TV licence non payment could be made a civil offence

Originally Posted by Qtx

The overwhelming conclusion is that the BBC through capita are harassing people that don't need a licence, on a monthly basis.

the burden of proof is on the person claiming they do not need a licence so it is to be expected that someone will knock on your door or "harass" you as you put it .I should point out that i am in favour of treating non payment as a civil matter ,similar to that of a parking fine

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by martyh

the burden of proof is on the person claiming they do not need a licence

I think you are getting your opinion mixed up with the law!

I have no reason to let anyone into my house to have a look around unless they have a search warrant.

Originally Posted by Escapee

I think you are getting your opinion mixed up with the law!

I have no reason to let anyone into my house to have a look around unless they have a search warrant.

I didn't say you had to let anyone into your house ,i said the burden of proof is on people who claim they don't need a licence to show they don't need a licence .

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by martyh

I didn't say you had to let anyone into your house ,i said the burden of proof is on people who claim they don't need a licence to show they don't need a licence .

So, explain to me how I 'show' that I don't need a licence.

Originally Posted by Escapee

So, explain to me how I 'show' that I don't need a licence.

by allowing TVL enforcement into your house to see for themselves that you don't need one ,it really is that simple .Of course if you are so bloody minded as to not allow them into your house to check then any "harassment" you might get is your own fault .

[Qtx]

Originally Posted by martyh

the burden of proof is on the person claiming they do not need a licence

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.

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.

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by martyh

by allowing TVL enforcement into your house to see for themselves that you don't need one ,it really is that simple .Of course if you are so bloody minded as to not allow them into your house to check then any "harassment" you might get is your own fault .

But in your previous post you said I didn't have to let anyone into my house.

It's has nothing to do with being bloody minded, I don't let anyone into my property. There are no illegal activities going on inside my property but what activities and items that are is no business of anyone else. I will not have anyone looking around my property.

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 .

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

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by martyh

only those trying to get a freebie kick up a fuss imo

So I'm a liar who's getting live TV for free?

Originally Posted by Escapee

But in your previous post you said I didn't have to let anyone into my house.

It's has nothing to do with being bloody minded, I don't let anyone into my property. There are no illegal activities going on inside my property but what activities and items that are is no business of anyone else. I will not have anyone looking around my property.

If you claim you don't need a licence then it is perfectly understandable that someone will visit so that you can show them you don't need one .You don't have to let TVL into your house but surely you can see that it is in your own interests to prove to them that you don't need one because ultimately it will be a visit with a warrant and then there's sod all you can do about it ,so being all defensive about letting people onto your property is only going to cause you problems

---------- Post added at 22:51 ---------- Previous post was at 22:46 ----------

Originally Posted by Escapee

So I'm a liar who's getting live TV for free?

I don't know ,are you ?? .There are a few on here who have swore blind that they don't need a licence and then gone onto post in another thread about a favourite BBC program ,180,000 people per year are prosecuted in court for not having a TVL,400,000 per year are caught without one many of who claim they don't need one

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by martyh

If you claim you don't need a licence then it is perfectly understandable that someone will visit so that you can show them you don't need one .You don't have to let TVL into your house but surely you can see that it is in your own interests to prove to them that you don't need one because ultimately it will be a visit with a warrant and then there's sod all you can do about it ,so being all defensive about letting people onto your property is only going to cause you problems

TVL are not going to visit with a warrant, a court will only issue a warrant if they have a valid reason to believe I am watching TV without a licence. (Unless of course TVL lie to the court)

Saying there is sod all I can do is untrue, the only reason the police forced entry to my property last year was because I wasn't in. The police apparently had reasonable evidence (actually they had no doubt) that I was committing criminal activities, but they ended up with a lot of egg on their face and an officer was been transferred to other duties.

I don't have to prove to anyone I'm not breaking the law unless I'm arrested and charged for a crime.

TVL are unable to gain access onto my property if I am not here to open the gate, they can however post a letter into my outside postbox.

I take my privacy very seriously, as I said my activities are no business of anyone else.

