Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by robin9342

  1. No, I think you missed the point. The owners/writers have already been paid when you purchased their music. Why should it be theft if you have already paid for it? To use another analogy, if I buy a pair of Nike trainers, should I have to pay a fee to wear them in public? Similarly, when I buy a copy of Windows, I dont have to pay Microsoft an additional licence fee to use my computer - even if its in public! It may well be a legal requirement to have a PRS licence, but its still greed. As stated (back in 2008!!!), public performance of music BENEFITS the writer/artist with publicity - I heard music in public, liked it and went and bought the album!
  2. If I were a shop owner and I bought cans of Coke to give away to my customers, should I then buy a "soft drinks" license so that further royalties can be distributed to the industry? Do libraries have to pay publishers extra fees when they lend out books? Its the same principle. If a shop buys a CD to play in store, then the writer/artist/record company have had their profits. Likewise, if the radio is on. Why should anyone have to pay twice? Greed maybe?
  3. Ignore, ignore and ignore again. No communication with these scamsters is the best option.
  4. Since when? As far as I was aware, no licence fee money is currently being paid to ITV - Its just a proposal at the moment. so calling it a BBC Licence is indeed completely accurate! One must not assume anything. In this country, it is supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty". I personally do know of people using a TV set with a functional tuner solely for DVDs and games consoles. Why should such people have to go to the expense of disabling their tuners? What if they later decide that they do wish to watch TV and pay the Licence fee? The BBC have stated that it is sufficient to detune a set and I'm sure a court would take notice of such statements. Unfortunately, TVL have been known to falsify evidence but even when the defendant tried to rebutt them, the magistrate, as is often the case, took the side of TVL.
  5. (1) It is common knowledge that very little revenue from Vehicle Excise Duty is actually used to maintain the road network. If it did, we might stand some chance of having decent roads! Accurate or not, the terms "Vehicle Excise Duty", "Road Fund Tax" or just "Car Tax" are widely known and interchangeable. Similarly, it does not matter if you call it "TV Licence", "BBC Licence", "The Licence Fee", "TV Tax" Accurate or not, everyone knows what you are referring to. In this case, most of the billions of pounds fleeced out of the Licence payers goes to the BBC. Around £3.5 billion last year in fact. Thats a lot of zeroes : £3500,000,000. Crudely estimated, thats enough to build 14 large new hospitals, several hundred miles of new roads, you get the picture. I'm definitely not an apologist for the BBC!!! (2) It is not just my interpretation of the law - The BBC themselves have stated under a Freedom of Information request a licence is NOT required for simply owning a TV set. TV Licensing -aka BBC, also stated that detuning a TV was sufficient action to render it incapable of receiving broadcasts. However, if taken to court, the magistrate may very well not believe your version of events. It is well known that TVL employees have falsified evidence in court cases. Unfortunately most magistrates are sympathetic to TV Licensing/Capita/BBC and usually believe them over the "evil evader" stood before them
  6. Sorry, wrong again. It is not an offence to own equipment capable of receiving a broadcast signal. It is only an offence to use or install with intent to use the equipment to receive a signal. It may well be prudent to disable the tuner, but it is not a legal requirement.
  7. GSMGuy - No, your dad does not require a licence, but you may fall foul of copyright law. Buzby, how can you possibly state that Conniff is wrong? The TV Licence is nothing more than a tax which funds the BBC. Whatever proposals there might be for "topslicing" etc, does not change the fact that the money currently all goes to the BBC. (Minus collection costs) There is no misconception or error: It IS a BBC Licence in all but name!
  8. Actually, they are not legally obliged to pay any refund at all - its at their discretion: "Section 365(3) of the Communications Act 2003 gives the BBC a discretionary power to refund payments made in respect of a licence under the Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004."
  9. A licence is only required to watch or record TV programmes as they are being broadcast. That includes live programmes on the internet. "Live" also means "near live" to allow for the delay caused by digitising the programme in order to stream it. A licence is NOT required to watch iPlayer and equivalent players as long as you are watching after the broadcast. Conniff, TVL will only refund unused whole quarters of a licence, not single months. Thieving scumbags
  10. You may find this site useful: https://lha-direct.therentservice.gov.uk/Secure/LHARateSearch.aspx?SearchType=PostCode
  11. I currently rent a flat at £400 per month and receive full housing benefit under the old system due to being on income support. Local housing allowance for my flat is up to £550. If my claim was under the new LHA system, I would receive £400 per month plus £15 per week. My local authority says I can only change to LHA if there is a break in my claim, or if I move. I don't intend to move, so what I want to know is: How long a break would I have to take? And can I just say that I want to stop my claim for that period?
  12. Because I DO pay by direct debit, avoiding the admin charge and I happen to enjoy the subscription that I pay for. If I cancel, then yes, I can keep the equipment, but I lose hundreds of channels that I enjoy watching
  13. Just bought a colour laser (HP CP1217). Great printer at £97, but to replace the 4 toner cartridges can cost as much as £200 :eek: Methinks I will be buying bottles of toner powder come the time!
  14. Maybe so, but it remains for the store to prove intent to the satisfaction of a court, which can be very difficult.
  15. Again, you make the mistake that store policy can override the law. It cannot. Like I said earlier, shall I make it my policy to take a nice new TV from Tesco, but because I'm too busy today, I won't pay them until tomorrow? Of course not - that would be against the law. Stores cannot dictate when they choose to comply with the law any more than you or I can.
  16. It only becomes an offence if the person approaches the till and attempts to gain a monetary advantage. (In much the same way that putting items in your bag only becomes theft once you leave the store, not just because you go near the exit) Until such time, it might be criminal damage if one is being pedantic.
  17. Its not at all sensible to try and extrapolate here. Theft has been happening for thousands of years - you are not going to stop it now. That doesn't make it right, but I'm afraid we don't live in Utopia. We all pay for the nature of humankind. Swapping the tags is NOT an offence in itself. For all we know, the OP's girlfriend may have had a change of heart before reaching the checkout and put the goods back.
  18. To hell with pragmatism. I will go to my local store, pick up a nice new TV and say "sorry, its not my policy to pay for this item today - I will come back tomorrow and pay for it - I'm too busy to get my wallet out!" Funnily enough, that would be theft. And I can't change the law to suit myself any more than Tesco can. One for Watchdog/Trading Standards/the press methinks.
  19. Its nothing to do with free speech. Personal attacks have always been against the rules on CAG
  20. There appears to be an error in your informal appeal rejection letter; The council refers to the full payment of £50. That should read £70. Not sure if/how this affects anything?
  21. Not true in all cases. Last year, my TPFT policy also included DOV. Check your policy.
  22. No; commercial links are not allowed on this site. The link the OP tried to post was auto-redirected.
  23. Based on the experience of several of my friends, mobile broadband has so far proven to be fairly useless with painfully slow speeds. This applies to several different networks. I live in a large town with good coverage. I would suggest going to different suppliers and asking for a demo so you can see for yourself.
  24. Really? I have looked through the records for November and can find no reference whatsoever. Perhaps you would be kind enough to provide us with a link??
  • Create New...