Got the tv licence squashed

[SbutC]

Have you a Tv licence?

How is this relevant to the point I'm making? Is this how you propose we discuss the matter - that you claim to provide evidence for your opinion (which is actually evidence for my *own* point), quote but then fail to respond to a post that point this out to you, and then ask irrelevant questions (that you've already declined to answer yourself)? I'm not prepared to follow you as you flit around from point to point, ignoring my responses.

How can I not have been what you term an "Easy Target."

As you said, there are much easier targets out there - people who will incriminate themselves, admit their liability and pay up. You're obviously not an easy target at all and it's ludicrous to claim you are. It'd require significantly more time, human resource and cost to progress your case - and I'm sure (and TVL realise) that you'd fight them every step of the way. That they haven't taken you to court yet is merely down to prioritisation. If it was down to "no contract", they'd have handed you a green letter the first time you told them you didn't want their services.

SbutC

[frogmanbrabs]

Why do you need a licence(permission) to use your own property in your own house. Just because I own a car that can break the speed limit doesn't mean I'm going to use it to break the speed limit. If I buy a TV it doesn't necessarily mean I am going to watch broadcasts from tv companies on it. A computer with internet connection a mobile phone with internet access are other items we are being told we need to have a tv licence for. It's time this outdated imperialstic dogma was ditched and the government's own channel (BBC) was made to fund itself.

[ljtherock]

Have you a Tv licence?

How is this relevant to the point I'm making? Is this how you propose we discuss the matter - that you claim to provide evidence for your opinion (which is actually evidence for my *own* point), quote but then fail to respond to a post that point this out to you, and then ask irrelevant questions (that you've already declined to answer yourself)? I'm not prepared to follow you as you flit around from point to point, ignoring my responses.

How can I not have been what you term an "Easy Target."

As you said, there are much easier targets out there - people who will incriminate themselves, admit their liability and pay up. You're obviously not an easy target at all and it's ludicrous to claim you are. It'd require significantly more time, human resource and cost to progress your case - and I'm sure (and TVL realise) that you'd fight them every step of the way. That they haven't taken you to court yet is merely down to prioritisation. If it was down to "no contract", they'd have handed you a green letter the first time you told them you didn't want their services.

SbutC

"Prioritisation", they dont have such beyond, trying on their luck because the reality being they know that the majority just conform and therefore they will always get their funds.
There will never be anything other than economics that play in their act, simply that to collect £150 plus from anyone but have to spend any amount above that would be false economics.
It could be seen that in the odd case they will enact the false economics on the basis that the poor souls who fall foul of it will become "deterrents".

The above aside though, "I do not need a tv license and nor does any other." This is fact...

Their is a part of their law that amounts to; If you do not know that a rule being applied against you is not law then it applies as if it were. A get out of truth clause for the claimed authorities.

Anyone being enforced to hand over money, rights belongings etc against their will only needs to face down their conditioned fears and look at what they claim in the sense of foundational evidence is false.

THEY have no authority except by force or coercion, beyond that nothing.
Firstly, one only needs to enquire as to where they claim their authority derives and follow the chain back unto the point that it is broken and no foundational evidence can be proved beyond that first broken link.

Please do not iterate to me that all legislation is done via consent as that is transparently false.



Almost forgot.

I do not need a "Green Letter" from them to state I can do anything as that is tantamount to declaring I need their permission as they are in authority over and above others. I need no such thing any more than I require their license as one and the other are facsimile but the one is free as opposed to costed...

[jaybee]

I do not need a "Green Letter" from them

Precisely the point that I would raise on this topic. You need only refer to Capita Business Services Ltd., trading as TV Licensing, if you want to pay the BBC £145.50 for a year's compliance with the tv licence statutory requirement. Other than that, any communication or interaction with the TV Licensing trading operation is pointless. There is no way that Capita/TVL will provide you with an assurance that if they have evidence of you committing a criminal offence, that action will not be taken against you.

[Geronimo]

Have you a Tv licence?

How is this relevant to the point I'm making? Is this how you propose we discuss the matter - that you claim to provide evidence for your opinion (which is actually evidence for my *own* point), quote but then fail to respond to a post that point this out to you, and then ask irrelevant questions (that you've already declined to answer yourself)? I'm not prepared to follow you as you flit around from point to point, ignoring my responses. if you have a licence what are you worried about was the thinking.

How can I not have been what you term an "Easy Target."

As you said, there are much easier targets out there - people who will incriminate themselves, admit their liability and pay up. You're obviously not an easy target at all and it's ludicrous to claim you are. It'd require significantly more time, human resource and cost to progress your case - and I'm sure (and TVL realise) that you'd fight them every step of the way. That they haven't taken you to court yet is merely down to prioritisation. How do you know this? If it was down to "no contract", they'd have handed you a green letter the first time you told them you didn't want their services.

SbutC

[MorningStar]

I'm sure this has already been covered elsewhere, but you only need a TV license if 'you watch television as it is being broadcast'. The TV license is not simply for having a TV, or any other device capable of picking up television signals, but only for those that actually watch the TV as it is broadcast.

