I've a confession to make I have not paid the TV licence since 1992

[Robbo]

Might have, can't remember.

Anyway, they are not BBC channels. They are from UKTV which is an an independent joint venture between BBC Worldwide and Virgin media.

[parricull]

these posts have been ripped from another forum tv licence resistance..... its old news if anyone is intrigued and if you google the mentioned forum theres some real funny stories and videos,very informative in my opinion....

[NaRvIcK DeViL]

Tips for Avoiding TVL/BBC harassment

First thing you must do before you do anything is when you register your vote always tick the box 'edited version ' this excludes you from this list and the register that is purchased by all companies including Crapita the private company involved in tv licensing collection and once purchased they can do anything they like with it . So much for our privacy laws .

You will also see the benefits with reducing spam mail etc and protecting your personal information a little bit better and remember do this everytime you get the letter titled register your vote , because fail to do this just once will put you back on their radar.

Then there are two Rules you must follow.

1 - The No Contact Rule

Simply ignore TVL/BBC. Their letters are computer-generated and sent out by the hundred-thousand. The purpose of these "official warnings" and threats of "imminent legal action" is psychologial rather than actual. Once this is realised, the letters cease to have any effect or credibility.

The same applies to street visits. If someone called at your door and asked to see whether you had a washing-machine or a food-mixer, would you let them in? Of course not, so why permit TVL/BBC to look for a TV, video or DVD player? People who work for TVL/BBC have no more right to enter private residences than people selling dusters.

Without entry, TVL/BBC have no sure means of knowing whether a house has equipment set up to receive broadcasts. That is why they rely on mass mailshots, declaring messages such as, "This is your final warning". They rely on householders' own reaction to these letters, and on self-incrimination during street visits. Without YOUR co-operation, TVL/BBC is impotent.

What about search warrants? Before a search warrant can be issued, TVL/BBC must satisfy the court that they have "reasonable grounds" for believing that broadcasts are being received at the unlicenced address. The simple absence of a licence does not constitute this, nor does the householder's refusal to communicate with TVL/BBC. To obtain a search warrant, TVL/BBC must offer the court positive evidence, such as seeing or hearing a television, or the householder's own admission. Without such evidence, TVL/BBC cannot apply for a search warrant, and without a search warrant, they cannot enter. So, they are back to square one.

The "no contact" method is therefore to ignore the letters and to keep the door shut to TVL/BBC visitors. A drawback of this approach is that TVL/BBC will keep coming, but the benefit is that it wastes their time and money: every £100 spent chasing "no contact" households is £100 less spent on the BBC itself. And that can only be a good thing.

2 - Removal of the Implied right of access.

For some households, letters and visits are not an option. Fortunately, there is a way to stop TVL/BBC approaches. Although houses and flats are private property, there exists an "implied right of access" to enable postal deliveries, newspaper rounds, etc.

This means that the pathway, doorbell and letter box may be used by visitors without the express permission of the owner. Invitiation to use them is implied. As a result of this, TVL/BBC can come up your path and ring your door bell. To prevent TVL/BBC approaching your property, write to them, stating that you have withdrawn their implied right of access.

There is no need to indicate whether you have a television, and you do not need to give your name. You can withdraw access in the name of "legal occupier". That will (should) keep their employees away, but it will not stop the delivery of TVL/BBC letters, since it is the postman who uses your letter box. So, inform TVL/BBC that you consider their written contact as harassment.

This combined approach - withdrawing the right of implied access and informing them that their actions are harassment - should prevent further contact. At least for a while.

Other information

The less TVL/BBC know about you the better, so here are some more ideas to keep them off your back:

i) Be mindful of what information you give retailers. Retailers are required to pass names and addresses to TVL/BBC of all customers who buy a television, DVD or video player. TVL/BBC then use this information to update their mailing database.

ii) If you move house, do not inform TVL/BBC. There is no legal obligation to do so.

iii) Important: make sure your TV is not visible through the window, or audible from the letterbox. While there is nothing unlawful about having a television without a licence, TVL/BBC will automatically assume that it is receiving broadcasts.

iv) TVL/BBC sometimes send letters by recorded delivery, requiring your signature. This enables them to confirm your identity and update their database. They also hope that signing for an "official warning" will give you a fright. So, ask to see where a recorded delivery has come from before signing. If it is from Bristol BS98 1TL, refuse it (keep a note of TVL's address by your front door for easy reference).

v) TVL/BBC sometimes phone people up. If a caller asks for you by name, ask who is phoning before confirming your identity. If the reply is "TV Licensing" or similar, replace the handset. Do not engage in conversation. If you give your identity, it enables TVL/BBC to update their database.

vi) Beware dirty tricks. For instance, a caller pretending to do a survey; "Have you got a music centre?", followed by, "Have you got a TV?", or "What's your favourite TV programme?" Always confirm the identity of the caller.

Have your details removed from the publicly available version of the electoral roll. You can do this by ticking the relevant box on your voter registration form. See further details from the

Home - Electoral Commission.

Have your telephone number removed from the directory.

Join the Mailing Preference Service, the Telephone Preference Service and the Fax Preference Service.

[brian]

Sounds like a lot of stress and hassle. Sounds like paying is by far the easier option.

Coming next: how to avoid paying your phone bill, including, 1) how to kidnap the BT engineer who comes to disconnect your phone, and how to avoid a police search of your property after, 2) how to dispose of bodies in an environmentally friendly manner.

[Robbo]

I remember not having a tv licence for a period of time a long time ago. We never answered the door in case it was the tv licence man, and had to turn the tv off when the doorbell rang, and keep the curtains closed, it was a nightmare.

When was a student we were once watching eastenders, the doorbell rang and it was the tv licence man, someone had answered the door and theme tune was blaring out, lol. We didn't get done though, they just made us buy a licence, about £20 for a bw 20 or so years ago.


Posted with Tapatalk

[NaRvIcK DeViL]

The Conspiracy of Silence

The mass revolt against the Licence Fee in New Zealand ( 14 years ago ) received very little coverage in the UK media, even though it was highly relevant to our own debate about the TV Licence. The human rights abuses of the TV Licence (single mothers being imprisoned, blind people having to buy a TV Licence, etc) are rarely reported or debated in the UK media. Those of us campaigning against the TV Licence are given no coverage at all, meaning that most of the British public are not even aware that we exist. The BBC takes huge amounts of money from the public purse, money that is badly needed elsewhere, and yet rarely is this criticised in the UK media. It seems that the lid is kept very tight on any form of dissent or objective reporting about the TV Licence. The question is, why.. ?

The obvious answer is that the BBC itself forms a large part of the British media, and the BBC does not report anything that's negative about the TV Licence (bang goes their reputation for unbiased reporting!). As for the rest of the media, well, perhaps commercial television does not voice dissent against the TV Licence because they know that if the Licence is abolished the BBC would have to become commercial, in direct competition to themselves (there's barely enough advertising revenue to go round as it is). A large number of the UK newspapers are owned by people who also have interests in commercial television, so no help there.

It could, perhaps, be a fact that it's in the vested interest of certain people in positions of power in this country to keep the BBC and the Licence Fee exactly as it is. You see, there's huge amounts of money involved here (and I mean huge - most of it screwed out of the British public under threat of imprisonment) and an awful lot of people have their snouts in the trough. This could, perhaps, be everyone from the lawyers who prosecute people for Licence evasion and TV Licensing , who make big bucks out of enforcing the Licence (which is why they're so ruthless against Licence evaders), to the Post Office, who did have a very profitable contract to sell TV Licences, to the BBC itself, which has more than 23,000 employees and other assorted hangers on and is deeply ingrained in the British establishment... if you dare to raise a voice against the TV Licence you're up against some very powerful people.

But voices do get raised: in March 1998 the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, NACAB, produced a social policy report called "TV Sinners"(see below). This report contained the real facts about TV Licence prosecutions, gathered from CAB's all around the country (this NACAB report received very little publicity at the time). As a result of this report, and NACAB campaigning against imprisonment as a penalty for non-payment of a TV licence, the government set up an advisory board to look into the whole issue of the TV Licence, and that's why there was changes to the Licence Fee; i.e., free licenses for the over 75's, a 50% reduction for blind people, etc, etc.

These changes to the Licence Fee are purely cosmetic and a public relations exercise. Nothing's really changed, but what it shows is that the Government knows how much resentment there is against the Licence Fee, and they know how unjust and ridiculous it is for British citizens to have to pay to watch television under threat of prosecution, but as long as those with vested interests manage to keep the lid on any dissent this state of affairs will continue.

Changes in public policy in the digital age

In March 1998 Citizens Advice published 'TV Sinners', a report based on evidence supplied by 232 CABS all over the country. It showed:

• each year they claim that approximately 140,000 people are prosecuted for non- payment of the TV Licence
• 68 percent of these prosecutions are against women (this is because when the TV Licence inspectors call during the day it's usually the woman who's at home)
• out of the total of 200,000 prosecutions 99 percent result in just a fine of between £120 to £180.
• because TV Licence evasion is a strict liability offence these cases have to be heard in a magistrates court, and the court has no compulsion to allow fines to be paid by installments
• there is no compulsion on Magistrates to means test people who appear in court
• if you do not pay the fine a warrant will be issued for your arrest
• Over the years thousands of women have been imprisoned in the United Kingdom because they were not able to pay fines imposed upon them for not having a TV Licence. Almost all of these women were on benefits and around half of them had dependent children

Following this report, in 1999 the Government set-up an advisory board to look into the whole issue of the TV Licence ('The Davies Review'), which identified fundamental problems with funding by a universal licence. ''Broadcasting is a public good. The essential problem with public goods is that it is difficult to get people to pay for goods where they do not have exclusive rights to consume the good in question and when their consumption of the good does not affect the good itself. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to direct a good exclusively to the person who is paying for it.''