---------- Post added at 23:03 ---------- Previous post was at 22:56 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

If you claim you don't need a licence then it is perfectly understandable that someone will visit so that you can show them you don't need one .You don't have to let TVL into your house but surely you can see that it is in your own interests to prove to them that you don't need one because ultimately it will be a visit with a warrant and then there's sod all you can do about it ,so being all defensive about letting people onto your property is only going to cause you problems

---------- Post added at 22:51 ---------- Previous post was at 22:46 ----------



I don't know ,are you ?? .There are a few on here who have swore blind that they don't need a licence and then gone onto post in another thread about a favourite BBC program ,180,000 people per year are prosecuted in court for not having a TVL,400,000 per year are caught without one many of who claim they don't need one

So, have I ever posted about a favourite BBC program?

I wonder how many times I have commented on recent TV programs. Even if I did, how would that mean I have means of watching TV at home?

My partner does have a TV at her house where I spend about half of my time. (I rarely watch TV when I'm there because it just doesn't interest me)

[Qtx]

Originally Posted by martyh

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 .

You are wrong. The householder doesn't need to prove they don't need one. They can slam the door on the TV inspector face if they want if the licence inspector has no proof. They have no legal right to enter your home and can only do so with your permission, no matter how scary they try and sound.

Only if they have reasonable evidence a crime is being committed may they enter your home with a police officer present. This rarely happens.

Therefore one has to assume that the burden of proof is on them to show you are committing a crime rather than harass people based on a computer generated list that doesnt know if they watch tv or not.

---------- Post added at 23:37 ---------- Previous post was at 23:32 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

There are a few on here who have swore blind that they don't need a licence and then gone onto post in another thread about a favourite BBC program

You can watch BBC programmes without needing a licence. You just cannot watch them live or record them live in a household without a tv licence. Watching those programmes at someone else's house or on a catchup service is perfectly legal and you don't need a licence for that.

More and more people are time-shifting their tv or doing without it completely. They are not all criminals.

Even the so called criminals should not be called criminals for simply not paying a company who broadcasts a signal in to their house without permission. Criminals tend to be people who go out of their way to do wrong, rather than doing nothing.

[papa smurf]

your trying to reason with someone who's brain is only wired to recognize one opinion [their own] ...

[rhyds]

Whenever I buy TV/AV equipment (even a DVD player in one instance) for cash (especially at the big chain stores) I'm asked for my postcode. I assume this is for the folk at TVL.

Well, there does seem to be a lot of kit bought for postcode W1A 1AA around here...

Originally Posted by Escapee

TVL are not going to visit with a warrant, a court will only issue a warrant if they have a valid reason to believe I am watching TV without a licence. (Unless of course TVL lie to the court)

Saying there is sod all I can do is untrue, the only reason the police forced entry to my property last year was because I wasn't in. The police apparently had reasonable evidence (actually they had no doubt) that I was committing criminal activities, but they ended up with a lot of egg on their face and an officer was been transferred to other duties.

I don't have to prove to anyone I'm not breaking the law unless I'm arrested and charged for a crime.

TVL are unable to gain access onto my property if I am not here to open the gate, they can however post a letter into my outside postbox.

I take my privacy very seriously, as I said my activities are no business of anyone else.

---------- Post added at 23:03 ---------- Previous post was at 22:56 ----------



So, have I ever posted about a favourite BBC program?

I wonder how many times I have commented on recent TV programs. Even if I did, how would that mean I have means of watching TV at home?

My partner does have a TV at her house where I spend about half of my time. (I rarely watch TV when I'm there because it just doesn't interest me)

All of this above just shows that your obstructive attitude is causing you problems ....more fool you

---------- Post added at 08:49 ---------- Previous post was at 08:40 ----------

Originally Posted by Qtx

You are wrong. The householder doesn't need to prove they don't need one. They can slam the door on the TV inspector face if they want if the licence inspector has no proof. They have no legal right to enter your home and can only do so with your permission, no matter how scary they try and sound.
.

It's in their own interest to show they don't need one ,the efforts people go to ,to avoid showing the TVL authorities they don't need a TVL is astounding .If they put as much effort into showing they are acting within the law and don't need a tvl they wouldn't have so many problems ,i have little sympathy for these people .

---------- Post added at 08:50 ---------- Previous post was at 08:49 ----------

Originally Posted by papa smurf

your trying to reason with someone who's brain is only wired to recognize one opinion [their own] ...

and your still being an A hole

still waiting for that apology by the way