GameBanshee Forums

Yeah, and the best thing, English parliament has the power to remove them.

They simply have to pass a bill, and *poof* no more free ride for them.

Tourism is the only thing that keeps them in their pretty palace for now.:laugh:

You're a good bloke Rav, don't let anyone tell you differently .

Fiona, how do you get threatening letters from tv companies?:speech:

[QUOTE=Fiona]Oooh I just got another threatening letter from the tv licensing people to add to my collection [/QUOTE]

I know someone who doesn't own a TV but still gets bothered by them.
They have difficulty believeing there's a house out there woithout a TV obviously.

[QUOTE=DJV]You're a good bloke Rav, don't let anyone tell you differently .[/QUOTE]

Um, thanks. I won't. :laugh:

Actually that Law would have to be motioned in the House of Commons then passed succesfully through the House of Lords. It'd have to go through that process a total of 4 times if the Lords fail it each time (which wouldn't surprise me) before it automatically became law. And of couse, there wouldn't be enough popular support for that...

I have not now, and have never had a television. But I get about 4 letters a year from them. This one is quite menacing.

"Our Enforcement Division has identified that there is no record of a TV Licence at your address, and that you may therfore be watching or recording television programme services without a valid licence. If this is the case, you are breaking the law

Enforcement Officers have been authorised by us to visit your address to interview you under caution in compliance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984" etc etc

*trembles*

Yep, sounds exactly what my mum's boyfriend goes through. He just ignores all the threatening letters from them and the council though.
Tell them to pay a visit, to see in person that you don't have a TV or an aerial.

Certainly not, Ravager. It would only encourage them

@Rav: Yeah, but I wonder if it ever occurs to the royalty their inheiritance hangs by a thread. The most ironic thing would be that the Royalty would be the ones to sign themselves out .

@Fiona: Whoa, you've never had tv? And that letter is a load of rubbish. It's just amazing that they would be so concerned about one person supposedly 'watching/recording without a valid license', when there are so many more important things out there.

[QUOTE=dj_venom]And that letter is a load of rubbish. It's just amazing that they would be so concerned about one person supposedly 'watching/recording without a valid license', when there are so many more important things out there.[/QUOTE]

They act on the principle that houses without a license ahould have one rather than saying that houses without licenses don't have TVs. So, they just go after every house that doesn't have a TV license regardless of there being a TV or not.

@Fiona, just ignore the letters then or call them. *shrugs*

I'm not sure if we have that here, I have never heard of it before...

DJ. I know it is rubbish, but it a threatening letter and it really annoys me they should send that type of stuff out without any evidence whatsoever. This is the first time they have actually referred to a piece of legislation and I will check that out. I am fairly confident they have no right to enter my house or to interview me without consent, so it is really just demanding money with menaces. I think they should be prosecuted since their intention is obviously to alarm me and they have no reasonable basis for doing that. I can imagine some people would be very anxious to receive such a letter.

@ Rav. I have been ignoring them for a very long time. It is a loop, where they send a series of about 4 different threatening letters a year, so far as I can see. Waste of money and although you can shrug it off, it is an infringement of basic rights. What happened to innocent till proved guilty? What happened to "prima facie case to answer"?

No I will not call them or contact them, it is a waste of my time and money. And I would love to see how much this crap costs.

@DJV, You don't have TV licenses?
I know quite a lot of the fee is where the BBC gets money from, seeing as they have advertisements like other channels do...

@Fiona, that's what they do to everyone, from what I understand. It's their policy.
But if people do sue them and force them to change their ways that'd be welcome.

I suppose a lot of it is simply using bully tactics. By all means Fiona, fight them all the way. I highly doubt they have a right to threaten you.

@Rav: Oh, wait, do you mean paying for tv?

Ours is free to air, in that you simply need an aerial, and you can view it... or maybe I just don't know much on the subject. I'll have a quick look now.

I'd love to test it in court. Sadly I cant afford to do that. I suspect they don't do this to rich people or someone would have sued them by now

[QUOTE=dj_venom]Oh, wait, do you mean paying for tv?[/QUOTE]

No, you don't just pay for the hardware here, you pay for the right to view the 'free' channels too. Free as in, you don't pay an extra charge on top.

@Fiona, I'll see what my mum's boyfriend did, but I suspect he just ignores them. He's stubborn like that.

As I said, Rav, I have been ignoring them for ages. I'm stubborn like that too. But I'd rather be in a position to sue, and stop them doing it.

What next? "We note you do not have a conviction for burglary, unlike x% of the people who live in your street. We have authorised our officers to come and interview you under caution......."?

@Fiona: That's the problem, it's just so expensive to do that, and it's really not worth it.

I say just sit it out, maybe sooner or later they'll lose interest.

@Rav: Nope, we get it free. How often do you need to pay for it?

DJ. The TV licence is bought yearly. It is in place because the BBC is a public service broadcasting corporation and it is not funded by advertising. This is in lieu of advertising revenue. I happen to believe it is a very good system since it means there are no adverts and it also means that the corporation can make relatively free choices about programming. The system is under serious threat now, as the other channels are crying foul about the licence fee. The bbc itself ( I do listen to the radio, which attracts no licence fee for some reason) is softening us up for the introduction of adverts by advertising itself very regularly now (trailers for programmes etc). The public still value and trust the BBC so the last time it was reviewed the fee was kept,but it will be reviewed again in (I think) three years: that dog will continue to return to its vomit till the system is changed IMO. There has been good public defence because people do feel a certain ownership of the corporation, but as with many other things, continual nagging will eventually erode that, probably

Oh, for a public broadcasting company.

We have that, ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation), and I just remembered... we do pay for that. Sort of. I think we pay it as part of our taxes, and in return, there are no ads on it, and stuff. There are some good shows on it too, the only one you two might know is Little Britain (which is a brilliant show, if you haven't seen it, I urge you to).

Er.....DJ, this whole conversation started because I don't have a TV :laugh:

Lol :laugh: .

Sorry about that, completely slipped my mind.

Well Rav might know it in that case.

Just had my hair cut, but I'm back again...

I heard the story of what my mum's boyfriend went through then...
He got the threatening letters, other ones sent by Recorded Delivery and left at a sorting office that he didn't bvother to go and collect. Apparently he had bailiffs turn up a couple of times (though he was never there when they turned up), though obviously there was no TV to collect and he even had a court order and went to the CAB, though he didn't get the chance to go to court.

Of course, he didn't actually go to court, the Citizen's Advice Bureau got them off his back.
And he didn't tell the TV licensing people he didn't have a TV as he resented the opinion they seemed to have that he was swindling society.