you need a bbc tv licence after midnight again

[HawkEye244]

I can assure you that I've read every single word of your comments. In fact I've scrutinised them looking for some evidence to support your assertion.
I've found none.
Refusing to cooperate, with legitimate requests, is not a sound defence, and I wouldn't advise anyone to pursue it with a vengeance.

If you want to see countless examples of where people have avoided punitive fines or avoided being scammed into buying such a thing as a tv licence there are many countless examples of this online. You won't see this documented anywhere offical of course. Likewise there are countless articles (fear porn already posted by himaginn) who do fall foul of the legislation and get caught out, this is because they don't know their rights, people like you. It is not because the methods of prosecution are infallible, in fact the exact opposite. It is because people do not know their rights, they are decieved into thinking they can't withdrawn their consent. The question to your answer then depends on who you ask and where their interests lie.

 

[Himaginn]

If you want to see countless examples of where people have avoided punitive fines or avoided being scammed into buying such a thing as a tv licence there are many countless examples of this online. You won't see this documented anywhere offical of course.

If it's available online, then that is a kind of documentation. Please provide links to such online evidence, which you have seen that confirms your theory.
Youtube videos of doorstep altercations is not the entire story, only the beginning.

It is because people do not know their rights, they are decieved into thinking they can't withdrawn their consent.

Individuals do not give individual consent to be governed by consent. It is a theoretical political philosophy.
No-one has ever explicitly consented to be governed, or to abide by the law. Therefore you can not withdraw that which you have never given.
Laws are imposed by the representatives (MPs, judges, etc) of the people. We can, as individuals withdraw our vote against those representatives, as long as we inherently consent to the democratic nature of our society. By voting, we are inherently consenting to the democratic process. By refusing to vote we are also implicitly consenting to the democratic nature of our society, because voting is an optional process.

To withdraw entirely from that democratic process, one declares anarchy. In which case you are refuting all the democratic processes, and refusing to recognise all and any laws created by that democratic process.
Anarchists can not pick and choose which laws they will accept and which they will reject.

 

[HawkEye244]

If it's available online, then that is a kind of documentation. Please provide links to such online evidence, which you have seen that confirms your theory.
Youtube videos of doorstep altercations is not the entire story, only the beginning.


Individuals do not give individual consent to be governed by consent. It is a theoretical political philosophy.
No-one has ever explicitly consented to be governed, or to abide by the law. Therefore you can not withdraw that which you have never given.
Laws are imposed by the representatives (MPs, judges, etc) of the people. We can, as individuals withdraw our vote against those representatives, as long as we inherently consent to the democratic nature of our society. By voting, we are inherently consenting to the democratic process. By refusing to vote we are also implicitly consenting to the democratic nature of our society, because voting is an optional process.

To withdraw entirely from that democratic process, one declares anarchy. In which case you are refuting all the democratic processes, and refusing to recognise all and any laws created by that democratic process.
Anarchists can not pick and choose which laws they will accept and which they will reject.

You are a boring troll

 

[Himaginn]

There's no need for abuse, it's been a polite and respectful discussion, and I thank you for that. There aren't many around.

You are a boring troll

 

[mikeey84]

If you are trying to convince people here then you need to do better than quoting links from government websites and calling it evidence. It doesn't matter what value you place in the intepretation of something by the state.
You are going to keep creating strawmen to try and exacerbate and derail what I'm saying. You can have the last word if it makes a difference to you. It's not going to change anything of what I think and what I've said. You can keep coming out with all that fear porn rhetoric, I've completely debunked it via stating that zero communication works, and you continually disregard this which makes me think your purpose in talking to me is to spread disinformation. Don't pretend as though you care about people being prosecuted over x,y,z. As I said zero communication means zero communication, that is all the evidence you need. It works everytime. If you choose to disregard this then you do that. You are not listening to a single word I say and I think that's on purpose

This reminds me of arguments used by anti vaxxers. They critisise large scientific epidemiological studies that prove MMR doesn't cause autism, then try and provide links to random studies that look at very specific molecular interactions and extrapolate out to "prove" their point.

Whist the legal system in this country is complicated, I have yet to see you provide any proof that failure to pay a tv liscence isnt an offence under section 363 of the communications act 2003. Because magistrates seem to think it is

 

[Himaginn]

Whist the legal system in this country is complicated, I have yet to see you provide any proof that failure... under section 363 of the combinations act 2003.

OOOOh, that one looks complicated!

 

[mikeey84]

OOOOh, that one looks complicated!

It's what happens when you mix all the acts together. Death by dangerous theft and the like

 

[noseall]

So if Hawkbrains' theory is correct, that means anyone can avoid any prosecution if you refrain from declaring who you are? Correct?

This gonna be ground-breaking news for all the defence solicitors out there who are about to become bankrupt due to the fact that you can avoid prosecution by simply not telling them your name.
Any more priceless nuggets eh bud?

You couldn't make it up!

 

[HawkEye244]

So if Hawkbrains' theory is correct, that means anyone can avoid any prosecution if you refrain from declaring who you are? Correct?

This gonna be ground-breaking news for all the defence solicitors out there who are about to become bankrupt due to the fact that you can avoid prosecution by simply not telling them your name.
Any more priceless nuggets eh bud?

You couldn't make it up!

 

[EFLImpudence]

I think the matter could be clarified.

I have spoken to the licence people at the entrance to a block of flats where I was working in one of them.
I told them there was no tenant nor TV in the flat. He said "Could he come in to verify?" I replied "You do not need to verify; I have just told you." He eventually went away. The letters kept coming addressed to the occupant.

When the TV licence people knock on the door, they tell you that their records show that this address does not have a licence.
They do not ask to speak to Mr.Whoever.
If you tell them your name and still do not buy a licence, I presume you will get a summons to go to court.

If you do NOT tell them your name - what happens next?

Do you get a summons addressed to the occupier? Obviously not.
Do you get the TV people with the police and a warrant to determine who lives there? Presumably not.

So, what happens next. Nothing ???

 

[HawkEye244]

I think the matter could be clarified.

I have spoken to the licence people at the entrance to a block of flats where I was working in one of them.
I told them there was no tenant nor TV in the flat. He said "Could he come in to verify?" I replied "You do not need to verify; I have just told you." He eventually went away. The letters kept coming addressed to the occupant.

When the TV licence people knock on the door, they tell you that their records show that this address does not have a licence.
They do not ask to speak to Mr.Whoever.
If you tell them your name and still do not buy a licence, I presume you will get a summons to go to court.

If you do NOT tell them your name - what happens next?

Do you get a summons addressed to the occupier? Obviously not.
Do you get the TV people with the police and a warrant to determine who lives there? Presumably not.

So, what happens next. Nothing ???

You get letter after letter from their threat-o-gram machine addressed to the occupier. The occasional card gets put through your letter box. That's it. You don't read them you bin them - make sure it goes into the green bin. I've not paid a tv licence ever.You are correct in what you say, nothing will happen...

They are proforma threat letters from a machine, they are not written by a person each time. People who get them though get scared and think it is ''we are opening an investigation'' lmao.. it's just a standardised threat letter, they have dozens and dozens of differently worded ones sitting on a computer to be printed off, just bin them all.

There are people that have never paid a licence it isn't a big deal to them. It's not acknowledged, it's not important. Waking people up to this though is like drawing blood from stone.

Just to give you a little more background information. Of those videos I linked to youtube both of those are where tv licensing in desperation have phoned the police to assist them into intimidating an occupier and it works because a normal law abiding person gets one look of the police and thinks they must do what they are told. Ahhh, but the police are peace keepers they cannot assist tv licensing, they must act impartially, their role is to keep the peace, nothing more. Anything other than this and the conduct is unlawful. As you see per the video the occupier is perfectly within his right to withdrawn consent and not answer questions, he could have stayed silent completely.

Here's another thing, the warrants they say they have are not warrants they are just printed off their office computers, and they lie to the police and say they are warrants in order to get assistance and get the occupier to open the door. Once inside they then start the intimidation that the occupier must comply or be arrested.. It's basically extortion. The police do not have proper training in law, they see a badge and they hear a name of a big company and they go along with it but it's a fake warrant and they are being lied to and used... Now,,.. if the occupier opens the door and let's them in they still have to get a name from the occupier and fill out a form (see video) and get the occupier to sign it.. all this is getting written aggreement to be taken to court.. BECAUSE CONSENT IS NEEDED. It's not a law you see... They are powerless unless you comply. The police can do nothing. The police cannot force a name from anyone because it's a civil matter, not criminal. So you see there's your answer. You ignore them. You don't talk to them ever, they are beaten, and you win

These door step altercations are few and far between, they are rare because of the resources they require and usually they occur because the occupier has already been stupid enough to give background information to tv licensing thinking it will get rid of them, when in fact it just gets used against them. If you are old or you are a single mother they will escalate intimidation as these people are an easy target, as I say the company preys on people it can to make money for itself. Absolute scum. Most people employed by tv licensing are poor, uneducated types, the money is shyte, they work on a ratchet (commission based system). If they can get people to buy a license they make a bit of money for themselves, no different to your average sales person. Most won't bother and just go around with a little hand held data compiler or are sent out to put cards through letter boxes for 20 pence a time.

 

[noseall]

Do you get the TV people with the police and a warrant to determine who lives there? Presumably not.

So, what happens next. Nothing ???

I would imagine that it's the same people who are using the electric, gas, telephone and internet are using the BBC, at said address?

 

[HawkEye244]

I would imagine that it's the same people who are using the electric, gas, telephone and internet are using the BBC, at said address?

You really have the intelligence of a pork scratching.

A person paying a bill is not in any way related to a person that uses a television to watch live broadcasts. This is why their warrants don't exist, because in order to get the evidence to get the court warrant granted they need to get the occupier/person to admit to watching television illegally, and the only way they can do that is by tricking them into signing a liability form and taking them to court. Even with just a name they cannot be taken to court.. no judge would stamp a warrant with no evidence unless through perjury (lying about having evidence) and this can happen as well. The payer of electric, gas, telephone, etc etc etc is completely irrelevant. You are dumb.

 

[noseall]

My point is that although it is my guests (children, wife, house guests etc) watching the tele, it's me who has to pay.

 

[HawkEye244]

I'm not a precious snowflake I can live with the worry of not having a tv licence. If you can't live with the worry of having your bird and kids potentially answer the door to someone weilding a clipboard then you have no option but to pay.

If you are already paying and want to stop paying you phone them and say I no longer live at the address from such and such a date, pay the remainder and then they will start sending the generic printed letters to ''the occupier'' again, which you ignore for life, and as your name is then off their system there's **** all they can do. Tell your bird and kids not to talk to salesmen and shut the door on them, what's hard to understand about that.

I've never even had a person knock on the door thinking about it.. I get those ''we called today'' little leaflets they put through at 20 pence a time every few months.. they are paid to go door to door canvassing for sales, it's not as though you need to hide in your burrow waiting for friar tuck to visit Besides the ''we called'' leaflets I get probably 12-15 letters addressed to the occupier begging for money every year. Use it for toilet paper or as kindling or whatever. If you want to have a bit of fun you could give them a false name, give them the name of a old pet like a dog or goldish, return to sender the begging letters with an argos magazine selotaped to them so they pay for the weight of the package. It's your right to say no. No law. Nothing. Just you and your right to say no. It's a private company for fuk sake.