Man in court for not paying TV Licence

hurfdurf · 26 Feb 2013 at 18:32

MrMoonX said:
if it wasnt for the even remote threat of being taken for court would any of us pay TV licence, I certainly wouldn't.

Don't be scared homie, stand and bang with the inspectors, as long as you don't let them prove you have a TV they can't do anything.

hurfdurf · 26 Feb 2013 at 18:36

groen said:
He lost, wasted his time and got a £200 bill for it as well. Probably have another tv license letter waiting for him when he gets home as well.

There is no chance that a) courts will listen to any evidence regarding 9/11 b) that the bbc will be found guilty of covering up terrorism. c) that you can use bbc crimes to get out of paying the tv license.

The BBC have the legal system in their back pocket. IF you end up court, you will be robbed no doubt. Sorry "fined". There is no amount of reason or logic that can be accepted in the context of the TV license.

It is like trying to explain to a robot that has been programmed a specific way to understand what they know differently. Just does not compute for these people. Might as well be speaking another language.

If you can prove these things, there are far more apropriate and better battles to be had with it than arguing over paying for a TV liscence.

Sadly for you you cannot prove those things because it is absolute nonsense and you couldn't stand and bang on the issues for either love or money.

spoffle · 26 Feb 2013 at 18:38

hurfdurf said:
Don't be scared homie, stand and bang with the inspectors, as long as you don't let them prove you have a TV they can't do anything.

Stop saying stand and bang, you're making a show of yourself.

Additionally, you don't need a TV license to have a TV.

Scrutinize · 26 Feb 2013 at 18:58

spoffle said:
Stop saying stand and bang, you're making a show of yourself.

Top be fair, standing and banging is his job.

As for the TV license, they were never going to win but is shows the mentality of the CT groups.

hurfdurf · 26 Feb 2013 at 19:21

spoffle said:
Stop saying stand and bang, you're making a show of yourself.

Additionally, you don't need a TV license to have a TV.

NOM8

spoffle · 26 Feb 2013 at 19:32

Robbo · 26 Feb 2013 at 20:12

Returnee alert.

Burnsy2023 · 26 Feb 2013 at 20:59

Robbo said:
Returnee alert.

Robbo · 26 Feb 2013 at 21:11

nath247 · 26 Feb 2013 at 22:56

You mean they actually really do punish people for this? I thought they just tried to scare you with the letters they send in the post.

Cane316 · 27 Feb 2013 at 13:51

nath247 said:
You mean they actually really do punish people for this? I thought they just tried to scare you with the letters they send in the post.

try to scare you with letters, then send round people to try and scare you in person. then if you do pay up give your money to idiots on Bargain hunt to fritter away at car boot sales :mad:

Werewolf · 27 Feb 2013 at 15:01

Cane316 said:
try to scare you with letters, then send round people to try and scare you in person. then if you do pay up give your money to idiots on Bargain hunt to fritter away at car boot sales

That last bit is pretty funny, as Bargain Hunt is from what I understand one of the very cheapest things the BBC shows, and any money given to the participants is tiny compared to the cost of the actual programme

IIRC Bargain Hunt is likely to be in the £10-60k per hour category, so giving the people taking part £100 each would be something like 1% or less of the budget (and you can get anything up to about 50+ hours of Bargain hunt for one hour of Spook or Doctor Who).

Cane316 · 28 Feb 2013 at 12:57

Werewolf said:
That last bit is pretty funny, as Bargain Hunt is from what I understand one of the very cheapest things the BBC shows, and any money given to the participants is tiny compared to the cost of the actual programme
IIRC Bargain Hunt is likely to be in the £10-60k per hour category, so giving the people taking part £100 each would be something like 1% or less of the budget (and you can get anything up to about 50+ hours of Bargain hunt for one hour of Spook or Doctor Who).

I think what bothers me is that you see them physically throwing the cash away

VoG · 28 Feb 2013 at 13:38

nath247 said:
You mean they actually really do punish people for this? I thought they just tried to scare you with the letters they send in the post.

They try and scare the average Joe Bloggs with letters, but when you make a point of not paying, & tell them your making a point by not paying, court action is inevitable.

LateX'Dog · 10 Apr 2013 at 09:46

UK Man Wins Court Victory Over BBC for 9/11 Coverup Broadcast

Tony Rooke refused to pay a TV license fee because the BBC intentionally misrepresented facts about the 9/11 attacks, he alleged. It is widely known that the BBC reported the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 over 20 minutes before it occurred. WTC 7 was a 47-story skyscraper that was not hit by a plane on 9/11 but collapsed at free-fall speed later that day.

So Rooke said the BBC had to have had prior knowledge to a terror attack making them complicit in the attack. He presented the BBC footage to the judge along with a slew of other evidence, and the judge agreed that Rooke had a reasonable case to protest. Rooke was found not guilty and he was not fined for failure to pay the licensing fee.

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/04/uk-man-wins-court-victory-over-bbc-for.html

Ohhhh this could get interesting.

gettothechopper · 10 Apr 2013 at 09:53

LateX'Dog said:
Ohhhh this could get interesting.

it wont

Russinating · 10 Apr 2013 at 09:56

I think the delay in people replying to this is because like me I thought "oh look another crazy, don the tin foil" but actually...

Firestar_3x · 10 Apr 2013 at 10:01

Yep, the BBC had inside knowledge of all the attacks and how things are going down, the US Gov made sure because as we know, no better way to report live news than know the script before it happens, makes the events look more 'real'.

Oh wait.

What actually happened is the BBC probably made a mistake in reporting which building collapsed, afterall it was a busy day for them.

Theophany · 10 Apr 2013 at 10:02

Was this that case that was being heard over in Horsham?

I'm not really sure I understand the reasoning for the outcome - if he has been using a TV to watch live broadcasts and has not paid his license, surely that is a breach of the law? I'm struggling to understand the relevance of the WTC collapse to this case, other than him simply using it as a soapbox.

The judge cannot rule that the BBC were complicit in terror attacks in a TV License dispute, just seems like a total non-issue?

=XDC=FluphyBunny · 10 Apr 2013 at 10:04

In the real world;

The judge gave Rooke an unconditional discharge, which in British legal parlance means he was convicted but he does not suffer the consequences of a conviction and the conviction will be erased if he is not brought before the court for six months. He was not required to pay the fee and non-payment fine but had to pay court costs of £200.

Conspiracy nuts really need to try harder.

:/