TV licensing (Capita) impersonating police officers?
Discussion
Everyone's missed the obvious response here!
TV Licencing Officer: "Hello, we'd like to talk to you about your TV Licence status."
Homeowner: "Go away, EastEnders is on!"
Onto more pressing matters, however...
And
Hope that's cleared everything up.
(Ignore me, I'm in a playful mood tonight.)
TV Licencing Officer: "Hello, we'd like to talk to you about your TV Licence status."
Homeowner: "Go away, EastEnders is on!"
Onto more pressing matters, however...
And
Hope that's cleared everything up.
(Ignore me, I'm in a playful mood tonight.)
psi310398 said:
As a matter of principle, I should not need to prove to anybody that I'm not breaking the law, least of all a bunch of spivs on sales targets.
This pretty much sums up my views on the matter.I have a TV licence at home as I do watch live TV, although the amount of live TV I watch has dwindled massively, but I don't have a TV at my business premises, yet I am now regularly receiving threatening letters from Crapita.
Yes, I could take 2 minutes out of my day to tell them I don't have a TV, but why should I?
If it bothers them that much, then they can waste their own time and money 'investigating me' if they want to, but I will not assist them in any way.
I don't have to prove anything to them.
They are absolute C**ts, 5 years ago we moved into a property to renovate and move into - sure enough, within days of moving in some tosser is on the doorstep with my wife is tears, giving her the riot act about how she could be going to jail because he can see the kids are watching Mickey Mouse (still no curtains and a concrete floor at that point!).
She did have the sense not to sign the incriminating confession he insisted she must sign before he'd leave the property and hounded her through the window for a while. Our valid license for the other house 50m away was swapped immediately, but that didn't stop them harassing us by post, ultimately letting us off with a warning. Nice.
If I'd been home he'd have ended up with the cops around with accusations of peeping in the windows whilst she changed the boys nappies on the floor.
She did have the sense not to sign the incriminating confession he insisted she must sign before he'd leave the property and hounded her through the window for a while. Our valid license for the other house 50m away was swapped immediately, but that didn't stop them harassing us by post, ultimately letting us off with a warning. Nice.
If I'd been home he'd have ended up with the cops around with accusations of peeping in the windows whilst she changed the boys nappies on the floor.
Ross_T_Boss said:
They are absolute C**ts, 5 years ago we moved into a property to renovate and move into - sure enough, within days of moving in some tosser is on the doorstep with my wife is tears
f
k those fkers. Sorry your wife had to go through that, esp as those s at the BBC spend public money so well. DELETED: Comment made by a member who's account has been deleted.
You think the bbc plays a valuable role in radio but you're not prepared to pay for it? The BBC, after the NHS, is one of the few things we have left to be proud of. It is internationally renowned as a source of accurate information. I think it’s a bargain. (I don’t work for the bbc by the way, or any other media organisation)
ChevronB19 said:
The BBC, after the NHS, is one of the few things we have left to be proud of. It is internationally renowned as a source of accurate information. I think it’s a bargain. (I don’t work for the bbc by the way, or any other media organisation)
I've lived in 7 countries. Visited around 70 countries. I have never, ever, anywhere, at any time, heard anyone say anything about the BBC. Not say anything good, not say anything bad. Nothing - because it is totally irrelevant to them, so random members of the public no more talk about the BBC than they talk about if there might be where they might go to sing karaoke if they were to visit Botswana. Nobody even thinks about it.
ChevronB19 said:
The BBC, after the NHS, is one of the few things we have left to be proud of. It is internationally renowned as a source of accurate information. I think it’s a bargain. (I don’t work for the bbc by the way, or any other media organisation)
So the BBC keeps telling us. It might have been true in the 60s but it has been resting on its laurels for decades and really is nothing special any more (at least the TV arm).
As for the news, in its own Guardianista way, it seems to me as biased as Fox News.
For a period of about three years, I house sat my daughter's empty house. In that period, the mail arrived, a lot from TV licencing. First of was a NICE letter to remind occupant that TV licence had expired. Next came more threating letters. And even ones the threating to force entry. House was obviously empty, yet there was another threat to visit, and again, force entry. I did reply as caretaker that house was empty, and no licence was needed. I got a reply to empty house asking for details. I ignored this, as some poor old lady ,not able to afford the cost of paying for BBC executive lunches, was being ignored/ left alone. Then next came the nice ones.
Can/have their goons been known to enter your rear garden to look through your back windows?
The TV in my front playroom has a now tv with kids on demand tv only.
My other tv is at the rear of the house and although I don't watch live TV but I am not the only person who uses the the TV.
The TV in my front playroom has a now tv with kids on demand tv only.
My other tv is at the rear of the house and although I don't watch live TV but I am not the only person who uses the the TV.
Tony 1234 said:
Runes said:
The number of licences has been increasing recently, and research suggests that the reputation of TV Licens...: http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/docum...
Probably paid for by the BBC!!!Runes said:
I think it is, but that doesn't get us very far does it? Do you think the researchers' finding are wrong? If so, why?
Of course it was paid for by the BBC. Who else would do so? The report confims it. Section 5 Public Opinion.
In 2010/11, TV licensing has developed an index which allows monitoring attitudes towards TV licensing. Data collection for this index was commissioned from Harris Interactive.
As for 'research', pfft.
The graph has been 'lifted' straight from this - https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/... - wherein the NAO swallowed whole the BBC's self congratulatory spiel.
Performance measures relating to reputation have improved, and the volume of complaints has halved, since 2010.
TV Licensing tracks public attitudes monthly, separating the views of the general population from those of people who delay or evade paying their licence fee.
In other words nothing more than opinions gathered by a market research company.
And any fule knows that a report will say what those commissioning and paying for it want it to.
As for how, look no further: - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3I6hcuzMVY
That was over 30 years ago (January 1986). Don't be misled by the entertainment factor: much of the content came from insiders.
The briefing paper was prepared by a university undergraduate whose prior experience is as a youth trainer and the leader of youth organizations.
Currently studying BA international relations at the University of Essex and working as a Political Analyst (Social Statistics Research assistant) at the House of Commons.
It's nothing more than a regurgitation of BBC produced/commissioned guff. Just look at references in the footnotes ffs! Impartial briefing and evidence base, my a**e.
Back O/T.
The offence is contained in Section 363 (mere ownership/possession of a receiving instrument is not depite what C*apita's doorkockers will try to make out).
However you then have to look at the defintion of a television receiver for the offence to be made out. That is in a different SI.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/692/regula...
as amended by
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/704/regula...
The 2016 amendment to include iPlayer but not other catch-up services from the commercial channels is a joke.
Good luck trying to convince some goon that that you only watch the latter and never iPlayer or any live broadcasts from whatever source.
That
Whittingdale* didn't have a clue what mess of pottage he was allowing when he caved in the BBC.By completing the online NLN declaration all you are doing is giving them your name and thereby helpingthem update their database.
That's its sole purpose, not to allow you to MYOB in peace. If you don't believe that read their NLN Policy Document.
An interesting little wrinkle btw. It is perfectly legal to watch S4C on demand on iPlayer without a licence.
You just won't understand the words unless you're reasonably fluent in Cymraeg...
If you're legally licence free, by far the best tactic is to ignore the threatograms and don't answer the door.
I moved to my present address several years ago. I'm now completely anonymous to TVL and it's staying that way.
* He was SoS when the BBC's new charter was being negotiated and the existing funding model confirmed and continued.
I wouldn't be in the least suprised if the government did a deal: I'll bet the BBC knew about his little secret.
On top of that, having a (much older) half brother who was already a convicted paedophile probably didn't help.
Interesting that the White Paper was laid before the House on 12th May 2016. In July the PM dumped him.
Funk said:
It just shows how stupid these rules/laws are. Just make the whole damn thing subscription-only and leave those of us who don't want the BBC alone.
The licence is for receiving live broadcasts (from any source) and is an outdated and moribund relic of when Auntie was the only TV channel available.Only the British could come up with such a stupid clunky arangement - http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-financial-i...
The fee is collected by a private company sub-contractor (at a cost: C*apita isn't a charity and doesn't work for free).
It is then paid over to the government Consolidated Fund. The DCM&S then pays it back (minus its cut of course) to the BBC.
It's utterly daft and not fit for the 21st century.
If the BBC were to go subscription only I predict its income would drop noticeably. The Corporation isn't going to give up it's profligate lifestyle without a fight.
The subscription cost would have to be quite a lot more than the current fee to compensate for that.
Australia abolished the TV licence in 1974. It's high time we did the same.
Red Devil said:
.....
Thanks for the links in that reply.There is still one term that intrigues me as such from the legislation.....
"installed or used"
The word "used" is clear enough, but the word "installed" leaves the door open to possibly mean simply having a TV plugged in. Whether connected to an aerial or not, whether the TV has been tuned to receive channels or not.
When presented in front of a judge, as this is a criminal matter, how is the individual suppose to defend himself if he simply owns a TV but does not require a license ?
Cooperman said:
There are some wonderful clips of the C*apita goons calling on people.
This one is short sweet and straight to the point 
https://youtu.be/Sr6QrJjYOxoChevronB19 said:
You think the bbc plays a valuable role in radio but you're not prepared to pay for it?
The BBC, after the NHS, is one of the few things we have left to be proud of. It is internationally renowned as a source of accurate information. I think it’s a bargain. (I don’t work for the bbc by the way, or any other media organisation)
I'm fairly sure that our main house TV has not been switched on for 2 months now. The fact is that if you think the Beeb is wonderful etc, then you pay for it. I'm happy to pay my taxes, NI, RFL, VAT so that the country benefits in the form of defence, government, education and health. I'm not happy to pay for something that is not essential.The BBC, after the NHS, is one of the few things we have left to be proud of. It is internationally renowned as a source of accurate information. I think it’s a bargain. (I don’t work for the bbc by the way, or any other media organisation)
This is a brilliant website: http://www.bbctvlicence.com/index.htm
ChevronB19 said:
But you don’t want to pay for the radio aspect either, despite saying it plays a valuable role?
I find BBC radio fking annoying, even when not listening to it. If I'm driving around between FM reception areas and I do a channel search, I get multiple frequencies with the same boring, pointless BBC radio channel which I have to scan through. The commercial stations, who actually have to find their own cash instead of extorting it off the public under threat of criminal prosecution, don't rave anywhere near as many frequencies. Must get DAB in next car to make it easier to identify BBC stations and ignore them.
f
k the BBC. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff