TV Licence Super Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ken
  • Start date Start date
I got a letter from TV licensing at my workplace.

"Your premises are being investigated,..
Why let a prosecution damage your business reputation"

Its automated because no human would send that letter if you know where i work basically.. So they basically got a list of businesses addresses in central London and spammed all of them without a license.
 
I got a letter from TV licensing at my workplace.

"Your premises are being investigated,..
Why let a prosecution damage your business reputation"

Its automated because no human would send that letter if you know where i work basically.. So they basically got a list of businesses addresses in central London and spammed all of them without a license.

That’s why a lot of people just bin them it will be all automated.
 
“Well it must be. The majority of people don’t get a problem it’s a select few who do.”
Then how do you explain the 50,000 ish people year in year out who win at court every year against them? How do you explain the large amount of people that have ended up taken them to court over harassment and won? If the majority of people don’t get a problem how come there is so much evidence for large amounts of people having problems? How do you explain those large numbers?


“There’s no false information. You lot just watch live tv and trying to avoid them.
You just keep denying them access, binning the letters and stuff. It’s not a problem to me”
Which is false information and a flat out lie by you and you know it’s a lie. I have never owned a TV in my life and I have never had a TV in my house ever. Nor do I watch live TV. I filled out the form, I let them have access in the past which was a massive mistake. Only naive people give them access.

This isn’t about you and how naïve you are or how often you lie. This is about correcting your false information so people don’t take your terrible advice that gets people into trouble.

I ran into the same type of problems that happened in the well-known case between Docter Mr Shakespeare a well documented case so you cannot pretend it didn't happen. Like myself he let them in. He filled out the form. Then the inspector used a fake video and a fake screenshot and took him to court. Luckily like myself he had installed CCTV and had filmed the entire event to prove they faked the evidence. But without the filming he would have lost the court case and the fake evidence wouldn’t have been disproved.

This is not an isolated event it’s been widespread reported. YouTube is full of videos like this and I have experienced it directly myself.

Its not a minority its something like 50,000+ people a year and those are the people like me who are prepared and have evidence against them. God knows what we would have done without CCTV to prove they faked everything. Yet naïve people blindly let them in.


“Enjoy your red letter day”
I am starting to think not only are you very naïve but you have some sort of memory problem. I don't mean that in an offensive way its just you know I don’t get red letters as legally they are not allowed too anymore. Yet you keep forgetting over and over again.
 
Yet you keep forgetting over and over again.

I don't keep forgetting over and over I know what I have said in this thread ;)

Luckily like myself he had installed CCTV and had filmed the entire event to prove they faked the evidence. But without the filming he would have lost the court case and the fake evidence wouldn’t have been disproved.

So you beat them then - that's good. Win/Win for you.

Then how do you explain the 50,000 ish people year in year out who win at court every year against them? How do you explain the large amount of people that have ended up taken them to court over harassment and won? If the majority of people don’t get a problem how come there is so much evidence for large amounts of people having problems? How do you explain those large numbers?

That's tiny compared to how many people are in the UK.
 
Last edited:
I doubt the numbers are 50k court summons and they have lost them all. They wouldn't bring the cases unless they thought they had solid evidence and a good chance of winning.

Just checked and while 13% of all. magistrates court cases were for TV Licence evasion, 193,000 people in 2012. 85% were found guilty. 144,750 people.

A further article on thisismoney.Co.uk suggested 49,144 cases were brought by TV licensing in 2021. 92% were convicted, although for some it was more an honest mistake than wilful non-payment.

It still makes your claim of '50k cases won' nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Also lol @ the audacity of giving us all a lecture on TV licenses and inspectors, whilst at the same time previously admitting to letting them in to perform an inspection :D
 
Then how do you explain the 50,000 ish people year in year out who win at court every year against them? How do you explain the large amount of people that have ended up taken them to court over harassment and won? If the majority of people don’t get a problem how come there is so much evidence for large amounts of people having problems? How do you explain those large numbers?
14th March 2023

BBC TV licence evasion is on the rise as new figures reveal nearly 2,000 people are convicted for the crime each week in England and Wales. The BBC estimates that nearly one in ten people (9%) who need a TV licence didn’t have one in the year ending March 2022, nearly double the rate seen just seven years before.


That's some stats....
 
Also lol @ the audacity of giving us all a lecture on TV licenses and inspectors, whilst at the same time previously admitting to letting them in to perform an inspection :D

I'm not giving a lecture. :p You do what you like, I do what I like.

EDIT: oh you didn't mean me? :D

EDIT: Listen - I'm not disputing that some of you have had a bad experience and continue to get problems. It's a fraction of a % of the full UK that don't get problems. It will be all down to the inspector who does the check at the end of the day. There are people who are close to me who have been inspected with no problems what so ever but acording to some users in here there are endless of problems.

We can say that about every company in the world - some people get problems and some don't at the end of the day it's up to the individual what they do to make it right.
 
Last edited:
If you have ignored online forms or letters and subsequently shown to be using Iplayer/live-stream via your IP address/4Gservice (w/ fingerprinting to look through vpn use too) -
won't have any plausible deniability in court - & backdate the fees you owe .
How can inspecting VPN traffic tell the difference between a live stream and a pre-recorded stream ? It's identical streaming content, the only difference is whether the data is pulled from storage or generated on the fly.
 
I doubt the numbers are 50k court summons and they have lost them all. They wouldn't bring the cases unless they thought they had solid evidence and a good chance of winning.

Just checked and while 13% of all. magistrates court cases were for TV Licence evasion, 193,000 people in 2012. 85% were found guilty. 144,750 people.
It still makes your claim of '50k cases won' nonsense.
I never said they lost them all and your own numbers show in that data 48,250 won and where found not guilty. Yet I am speaking nonsense according to you in saying 50k ish won. 48k is close enough to 50k ish to me. As for my year in year out comment I didn't look at more recent data which I assume was a massive drop off over the COVID years. I did my research when I had my own problems all those years ago so my viewpoint was based on that timeframe.

I wonder how many where not guilty but couldn't prove it as they didn't film the encounter so couldn't counter the evidence submitted by the TV licence people. That's why I strongly recommend you never let them in and if you must let them in film everything and keep the evidence. They have used fake screenshots before and it can happen again. Due to my own experience and seeing what happened to other people I strongly say the best action is to not let them in and protect yourself even if you are correctly not watching live TV and correctly do not have a licence. I learnt the hard way about what can happen when you naively let them in to look around as you are doing nothing wrong. Protect yourself or you could find out suddenly you are placed in the 193k number instead of the 50k number who managed to win and be found not guilty.

Like I said before I was ok for the first few years it was around year 5 ish that they changed tactics on me. Don't assume just because you have been fine you will remain being fine.
 
Last edited:
How can inspecting VPN traffic tell the difference between a live stream and a pre-recorded stream ? It's identical streaming content, the only difference is whether the data is pulled from storage or generated on the fly.
I'd think live stream packet data headers and checksums enable them to be distinguished from pre-recorded ie. stream is different(perhaps fingerprinted/watermarked)

It is interesting , why if some of those prosecutions were using evidence from ip/4g providers, that that is not seemingly acknowledged by license service, or reporting on court hearings.
(at least it would make the technologically aware % of the population more cautious)
BBC seem to have upped their game for VPN detection&blocking from recent reports
 
14th March 2023

BBC TV licence evasion is on the rise as new figures reveal nearly 2,000 people are convicted for the crime each week in England and Wales. The BBC estimates that nearly one in ten people (9%) who need a TV licence didn’t have one in the year ending March 2022, nearly double the rate seen just seven years before.


That's some stats....
Thanks for the link. It proves what a lot of us have been saying. The news article highlights that a disproportionate number of women and vulnerable people are prosecuted because they happen to be at home during the visit. So if you are not at home or don't engage with them then your chances of a prosecution are lower. It also explains that a lot of the convictions are through the Single Justice Procedure (which I wasn't even aware of until this article) where a single judge can decide on guilt without representation from the defendant. So if the defendant is too overwhelmed to ask to represent themselves and cannot afford legal assistance, as in the case of the unexpectedly large number of vulnerable people already highlighted, then a judge would decide on guilt based solely on the statement from the private contractor who gains financially for trying to sell you a licence.

Yes most of these prosecutions will be genuine where people have evaded a licence. But there will almost certainly be a number of people falsely convicted because of incorrect "evidence" or made up statements by the private contractor.

This is strong supporting evidence that where someone doesn't need a licence then the best course of action is to close the door, not engage with them and not to respond to any communication. Without engagement there is no possibility of a misunderstanding or false information being presented at a Single Justice Procedure.
 
Last edited:
The article stresses that poor/vulnerable etc people should be spared.

That would follow they they would like to put it into general tax with poorer people getting it for free. By default that would have to mean richer people pay more.

Which would mean it would no doubt be bundled into CT.
 
How can inspecting VPN traffic tell the difference between a live stream and a pre-recorded stream ? It's identical streaming content, the only difference is whether the data is pulled from storage or generated on the fly.

I'd think live stream packet data headers and checksums enable them to be distinguished from pre-recorded ie. stream is different(perhaps fingerprinted/watermarked)

Data packet headers encrypted over a VPN will be meaningless.
 
If you have ignored online forms or letters and subsequently shown to be using Iplayer/live-stream via your IP address/4Gservice (w/ fingerprinting to look through vpn use too) -
won't have any plausible deniability in court - & backdate the fees you owe .
Have you got reliable sources that you can post to back this claim up, especially around "fingerprinting" VPN services? Thanks :)
 
Back
Top Bottom