Random Freemanesque Babblings from idiots unable to sustain their own thread

[AndyPandy]

Not a valid rebuttal I'm afraid, not written in red ink or crossways, corner to corner, tv licensing are therefore, free to ignore !

[Hercule Parrot]

I hope whoever has posted that has the balls to actually send it back to the TV licensing people,although i suspect just like all other freeman followers it will all be for show and will have been binned as soon as the photo's where taken.

They've obviously put a lot of work into it, and it would be a shame for that to be wasted. I've sent a copy to TV Licencing. The address doesn't seem to have a TV aerial, so it's probably just a misunderstanding that can be cleared up -

[Bones]

Wow Andy Pairs - you really know how to live life on the edge and stick it to the man

Andy Pears i remember getting stopped for drink driving and i was asked how many pints i had drunk tonight. i remembered my last stop where the copper gave me shit for not answering exactly to the question. so i exactly answered 6 pints. i was arrested and taken back to nick. after i got into the breathalyser room they asked me again, i said i had drunk just under 6 pints of milk. the officer went mental and put me through the procedure anyway. tried to do me for wasting police time etc. i said you wasted my whole fucking night you muppets. true story.

[YiamCross]

Wow Andy Pairs - you really know how to live life on the edge and stick it to the man...

Andy Pears is the man who, at the Crawfords' eviction, was arrested for racially aggravated hate speech, or something along those lines. He was videod, and he posted said video on his own FB page, being told by a police officer not to make monkey noises at black officers or security guards so what does he do? straight off he pulls up his arms & sticks out his elbows all monkey like and says "oooh oooh" then tries to claim it's his daffy duck impression. Then looks all indignant and hard done by when the handcuffs go on. Havn't heard much from him for a while, I can only assume that his trial didn't go quite the way he hoped and he's been out of circulation for a while.

When it comes to stupid, Andy Pears is what one might call gifted.

[mufc1959]

"Please tell me where to find the words that will make the Magistrates shit themselves and run from the court, abandoning ship annoy the Magistrates and get me thrown out of court."

[Skeleton]

I hope whoever has posted that has the balls to actually send it back to the TV licensing people,although i suspect just like all other freeman followers it will all be for show and will have been binned as soon as the photo's where taken.

They've obviously put a lot of work into it, and it would be a shame for that to be wasted. I've sent a copy to TV Licencing. The address doesn't seem to have a TV aerial, so it's probably just a misunderstanding that can be cleared up -

It does have a Sky Satellite dish though and that means they need a TV license. No use unplugging the box and hiding it if your paying for a subscription when you get a knock on the door, Sky share their data with TV Licensing as they are required to do by law. I imagine that's exactly what a lot of the "non-watchers" do and can't fathom why TVL won't go away.

[NigelJK]

A while back I bought a rather nice sony PVR off Amazon. I had it delivered to where I was working. For several months after I got increasingly irate letters from TVL telling me I needed a license. Eventually (on the we are taking you to court letter) I phoned them and asked them why they expected a work place to have a license, and surely if the device is a PVR I actually need a licence for the display device not the PVR. Good job I had an understanding client at the time.

[Skeleton]

A while back I bought a rather nice sony PVR off Amazon. I had it delivered to where I was working. For several months after I got increasingly irate letters from TVL telling me I needed a license. Eventually (on the we are taking you to court letter) I phoned them and asked them why they expected a work place to have a license, and surely if the device is a PVR I actually need a licence for the display device not the PVR. Good job I had an understanding client at the time.

Back in the day they used to make us leave our TV licenses on top of our TV's during room inspections in the RAF. In walked baby-faced Officer to our 6 man abode and was slightly surprised to see no TV's on display. Lucky even in those days they needed a reason to inspect your locker!! The reason we all steadfastly refused to buy one was it was known that for each accommodation block the MOD was charged a fixed rate by the TVL people. One chap even had trouble finding a PO that would sell him one because of his address. Typical Military.

[daveBeeston]

The TV licensing people can and do make mistakes i get a couple of letters a year stating they are looking into me despite me paying for my licence in one go on the same date every year which they can see on their system when i call them,this is due to them having my address down in 2 slightly different ways and their refusal to adjust it(I've only been at this address for 7 years).

[longdog]

It does have a Sky Satellite dish though and that means they need a TV license.

I have a satellite dish on my flat but I don't have a television.

I must admit I do have a bit of a bee in my bonnet about TVL as I find their constant stream of threatening letters show a serious lack of good manners. That said I would never scrawl crap all over their communications because they really don't care so it's totally pointless. My preferred method is to completely ignore the letters, thus wasting their paper, ink, envelopes and postage and when the 'enforcement agents' call I simply tell them to go f**k themselves and shut the door in their faces.

