :( I hope he gets sacked.

The guy did the right thing and was very polite and more or less told them to go away and take him to court, he's done nothing wrong. I hope he takes them to the cleaners.

Its a sad state of affairs when capita resort to this, Rent a thugs like the knuckledragger and young Policeman in this video only dimlly aware of the law as regards Tv Licensing but determined to gain entry too.

Now imagine this same scenario, and probably their next port of call, because thats what these thugs do, but to some old lady, or a mentally ill person with no wits about them.

This makes me sick, seriously and also anyone that defends this outdated nonsense :(
Click to expand...
While I dislike the TV people as much as anyone in this case from a law point of view the guy who owned the property is in the wrong. The warrant was legal and valid, passed over to him correctly. So the police and TV people do not need his permission to enter the property. The entire point of that warrant is they can walk in without his permission. By refusing entry the guy has commented an offense and is going to be in trouble when this goes to court for not complying with the warrant.

While Capita are bully’s the guy who refused entry 100% did not do the right thing. He made a lot of serious mistakes that he is likely going to have to pay for rather then as you say take them to the cleaners. In this case Capita and the police did the right thing from the point of view of the law and the guy owning the property is in the wrong.

I am all for refusing entry when it is the right and legal thing to do, in fact its what I recommend never let Capita in your home when it is legal to refuse them. But in this case refusing entry is 100% the wrong thing to do.
 
Last edited:
Darujhistan said:
I don't see why anyone owning a TV should (more or less) should be forced to pay for govt and tory party propaganda while also having to subsidise the BBC's sickening royal sycophancy.
Click to expand...

The entire system is out of date. It was first thought up when there were limited channels and could safely be assumed that if you had a TV then you were most likely watching the BBC. And that wasn't really a bad assumption, since the BBC provided most of what was available in the UK to watch. Times have changed, though, and now the BBC only makes a tiny percentage of what people watch, and it is no longer safe to assume that people watching live TV ever watch anything from the BBC.
Typical government, it should have been changed years ago, but they just kick the can down the road. The BBC should have been cut free from the licence system twenty years ago.
 
Last edited:
SpellowHouse said:
The entire system is out of date. It was first thought up when there were limited channels and could safely be assumed that if you had a TV then you were most likely watching the BBC. And that wasn't really a bad assumption, since the BBC provided most of what was available in the UK to watch. Times have changed, though, and now the BBC only makes a tiny percentage of what people watch, and it is no longer safe to assume that people watching live TV ever watch anything from the BBC.
Typical government, it should have been changed years ago, but they just kick the can down the road. The BBC should have been cut free from the licence system twenty years ago.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and neither should tax-payers money be used to fund political propaganda, the BBC lost any semblance of impartiality years ago, as well as it's current affairs/news output clearly being run by tory party HQ, it took clearly biased lines on both Brexit and Scottish Independence.

And of course people get their "content" from endless sources now, in particular young people and this is clearly going to be an ever increasing trend, nevermind the BBC, SKY's model is also looking very outdated now.
 
One 48 said:
Grow up for heavan,s sake man :(
Click to expand...
A quality, well thought out and reasonable response to being proven that the guy was legally in the wrong, and at risk of arrest for breaking the law. Thanks :p

Pottsey said:
While I dislike the TV people as much as anyone in this case from a law point of view the guy who owned the property is in the wrong. The warrant was legal and valid, passed over to him correctly. So the police and TV people do not need his permission to enter the property. The entire point of that warrant is they can walk in without his permission. By refusing entry the guy has commented an offense and is going to be in trouble when this goes to court for not complying with the warrant.

While Capita are bully’s the guy who refused entry 100% did not do the right thing. He made a lot of serious mistakes that he is likely going to have to pay for rather then as you say take them to the cleaners. In this case Capita and the police did the right thing from the point of view of the law and the guy owning the property is in the wrong.

I am all for refusing entry when it is the right and legal thing to do, in fact its what I recommend never let Capita in your home when it is legal to refuse them. But in this case refusing entry is 100% the wrong thing to do.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't waste your time Pottsey, I don't think One 48 is interesting in facts here :)
 
the shadow said:
www.dailymail.co.uk

BBC announces more support for people struggling to pay licence fee

The support plan aims to reduce the number of women who are prosecuted for licence fee evasion following the BBC's gender disparity review.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
Click to expand...

The government needs to stop kicking the ball down the road and abolish the licence fee. Phase it out over the next ten years. Reduce the fee by £16 a year. Tell the BBC to go earn money itself.
It is absolutely ridiculous that people who rarely even use the service are having to put up with this outdated licence. It should have been stopped thirty years ago, but the government indecision and ineptitude just let it drag on and on.
I might add that there is absolutely no way that anyone would pay £160 a year for the service they offer. They need to get real.
 
Last edited:
www.thetimes.co.uk

BBC editor ‘ordered colleague not to investigate’ £350m Brexit claim

Sir Robbie Gibb, a BBC board member, ordered a news chief not to interrogate Vote Leave’s £350 million Brexit bus campaign after the referendum, a book has clai
www.thetimes.co.uk www.thetimes.co.uk
Sir Robbie Gibb, a BBC board member, ordered a news chief not to interrogate Vote Leave’s £350 million Brexit bus campaign after the referendum, a book has claimed.

Gibb, who was editor of live political programmes in 2016 and went on to work for Theresa May in No 10, was “horrified” by the idea of putting the controversial claim under the microscope, according to Rob Burley, a former BBC editor.

In Why Is This Lying B****** Lying To Me?, which is published this week, Burley, who was editor of The Andrew Marr Show at the time, said that Gibb pushed back against his ambition to investigate for fear of making the BBC look like sore losers.
.....
Gibb was believed to be the subject of claims by Emily Maitlis, the former Newsnight presenter, that an “active agent” of the Tory party sat on the BBC’s board and was involved in decisions on impartiality. She referred to the person as a “former Downing Street spin doctor and former adviser to BBC rival GB News”.
Click to expand...
 
throwaway4372 said:
It's more women because the enforcers are thugs. Men tell them to do one, women don't dare so just pay.
Click to expand...
My mum phoned me this week to ask about licensing policy because her neighbour (a woman) has apparently been called by "the BBC" and told she's being tracked watching BBC channels. Absolutely bullying and lies.

Now actually she does watch live TV and occasionally iPlayer so is liable for a TV license. But the tactics of Capita, claiming they're monitoring her when clearly they're just chancers, are atrocious.
 
Last edited:
SpellowHouse said:
The government needs to stop kicking the ball down the road and abolish the licence fee. Phase it out over the next ten years. Reduce the fee by £16 a year. Tell the BBC to go earn money itself.
It is absolutely ridiculous that people who rarely even use the service are having to put up with this outdated licence. It should have been stopped thirty years ago, but the government indecision and ineptitude just let it drag on and on.
I might add that there is absolutely no way that anyone would pay £160 a year for the service they offer. They need to get real.
Click to expand...

Yeah but lets be honest. Its an Pensioner and Boomers tax, they dont try to find alternative ways of watching TV because that's all they know.

Until both generations die out the Government will continue to profit from it.
 
MissChief said:
That may be true but the government doesn't 'profit', all TV licence revenue is dispersed to the BBC and other entities thst receive a small portion. None goes into the Treasury coffers.
Click to expand...
Not to mention gov money going to the BBC. So while they may "benefit" if (if!) you consider the BBC as serving their agenda, it's not profit. The BBC is still a gov expense that arguably serves the public.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom