Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Frank Hovis

Tv Licensing Officers Being Threatened

Recommended Posts

Now threatening people who are only doing their job (and presumably only do it as they have to since they would otherwise lose benefits) is bad form.

in the last financial year, 89 enquiry officers were victims of physical assaults by members of the public.

That is 37 more than in the previous year and included several instances in which staff were admitted to hospital.

But the comment on the article is superb.

Lafrowda | November 10 2015, 7:08PM

They plague people who have no license because they have no T.V. Acting like Gestapo, parking outside houses with headlights shining upon the windows. Sending intimidating letters describing the court action & consequences for no license and all the time you have no t.v. ITS NOT A CRIME.

Exactly. I treat these threatening letters with contempt (though they are too shiny to put them to the use they deserve) but I have read of elderly people without a TV buying a licence because of these letters. All they have to do is put at the top of the letter in capitals:

IF YOU DO NOT WATCH OR RECORD LIVE TV THEN YOU DO NOT NEED A LICENCE AND OUR APOLOGIES FOR BOTHERING YOU

And the worry would cease, They're not going to though are they?

Please vote + on the comment; let's set a record.

http://www.cornishman.co.uk/8203-TV-licensing-officers-receive-death-threats/story-28149697-detail/story.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those letters alternate between "we're about to open an investigation" and "we've opened an investigation". And they've even sent "we called but you were out". Most recently they left the latter tucked half-in to the green wheelie bin (held in place by its lid but sticking out so I saw it when I came past), presumably 'cos they couldn't be arsed to come up more than 40 steps from the road to the house.

A silly game, but I decline to be intimidated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't condone violence, but the accounts of people throwing TVs at them is funny.

:lol: Ah so you do have a TV...

Is it true that if you keep re-posting the un-opened semi-threatening letters they send the bill for the freepost service eventually outstrips what you owe for the licence and they stop bothering you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those letters alternate between "we're about to open an investigation" and "we've opened an investigation". And they've even sent "we called but you were out". Most recently they left the latter tucked half-in to the green wheelie bin (held in place by its lid but sticking out so I saw it when I came past), presumably 'cos they couldn't be arsed to come up more than 40 steps from the road to the house.

A silly game, but I decline to be intimidated.

"What to expect in court" is the funniest one, pure B.S from start to finish, but the licence works out at less than £3 per week though, easier just to pay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"What to expect in court" is the funniest one, pure B.S from start to finish, but the licence works out at less than £3 per week though, easier just to pay?

Yeah, that's a bunch of boilerplate on one of them. I lack the experience to comment as you have done, but on the assumption that they'd have some evidence of a crime before taking you to court, I assume it's all irrelevant anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"What to expect in court" is the funniest one, pure B.S from start to finish, but the licence works out at less than £3 per week though, easier just to pay?

Danegeld is expensive, though. £3 a week is £152 a year. To produce that, you need to have £5000 - £6000 invested. That's a lot of wonga to pay to meet their unfounded demands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: Ah so you do have a TV...

Is it true that if you keep re-posting the un-opened semi-threatening letters they send the bill for the freepost service eventually outstrips what you owe for the licence and they stop bothering you?

Oh, I have a TV, for the occasional DVD. I don't need a licence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I have a TV, for the occasional DVD. I don't need a licence.

Please send me my tastless German porn back. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now threatening people who are only doing their job (and presumably only do it as they have to since they would otherwise lose benefits) is bad form.

"Only doing their job" isn't an acceptable excuse for being an a***hole. Whether it's someone's job or not is entirely beside the point about how they deserve to be treated (not that I'm condoning threats, just saying that "it's their job" isn't a good reason not to make them).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"What to expect in court" is the funniest one, pure B.S from start to finish, but the licence works out at less than £3 per week though, easier just to pay?

I pay it as the missus watches some live crap. In context though £3 a week for say the 50 years you'll pay the license - 7.5k. A holiday of a lifetime perhaps. Ofc in reality such weekly amounts don't work out as lifetime savings that way for most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been at this address for 15 years. On the voters register since I moved in. Every letter from them is addressed to 'The Legal Occupier'. They can't even be bothered to look up my name. No TV so they get binned without being opened. When the guy calls to check I refuse entry.

Heard of one case where the TV licence was in the wifes name. Guy buys a new TV for his mother and gives his name and addy to the retailer. Gets hounded for years with 'We have no record of a licence at this address' even though there was a licence for that address.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't watched live TV for months. I may not renew my subscription!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I pay it as the missus watches some live crap. In context though £3 a week for say the 50 years you'll pay the license - 7.5k. A holiday of a lifetime perhaps. Ofc in reality such weekly amounts don't work out as lifetime savings that way for most.

Like the non-smoker who tells the smoker: "If you had saved your fag money for the last 10 years you could have a Ferrari now"

And the smoker replies: "Really? Well where's your f*cking Ferrari then?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like the non-smoker who tells the smoker: "If you had saved your fag money for the last 10 years you could have a Ferrari now"

And the smoker replies: "Really? Well where's your f*cking Ferrari then?"

They spent the "fag money" on something else? If you really want a Ferrari you can probably get one eventually. I liked Lolo Ferrari, and her unfeasably unrealistic chest!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel sorry for people who are hassled and don't watch tv. I don't feel sorry for people who are hassled but should pay the fee.

Ultimately the system of payment is screwed up. It's like an honesty box with a security guard that has his back turned a lot.

At some point the system is going to change. The people who don't watch currently won't lose out, because they never watched, and still won't be able to watch. In fact it will improve for them, as they have no chance of being hassled.

The people that do watch and do pay will just continue.

The losers will be the people that don't pay and do watch. Because any new system is likely to shut them out of this option. So the more people that don't pay, the quicker the time will come when they have no choice but to pay if they want to watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not have a "subscrition service", and then we will find out exactly what it is "worth"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like the non-smoker who tells the smoker: "If you had saved your fag money for the last 10 years you could have a Ferrari now"

And the smoker replies: "Really? Well where's your f*cking Ferrari then?"

Well the money I saved on fags went on hookers...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the money I saved on fags went on hookers...

Say that on a US website and expect a few queries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They sent me a calendar kindly, yesterday. First time I had seen that type of letter. Two weeks of dates with the 10th day in RED, saying an investigation would be opened if I didn't reply by then.

Again, it encouraged me to ring or go online to say I don't need a license. When I tried to do that 2 years ago there were a load of questions that were irrelevant to whether I needed a license, so I didn't continue.

I'll be polite when they visit and let them in if they have a warrant. While I've no TV, I'm sure the computers will be an issue; I'll refer them to my ISP as I've ever streamed live TV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel sorry for people who are hassled and don't watch tv. I don't feel sorry for people who are hassled but should pay the fee.

Ultimately the system of payment is screwed up. It's like an honesty box with a security guard that has his back turned a lot.

At some point the system is going to change. The people who don't watch currently won't lose out, because they never watched, and still won't be able to watch. In fact it will improve for them, as they have no chance of being hassled.

The people that do watch and do pay will just continue.

The losers will be the people that don't pay and do watch. Because any new system is likely to shut them out of this option. So the more people that don't pay, the quicker the time will come when they have no choice but to pay if they want to watch.

I really think this is glossing over the tectonic shifts in the way media is now consumed.

Previously, it couldn't be argued that pay per view was a viable option but that isn't the case now.

I don't think the resistance to change, from the BBC is because, they wouldn't like to grab that missing revenue by making iplayer only accessible to licence holders it's a fear, those watching without a licence, will stop watching altogether.

The bottom line is the BBC could always easily just have been funded from general taxation. The only reason it isn't/wasn't is a licence fee conceit ascribes value and independence to it, neither of which really exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll be polite when they visit and let them in if they have a warrant. While I've no TV, I'm sure the computers will be an issue; I'll refer them to my ISP as I've ever streamed live TV.

Don't, it's up to them to prove, not you to prove otherwise. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   67 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.