They've been wasting their time with me for 11 years now and they still don't even know my name

[bmxninja357]

isnt the common tv near obsolete? what if i only use my tv for my xbox?

just curious. we have no such law here.

ninj

[Forsyth]

isnt the common tv near obsolete? what if i only use my tv for my xbox?

just curious. we have no such law here.

ninj

You need a licence if you have a device that is installed or used to receive television broadcasts at the same time as they are transmitted. This includes using a TV or recording it on a video recorder or PVR (even if there's no TV attached to it), and it also includes watching TV from broadcasters that do not benefit from a share of the TV Licence fee, including from abroad.

It also includes watching TV on the internet at the same time as it's transmitted, which is the subject of some debate at the moment. At present the law is lagging current usage, so it's legal to watch TV shows that are available on demand without a licence, but if watching at the same time as they are broadcast a licence is needed. Of course, it's very difficult to prove what people are doing. While the presence of a TV isn't technically enough to prove guilt, it is quite suggestive. The presence of a computer (or even a smartphone or tablet) is much less so as it has many other uses and watching TV is only a small part of its function, unlike a TV for which the main purpose is watching TV and other uses are (at least historically) a minor factor in its design.

For completeness, it's worth noting that in the past the law required a licence simply to possess a TV. That was changed to require the TV to be "installed" (usually interpreted as plugged in to an aerial and tuned in), so it is perfectly possible to have a TV without a licence and not be breaking the law.

Anyone selling a TV must notify TV Licensing of the address of the purchaser and TV Licensing then maintain a database of households where a TV has been purchased. They will famously never permanently remove an address from their database so by now most households in the UK are on their list. They aggressively pursue unlicensed households for a licence, sending out "enforcement agents" who claim the power to "interview you under caution in accordance with the police and criminal evidence act" - the "in accordance" part is important as they are just contractors with no special powers to actually require you to cooperate. In the unlikely event that you can convince them that you don't need a licence this merely buys you a two year period of peace as "you might have started watching TV since then". TV Licensing seem to get most of their successes by convincing people that they must allow them into their homes to search for TVs and use deceptive, and occasionally aggressive, doorstep techniques to achieve this in the absence of any special powers. This is, of course, annoying or even distressing for those who have no need for a licence. They do occasionally manage to obtain a search warrant (in which case the police will always be present as well) but this is almost unheard of in practice. A classic catch-22 from one of their letters is that if you do not contact them to say that you don't watch TV they will send an enforcement agent to your address to find out if you do, but if you do contact them they will send an enforcement agent out anyway to confirm that this is correct "as many people who tell us this turn out to require a license".

Current proposals include dropping the licence fee and funding the BBC from general taxation. This would reduce the costs of collecting the fee and so would probably not see a significant increase in tax for the few who are honestly unlicensed. There are also proposals to widen the scope of the funding to other TV production companies; to allow the BBC to raise funds from advertising (when viewed from the UK, the BBC channels and websites are advertising free); or to allow the BBC to provide some premium subscription based services.

[longdog]

"Anyone selling a TV must notify TV Licensing of the address of the purchaser and TV Licensing then maintain a database of households where a TV has been purchased."

That requirement was done away with last year I believe.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Forsyth wrote:

(when viewed from the UK, the BBC channels and websites are advertising free)

This is what really pisses me off. Every guest on a BBC chat show is only there to sell their latest film, book, tv series, etc etc. Every time a footballer or suchlike is interviewed on the beeb they are standing in front of a wallboard containing advertisements. Guests on BBC radio are there to sell their wares. The BBC is constantly used for advertising so the BBC should drop the pretence. Do away with the licence fee and advertise openly. Or go pay per view.

[Forsyth]

"Anyone selling a TV must notify TV Licensing of the address of the purchaser and TV Licensing then maintain a database of households where a TV has been purchased."

That requirement was done away with last year I believe.

You're quite correct - well, even earlier than that, 25 June 2013 apparently, shows how up to date I am!

This is what really pisses me off. Every guest on a BBC chat show is only there to sell their latest film, book, tv series, etc etc. Every time a footballer or suchlike is interviewed on the beeb they are standing in front of a wallboard containing advertisements. Guests on BBC radio are there to sell their wares. The BBC is constantly used for advertising so the BBC should drop the pretence. Do away with the licence fee and advertise openly. Or go pay per view.

Not to mention the fact that, while product placement is generally frowned upon (does Blue Peter still cover up the labels on the washing up liquid bottles?), they make a small (or possibly large), fortune from selling a huge range of products that have no useful function other than to bear a representation of images from the shows. While the products may not be promoted on air, the shows that the merchandise are based on are.

[longdog]

Forsyth wrote:

This is what really pisses me off.

What really pisses me off is the assumption that people can't possibly live without 1001 channels of complete and utter garbage. Once you've been without a telly for a few months you realise just how cheap and low quality 99.99% of it is.

Yes there's The Walking Dead, American Dad!, Top Gear and Mythbusters but the first two are on DVD and the last two are on YouTube.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Yes there's The Walking Dead, American Dad!, Top Gear and Mythbusters but the first two are on DVD and the last two are on YouTube.

But they are only on DVD and youtube because they first appeared on television.
Without the box we would never have had such classics as The prisoner, The Avengers, Play for Today, Python etc etc. Yes, much of what is on TV is garbage but there is quite a lot that isn't.

[IDIOT]

isnt the common tv near obsolete? what if i only use my tv for my xbox?

just curious. we have no such law here.

ninj

You need a licence if you have a device that is installed or used to receive television broadcasts at the same time as they are transmitted. This includes using a TV or recording it on a video recorder or PVR (even if there's no TV attached to it), and it also includes watching TV from broadcasters that do not benefit from a share of the TV Licence fee, including from abroad.

It also includes watching TV on the internet at the same time as it's transmitted, which is the subject of some debate at the moment. At present the law is lagging current usage, so it's legal to watch TV shows that are available on demand without a licence, but if watching at the same time as they are broadcast a licence is needed. Of course, it's very difficult to prove what people are doing. While the presence of a TV isn't technically enough to prove guilt, it is quite suggestive. The presence of a computer (or even a smartphone or tablet) is much less so as it has many other uses and watching TV is only a small part of its function, unlike a TV for which the main purpose is watching TV and other uses are (at least historically) a minor factor in its design.

For completeness, it's worth noting that in the past the law required a licence simply to possess a TV. That was changed to require the TV to be "installed" (usually interpreted as plugged in to an aerial and tuned in), so it is perfectly possible to have a TV without a licence and not be breaking the law.

Anyone selling a TV must notify TV Licensing of the address of the purchaser and TV Licensing then maintain a database of households where a TV has been purchased. They will famously never permanently remove an address from their database so by now most households in the UK are on their list. They aggressively pursue unlicensed households for a licence, sending out "enforcement agents" who claim the power to "interview you under caution in accordance with the police and criminal evidence act" - the "in accordance" part is important as they are just contractors with no special powers to actually require you to cooperate. In the unlikely event that you can convince them that you don't need a licence this merely buys you a two year period of peace as "you might have started watching TV since then". TV Licensing seem to get most of their successes by convincing people that they must allow them into their homes to search for TVs and use deceptive, and occasionally aggressive, doorstep techniques to achieve this in the absence of any special powers. This is, of course, annoying or even distressing for those who have no need for a licence. They do occasionally manage to obtain a search warrant (in which case the police will always be present as well) but this is almost unheard of in practice. A classic catch-22 from one of their letters is that if you do not contact them to say that you don't watch TV they will send an enforcement agent to your address to find out if you do, but if you do contact them they will send an enforcement agent out anyway to confirm that this is correct "as many people who tell us this turn out to require a license".

Current proposals include dropping the licence fee and funding the BBC from general taxation. This would reduce the costs of collecting the fee and so would probably not see a significant increase in tax for the few who are honestly unlicensed. There are also proposals to widen the scope of the funding to other TV production companies; to allow the BBC to raise funds from advertising (when viewed from the UK, the BBC channels and websites are advertising free); or to allow the BBC to provide some premium subscription based services.

See bold text above.

You are incorrect. TV retailers no loger have to inform TVL of tv or other tv receiving equipment. That stopped in 2013.

Other than that your information is good.

Best way to deal with TVL is to do nothing at all. Zero contact renders them impotent. Having said that I do not condone tv licence evasion. If you do not need a tv licence you are not obliged to give TVL any information, say nothing, do nothing.

[longdog]

Yes there's The Walking Dead, American Dad!, Top Gear and Mythbusters but the first two are on DVD and the last two are on YouTube.

But they are only on DVD and youtube because they first appeared on television.
Without the box we would never have had such classics as The prisoner, The Avengers, Play for Today, Python etc etc. Yes, much of what is on TV is garbage but there is quite a lot that isn't.

Yes they were on TV first but three of them are American commercial TV and the only BBC one is dead and buried as far as I'm concerned.

On the very rare occasion I do see 'live' TV I think 'what sort of moron can sit and watch this shite?' and I'm not just talking about trash satellite channels. The BBC is marginally less dreadful than many channels but at least 95% of it is still lowest common denominator trash that isn't worth £10 a year let alone £150 or whatever it is now.

The Prisoner was before my time to be honest and when it was re-shown on C4 I didn't rate it at all. The Avengers is before my time too and PFT and Python were patchy at best.

Given the choice of spending £150 on a TV licence or on DVDs there's no contest.

[bmxninja357]

here is 2hrs and ten minutes of your life you will never get back....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwIrtLHm6vU

peace,
ninj