According to Private Eye, 'the prospect of prosecution for not having a TV licence was removed'.The way I understand it (from a distance) is that you can get issued a
Is this the case?
RJH wrote:
According to Private Eye, 'the prospect of prosecution for not having a TV >> licence was removed'.The way I understand it (from a distance) is that you can get issued a
Is this the case?
£1k fine for not having a licence, then prosecuted for non-payment of
the fine, eventually leading to a custodial sentence.
On 25 Jan 2025 at 11:45:36 GMT, Andy Burns wrote:
RJH wrote:
According to Private Eye, 'the prospect of prosecution for not having a TV >>> licence was removed'.The way I understand it (from a distance) is that you can get issued a
Is this the case?
£1k fine for not having a licence, then prosecuted for non-payment of
the fine, eventually leading to a custodial sentence.
Yes, that was my understanding - and plenty of media reports of recent >prosecutions.
PE is prone to bias, but not outright wrong . . .
On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 11:49:43 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 25 Jan 2025 at 11:45:36 GMT, Andy Burns wrote:
RJH wrote:
According to Private Eye, 'the prospect of prosecution for not having a TV >>>> licence was removed'.The way I understand it (from a distance) is that you can get issued a
Is this the case?
£1k fine for not having a licence, then prosecuted for non-payment of
the fine, eventually leading to a custodial sentence.
Yes, that was my understanding - and plenty of media reports of recent >>prosecutions.
PE is prone to bias, but not outright wrong . . .
I think they have got it wrong here. Or, at least, have a badly worded article.
There have been numerous discussions about decriminalising licence fee non-payment, and instead making it a civil debt. But the government (neither this one nor its predecessor) hasn't taken any action to make that change. I suspect that the author of the piece in the Eye has misunderstood the
current situation.
Maybe you should write to the Eye and tell them you're cancelling your subscription.
Mark
prosecutions.
PE is prone to bias,
but not outright wrong
RJH wrote:
According to Private Eye, 'the prospect of prosecution for not having
a TV licence was removed'.
Is this the case?
The way I understand it (from a distance) is that you can get issued a
£1k fine for not having a licence, then prosecuted for non-payment of
the fine, eventually leading to a custodial sentence.
"RJH" <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote in message news:vn2j4n$2pm3h$1@dont-email.me...
prosecutions.
PE is prone to bias,
Usually bias against the current party in power, either in Westminster or
in Local Authorities Simply because the party in power has more opportunities to demonstrate any evident incompetence and hypocrisy,
while getting their noses in the trough
Along with the Liberals. For no particular reason apart from maybe
Jeremy Thorpe ( Who he ? Ed. The only Liberal leader most people
could name apart from Paddy Pantsdown)
Along with the usual run of bonus-chasing tax-dodging hypocritical incompetents who grace our public life. In running everything from the
Post Office to the University of West Neasden. And a bloke who
runs caravan parks.
but not outright wrong
They're only ever as good as the inside sources who first bring them
the stories.
bb
Andy Burns wrote:
The way I understand it (from a distance) is that you can get issued a
£1k fine for not having a licence, then prosecuted for non-payment of
the fine, eventually leading to a custodial sentence.
Only a court can issue a fine, surely?
The BBC certainly has no such power.
JNugent wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
The way I understand it (from a distance) is that you can get issued a
£1k fine for not having a licence, then prosecuted for non-payment of
the fine, eventually leading to a custodial sentence.
Only a court can issue a fine, surely?
The BBC certainly has no such power.
TV Licensing brings the prosecutions, AIUI most are uncontested so it's an effective rubber-stamping by the magistrate to a fine ...
Quite possibly the BBC decides on the overall policy and what groups to exclude from prosecution. While their statistics might indicate that following
Brexit and the rise of populism, and possibly some discreet polling there's growng opposition to the Licence Fee all round.
JNugent wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
The way I understand it (from a distance) is that you can get issued a
£1k fine for not having a licence, then prosecuted for non-payment of
the fine, eventually leading to a custodial sentence.
Only a court can issue a fine, surely?
The BBC certainly has no such power.
TV Licensing brings the prosecutions, AIUI most are uncontested so it's
an effective rubber-stamping by the magistrate to a fine ...
On 1/26/25 14:10, billy bookcase wrote:
Quite possibly the BBC decides on the overall policy and what groups
to exclude from prosecution. While their statistics might indicate
that following Brexit and the rise of populism, and possibly some
discreet polling there's growng opposition to the Licence Fee all
round.
I genuinely watch no broadcast TV, or live TV, I didn't stop paying
the licence fee because of my growing opposition, I just figured, what
is the point.
On 14:18 26 Jan 2025, Pancho said:
On 1/26/25 14:10, billy bookcase wrote:
Quite possibly the BBC decides on the overall policy and what groups
to exclude from prosecution. While their statistics might indicate
that following Brexit and the rise of populism, and possibly some
discreet polling there's growng opposition to the Licence Fee all
round.
I genuinely watch no broadcast TV, or live TV, I didn't stop paying
the licence fee because of my growing opposition, I just figured, what
is the point.
I too genuinely watch no broadcast TV, or live TV. I did stop paying the TV licence. Why would you continue to pay? Have I misunderstood your post?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 03:26:54 |
| Calls: | 9,821 |
| Calls today: | 9 |
| Files: | 13,757 |
| Messages: | 6,190,389 |