Quote:
Originally Posted by Qtx
No it's not. It's the complete opposite. If that was the case they would send everyone to court to prove their innocence. Instead the onus is on them to proof the home owner is watching tv illegaly before they can proceed.
That is why the tv licence people can do bugger all if you don't let them in, as they can't prove you are watching tv illegally or not. The burden of proof is clearly on their head.
Pretty much everyone who they have taken to court has been people who have admitted watching tv illegaly (often with some excuse which never actually matters) or has let them in to the house to look themselves.
.
|
Once it gets to court i agree that the burden of proof is on TVL but prior to that i would assume that it's up to the householder to show they don't need one .
Quote:
|
They shouldn't be allowed to harass those who don't need a licence though. Yet they do. You shouldn't have to let strangers in to your house to satisfy their wrong assumptions
|
That's the issue right there ,people claim they don't need a licence ,they refuse to provide evidence to back up their claim and then get all offended and persecuted when TVL pay a visit to check on the claim that they don't need a licence .Whether the burden of proof is on the homeowner or TVL doesn't really matter imo ,i would be happy to prove that i don't need one if that was genuinely the case ,only those trying to get a freebie kick up a fuss imo