You can have any equipment you like, and pay for any service you like (such as sky), but as long as you do not watch it as it is broadcast then you have nothing to worry about.

Tell them you don't watch TV, and they stop sending you letters, tell them that you revoke their implied right of access, and they will stop sending anyone round to check if you have changed your mind.

Oh, and if you ever see a 'detector van' parked anywhere that is not the TV licence building car park ill eat my hat, and if it can be reasonably proven that said van is not completely empty then I will eat my shoes and jumper too.

[Geronimo]

Have you a Tv licence?

How is this relevant to the point I'm making? Is this how you propose we discuss the matter - that you claim to provide evidence for your opinion (which is actually evidence for my *own* point), quote but then fail to respond to a post that point this out to you, and then ask irrelevant questions (that you've already declined to answer yourself)? I'm not prepared to follow you as you flit around from point to point, ignoring my responses.

How can I not have been what you term an "Easy Target."

As you said, there are much easier targets out there - people who will incriminate themselves, admit their liability and pay up. You're obviously not an easy target at all and it's ludicrous to claim you are. It'd require significantly more time, human resource and cost to progress your case - and I'm sure (and TVL realise) that you'd fight them every step of the way. That they haven't taken you to court yet is merely down to prioritisation. If it was down to "no contract", they'd have handed you a green letter the first time you told them you didn't want their services.

SbutC

"Prioritisation", they dont have such beyond, trying on their luck because the reality being they know that the majority just conform and therefore they will always get their funds.
There will never be anything other than economics that play in their act, simply that to collect £150 plus from anyone but have to spend any amount above that would be false economics.
It could be seen that in the odd case they will enact the false economics on the basis that the poor souls who fall foul of it will become "deterrents".

The above aside though, "I do not need a tv license and nor does any other." This is fact...

Their is a part of their law that amounts to; If you do not know that a rule being applied against you is not law then it applies as if it were. A get out of truth clause for the claimed authorities.

Anyone being enforced to hand over money, rights belongings etc against their will only needs to face down their conditioned fears and look at what they claim in the sense of foundational evidence is false.

THEY have no authority except by force or coercion, beyond that nothing.
Firstly, one only needs to enquire as to where they claim their authority derives and follow the chain back unto the point that it is broken and no foundational evidence can be proved beyond that first broken link.

Please do not iterate to me that all legislation is done via consent as that is transparently false.



Almost forgot.

I do not need a "Green Letter" from them to state I can do anything as that is tantamount to declaring I need their permission as they are in authority over and above others. I need no such thing any more than I require their license as one and the other are facsimile but the one is free as opposed to costed...

Ill think you'll find the tro...the poster who was stirring the pot will slink away to another thread and start the bridge work there now.

[SbutC]

Ill think you'll find the tro...the poster who was stirring the pot will slink away to another thread and start the bridge work there now.

Jesus, man! What is your problem exactly? Coming back to this thread to make a further post that adds nothing to the discussion but to bait me into responding? I was planning on leaving the thread alone, but I guess I'll have one final try since it seems you really want me to do so.

"Prioritisation", they dont have such beyond, trying on their luck because the reality being they know that the majority just conform and therefore they will always get their funds.
There will never be anything other than economics that play in their act, simply that to collect £150 plus from anyone but have to spend any amount above that would be false economics.
It could be seen that in the odd case they will enact the false economics on the basis that the poor souls who fall foul of it will become "deterrents".

Exactly my point - it seems we're in agreement here. TVL will focus their resource where it has value to them to do so.

The above aside though, "I do not need a tv license and nor does any other." This is fact...

Their is a part of their law that amounts to; If you do not know that a rule being applied against you is not law then it applies as if it were. A get out of truth clause for the claimed authorities.

Anyone being enforced to hand over money, rights belongings etc against their will only needs to face down their conditioned fears and look at what they claim in the sense of foundational evidence is false.

THEY have no authority except by force or coercion, beyond that nothing.
Firstly, one only needs to enquire as to where they claim their authority derives and follow the chain back unto the point that it is broken and no foundational evidence can be proved beyond that first broken link.

Please do not iterate to me that all legislation is done via consent as that is transparently false.



Almost forgot.

I do not need a "Green Letter" from them to state I can do anything as that is tantamount to declaring I need their permission as they are in authority over and above others. I need no such thing any more than I require their license as one and the other are facsimile but the one is free as opposed to costed...

This is your opinion. TVL have a different opinion of whether what they do is compliant with the law. I'm not going to get into the whole legislation/statute issue because it is opinion. What *aren't* opinion are the actual methods by which the TVL work. You disagree with the legal requirement for a green letter, but to state "I do not need one" is your opinion, and not an explanation for events as you have described them. The methods by which we can assume the TVL work *are* an explanation.

As you said, there are much easier targets out there - people who will incriminate themselves, admit their liability and pay up. You're obviously not an easy target at all and it's ludicrous to claim you are. It'd require significantly more time, human resource and cost to progress your case - and I'm sure (and TVL realise) that you'd fight them every step of the way. That they haven't taken you to court yet is merely down to prioritisation. How do you know this? If it was down to "no contract", they'd have handed you a green letter the first time you told them you didn't want their services.

