Have you paid your TV Licence?

[PvtPyle]

This site makes for very interesting reading:

Linky

The guy raises an excellent point. Should you wish to stop using terrestrial free-to-air television, rather than show any measure of concern, the BBC and TVL are satisfied by simply threatening and harassing the general public into paying them more money. Which is rude.

[Belmit]

I assume that the purpose of such a statement is to alarm me, or perhaps embarrass me in front of the postman.

[PvtPyle]

I thought it was a nice touch comparing the letters he received to British Gas.

[BBx]

I hate licensing I think its completely ghey.

But of course I pay this one

We have one at work called the National Newspaper Licensing Agency. Which states that if we printout/photocopy any of the press that we have been in (written ourselves) and if it is printed in Trade Press or such like we have to pay for this licence.

What bit my bit (?! - whatever the phrase is ) is that they contacted us last year for indemity which over the last four years meant we had to pay for the reproduction.. which they cannot prove!!! Ridiculous.

Apols for the mini rant!

/waffle

BB x

[iCraig]

It's all just scare tactics and it isn't on. They bombard expired properties with demands for payment rather than ascertaining whether a license is in fact required. It's poor etiquette and is nothing short of harassment. When I move in to my flat, we're getting digital TV so we will be getting a license but before then my soon-to-be roommate has a single 15" CRT television. He watches no TV and can't get a signal if he tried. Roof aerial doesn't work and he doesn't own an indoor aerial. He uses it for his 360, nothing more. However he has been harassed non-stop for months. He's called them and explained that they can come and do all the checks they need, in order to confirm his TV isn't receiving a signal, yet they won't come over to him. They just send more letters, demanding the license fee, telling him that he's going to be taken to court and that he's breaking the law. He's had 22 letters so far this year from them, it's damn ridiculous and I believe he's currently researching on the best place to complain about it, because it simply is an attempt to acquire money by harassment at the end of the day.

[loki]

Originally Posted by iCraig

It's all just scare tactics and it isn't on. They bombard expired properties with demands for payment rather than ascertaining whether a license is in fact required. It's poor etiquette and is nothing short of harassment. When I move in to my flat, we're getting digital TV so we will be getting a license but before then my soon-to-be roommate has a single 15" CRT television. He watches no TV and can't get a signal if he tried. Roof aerial doesn't work and he doesn't own an indoor aerial. He uses it for his 360, nothing more. However he has been harassed non-stop for months. He's called them and explained that they can come and do all the checks they need, in order to confirm his TV isn't receiving a signal, yet they won't come over to him. They just send more letters, demanding the license fee, telling him that he's going to be taken to court and that he's breaking the law. He's had 22 letters so far this year from them, it's damn ridiculous and I believe he's currently researching on the best place to complain about it, because it simply is an attempt to acquire money by harassment at the end of the day.

Would the burden of proof be upon the TV licensing in this case or your friend ? I mean how on earth can he prove he doesn't watch TV without making a statement to that effect in good faith.

What really annoys me about the licensing fee is that it helps stifles better radio programming. iirc the BBC have about 80% of the available bandwidth for their FM broadcasts which makes it nigh on impossible for any other broadcaster to operate on a national basis

[iCraig]

Originally Posted by loki

Would the burden of proof be upon the TV licensing in this case or your friend ? I mean how on earth can he prove he doesn't watch TV without making a statement to that effect in good faith.

Well he's offered on more than one occasion for them to come around. He said, come over, any day, any time and run your tests. I have nothing to hide, but they just ignored that and carried on sending him letters. It shouldn't be up to him anyway to prove his TV is only used for X. It's down to them to prove it's being used for Y before they can take him to court over anything. Innocent until proven guilty, you don't ram him into court and go "Right, you're guilty of not paying your TV license. You now have the opportunity to prove your innocence. Begin!"

Until they have proof, they shouldn't go around threatening and harassing people.

[PvtPyle]

Originally Posted by iCraig

Innocent until proven guilty, you don't ram him into court and go "Right, you're guilty of not paying your TV license. You now have the opportunity to prove your innocence. Begin!"

Interestingly, and on a side note, I believe this is how the legal system in Japan works. The accused is presumed guilty unless he can prove himself innocent.

[Treefrog]

Originally Posted by iCraig

Until they have proof, they shouldn't go around threatening and harassing people.

Agreed. But as the letters are just worded to sound intimidating rather than actually accusing they are underhanded but not illegal, and I'm guessing that they can send out a lot of letters for the same cost as one inspector's visit.

And like the e-mail scams - if it didn't work, they'd stop doing it.

[PvtPyle]

Originally Posted by Treefrog

Agreed. But as the letters are just worded to sound intimidating rather than actually accusing they are underhanded but not illegal, and I'm guessing that they can send out a lot of letters for the same cost as one inspector's visit.

And like the e-mail scams - if it didn't work, they'd stop doing it.

Indeed. I imagine that they are particularly effective with pensioners.