Jump to content

TV Licensing - Surveillance Society

Do you agree with the tv license.  

36 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you agree with the tv license.

    • Yes
      11
    • No
      25


Recommended Posts

Because some people don't appear to have any issues, and thus the TVL do not believe they're evading, otherwise they would.

 

The document 'TV Licensing Annual Review 2007/2008' clearly states that 1.3 million properties were classed as 'evaders' that year. I have presented conclusive proof to support this view.

 

Do you always reject facts when they conflict with your own viewpoint? Do you have the intelligence to understand that by doing this you just appear foolish?

 

The tesimony of some of the posters on this and the others threads is good enough for me.

 

I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that problems that have been highlighted happen in the majority of cases.

 

As Mr.Prime said, when you have 1.3m people up in arms you'll see poll tax sized demonstrations, then my view may change.

 

Over a million properties are resisting in the most effective way possible - by not paying their TV licence fee. In 2008/09, 24,877,070 TV licenses were in force - but the so-called official 'evasion' rate had risen on the year before - up to 5.3%. Depriving the bloated BBC monster of funds is the best option for those of us who value our freedom and democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are no blinkers, the vast majority of respondents think the BBC is a good thing, as do I.

 

Well in that case I suggest that you pay your BBC TV licence fee promptly, like a submissive slave. Because I certainly will not pay mine.

 

I would much prefer to spend the rest of my life in chains than give a single penny to the BBC parasites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The document 'TV Licensing Annual Review 2007/2008' clearly states that 1.3 million properties were classed as 'evaders' that year. I have presented conclusive proof to support this view.

 

OK, I concede it says that.

 

Do you always reject facts when they conflict with your own viewpoint?

 

I "interpret" them based on the reality of the situation. They're classed as evaders until they're shown not to be. Why wouldn't they be, the default position is that most homes have a TV to recieve broadcasts.

 

The TVL does accept that some people are genuinely unlicensed, which you have consitantly denied.

 

Do you have the intelligence to understand that by doing this you just appear foolish?

 

At least I concede that on the fine point you have made I am in error, though I don't think my final analysis is too far wrong. No doubt you will disagree.

 

As for feeling foolish, it hasn't stopped you across all 3 BBC threads, in which you've continually avoided responding to any of the facts presented that didn't correspond with your poisoned view of the BBC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well in that case I suggest that you pay your BBC TV licence fee promptly

 

I will.

 

like a submissive slave.

 

Because it's good value for money and the programming that I like is excellent.

 

Because I certainly will not pay mine.

 

Evidently.

 

I would much prefer to spend the rest of my life in chains than give a single penny to the BBC parasites.

 

Such a drama queen, you should get a job with the BBC!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They're classed as evaders until they're shown not to be. Why wouldn't they be, the default position is that most homes have a TV to recieve broadcasts.

 

So you accept that the BBC/TV Licensing has a rather poisoned view of the 1.3 million properties it classed as 'evaders' in it's 2007/2008 report? Despite having no evidence that any of these properties were breaking the law, our BBC masters have decided that the people living in them are criminals!

 

How can any reasonable person do business with, or give money to, an organisation that declares over a million properties, probably housing over a million people, are committing a crime without any evidence?

 

Give money to the BBC and you support it's policy of judgement without trial - or even any evidence!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** Really responding to original post...

 

The advert states 'household', and that is also the unique identifier. In database terms it'd be known as a one to many relationship (house to occupants).

 

 

 

In addition...

 

I'm on benefits and other than rent and food, my TV license is my largest outgoing and I don't even watch it that much, probably because I don't like dancing, cooking, antiques, am not and have no kids, generally it's just news and politics, I would include business, but there's no such thing as working lunch any more...

 

Hey, lot's of expensive sport though, er, no not interested there either because it's never the sports I like. And before you talk about the majority, it feels like splitting the bill with a greedy sod. To boot, most sport fanatics have (and are willing to pay for) Sky, so why should public broadcasting also have to compete financially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you accept that the BBC/TV Licensing has a rather poisoned view of the 1.3 million properties it classed as 'evaders' in it's 2007/2008 report?

 

I accept it's a view that's not really very surprising, since the default position is that most households in the UK do have TV for for watching live TV.

 

I don't think it's poisoned, i think it makes sense and is cheaper to look at the 5% rather than to more strictly regulate TV use for the other 95%.

 

Despite having no evidence that any of these properties were breaking the law, our BBC masters have decided that the people living in them are criminals!

 

I don't believe that.

 

How can any reasonable person do business with, or give money to, an organisation that declares over a million properties, probably housing over a million people, are committing a crime without any evidence?

 

Most people don't see it that way, and can see the sense in that given the realities of TV use in the UK. It seems to be more about the method of assessing or obtaining any evidence that's at issue.

 

Give money to the BBC and you support it's policy of judgement without trial - or even any evidence!

 

The attempts at verification or collection of any evidence seems to be what causes the issues and what most people who're upset are upset about.

 

I have said I think this area clearly needs improvement.

 

You still have the right to a trial.

 

So, now our viewpoints are clear, does the BBC only produce dross as you have continually stated?

Edited by Magilla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrong again, Mr. Prime. BBC Director General Mark Thompson has admitted the corporation was guilty of a 'massive' Left-wing bias in the past - specifically during the Thatcher years. A time when Norman Tebbit was in parliament.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1308215/Yes-BBC-biased-Mark-Thompson-admits-massive-lean-Left.html#ixzz13CEH99NQ

 

And to back your argument you use the high quality news source that is the Daily Mail.

 

A 'massive' bias? During the aforementioned miners strike the BBC news footage was not exactly friendly to the miners, nor were people like Sir Alistair Burnett or Angela Ripon, referring to trade unionists as 'extremists' and other fawning knighthood/Damehood hunting behaviour. The only way the BBC at the time could be seen as leftist was via the drama department since most writers and actors are left leaning eg Prunella Scales, Dennis Potter and Alan Bleasdale. Boys From the Blackstuff, the Singing Detective and The Monocled Mutineer in particular reflected this.

 

So it would be fair to say with a balanced opinion that both strands co-existed. It suited Tebbit as it suits you to say the BBC is ......(insert opposite of your views).

 

Today there are right wing current affairs people like Marr and Robinson and middle of the road ones like Vine or Paxman. Israeli's go mad at the BBC but they refused to broadcast the Gaza appeal so Palestinians see the BBC as bending over for Jewish pressure. The accusations from everyone never stop so the BBC is clearly balanced. Your alternative is entirely market led and right wing like cheesy Sky with Boulton winding up Brown on purpose or exploding in rage at Alistair Campbell for disagreeing with him.

Edited by Mr Prime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Such a drama queen, you should get a job with the BBC!

 

Ha ha, with apartheid and the Berlin Wall gone the BBC is the new reign of terror to petty headbangers who love finding something to complain about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had letters in the past from the TV Licensing people that told me they were rather disapointed with me because I didn't have a TV licence. As I hadn't been answering their letters, at my own expense, they were going to send someone round to see me. This was all stated in a very menacing tone. But further down, near the bottom actually, in a rather softer tone it said that if I didn't have a TV please would I let them know and then they would update their records. But they were still going to come and visit me, however.

 

So, TVL are going to send somebody around to see me. Not because I haven't responded to their letters - but because they think that I'm secretly watching 'EastEnders' without a licence. Even if I tell them that I'm not, they will still send a goon round to talk to me 'under caution' - and want to be shown every room in my property. But I have a problem with complete strangers going through my cupboards and closets!

 

So this official letter is based upon a lie. There was a time when the law took a very serious view of private companies misleading the public. But not any more.

Edited by INTERVIEWER

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you are doing nothing wrong why mess about?

 

I'm, not "messing about". I'm exercising my right to be treated as innocent until proven guilty, and for the prosecution to prove their case, as required by law.

 

Why are you so in favour of reversing the burden of proof :confused:

 

You're not, by any chance, in law enforcement :confused:

 

it's no big stab for glorious freedom to play games with the TVLA

 

Who's playing games :confused:

 

when you could say "no TV here mate, have a look if you like".

 

It is, when it means surrendering your privacy, of which we precious little as it is.

 

"I have a right to decline to co-operate with these moderate and reasonable requests for co-operation so I will" zzz.

 

Moderate and reasonable, in your opinion, not mine.

 

Tell me, have you ever had a TV bod in your home, to check for a TV :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They're classed as evaders until they're shown not to be.

 

On other words, they're classed as guilty, until they're shown not to be :confused:

 

the default position is that most homes have a TV to receive broadcasts.

 

The other, and legally rather more important, default position, is that they are innocent until proven guilty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.