SbutC

How do I know this? Deduction.

Facts:
1) ljtherock told TVL he didn't contract with them when they first visited him
2) TVL made several subsequent visits
Assumptions:
1) TVL allocate their (finite) resource rationally

Claim:
1) TVL stopped pursuing ljtherock for payment because he refused to contract with them
Deduced to be incorrect because we know they returned to his house on at least two occasions after his first "no contract". If they considered "no contract" a valid reason for non-payment, they wouldn't have returned.

Claim:
2) TVL stopped pursuing ljtherock for payment because he was uncooperative and they did not believe it worth committing the necessary resource to take his case further.
Deduced to be likely given the information presented to us and the above assumption.

Claim
3) TVL stopped pursuing ljtherock for some reason other than 1) or 2)
Impossible to know given the information presented to us.

Hows that?

SbutC

[Geronimo]

Ill think you'll find the tro...the poster who was stirring the pot will slink away to another thread and start the bridge work there now.

Jesus, man! What is your problem exactly? Coming back to this thread to make a further post that adds nothing to the discussion but to bait me into responding? I was planning on leaving the thread alone, but I guess I'll have one final try since it seems you really want me to do so.

"Prioritisation", they dont have such beyond, trying on their luck because the reality being they know that the majority just conform and therefore they will always get their funds.
There will never be anything other than economics that play in their act, simply that to collect £150 plus from anyone but have to spend any amount above that would be false economics.
It could be seen that in the odd case they will enact the false economics on the basis that the poor souls who fall foul of it will become "deterrents".

Exactly my point - it seems we're in agreement here. TVL will focus their resource where it has value to them to do so.

The above aside though, "I do not need a tv license and nor does any other." This is fact...

Their is a part of their law that amounts to; If you do not know that a rule being applied against you is not law then it applies as if it were. A get out of truth clause for the claimed authorities.

Anyone being enforced to hand over money, rights belongings etc against their will only needs to face down their conditioned fears and look at what they claim in the sense of foundational evidence is false.

THEY have no authority except by force or coercion, beyond that nothing.
Firstly, one only needs to enquire as to where they claim their authority derives and follow the chain back unto the point that it is broken and no foundational evidence can be proved beyond that first broken link.

Please do not iterate to me that all legislation is done via consent as that is transparently false.



Almost forgot.

I do not need a "Green Letter" from them to state I can do anything as that is tantamount to declaring I need their permission as they are in authority over and above others. I need no such thing any more than I require their license as one and the other are facsimile but the one is free as opposed to costed...

This is your opinion. TVL have a different opinion of whether what they do is compliant with the law. I'm not going to get into the whole legislation/statute issue because it is opinion. What *aren't* opinion are the actual methods by which the TVL work. You disagree with the legal requirement for a green letter, but to state "I do not need one" is your opinion, and not an explanation for events as you have described them. The methods by which we can assume the TVL work *are* an explanation.

As you said, there are much easier targets out there - people who will incriminate themselves, admit their liability and pay up. You're obviously not an easy target at all and it's ludicrous to claim you are. It'd require significantly more time, human resource and cost to progress your case - and I'm sure (and TVL realise) that you'd fight them every step of the way. That they haven't taken you to court yet is merely down to prioritisation. How do you know this? If it was down to "no contract", they'd have handed you a green letter the first time you told them you didn't want their services.

SbutC

How do I know this? Deduction.

Facts:
1) ljtherock told TVL he didn't contract with them when they first visited him
2) TVL made several subsequent visits
Assumptions:
1) TVL allocate their (finite) resource rationally

Claim:
1) TVL stopped pursuing ljtherock for payment because he refused to contract with them
Deduced to be incorrect because we know they returned to his house on at least two occasions after his first "no contract". If they considered "no contract" a valid reason for non-payment, they wouldn't have returned.

Claim:
2) TVL stopped pursuing ljtherock for payment because he was uncooperative and they did not believe it worth committing the necessary resource to take his case further.
Deduced to be likely given the information presented to us and the above assumption.

Claim
3) TVL stopped pursuing ljtherock for some reason other than 1) or 2)
Impossible to know given the information presented to us.

Hows that?

SbutC

Now dont you feel better?

[ljtherock]

@SbutC...

It is good to see we agree at times.

What you have deduced is just your opinion.

As to what you claim is my opinion, you are absolutely 100% incorrect...

I do not "NEED" a T.V license.

I do not "NEED" a green letter.

No man/woman "NEEDS" either also... Fact.



I may be incorrect in this next assumption... but,
It comes across that you may believe I am what is termed a "Freeman."

I am nothing of the like or any other similar ilk.

I am just a man who knows that "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."
Therefore I am not ignorant of it.

I know there "Is always remedy in law."

"The law does not require the impossible."
In context of law, that is absolutely true.

"Dieu et mon droit."
This is what I am in full agreement of, especially in concern of "All are equal in law" and that is also absolutely true.