OT Totally, and a little bit rude... The side effects of fixing empty buildings...
Tim S
licence when you don't have any TV apparatus.
Long story short - told them the situation by phone and in writing. Still
get reminders each month.
But this one really p*ssed me off;
http://www.dionic.net/tv/OfficialWarning.jpeg
[address redacted so pikeys don't raid my house hoping for tools, which
there aren't...]
So I sent them this:
(very very unsuitable for work and kids)
http://www.dionic.net/tv/Reply.jpeg
Won't do any good - but I needed some ventilation in the spleen area.
I'm normally such a reasonable person (ha!)
Cheers
Tim
PS
Am I going to prision now?
Mike Dodd
> (very very unsuitable for work and kids)
>
> http://www.dionic.net/tv/Reply.jpeg
ROFL!
The Medway Handyman
Tim S
Yes - it's really in the postbox as of now.
Based on my experience working in the JobCentre, I expect the staff will pin
it to the wall in the tearoom, along with the other best 10 of the
month ;->
What I really would like is for their enforcer to show up in person, whilst
I'm wearing my steelies and have a wide variety of lethal powertools to
hand.
Hugh Jampton
> http://www.dionic.net/tv/Reply.jpeg
I like it :-)
Unfortunately 99.9% of the population are totally addicted to the Idiot's
Lantern and find it impossible to believe that there are still some of us
who never watch it :-(
--
Regards,
Hugh Jampton
Tim S
I watch it when I wish to achieve selective vegetative degeneration, and I
have a bloody licence at the address where the TV is - which makes me
doublepluspissedoff.
Must be one of those days. Can't get my domain registrar to unlock my domain
so I can get my ISP to take it over. Two polite phone calls have had me
assured it would be actioned today. Not...
Last email threatened them with a cron job auto-emailing a support ticket in
to them every 5 minutes until it's done, if they don't sort it out
tomorrow. I will too...
Bob Eager
number, and was the purpose of the letter to gather that revenue...
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com
Bob Eager
Give them a deadline, and say that after that you're going to Nominet.
That tends to do it..
Tim S
> Give them a deadline, and say that after that you're going to Nominet.
> That tends to do it..
>
Yes - an excellent tactic. Before or after I mail-bomb them?
d...@gglz.com
letters straight in the bin.
In case anyone doesn't know, TV Licensing is a private company with no
special legal powers of any sort.
If someone came round your door demanding to inspect your toaster,
you'd probably send them packing.
TV Licensing is in exactly that position. But they pretend otherwise.
So give them nothing, nada, not your name, not the time of day. Don't
give them the tiniest scrap of information about yourself, your home
or any other qustion they may ask.
Tim S
> You forgot to say that you won't be calling their revenue sharing 0844
> number, and was the purpose of the letter to gather that revenue...
It would be worth the money to give them a verbal rendition of my letter :)
I'd have to do it from work - my colleague would make an excellent duo for
this sort of thing - he's an expert in berating idiot suppliers to their
ears.
Though I suspect the gentle sarcasm may be lost on the Indian bloke at the
other end.
Tim S
Agree generally.
The only special info they have is a list of current licenses and a list of
reception apparatus sold by the bigger traders (you did tell the bloke your
correct address when you paid cash for that telly, didn't you?).
It's Customs & Excise you need to worry about - they do have special powers
that make the police look gay, for a limited and specific set of suspected
infringments.
Dave Baker
"Tim S" <t...@dionic.net> wrote in message
news:496d057c$0$512$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk...
> ... is that TV Licensing cannot cope with the concept that you don't need
> a
> licence when you don't have any TV apparatus.
>
> Long story short - told them the situation by phone and in writing. Still
> get reminders each month.
>
> But this one really p*ssed me off;
>
> http://www.dionic.net/tv/OfficialWarning.jpeg
>
> [address redacted so pikeys don't raid my house hoping for tools, which
> there aren't...]
>
> So I sent them this:
>
> (very very unsuitable for work and kids)
>
> http://www.dionic.net/tv/Reply.jpeg
>
>
> Won't do any good - but I needed some ventilation in the spleen area.
You're right it won't do any good. I think the only thing that briefly stops
them sending their shitty letters out is having one of their plebs visit and
confirm there's no tv but they'll start sending the letters again a few
months later in case you've bought one since. I haven't had a tv license for
about five or six years now. I didn't renew it immediately one year as the
tv had broken and I bought a new one a few months later after I got the tv
fixed. Then the swines sent me a letter saying they'd backdated the new
license to when the old one ran out hence losing me the cost of the months I
hadn't needed one for. I said to myself that's the last time the pricks get
any of my money and it has been. They send a standard shitty letter about
once every six weeks and a recorded delivery one so they can get a signature
from the occupant about once a year but so far none of their plebs have come
round. I'm hoping one will eventually so I can tell him he's a private
individual with no rights of access who's trespassing now so piss off
because there's something on the telly I want to watch.
The ONLY way you can get done for not having a license is let one of them
inside to get the evidence which you have absolutely no need to do unless
they have a warrant which they never will. It costs them too much. Basically
it's a voluntary tax which I've decided I can manage quite happily without
paying.
--
Dave Baker
PS - if it went to court the thing on the telly I wanted to watch was either
1) My goldfish, cos that's where his bowl is, because he's been looking a
bit off colour recently.
or
2) A pre-recorded tape or dvd which you don't need a license for anyway.
OG
If you've only sent the one letter probably not, but there is a risk if you
were to send another letter along the same lines.
Seriously.
I read somewhere that someone who wrote a couple of sarky letters of
complaint to a company got investigated by NECTU, the police unit set up to
investigate groups such as animal rights extremists and the like who
undertake campaigns of harassment against shareholders and employees. I
don't have evidence to hand for this, but I think I read about it in Private
Eye.
Tim S
> I read somewhere that someone who wrote a couple of sarky letters of
> complaint to a company got investigated by NECTU, the police unit set up
> to investigate groups such as animal rights extremists and the like who
> undertake campaigns of harassment against shareholders and employees. I
> don't have evidence to hand for this, but I think I read about it in
> Private Eye.
</Me tears up letter proclaiming a holy jihad upon Crapita, with bombs and
virgins and everything>
geoff
<t...@dionic.net> writes
>... is that TV Licensing cannot cope with the concept that you don't need a
>licence when you don't have any TV apparatus.
>
>http://www.dionic.net/tv/Reply.jpeg
>
I got exactly the same and strangely enough, my reply to them was
exactly the same as yours, with the exception of the all the words
preceding "fuck off"
They are quite welcome to attempt to gain entrance to my factory at
their own expense
At the end of the day, its just scare tactics and you should complain to
your MP about their immoral bullying tactics
--
geoff
John Rumm
> Long story short - told them the situation by phone and in writing. Still
> get reminders each month.
You have my sympathies, I experienced this twice in recent times... no
amount of telling the buggers seems to serve any purpose. In the end I
found that dropping them straight into the bin was the most effective
and least irritating way of dealing with them.
> But this one really p*ssed me off;
>
> http://www.dionic.net/tv/OfficialWarning.jpeg
Usual fare, the presumption of guilt, and lots of non specific threats...
> So I sent them this:
>
> (very very unsuitable for work and kids)
>
> http://www.dionic.net/tv/Reply.jpeg
LoL!
I thought my last attempt before giving up in disgust was reasonably
sarky, but I like your's better!
got a copy somewhere... oh yes:
"Sent via email 30/11/06 – reference number : EM0002445143
Dear Sir,
Re: my mothers property at [redacted]
As you seem keen to point out on a frequent basis, the above mentioned
property is unlicensed. By way of clarification I would like to point
out that this is not an oversight, and it is by intention.
The reason for this is that (as I explained before in my letter of 2nd
March 2006) due to my mothers poor health, the property is currently
unoccupied. It is now highly probable the property will remain
unoccupied until it is sold.
I would appreciate it if you could therefore desist in sending further
letters.
I would also like to take this opportunity to register my complaint as
to the tone and style of the letters that you have sent. In particular
the language seems designed to intimidate and harass, and would be
perceived by many as threatening.
Yours faithfully,"
etc.
Got a stock reply "we have updated our records and should not contact
you again for 3 months, however after that bla, bla". 1 week later, more
snottygrammes.
Had the same happen when I moved out of the last place (I was planning
some refurb prior to selling it) - transferred the license here (via
their web site that delightfully requests that you tell them within 14
days of moving into your new address, and has validation on the data
entry form that prevents entering any moving date that is not at least
three weeks into the future!
I then just binned all the letters.
--
Cheers,
John.
/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/
Pete Verdon
> Last email threatened them with a cron job auto-emailing a support ticket in
> to them every 5 minutes until it's done, if they don't sort it out
> tomorrow. I will too...
Sounds rather silly. It's not as if they can't block it leaving you
"shouting at an empty room", and you do actually need to work with these
people. Unlike the TV Licensing tossers - ineffective spleen-venting as
you say, but the last two lines were absolute classic :-)
Pete
Tim S
> Tim S wrote:
>
>> Last email threatened them with a cron job auto-emailing a support ticket
>> in to them every 5 minutes until it's done, if they don't sort it out
>> tomorrow. I will too...
>
> Sounds rather silly. It's not as if they can't block it leaving you
> "shouting at an empty room", and you do actually need to work with these
> people.
Yep - more of a jest, but their sysadmin might see a hint of humour in it :)
Tim S
BTW - it's their fault anyway for not having a "so long and thanks for all
the fish" button on the control panel. I can do everything else without
human contact.
ABTW - do you remember Alan Ralsky? - they totally mail-bombed him, with
great effect.
geoff
<see.my.s...@nowhere.null> writes
>Tim S wrote:
>
>> Long story short - told them the situation by phone and in writing. Still
>> get reminders each month.
>
>You have my sympathies, I experienced this twice in recent times... no
>amount of telling the buggers seems to serve any purpose. In the end I
>found that dropping them straight into the bin was the most effective
>and least irritating way of dealing with them.
>
>> But this one really p*ssed me off;
>> http://www.dionic.net/tv/OfficialWarning.jpeg
>
>Usual fare, the presumption of guilt, and lots of non specific threats...
>
>> So I sent them this:
>> (very very unsuitable for work and kids)
>> http://www.dionic.net/tv/Reply.jpeg
>
>LoL!
>
>
>I thought my last attempt before giving up in disgust was reasonably
>sarky, but I like your's better!
>
My next reply will be
"you are correct, the above address has no TV licence
Come on if you think you're 'ard enough"
Several years ago I explained that it was an engineering works, there
was no TV, stop wasting my licence payers money and got a letter of
apology
So now I give them no information, just wind them up to the best of my
abilities
make them play your game, don't play theirs
--
geoff
Dave
> They send a standard shitty letter about
> once every six weeks and a recorded delivery one so they can get a signature
> from the occupant about once a year
They would find me in the pub at delivery time, having a pint of real
ale :-)
> but so far none of their plebs have come
> round. I'm hoping one will eventually so I can tell him he's a private
> individual with no rights of access who's trespassing now so piss off
> because there's something on the telly I want to watch.
I love that line and if the wife goes before me, the television will be
for DVD's and the vast number of videos that we have built up, only.
Dave
John Rumm
>> I thought my last attempt before giving up in disgust was reasonably
>> sarky, but I like your's better!
>>
> I think its just wasted on them
>
> My next reply will be
>
> "you are correct, the above address has no TV licence
>
> Come on if you think you're 'ard enough"
>
> Several years ago I explained that it was an engineering works, there
> was no TV, stop wasting my licence payers money and got a letter of apology
>
> So now I give them no information, just wind them up to the best of my
> abilities
>
> make them play your game, don't play theirs
It might be fun to send them a letter pointing out that <inert criminal
activity of your choice> is illegal and they could get fined if
caught... Mention you might be turning up to inspect their premiss etc.
Frank Erskine
>... is that TV Licensing cannot cope with the concept that you don't need a
>licence when you don't have any TV apparatus.
>
>Long story short - told them the situation by phone and in writing. Still
>get reminders each month.
>
>But this one really p*ssed me off;
>
>http://www.dionic.net/tv/OfficialWarning.jpeg
>
Oh - that's one I haven't got from them. There must be numerous
concoctions of threats issuing from that firm.
My pride and joy must be a _pink_ bit of paper entitled 'Summary of
communications sent to this address', telling me that I have been
warned... , that I have been encouraged... , that I have been made
aware... , that I have been advised... and that I have also
received...
I was told months ago that if I didn't buy a licence immediately,
legal action would be taken - I'm still awaiting a summons to the
local magistrates' court.
I'm looking forward to it, in fact :-)
Why don't they actually do what they occasionally threaten and bring
round their powerful detection apparatus? Actually they've visited a
couple of times, both when I've been out (I wonder if they wait around
the corner until their culprit drives away...)
I don't see why I should have to write to them, paying for a postage
stamp, or phoning them on an 0844 number, when I have no connection
with them.
--
Frank Erskine
Sunderland
Frank Erskine
>Whilst it's tempting, the most effective tactic is to chuck their
>letters straight in the bin.
>
>In case anyone doesn't know, TV Licensing is a private company with no
>special legal powers of any sort.
Actually they do have delegated legal powers, but it all has to be be
done by specific legislation (exactly as it does in the case of a
government body), but people tend to jump to attention if a government
body's person knocks on the door...
--
Frank Erskine
Frank Erskine
>In message <496d057c$0$512$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk>, Tim S
><t...@dionic.net> writes
>>... is that TV Licensing cannot cope with the concept that you don't need a
>>licence when you don't have any TV apparatus.
>>
>At the end of the day, its just scare tactics and you should complain to
>your MP about their immoral bullying tactics
It's a total waste of time complaining to my MP unless it's a matter
of foreign 'rights'...
--
Frank Erskine
Sunderland
jo...@jjdesigns.fsnet.co.uk
Tim S wrote:
> ... is that TV Licensing cannot cope with the concept that you don't need a
> licence when you don't have any TV apparatus.
>
> Long story short - told them the situation by phone and in writing. Still
> get reminders each month.
>
> But this one really p*ssed me off;
>
> http://www.dionic.net/tv/OfficialWarning.jpeg
>
> [address redacted so pikeys don't raid my house hoping for tools, which
> there aren't...]
>
> So I sent them this:
>
> (very very unsuitable for work and kids)
>
> http://www.dionic.net/tv/Reply.jpeg
>
>
> Won't do any good - but I needed some ventilation in the spleen area.
>
> I'm normally such a reasonable person (ha!)
>
> Cheers
>
> Tim
>
> PS
>
> Am I going to prision now?
Warms the cockles of me heart to know there's still real people out
there.
Nice one!
ARWadsworth
a
> licence when you don't have any TV apparatus.
>
> Long story short - told them the situation by phone and in writing. Still
> get reminders each month.
>
> But this one really p*ssed me off;
>
> http://www.dionic.net/tv/OfficialWarning.jpeg
>
> [address redacted so pikeys don't raid my house hoping for tools, which
> there aren't...]
>
> So I sent them this:
>
> (very very unsuitable for work and kids)
>
> http://www.dionic.net/tv/Reply.jpeg
>
>
> Won't do any good - but I needed some ventilation in the spleen area.
>
> I'm normally such a reasonable person (ha!)
>
> Cheers
>
> Tim
>
> PS
>
> Am I going to prision now?
http://www.bbctvlicence.com/index.htm
will show every letter you will receive.
I saved 12 months worth of letters from the TVLA and wrote on them using a
big marker pen "UNWANTED JUNK MAIL RETURN TO SENDER" I then posted all 12
into a postbox. Every letter was sent back unopened and I wrote sarcasic
comments against the "Notice of impending action", "Action Required
Immediately"
I also included in this postbox frenzy a reply form from a TVLA investigator
that actually had the cheek to call at my house when I was at work. This was
my first step to free contact with the TVLA bastards as they gave me a
prepaid envelope. I drew a knob on it and told them to suck it.
I did receive a letter asking me not to return the unopened letters and I
now have been removed from their mail list. As they (TVLA) do not know my
name they claim that they can still send someone round. I did write back and
ask them to "bring it on" but no one has called back.
The Legal Occupier AKA Adam
Tim S
>
> "Tim S" <t...@dionic.net> wrote in message
> news:496d057c$0$512$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk...
>> ... is that TV Licensing cannot cope with the concept that you don't need
> a
>> licence when you don't have any TV apparatus.
>>
>> Long story short - told them the situation by phone and in writing. Still
>> get reminders each month.
>>
>> But this one really p*ssed me off;
>>
>> http://www.dionic.net/tv/OfficialWarning.jpeg
>>
>> [address redacted so pikeys don't raid my house hoping for tools, which
>> there aren't...]
>>
>> So I sent them this:
>>
>> (very very unsuitable for work and kids)
>>
>> http://www.dionic.net/tv/Reply.jpeg
>>
>>
>> Won't do any good - but I needed some ventilation in the spleen area.
>>
>> I'm normally such a reasonable person (ha!)
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> PS
>>
>> Am I going to prision now?
>
> http://www.bbctvlicence.com/index.htm
>
>
> will show every letter you will receive.
Most of those look vaguely familiar...
> I saved 12 months worth of letters from the TVLA and wrote on them using a
> big marker pen "UNWANTED JUNK MAIL RETURN TO SENDER" I then posted all 12
> into a postbox. Every letter was sent back unopened and I wrote sarcasic
> comments against the "Notice of impending action", "Action Required
> Immediately"
> I also included in this postbox frenzy a reply form from a TVLA
> investigator that actually had the cheek to call at my house when I was at
> work. This was my first step to free contact with the TVLA bastards as
> they gave me a prepaid envelope. I drew a knob on it and told them to suck
> it.
Nice move :)
Brass Monkey
I virtually copied their letter and replied with -
ACTION REQUIRED IMMEDIATELY
IMPORTANT: Please respond to this letter by January 2009 to avoid your
details being passed on to the BBC, any form(s) of Watchdog or anyone else I
can think of who might be interested.
Your database lists these addresses as unlicensed. It is important you
realise that both premises are currently vacant. It is also important you
realise that I have already attended to the TV licensing for BOTH properties
around 6 weeks ago. Perhaps you might check your records before 'banging-off'
standard nasty letters?
We still own the properties and they are both empty.
I repeat
WE STILL OWN THE PROPERTIES AND THEY ARE BOTH EMPTY.
It is even more important that you realise that the tone of your
communication is extremely rude, condescending and downright unacceptable.
Please feel free to send your 'Enforcement Division' to the properties,
maybe you might find us sitting in the dark, on orange boxes watching
illegal TV.
The tone of your letters might cause one of two effects, either -
A fraudulent, non-paying viewer will be frightened for their life (don't
make me laugh)
or
A fully-paid-up legitimate viewer (such as myself) will become EXTREMELY
annoyed.
It would appear that your organization couldn't organise a ****-up in a
brewery.
Brass Monkey
"Brass Monkey" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
news:00374284$0$2166$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
I should add, i've yet to receive a reply.
The Natural Philosopher
> ... is that TV Licensing cannot cope with the concept that you don't need a
> licence when you don't have any TV apparatus.
>
> Long story short - told them the situation by phone and in writing. Still
> get reminders each month.
>
> But this one really p*ssed me off;
>
> http://www.dionic.net/tv/OfficialWarning.jpeg
>
> [address redacted so pikeys don't raid my house hoping for tools, which
> there aren't...]
>
> So I sent them this:
>
> (very very unsuitable for work and kids)
>
> http://www.dionic.net/tv/Reply.jpeg
>
>
> Won't do any good - but I needed some ventilation in the spleen area.
>
> I'm normally such a reasonable person (ha!)
>
> Cheers
>
> Tim
>
> PS
>
> Am I going to prision now?
Hah. They did the same to me when I bought a TV for my mum.
the bloody shop sent *my* address to the TV people. As it happened, I
was in rented accom. pending the reconstruction of the house, so it was
highly amusing.
I figured the next tenant would get the men with detector vans.
gazz
>>>> "Tim S" <t...@dionic.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:496d057c$0$512$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk...
>>>>> ... is that TV Licensing cannot cope with the concept that you don't
>>>>> need
>>>> a
>>>>> licence when you don't have any TV apparatus.
i guess they dropped the bit on the old licences that if you watched on a
portable tv running on internal batteries then no licence was required?
they now mention computers and mobile phones, so it's no longer a licence to
watch something that actually recieves the signals i guess??
i my self never watch any bbc channels, utter shite on them, i dont listen
to any radio at all, but i have to have a licence to watch the proggies on
sattelite i do watch (mostly the discovery type chanels) which i pay for in
my sky subscription, and are paid for them selves by adverts and twatty
sponserships of the proggies etc.
The Natural Philosopher
Just go to nominet.
The only downside is that they may still keep records active seen if the
domain is delegated elsewhere.
The Natural Philosopher
of humour and political correctness.
If you send a letter like that you WILL get done for wasting police time.
Its like the last time I got done for speeding. I saifd precisely
nothing, until one bloke asked me waht I was thinking.
"I was thinking what a waste of time it si when you would be catching
terrorists"
"well, if we weren't here taking your details we would be"
My mouth fell open at that point, and I went back to a stony silence..
The Natural Philosopher
Ah, but you MIGHT just watch a video clip online..
I have to say that they should just get a government grant and put the
thing on general taxes.
The days when only a minority had a radio or a TV are long gone.
Do you mean that pay TV still has adverts?
Appelation Controlee
-------------------8><
> Why don't they actually do what they occasionally threaten and bring
> round their powerful detection apparatus?
Because the effectiveness of said apparatus has more to do with it being
seen than what it detects?
Appelation Controlee
-------------------8><
> http://www.bbctvlicence.com/index.htm
>
>
> will show every letter you will receive.
I notice that these letters seem to suggest that you need a TV licence if
you use a computer at home...
Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics)
<URL:mailto:rd...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> Give them a deadline, and say that after that you're going to Nominet.
> That tends to do it..
Oh for that to be a universal truth...
Vispa Internet are holding two of my domains to ransom. Nominet (rightly)
want paying for them to intervene, so being the stubborn git I am, the
domains are stuck until expiry.
--
AJL Electronics (G6FGO) Ltd : Satellite and TV aerial systems
http://www.classicmicrocars.co.uk : http://www.ajlelectronics.co.uk
Piers Finlayson
> You forgot to say that you won't be calling their revenue sharing 0844
> number, and was the purpose of the letter to gather that revenue...
I was terribly amuseed to receive a letter from the AA asking me to give
them a call on an 0870 number becauase they really wanted me to renew my
car insurance with them and they didn't have my number on file so couldn't
call me. And they were asking for 50% more on my car insurance than last
year even though I now have a year no-claims discount.
Piers Finlayson
letters from TV licensing, even after complaining to them.
When we moved into this house in November 2007 (over a year ago), we
decided to get right of our TV - there's no reception here so the only
answer would be to use a dish (which in fact the previous occupants
installed). We decided not to waste our lives watching TV and spend our
time better occupied.
My saga therefore started with a request to a refund on our existing
license (from the old address). My wife (as the license was in her name)
sent a letter (written by me) to receive get the refund. Attached:
The Refund Centre
P.O. Box 410
Bristol
BS99 5HP
30 November 2007
Dear Sir or Madam,
I have recently moved house and have already notified you of you change of
address via the internet.
I am unable to receive TV broadcasts at this new address. I therefore
require a refund of any payments I have made towards the TV licence for any
period after 30 December 2007 (which is three months after the date my TV
licence became valid, in accordance with your policy of refunding any
unused three months portions of a TV licence).
I also require that you cancel my existing direct debit with which I have
been paying my TV licence. If you continue to debit money from this direct
debit I will seek an immediate refund from my bank under the direct debit
guarantee.
I have enclosed my existing TV licence with this letter. It is licence
number XYZ and expires on 30 Sep 2008.
I declare that I do not require a TV licence. I further declare that I
will not require a TV licence before the date of expiry of my existing TV
licence. Finally, I declare that the information contained within this
letter is correct to the best of my knowledge.
Yours faithfully,
We then later a standard threatening letter, so I called up TV licensing
and had a bit of a shout. The guy on the phone sounded quite nice and I
felt a bit mean, but I was quite cross. I followed the telephone call up
with this letter:
TV Licensing
Bristol
BS98 1TL
21 December 2007
Dear Sir or Madam,
I spoke to one of your customer service agents today, named Keith. He was
extremely helpful and polite. However, I wanted to confirm in writing what
I discussed with him.
As my wife’s letter to you of 20 November 2007 states, we do not require a
TV license.
I ask that you do not send your agents to our property to check whether we
need a license without a warrant, as entry will be refused.
I would also appreciate an acknowledgement to this letter, and a
confirmation that you understand my wishes. After this acknowledgement, I
ask that you send no more letters to this address – I do not wish to
continue to receive threatening letters from you.
Yours faithfully,
Much to my surprise I did receive a personalized response. I've typed it
up here, so forgive typos:
9 January 2008
Dear Mr Finlayson,
Thank you for your letter of 21 December, which has been passed to the
Customer Relations Department for my attention.
I was sorry to learn that you are unhappy with our enquiry process.
When we're advised that a TV isn't used at an address, we will update our
records to show this. We'll then visit to verify the situation there and
provided no TV is in use we'll not make further contact for up to four
years.
It is a regrettable fact that there are a surprisingly high number of
people who advise us that they do not use television equipment, but are
subsequently found to be doing so. May I assure you that we have no wish
to cause offence or to question your integrity, but as I'm sure you will
appreciate, we must act fairly and equitably in all cases and regret the
effect this has on honest people like you.
I should explain that Under the Common Law, a person has an implied right
of consent to enter upon a person's property as far as the front door and
to make their presence known while going about their lawful business. We
will continue our enquiries in accordance with this. Our officers have no
special powers of entry, but if we are not able to verify the situation at
an address we are not able to stop our enquiries.
I hope you will find this information helpful.
Yours sincerely,
XXX
Customer Relations
I was minded to send a follow-up letter specifically revoking the implied
right of consent to come onto my property for all agents of TV licensing.
However, given that I have no further correspondance from TV licensing in
the last year I have not (yet) done so. However, I do expect to start
receiving correspondance again at some point in the future.
Piers
Dave Baker
"Piers Finlayson" <ne...@packom.net> wrote in message
news:1putnfm1iu6qu.1l3azcsr09c7n$.dlg@40tude.net...
> I should explain that Under the Common Law, a person has an implied right
> of consent to enter upon a person's property as far as the front door and
> to make their presence known while going about their lawful business. We
> will continue our enquiries in accordance with this. Our officers have no
> special powers of entry, but if we are not able to verify the situation at
> an address we are not able to stop our enquiries.
>
> I hope you will find this information helpful.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> XXX
> Customer Relations
>
>
>
>
> I was minded to send a follow-up letter specifically revoking the implied
> right of consent to come onto my property for all agents of TV licensing.
> However, given that I have no further correspondance from TV licensing in
> the last year I have not (yet) done so. However, I do expect to start
> receiving correspondance again at some point in the future.
>
> Piers
Why does OE want me to install Chinese characters to properly display your
message?
Anyway, yes they are correct that in the absence of a sign at the boundary
of the premises saying "no entry to anyone without an appointment or
permission to enter" that an open gate is implied consent to enter. That
person must of course leave when asked to although trespass is not a
criminal offense unless damage is caused during it. Even stepping on a
flower or blade of grass can be considered damage as far as the courts are
concerned.
A letter revoking that right of entry should suffice but again as trespass
is not a criminal offense it has little impact. All you can really do is
call the police to make the person leave but you could do that anyway. You
can't actually sue for anything.
--
Dave Baker
Tim S
> In article <176uZD2KcidF-p...@rikki.tavi.co.uk>, Bob Eager
> <URL:mailto:rd...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>> Give them a deadline, and say that after that you're going to Nominet.
>> That tends to do it..
>
> Oh for that to be a universal truth...
>
> Vispa Internet are holding two of my domains to ransom.
OK - put them on the universal blacklist.
> Nominet (rightly)
I don't think "rightly" comes into play. Nominet UK manage the public side
of .uk and if a registrar who is registered with them isn't playing ball I
think Nominet have a moral duty to sort it out, or strike the registrar off
is they are truely useless.
There's too much of the "subcontract out - oooh not our responsibility guv"
bollocks these days.
> want paying for them to intervene, so being the stubborn git I am, the
> domains are stuck until expiry.
Technically I'd have to appeal to Verisign for a .net domain - I think mail
bombing would be more productive.
I'll phone them first and give the supervisor a bollocking.
Tim
tony sayer
<t...@dionic.net> scribeth thus
>... is that TV Licensing cannot cope with the concept that you don't need a
>licence when you don't have any TV apparatus.
>
>get reminders each month.
>
>But this one really p*ssed me off;
>
>http://www.dionic.net/tv/OfficialWarning.jpeg
>
>[address redacted so pikeys don't raid my house hoping for tools, which
>there aren't...]
>
>So I sent them this:
>
>(very very unsuitable for work and kids)
>
>http://www.dionic.net/tv/Reply.jpeg
>
>
>Won't do any good - but I needed some ventilation in the spleen area.
>
>I'm normally such a reasonable person (ha!)
>
>Cheers
>
>Tim
>
>PS
>
>Am I going to prision now?
If you really sent that then well done!, their a big bunch of
incompetent muppet's if ever there was one;!...
--
Tony Sayer
Broadback
long ago as the '80s. I know this for a fact, as my son's class was
given the task at school of writing an essay on a TV program they had
watched in the last week. When my son asked what else he could write
about, as we have no TV, he was called a liar by the teacher. I went to
the school to remonstrate with said member of the intelligentsia who the
told me I was telling lies just to protect my son. So you see you Do
have a TV, you are just a liar!
Tim S
> Tim S wrote:
>> Bob Eager coughed up some electrons that declared:
>>
>>> Give them a deadline, and say that after that you're going to Nominet.
>>> That tends to do it..
>>>
>>
>> Yes - an excellent tactic. Before or after I mail-bomb them?
>
> Just go to nominet.
It would be Versign for me (.net).
Just to have the cannon balls ready, I've emailed Verisign to query what
arbitration procedures are available should I need them. I've learnt
previously not to waste time waiting around.
In the meantime, just been fobbed off by the registrar again. I'll call
later and get a supervisor.
So - name and shame time:
Quick enough to take your money, not so quick when you want to leave...
Tim S
> If you really sent that
Really! In as far as it's in the hands of RoyalMail...
Tim S
> Broadback <w...@towill.plus.com> wrote:
>
>>So you see you Do
>>have a TV, you are just a liar!
>
> I was talking to a chap the other day who just has a B&W, I see that
> the licence costs under £50.
>
> "Detector vans cannot distinguish colour/monochrome sets
> Black and white licence holders may be visited at home"
>
> Can detector vans detect anything? I doubt it.
The technology exists to reconstruct the image from a CRT at a distance from
the re-radiated EM noise thrown off by the set - but I'm not sure if it's
either very precise, geographically, or whether they ever actually had the
kit.
Not sure about LCDs and plasmas - not such an obvious thing to do.
Andrew Mawson
They used to detect the i/f oscillator with a directional aerial, and
probably do a similar thing these days.
AWEM
Tim S
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:53:58 UTC, Tim S <t...@dionic.net> wrote:
> Give them a deadline, and say that after that you're going to Nominet.
> That tends to do it..
>
Hallejuya! I have the code. This domain will self destruct in 5 seconds.
Pays to be a stroppy bastard. I wish it weren't true - but so many times
I've been nice, waited 3 days, been nice again, etc. Just end up wasting
time and phone calls. Now I tend to operate 1 request, one nice followup
and then get stroppy from there.
The difference between just-the-name and Andrews and Arnold is:
If I email just-the-name, they ignore it and we get into this whole boring
routine.
If I email A&A, they will take a day to do it, but I've found I can rely on
them to do it all by themselves without further prodding, so I don't sit
around wasting time worrying that they won't.
Sometimes I wonder why I pay 30 quid a month for broadband and a bit of
DNS/domain service, but at times like this I remember why. The broadband
never throttles out either, well, not that I've noticed...
Cheers
Tim
Tim S
> Tim S <t...@dionic.net> wrote:
>
>>The technology exists to reconstruct the image from a CRT at a distance
>>from the re-radiated EM noise thrown off by the set - but I'm not sure if
>>it's either very precise, geographically, or whether they ever actually
>>had the kit.
>
> lets give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they stopped when
> houses were more likely to have a PC on than a TV.
Probably went blind after getting too many facefulls of sheepporn
ARWadsworth
"Dave Baker" <Nu...@null.com> wrote in message
news:gkkfc2$1rp$1...@news.datemas.de...
I have modified the sign in my window from "No salesreps, hawkers or bible
bashers. Thank you" to "No salesreps, hawkers or bible bashers. If you are
from the TVLA then FUCK OFF. Thank you"
Adam
The Natural Philosopher
> the licence costs under £50.
>
> "Detector vans cannot distinguish colour/monochrome sets
> Black and white licence holders may be visited at home"
>
> Can detector vans detect anything? I doubt it.
They used to detect the analogue IF frequencies but with everyone gone
digital..and RFI stuff being very hot, I doubt the average STB emits
enough to give meaningful results.
ARWadsworth
"Piers Finlayson" <ne...@packom.net> wrote in message
news:1putnfm1iu6qu.1l3azcsr09c7n$.dlg@40tude.net...
> letters from TV licensing, even after complaining to them.
> I should explain that Under the Common Law, a person has an implied right
> of consent to enter upon a person's property as far as the front door and
> to make their presence known while going about their lawful business. We
> will continue our enquiries in accordance with this. Our officers have no
> special powers of entry, but if we are not able to verify the situation at
> an address we are not able to stop our enquiries.
>
> I hope you will find this information helpful.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> XXX
> Customer Relations
>
>
Atotally different stand in my letter
"please note as you have not supplied your name, we are unable to withdraw
the common law right of way. TV Licencing needs to be able to identify an
individual to administer a withdrawl of the right to visit."
and further down
"should we receive a request from you that gives your name, is signed and
withdraws the common law right to approach your propery, this does not stop
TV Licencing reserving the right to use other methods of enquiry."
I suppose I could change my name for ￡10 to "The Legal Occupier" to piss
them off.
Adam
dennis@home
"Piers Finlayson" <ne...@packom.net> wrote in message
news:1putnfm1iu6qu.1l3azcsr09c7n$.dlg@40tude.net...
> I was minded to send a follow-up letter specifically revoking the implied
> right of consent to come onto my property for all agents of TV licensing.
I doubt if you can do that.
You could fit gates and lock them.
dennis@home
"clumsy bastard" <allt...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hmirm4ph9icvjmqn1...@4ax.com...
> Broadback <w...@towill.plus.com> wrote:
>
>>So you see you Do
>>have a TV, you are just a liar!
>
> I was talking to a chap the other day who just has a B&W, I see that
> the licence costs under £50.
>
> "Detector vans cannot distinguish colour/monochrome sets
> Black and white licence holders may be visited at home"
>
> Can detector vans detect anything? I doubt it.
They can, if they /are/ detector vans and not just the dummies you usually
see.
Most (all?) TVs leak signals at the IF frequencies and crt tv/monitors leak
signals at video frequencies and it is quite possible to receive these
signals and display what is on your TV/crt monitor.
For one mod project we had to make sure all the monitors were screened so no
one could see what we were doing.
John Rumm
> So - name and shame time:
>
> just-the-name.co.uk
> Quick enough to take your money, not so quick when you want to leave...
Do they not offer full DNS control? Otherwise you could change the tag
or name servers yourself...
--
Cheers,
John.
/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/
Tim S
> Tim S wrote:
>
>> So - name and shame time:
>>
>> just-the-name.co.uk
>
>> Quick enough to take your money, not so quick when you want to leave...
>
> Do they not offer full DNS control? Otherwise you could change the tag
> or name servers yourself...
>
Nameservers yes, tag no...
Cheers
Tim
John Rumm
That is obviously the intention, although usually if you deconstruct the
tangled language they use, they step back from actually saying it
outright. They have some weasel words about watching stuff while it is
being broadcast which itself is rather vague and opens up all sorts of
unintended consequences if interpreted literally.
Andrew Gabriel
Piers Finlayson <ne...@packom.net> writes:
>
> I was minded to send a follow-up letter specifically revoking the implied
> right of consent to come onto my property for all agents of TV licensing.
> However, given that I have no further correspondance from TV licensing in
> the last year I have not (yet) done so. However, I do expect to start
> receiving correspondance again at some point in the future.
A distant family member has no TV.
A few years ago, they sent a letter to him to apply for one
with a return-paid envelope. There was a box to tick to say
you didn't have a TV, so I ticked that and sent it back.
They wrote back saying thanks, and they'd check again in 3
years.
3 years later, a similar letter came, except it had no option
to indicate you didn't have a TV, and no return-paid envelope.
There might have been a premium rate number, but that would
have been ignored, so they simply got no response. For several
years since, they keep writing and keep saying they'll come
around, but without providing a no-cost method (or just even
just a geographic phone number), they aren't going to get any
response, so they continue to waste their time/money.
No one has actually ever come around to check.
--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
Onetap
Rod
> them off.
>
> Adam
>
>
Implication is that no legal body (e.g. company, partnership, etc.) can
withdraw that common law right as they do not have individual names.
Also, the wording suggests that *they* are withdrawing the common law
right where it is actually you.
--
Rod
Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
<www.thyromind.info> <www.thyroiduk.org> <www.altsupportthyroid.org>
John Rumm
> 3 years later, a similar letter came, except it had no option
> to indicate you didn't have a TV, and no return-paid envelope.
> There might have been a premium rate number, but that would
> have been ignored, so they simply got no response. For several
> years since, they keep writing and keep saying they'll come
> around, but without providing a no-cost method (or just even
> just a geographic phone number), they aren't going to get any
> response, so they continue to waste their time/money.
> No one has actually ever come around to check.
You can email them now (via a form on their web site) - seems to work
just as well as a paper letter ;-).
mark....@totalise.co.uk
> ... is that TV Licensing cannot cope with the concept that you don't need a
> licence when you don't have any TV apparatus.
>
> Long story short - told them the situation by phone and in writing. Still
> get reminders each month.
>
> But this one really p*ssed me off;
>
> http://www.dionic.net/tv/OfficialWarning.jpeg
>
> [address redacted so pikeys don't raid my house hoping for tools, which
> there aren't...]
>
> So I sent them this:
>
> (very very unsuitable for work and kids)
>
> http://www.dionic.net/tv/Reply.jpeg
>
> Won't do any good - but I needed some ventilation in the spleen area.
>
> I'm normally such a reasonable person (ha!)
>
> Cheers
>
> Tim
>
> PS
>
> Am I going to prision now?
As satisifaying as it is to vent in this way, you should maybe be
careful about responding to their childish letters when you are
feeling so (understandably) angry.
The line between "rude" and "offensive and threatening" is a very fine
one, and the last thing you would want is criminal charges against you
- particularly when your reaction is so understandable.
Mark.
Peter Scott
Tim S
>
> As satisifaying as it is to vent in this way, you should maybe be
> careful about responding to their childish letters when you are
> feeling so (understandably) angry.
> The line between "rude" and "offensive and threatening" is a very fine
> one, and the last thing you would want is criminal charges against you
> - particularly when your reaction is so understandable.
:)
Like I said - IMO we're too reserved about giving stick in this country to
those who deserve it.
OK - I'm not advocating going quite as far as "Falling Down". As far as I'm
concerned, I've met offensive with offensive. If they don't like it, then I
don't care - let them bring it on.
Andrew Mawson
"dennis@home" <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in message
news:gkkm8r$tag$1...@news.datemas.de...
Tempest screening they called it - everything in a Faraday cage - and
hard to read screens through the fine mesh!
AWEM
geoff
<frank....@btinternet.com> writes
>On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:39:13 +0000, geoff <ra...@kateda.org> wrote:
>
>>In message <496d057c$0$512$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk>, Tim S
>><t...@dionic.net> writes
>>>... is that TV Licensing cannot cope with the concept that you don't need a
>>>licence when you don't have any TV apparatus.
>>>
>
>>your MP about their immoral bullying tactics
>
>It's a total waste of time complaining to my MP unless it's a matter
>of foreign 'rights'...
>
mine knows what an abusive pain in the arse I can be
Her (eventual) investigation into the problem at our local sorting
office were partly due to me hassling her
--
geoff
dennis@home
"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:123193545...@proxy01.news.clara.net...
However a crt will.
An LCD won't.
I don't know about a plasma.
dennis@home
"Peter Scott" <pe...@peter-scott.org.uk> wrote in message
news:t-OdnY339e5dgfPU...@brightview.com...
That has been done.
It is quite easy to make a screen where one person can see the contents
while someone standing next to him sees something else.
I think you can even buy the kit quite cheaply these days as it has been
used in some games and cad packages.
dennis@home
"Andrew Mawson" <andrew@no_spam_please_mawson.org.uk> wrote in message
news:xsadneh5DbkIuvPU...@bt.com...
They did the whole building, mesh in the walls, floors, windows, etc.
Tim S
> mine knows what an abusive pain in the arse I can be
>
> Her (eventual) investigation into the problem at our local sorting
> office were partly due to me hassling her
>
"If you want anything done in this country, you have to complain until
you're blue in the mouth"
geoff
<see.my.s...@nowhere.null> writes
>Andrew Gabriel wrote:
>
>> 3 years later, a similar letter came, except it had no option
>> to indicate you didn't have a TV, and no return-paid envelope.
>> There might have been a premium rate number, but that would
>> have been ignored, so they simply got no response. For several
>> years since, they keep writing and keep saying they'll come
>> around, but without providing a no-cost method (or just even
>> just a geographic phone number), they aren't going to get any
>> response, so they continue to waste their time/money.
>> No one has actually ever come around to check.
>
>You can email them now (via a form on their web site) - seems to work
>just as well as a paper letter ;-).
>
>
--
geoff
John Rumm
Arse covering...
Once you have told them that until further notice no license is
required, and you have no intention or responding to any future
communications from them, then you can relax and let them bleat all they
like.
ARWadsworth
"geoff" <ra...@kateda.org> wrote in message
news:+OYHDYU4...@ntlworld.com...
Exactly. Why bother unless it is for free? The lack of a free phone number
or prepaid envelope to say that you have no TV is rude and invites you to
ignore their letters.
I do not have a shotgun but I do not have to notify the police every year
that I do not need a shotgun licence, nor do the police write letters every
month asking if I own or use a shotgun. My Grandad has no car or driving
licence and the DVLA do not come around looking for a car or proof that he
has driven a car and they do not ask him to them write every year to say
that he does not drive a car.
The TVLA/CAPITA are companies that I do not do business with and therefore I
do not have to reply to (certainly not if it costs me a stamp) any of their
rude letters.
TVLA and CAPITA are nothing but companies and you do not have to use their
services (such as they are) if you do not want to.
Adam
Tim S
> TVLA and CAPITA are nothing but companies and you do not have to use their
> services (such as they are) if you do not want to.
I think it's partly the fact that they're operated by Crapita that makes me
despise them more.
You know, it's funny - somehow I can stand ineptitude and some degree of
rudeness from a "proper" civil service outfit. Shouldn't, but maybe it just
feels more "British".
But when some bunch of private corporation arse munchers come along with a
proven track record of utter and reliable dickheadery, and then deems that
it will attack me, then I get *very* angry.
I think it's partly because, somehow, they've developed the art of being
jerkoffs into a profit making venture at my expense (in every sense), so
their board of directors can take home big juicy salaries. Don't get me
started on the shareholders.
It's a bit like when a copper gives you a parking ticket for a minor
infringement verses when some bunch of private-venture arseweeds gives me a
PCN at the station because their grunt-monkey is too illiterate to read the
ticket on display in the windscreen. yes I'm talking about you, Central
Parking System (oh, did you lose the contract with the railways recently -
boo hoo - perhaps it was all the commuters you pissed of, complaining).
Anyway, somehow the latter irks more. Anyone else feel the same?
[I apologise for the foul language, but I'm on a roll]
Anyway - did sending a letter to Crapita make me feel better. Well, yes it
did. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
8->
Now, I'm off to do productive things like setup ModX Content Management
System on my new webserver for SWMBO. Her lot at work want to use it - and
she promised to re-do our mouldy out of date website if I do, for the
practise...
And I want a photoblog for the Bungalow work which looks like an (hopefully
easy) option in ModX.
And I want to shut down that ancient howling server I built in 2000-ish
that's grating my brain off from behind my head. Got DNS, DHCP, kerberos,
TFTP, IMAP, Web, and Postgres off it and on to two new servers (well, one
new and one recycled desktop) - just printing and exim mail to go...
Cheers
Tim
jo...@jjdesigns.fsnet.co.uk
Huge wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:32:23 +0000, Tim S wrote:
>
> > clumsy bastard coughed up some electrons that declared:
>
>
> >> Can detector vans detect anything? I doubt it.
> >
> > The technology exists to reconstruct the image from a CRT at a distance
> > from the re-radiated EM noise thrown off by the set
>
> It's called "Van Eck Phreaking";
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Eck_phreaking
>
> >- but I'm not sure
> > if it's either very precise, geographically, or whether they ever
> > actually had the kit.
>
> But that isn't how detector vans work (if indeed they exist, and can be
> said to "work" at all - I have no opinion on that). It is entirely
> possible to detect radio (including TV) receivers by 'listening' for the
> local oscillator signal that leaks back up the antenna feed and is
> radiated. This is, for example, how radar detector detectors work. The
> military go to a great deal of effort to minimise this leakage in their
> comms systems, since you do not want your forces detectable by the local
> oscillator leakage from their radios.
>
> Since the L/O frequency changes according to the channel being watched,
> the assertion that it is possible to detect this is also true.
>
> --
> "Please try to understand, the one you call Messiah is a lie."
> [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]
It's a neat idea and seeing as I've a sensitive lab' spectrum analyser
racked about 30cm away from the TV aerial (haven't we all), I took a
look.
Nothing, nada, zilch! is coming back out of the aerial.
It's a TV card inside the PC (LCD monitor), fed via a 5mtr aerial lead
from a Philips SBC TT 650/05 (powered) indoor aerial facing out of the
window..
The aerial preamp would naturally reduce any signal backfeed four or
five times but there's still nothing there to be seen. Maybe I'll try
again using the normal house CRT TV and roof aerial.
(yep, got a licence :)
Ed Sirett
> ... is that TV Licensing cannot cope with the concept that you don't
> need a licence when you don't have any TV apparatus.
>
> Long story short - told them the situation by phone and in writing.
> Still get reminders each month.
>
> But this one really p*ssed me off;
>
> http://www.dionic.net/tv/OfficialWarning.jpeg
>
Crapita are the outfit that will be taking over from CORGI on April 1
this year. What joy. Apparently the HSE gave them the job because they
were "experienced with enforcement" i.e Tv licensing. So they'll know
just how to chase down illegal gas work!
Sending the letters back unopened with
No TV here. R.t.s. BS98 1TL
should work.
If everyone without a TV did this they would be swamped with returned
junk mail. It might make them change their policy. The average time
someone stays in residence at a given address is several years.
Does anyone know the exact chapter and verse about TV licensing?
AFAIK you must pay the license if you have 'equipment capable of
receiving colour TV broadcasts'. That means you must pay if you have a
VCR or DVD recorder even if you only use it to watch videos or DVDs.
Does iPlayer count as 'broadcast' and therefore any Laptop, PC, games
console, iPhone etc. count as 'equipment'?
It's all a bit academic as I have and TV and a license. Enforcement
against a deluge of interoperable digital toys is effectively nil.
--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html
Choosing a Boiler FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/BoilerChoice.html
Tim S
> Crapita are the outfit that will be taking over from CORGI on April 1
> this year. What joy.
Sorry...
Everyone has a story about an inept CORGI bloke, but on the whole, I think
that the general public do believe that CORGI is there to try to make
paid-for gas work safe.
Crapita are running the gassafe register - are they actually going to manage
people like you (assessments etc)?
> Apparently the HSE gave them the job because they
> were "experienced with enforcement" i.e Tv licensing. So they'll know
> just how to chase down illegal gas work!
FFS. They know how to be dickheads morelike.
"We know you have a boiler but our records show no Crapita-GasFitter has
attended your address for x-years. Sign up for an authorised system check
or we'll RIDDOR you immediately".
> Sending the letters back unopened with
> No TV here. R.t.s. BS98 1TL
> should work.
>
> If everyone without a TV did this they would be swamped with returned
> junk mail. It might make them change their policy. The average time
> someone stays in residence at a given address is several years.
>
>
> Does anyone know the exact chapter and verse about TV licensing?
>
> AFAIK you must pay the license if you have 'equipment capable of
> receiving colour TV broadcasts'. That means you must pay if you have a
> VCR or DVD recorder even if you only use it to watch videos or DVDs.
I thought it was "use of apparatus capable of receiving broadcasts".
So, technically, unless the device is tunerless, that may be the case.
> Does iPlayer count as 'broadcast' and therefore any Laptop, PC, games
> console, iPhone etc. count as 'equipment'?
For recorded shows (use iPlayer later than the original broadcast), no, I
don't think so (might be wrong). I'm not sure on the technicalities of a
simulataneous iPlayer/TV broadcast. One could argue iPlayer isn't
radio-wave based and that's what the license covers - but I don;t know the
wording of the act. I seem to recall that the whole iPlayer/license thing
hasn;t been fully resolved.
> It's all a bit academic as I have and TV and a license. Enforcement
> against a deluge of interoperable digital toys is effectively nil.
>
I've found iPlayer to be poor quality anyway - might as well P2P it, if it's
a popular show.
Cheers
Tim
Andrew
"John Rumm" <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote in message
news:Nb-dnasy0YPcvvDU...@posted.plusnet...
>
> It might be fun to send them a letter pointing out that <inert criminal
> activity of your choice> is illegal and they could get fined if caught...
> Mention you might be turning up to inspect their premiss etc.
>
How about claiming to write software - and suggesting you may turn up at
their offices to check if any unlicensed copies are in use on their
computers!
The OP asked if he will end up in prison. If he does he will no doubt find
his cell has a TV! Perhaps the court of human rights will consider this to
be a cruel and degrading punishment!
Andrew (who has suffered years of harassment from TV licensing)
geoff
>geoff wrote:
>> In message <sI2dnXedQMAOj_PU...@posted.plusnet>, John
>>Rumm <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> writes
>>> Andrew Gabriel wrote:
>>>
>>>> 3 years later, a similar letter came, except it had no option
>>>> to indicate you didn't have a TV, and no return-paid envelope.
>>>> There might have been a premium rate number, but that would
>>>> have been ignored, so they simply got no response. For several
>>>> years since, they keep writing and keep saying they'll come
>>>> around, but without providing a no-cost method (or just even
>>>> just a geographic phone number), they aren't going to get any
>>>> response, so they continue to waste their time/money.
>>>> No one has actually ever come around to check.
>>>
>>> You can email them now (via a form on their web site) - seems to
>>>work just as well as a paper letter ;-).
>>>
>>>
>> but why bother ?
>
>Arse covering...
>
>Once you have told them that until further notice no license is
>required, and you have no intention or responding to any future
>communications from them, then you can relax and let them bleat all
>they like.
>
As far as I'm concerned, they can bleat all they like
I don't have a TV receiver at work, nor would we have time to watch one
if we did
mind you, it might be worth getting one and having it sitting somewhere
prominent, but with no mains lead or aerial cable. Using, not
possessing, is what you need a license for, lets not forget that.
--
geoff
John Rumm
> mind you, it might be worth getting one and having it sitting somewhere
> prominent, but with no mains lead or aerial cable. Using, not
> possessing, is what you need a license for, lets not forget that.
In fact I think you can actually use a TV without one if you are in the
business of repairing / designing them etc, since you need to be able to
prove them with an off air signal. Should be easy enough to pull off in
your workshop ;-)
John Rumm
> And I want to shut down that ancient howling server I built in 2000-ish
> that's grating my brain off from behind my head. Got DNS, DHCP, kerberos,
> TFTP, IMAP, Web, and Postgres off it and on to two new servers (well, one
> new and one recycled desktop) - just printing and exim mail to go...
Did you see:
http://www.fit-pc.co.uk/fitpc-slim-specs.pdf
From 205+VAT (or about £10 more at CPC)
John Rumm
> AFAIK you must pay the license if you have 'equipment capable of
> receiving colour TV broadcasts'. That means you must pay if you have a
> VCR or DVD recorder even if you only use it to watch videos or DVDs.
No, you need to actually use it for the purpose of watching or recording
to require a license:
> Does iPlayer count as 'broadcast' and therefore any Laptop, PC, games
> console, iPhone etc. count as 'equipment'?
I don't think iPlayer counts - you are watching a recording - so its the
"person" making the recording that needs the license.
However watching the news channel live may well.
In fact from the FAQ "Will I need a TV Licence to watch programmes on
BBC iPlayer?
If you use the BBC iPlayer to watch TV programmes at the same time as
they are being shown on TV (live) then you will need to be covered by a
valid TV Licence.
If you use the BBC iPlayer to watch BBC programmes after they have been
broadcast - either to download, or via streaming 'on demand' you will
not need a TV Licence. "
> It's all a bit academic as I have and TV and a license. Enforcement
> against a deluge of interoperable digital toys is effectively nil.
yup
John Rumm
> I gathr viewing in (near) realtime via the internet is also covered by recent
> amendments, hence the talk about computers.
Indeed, but even that has complications... how far do you have to be out
of sync for it not to count?
What about if you watch a recording that someone (with a licence) made
for you off air. No license required typically. Now what if they happen
to be broadcasting a repeat of the program at the same time you happen
to choose to watch your recording?
The Natural Philosopher
> Ed Sirett wrote:
>> AFAIK you must pay the license if you have 'equipment capable of
>> receiving colour TV broadcasts'. That means you must pay if you have a
>> VCR or DVD recorder even if you only use it to watch videos or DVDs.
>
> No, you need to actually use it for the purpose of watching or recording
> to require a license:
>
> http://tvlicensing.metafaq.com/templates/tvlicensing/main/answerPage?_mftvst:answerRef=%24http%3a%2f%2fapi.transversal.com%2fmfapi%2fobjectref%2fEntryStore%2fEntry%2fhttp%3a%2f%2fwww.metafaq.com%2fmfapi%2fMetafaq%2fClients%2ftvlicensing%2fModules%2flicensingInfo%2fTopics%2fgeneral%3a134832%3a4&_mftvst:moduleID=%24licensingInfo&_mftvst:topicID=%24&id=SQJQ4KNJO9IA49VGV9RUGBD7LC
>
>
>> Does iPlayer count as 'broadcast' and therefore any Laptop, PC, games
>> console, iPhone etc. count as 'equipment'?
>
> I don't think iPlayer counts - you are watching a recording - so its the
> "person" making the recording that needs the license.
>
> However watching the news channel live may well.
>
> In fact from the FAQ "Will I need a TV Licence to watch programmes on
> BBC iPlayer?
>
> If you use the BBC iPlayer to watch TV programmes at the same time as
> they are being shown on TV (live) then you will need to be covered by a
> valid TV Licence.
>
> If you use the BBC iPlayer to watch BBC programmes after they have been
> broadcast - either to download, or via streaming 'on demand' you will
> not need a TV Licence. "
Ah. so what if the system imposes a natural half second delay..like all
digital TV does.. ;-)
dennis@home
"Tim S" <t...@dionic.net> wrote in message
news:496e6ed1$0$510$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk...
> I've found iPlayer to be poor quality anyway - might as well P2P it, if
> it's
> a popular show.
You do download it and not just click play?
Rod
> Ed Sirett wrote:
>> AFAIK you must pay the license if you have 'equipment capable of
>> receiving colour TV broadcasts'. That means you must pay if you have a
>> VCR or DVD recorder even if you only use it to watch videos or DVDs.
>
> No, you need to actually use it for the purpose of watching or recording
> to require a license:
>
> http://tvlicensing.metafaq.com/templates/tvlicensing/main/answerPage?_mftvst:answerRef=%24http%3a%2f%2fapi.transversal.com%2fmfapi%2fobjectref%2fEntryStore%2fEntry%2fhttp%3a%2f%2fwww.metafaq.com%2fmfapi%2fMetafaq%2fClients%2ftvlicensing%2fModules%2flicensingInfo%2fTopics%2fgeneral%3a134832%3a4&_mftvst:moduleID=%24licensingInfo&_mftvst:topicID=%24&id=SQJQ4KNJO9IA49VGV9RUGBD7LC
>
>
>> Does iPlayer count as 'broadcast' and therefore any Laptop, PC, games
>> console, iPhone etc. count as 'equipment'?
>
> I don't think iPlayer counts - you are watching a recording - so its the
> "person" making the recording that needs the license.
>
> However watching the news channel live may well.
>
> In fact from the FAQ "Will I need a TV Licence to watch programmes on
> BBC iPlayer?
>
> If you use the BBC iPlayer to watch TV programmes at the same time as
> they are being shown on TV (live) then you will need to be covered by a
> valid TV Licence.
>
> If you use the BBC iPlayer to watch BBC programmes after they have been
> broadcast - either to download, or via streaming 'on demand' you will
> not need a TV Licence. "
>
>> It's all a bit academic as I have and TV and a license. Enforcement
>> against a deluge of interoperable digital toys is effectively nil.
>
> yup
>
you first enter it. So it is impossible to view programs without first
having 'received' the current broadcast live, albeit for just a few seconds.
(I *know* it would be very unusual, not to say perverse, to watch *only*
iPlayer programs and yet have cable installed. But it is not entirely
impossible.)
--
Rod
Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
<www.thyromind.info> <www.thyroiduk.org> <www.altsupportthyroid.org>
dennis@home
"John Rumm" <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote in message
news:HsSdnVGKjPwXG_PU...@posted.plusnet...
> What about if you watch a recording that someone (with a licence) made for
> you off air. No license required typically. Now what if they happen to be
> broadcasting a repeat of the program at the same time you happen to choose
> to watch your recording?
That's not a problem.
the law that allows you to make a personal recording doesn't allow you to
give it to someone else.
You have broken copyright so you may as well break the TV license laws too.
(unless it was a recording of a live event.)
Mike
>The only special info they have is a list of current licenses and a list of
>reception apparatus sold by the bigger traders (you did tell the bloke your
>correct address when you paid cash for that telly, didn't you?).
No, not even when I bought a new one just the other day.
>It's Customs & Excise you need to worry about - they do have special powers
>that make the police look gay, for a limited and specific set of suspected
>infringments.
The last one of them got invited into the house and was handed a paint
brush on the night we moved into a house. He was after the previous
owner who had done a runner leaving behind huge debts. We let him go
after he'd finished a wall :)
--
dennis@home
"Rod" <poly...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:6t8bs8F...@mid.individual.net...
> (I *know* it would be very unusual, not to say perverse, to watch *only*
> iPlayer programs and yet have cable installed. But it is not entirely
> impossible.)
I had cable broadband for ages but I did not take *any* TV from them.
(Sky broadband is better and cheaper for me now.
If virgin offer 20+M unlimited without their stupid peak time caps for £10
pm I might go back.)
Clint Sharp
Philosopher <a@b.c> writes
>Not these days probably.
>
>They used to detect the analogue IF frequencies but with everyone gone
>digital..and RFI stuff being very hot, I doubt the average STB emits
>enough to give meaningful results.
Your average STB used to be a nasty emitter of RFI on the HF bands as
did the analogue Sky decoders (28MHz oscillator that leaked massively
and verified across several boxes). Haven't checked for a few years as I
decided a future of dodgy sweaters, bad teeth, pipe smoking, NHS glasses
held together with sticking plaster and BO wasn't really for me (I
decided not to become a radio amateur).
>
--
Clint Sharp
John Rumm
>
>
> "John Rumm" <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote in message
> news:HsSdnVGKjPwXG_PU...@posted.plusnet...
>
>> What about if you watch a recording that someone (with a licence) made
>> for you off air. No license required typically. Now what if they
>> happen to be broadcasting a repeat of the program at the same time you
>> happen to choose to watch your recording?
>
> That's not a problem.
> the law that allows you to make a personal recording doesn't allow you
> to give it to someone else.
You possibly can lend a recording... not sure how much "fair use" is
enshrined in our legislation (less than in the US I believe). Having
said that I am not aware of any civil prosecutions being brought for
technical violation of the time shifting provisions in copyright law.
> You have broken copyright so you may as well break the TV license laws too.
> (unless it was a recording of a live event.)
Just seems to be another case of poor law resulting from sloppy drafting.