The review concluded that ''the digital age will increasingly be one in which many or most consumers of television pay for packages closely tailored to their needs. As they become more accustomed to choice, to subscription and to pay-per-view, the licence fee will come to seem an anachronism if it isn't one already .''

[NaRvIcK DeViL]

Originally Posted by brian

Sounds like a lot of stress and hassle. Sounds like paying is by far the easier option.

Originally Posted by brian

Coming next: how to avoid paying your phone bill, including, 1) how to kidnap the BT engineer who comes to disconnect your phone, and how to avoid a police search of your property after, 2) how to dispose of bodies in an environmentally friendly manner.

Brian ....... love the sarcastic wit ! I would just like to add that I am a Telecommunication Technician and the days of the engineer coming round to your house to disconnect you never really existed ,It was all done at the Exchange . Now ! they don't even have to do that , with the type TXE's ! that are in operation.

I think what you've highlighted is the miscomception that exists when people are unable to see beyond their front door, which is one of the reasons People don't understand that the Tv licensing requires the consent of the individual for any prosecution to take place but unfortunately in our society we seem to bend over nicely to anyone who we think has some authority over us .

The myths and blatant misinformation that is perpetuated by the institutions who wish to protect the Staus Quo as well as the uninformed individuals, 'dare i say it' ignorant amazes me at times ! I think that why we are referred to on the continent as the 'Cloth Cap Society' .

[NaRvIcK DeViL]

TV Licensing detector vans – are not only a myth ! but utter, in your face drivel

If you were born in the 1970's, then the prospect of a TV detector van was more terrifying than Lou Ferrigno's Hulk chasing you (the stuff of my nightmares, at least). These people could see into your house? Christ, better get that TV licence paid Mum, or we're all going to jail. Curious then, that after the many and i mean many requests that have been made under the Freedom of Information Act about how TV Licensing identifies households without a licence, have been denied again and again !.

The BBC have refused to answer questions concerning how many detection devices the corporation possessed, how often they were deployed and the technical specification of TV detection devices, if they existed at all. A complaint was then raised with the Information Commissioner's Office, who promptly investigated why the beeb wouldn't comment.

Rather frustratingly, the ICO sided with the BBC, but in explaining their position the BBC made some rather curious statements:

The BBC explained that the number of detector vans in operation, the location of their deployment and the frequency is not common knowledge. It relies on the public perception that the vans could be used at any time to catch evaders. This perception has built up since the first van was launched in 1952 and has been a key cost effective method in deterring people from evading their licence fee.

The BBC state that to release information which relates to the number of detection devices and how often they are used will change the public's perception of their effectiveness. If the deterrent effect is lost, the BBC believes that a significant number of people would decide not to pay their licence fee(No! really!), knowing how the deployment and effectiveness of vans and other equipment will affect their chances of success in avoiding detection.

If the thought had already crossed your mind that TV detector vans were an imaginary deterrent, what do you think now?. I for one have always known that it was utter drivel (Me and my dad use to laugh sometimes at the dinner table).Him, being a radar man and I, being a communication Technician , sorry! for blowing my own trumpet here but I received the Queens award for technology by the Time I was 17 , My dad help develope the radar on the harrier jump jet.

So when I see a story recently in the Telegraph about hand held detection devices , you must come to the conclusion(Or your IQ must be about the size of your dick ) that a concerted effort is being made by all those who have a Interest in protecting the status Quo Or the people at the telegraph must be stupid and all the other newspapers ? that are printed in the UK ....What do you think !! ... ohh ! hang on ! your not allowed to do that as a subject of her Majesty that's not in the script ! and some you people actually believe in the detector van Sh1t ,that's like the powers that be taking a pile of sh1t and slapping it in you face so they can prove to themselves how stupid and uninformed you all are (Glad it's turned out nice for them, don't you think !!! ) sorry! for having alaugh at everyone elses expense that believes in the TV license and the detecting vans/devices but, that's all you can do in this country, if you try to inform people all you get is some good responsible uninformed exploitable little resource telling you what a bad scourge on society you are by not paying the entertainment tax and that you should be a good responsible ignorant productive resource like them . Now stop reading this and get back to work ! you've got the Bills of the greedy and incompetent few TO PAY .

[leeds6]

i agree with you about tv detectors vans or anything else i mean what exactly do you use to detect a reciever a mobile phone ok but a tv set ..how??

[waqasahmed]

Originally Posted by brian

Sounds like a lot of stress and hassle. Sounds like paying is by far the easier option.

Coming next: how to avoid paying your phone bill, including, 1) how to kidnap the BT engineer who comes to disconnect your phone, and how to avoid a police search of your property after, 2) how to dispose of bodies in an environmentally friendly manner.

You sound like you speak from experience. Don't worry, so do I. I decided to lure the engineer with this method:

Oh piece of candy! - YouTube

and then sent him on a shipment to Gadaffi, where he was definitely disposed of in an environmentally friendly manner

Currently, I have no TV license. I only really watch iplayer for any TV, and Im not watching any TV live, so it seems a bit of a waste to pay for the license. Besides, it's a rip off in halls - where they charge you a license per room, instead of a license per flat