SbutC wrote:Geronimo wrote:Im a bit curious about you being skeptical. Are you looking for 100% proof of what the OP is contending? Have you a Licence? If so, rather than taking the OP's word for it, you might try out what he did for yourself as an experiment and thus deal with the issue to your own satisfaction, if your that curious of course.
If you havent got a TV, as many on here havent, you can still try it out as the OP seems to have done. Incidentally Does "brave" or "clever" enter into it? If so how and why?
My skepticism is in reference to efficacy the Freeman argument, not that events occurred as the OP described. As for brave, the OP frames his "success" as a small gamble he took as a stepping stone towards taking the same tack with his income/council tax, as though here seems to be the crux! Isn't this just your opinion and if your wrong on this then does the rest support itself? there was some risk in what he was doing, when in fact it was as brave as walking past something in a shop you don't want to buy. As for clever, he frames his "success" as due to him having the insight to write the letter he did, that he outsmarted the license fee collectors by invoking a Freeman argument. Neither applies in this case. How can you be sure of that?ljtherock wrote: it is simply that religion is accepted by TPTB because it was created by them in order to control the people
Agreed on the point that it's a lie, but religion predates your "TPTB" by a long LONG time!ljtherock wrote:More sceptical (english/UK) than curious I presume.
True. Curiosity, though, is what brought me here and keeps me here, for now.Ed209 wrote:i have done this way with 3 other people, all with tvs, sent one letter saying no longer required then next letter you get is a green one and they say they will contact you in 2 years, when they do just tell them nothing has changed. 100% works, i dont think its worth being over nasty to the guys at the door, its only a shitty little job for them the last thing they care about is the ins and outs of the laws.
Here's the problem with this. You accepted no risk - you don't own a TV. I see it as irresponsible to advise people who do own a TV to do the same thing based on your experience. What do you suggest these people do if they want to retain their TV's but not pay a licence and dont want to be penalised for said? Your letter was in good faith, and was taken and accepted by TV Licensing as a notification that you don't own a TV. Your three friend's letters, however, were not in good faith, and were deliberately misleading in that they carried the implication that your friends did not have TVs either. Their green letters were received on that misleading basis alone.
Tell you what, if you *genuinely* believe it was the "no contract" Freeman argument that got TV Licensing off your back, with the next friend you advise, tell them to write "I do own a TV, which I use to watch live television broadcasts" alongside the usual "I believe I do not require your services". I somehow doubt your friend will recieve a green letter, because what you're saying holds no weight at all. Are you aware people have done just that?
Skeptical but Curious
Geronimo wrote:What do you suggest these people do if they want to retain their TV's but not pay a licence and dont want to be penalised for said?
Geronimo wrote:Are you aware people have done just that?
SbutC wrote:Geronimo wrote:What do you suggest these people do if they want to retain their TV's but not pay a licence and dont want to be penalised for said?
I don't claim to offer an alternative. I suppose they could join the campaign for a change in the law. I don't agree with this particular law Law? either, but I don't pretend it doesn't exist.
Surely you agree that saying "it worked for me" is misleading when your situation was wholly different to the one you're offering advice on. His friends now stand to receive fines if TVL decide to check up on their claims, whereas the OP doesn't.Geronimo wrote:Are you aware people have done just that?
I wasn't aware of that. There is a lot of 'evidence' that people have done what you suggested, perhaps you need to look it up unless your mind is already made up. In fact it would seem that if you enter tpuc into google an article by JH dealing with TV licensing actually comes up. Funny how you have never seen that. Are you one of these people? That would be my business but suffice to say i dont need a licence, nor do i need a newspaper or the BBC or the main news, or an ariel for that matter. Anything else you want to ask...? I've briefly browsed the most recent 3 pages of this sub-forum and nobody seems to be making that claim. It seems clear to me that such a letter would be unacceptable to the TVL because if it was, telling a visting TVL inspector the same thing would have the same effect. Which it doesn't.
Skeptical but Curious and perhaps slightly lazy
I presume you mean the article (http://www.tpuc.org/content/tv-licensin ... lus-won-co) posted by JH in which he admits to the TVL that he uses the TV and finds himself in court 3 months later, only getting out of prosecution on a technicality that had nothing at all to do with claims to not require their service. You'll note he didn't recieve a green letter following his admission, just his day in court. Did you really mean to point me to further proof of what I'm saying?
It's likely they moved onto easier targets but don't worry - I'm sure you're still on their list. I presume your doorstep posturing didn't earn you a green letter(?), so I don't see that it shows anything other than if you make things difficult for the TVL they're inclined to go for an easier target. Nothing in your experience contradicts my point that the OP's green letter is purely a result of not having a TV and that he wouldn't have that letter if he'd said he owned one, just like you didn't recieve a green letter after making it abundantly clear you didn't feel you needed a license (but revealed your TV).
Skeptical but Curious
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest