TV licence thread

[Car Boot 10]

10 hours ago, Pettytom said:

Booty and Ann, sitting in a tree...

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/ann-widdecombe/122963/TV-licence-fee-bullies-are-on-my-case-again/amp

 

Must be odd for such a Marxist revolutionary to end up on Widdecombe’s side so often.

What exactly in the article about not requiring a BBC TV Licence do you disagree with?

 

Do you believe that the BBC, under its trademark TV Licensing, has the right to pretend that unlicensed households are somehow answerable to it when it has long been officially and legally established that they are not?

 

TV Licensing do not have any legal authority to instruct non customers to do anything, and not doing what TV Licensing demands has no legitimate escalation in law. But the BBC sends out letters and enforcement officers who give the opposite impression - that not doing as TV Licensing requires can lead to a criminal record and large fine. Vulnerable and disadvantaged people have been know to pay up just to get the BBC off their back.

 

And they will send the boys round anyway for doorstep intimidation, demanding to be let inside the property to look around, demanding money with menaces.

 

It's unbelievable that such Victorian methods are still being used to squeeze people into paying for the BBC. But then the BBC is a very out of date organisation.

 

Defund the BBC. 

 

 

Edited August 15, 2020 by Car Boot

[Car Boot 10]

Below is a genuine letter that the BBC, under its trademark TV Licensing, has sent out to non customers. These letters threaten non customers with prosecution and a fine unless they take a particular action.

 

Any response from a non customer is entirely optional - but the BBC uses threats, coercion and deception to mislead non customers into believing that they must cooperate or face a harsh legal penalty.

 

Vulnerable and disadvantaged non customers have been frightened into purchasing a TV licence even when they did not require one.

 

What type of organisation seeks to mislead and frighten the public in such a way?

 

The BBC.

 

[Arnold_Lane 0]

6 minutes ago, Car Boot said:

Below is a genuine letter that the BBC, under its trademark TV Licensing, has sent out to non customers. These letters threaten non customers with prosecution and a fine unless they take a particular action.

 

Any response from a non customer is entirely optional - but the BBC uses threats, coercion and deception to mislead non customers into believing that they must cooperate or face a harsh legal penalty.

 

Vulnerable and disadvantaged non customers have been frightened into purchasing a TV licence even when they did not require one.

 

What type of organisation seeks to mislead and frighten the public in such a way?

 

The BBC.

 

It tells you what to do if you don’t need a license in the letter.  Is it difficult to understand?

[Car Boot 10]

Just now, Arnold_Lane said:

It tells you what to do if you don’t need a license in the letter.  Is it difficult to understand?

"As long as this property remains unlicensed, our investigation will continue. If you fail to get in touch, you risk prosecution and a fine of up to £1000, plus any legal costs and/or compensation you may be ordered to pay"

 

There is no legal requirement for non customers to get in touch with TV Licensing, a BBC trademark, for any reason. A response is entirely optional - but the wording of the letter implies that a harsh legal punishment will follow if a non customer does not do as instructed.  

 

I don't see how anybody could see such a misleading and threatening approach being used by the state broadcaster as being acceptable.

 

 

[Arnold_Lane 0]

7 minutes ago, Car Boot said:

"As long as this property remains unlicensed, our investigation will continue. If you fail to get in touch, you risk prosecution and a fine of up to £1000, plus any legal costs and/or compensation you may be ordered to pay"

 

There is no legal requirement for non customers to get in touch with TV Licensing, a BBC trademark, for any reason. A response is entirely optional - but the wording of the letter implies that a harsh legal punishment will follow if a non customer does not do as instructed.  

 

I don't see how anybody could see such a misleading and threatening approach being used by the state broadcaster as being acceptable.

 

 

The letter starts ‘despite having written to this address previously..’

 

What does the first letter say?

Edited August 15, 2020 by Arnold_Lane

[Car Boot 10]

On 15/08/2020 at 16:09, Arnold_Lane said:

It tells you what to do if you don’t need a license in the letter.  Is it difficult to understand?

I wonder if the BBC TV Licensing's use of wide ranging threats and false claims against non customer's have been going on for such a long time now that people have become accustomed to them?

 

We should judge the methods of TV Licensing by rational, modern, 2020 moral standards - NOT out of date 1950 BBC standards.

[Arnold_Lane 0]

1 hour ago, Car Boot said:

I wonder if the BBC TV Licensing's use of wide ranging threats and false claims against non customer's have been going on for such a long time now that people have become accustomed to them?

 

We should judge the methods of TV Licensing by rational, modern, 2020 moral standards - NOT out of date 1950 BBC standards.

What did the first letter say?

[alchresearch 214]

That "genuine letter" is a common generic one sent to a property when the previous occupant with a TV licence moves out. 

 

I moved into a property which had laid empty for 3-4 months while it was being refurbished.  There was a pile of mail there, including the first letter they send out and the one  above.

 

I decided I wouldn't bother with live TV, so contacted them and told them I wouldn't be needing a licence.

 

I got back a simple letter thanking me for updating them and that was it.  I will admit that it did have a "we may pop round to verify this" statement on the letter, but they never bothered.

 

I don't understand why Carboot is making it seem more difficult than it is, or why he's the only one on here with such a big problem.

[Arnold_Lane 0]

1 hour ago, alchresearch said:

That "genuine letter" is a common generic one sent to a property when the previous occupant with a TV licence moves out. 

 

I moved into a property which had laid empty for 3-4 months while it was being refurbished.  There was a pile of mail there, including the first letter they send out and the one  above.

 

I decided I wouldn't bother with live TV, so contacted them and told them I wouldn't be needing a licence.

 

I got back a simple letter thanking me for updating them and that was it.  I will admit that it did have a "we may pop round to verify this" statement on the letter, but they never bothered.

 

I don't understand why Carboot is making it seem more difficult than it is, or why he's the only one on here with such a big problem.

I too am confused by CarBoot's point.  He says such letters intimidate vulnerable people into paying for a licence they don't need.

 

The letter he copied here clearly states it is not the first one sent.  What I don't get is why this hypothetical vulnerable person would chose to ignore the first letter (whatever that says) but when they get a second letter they suddenly become scared - but rather than telling TV Licensing they don't need a licence (instructions for which are in the letter) this hypothetical vulnerable person just pays for a licence!

 

Makes no sense to me.  But then again, I'm not a hypothetical vulnerable person.

[Janus 28]

There may be cuts to the regular news bulletins over the next decade. Apparently due to more people watching online. The majority of elderly don't have ability to access online. This group will be affected most I think. 
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-53846414
 

[ECCOnoob 1,021]

1 hour ago, Janus said:

There may be cuts to the regular news bulletins over the next decade. Apparently due to more people watching online. The majority of elderly don't have ability to access online. This group will be affected most I think. 
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-53846414
 

I am not convinced by that.  There are still plenty of news channels broadcasting 24 hours a day and even one main bullein a day on the the normal channels would be enough for most people's consumption.

 

As for the internet there are plenty of 'elderly' now who have ample access.   In another decade there will be significantly more.  After all by 2030 it would have been a known thing available in people's own homes for over 36 years. More than half a lifetime of that generation of elderly.    2019 statistics from the ITU estimate the 82% of European citizens use the internet.  Add another 10 years and I really don't think access will be the the concern at all.    

 

I think the predictions made in the article are quite right and and like all other broadcast services news delivery has to adapt.

[catmiss 12]

On 20/08/2020 at 19:44, ECCOnoob said:

I am not convinced by that.  There are still plenty of news channels broadcasting 24 hours a day and even one main bullein a day on the the normal channels would be enough for most people's consumption.

 

As for the internet there are plenty of 'elderly' now who have ample access.   In another decade there will be significantly more.  After all by 2030 it would have been a known thing available in people's own homes for over 36 years. More than half a lifetime of that generation of elderly.    2019 statistics from the ITU estimate the 82% of European citizens use the internet.  Add another 10 years and I really don't think access will be the the concern at all.    

 

I think the predictions made in the article are quite right and and like all other broadcast services news delivery has to adapt.

I agree, I’m heading towards 70 and most of my cohort are using the Internet for a variety of purposes, a couple of things trouble me though, people of my age tend to trust ‘news’ content so are susceptible to fake news and scams. The other hindrance to access is the cost of broadband access on top of the licence fee

Edited August 23, 2020 by catmiss
Typo