BBC bias

[Doggy Styles]

Don't be naive. The BBC has never been non-political, it is effectively Britain's propaganda machine abroad.
That is its real role, its tone has to be reasonable and friendly as that is the image that it is sanctioned to portray. Right wing rabidity (a la Fox news) would not go down well with its real target audience which is not really you and I.

You're being harsh there sas. All he said was that a publicly-funded broadcaster should not be politically biased. In effect, everyone in the country, whatever their political persuasion, is having to pay for left-leaning political broadcasting.

[hyperD]

But isn't there a risk that they don't understand the notice, ignore it, turn up at your house, ring the bell, you open it, and before you open your mouth they hear the blare of the Six O'Clock news in the background.

Won't that give them sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction in the magistrates court for TV licence fee evasion?

I had two visits - the first salesman turned up, read the notice, scratched his head, made a phonecall and left.

The second turned up and rang the bell. I pointed to the notice, politely informed him he was committing civil trespass and he quickly left.

That was four years ago. Never been bothered since.

They need evidence to get a judge to release a warrant. That normally involves you opening the door, letting them in to inspect your TV and then signing a form. Fabricating evidence (perjury) is a serious offence.

You have no legal obligation to let these salesmen from Capita Business Services into your property, as you wouldn't with any door-to-door salesman.

The only person or body you cannot stop from walking up your driveway by denying the implicit right of access, is the postman!

The implied right of access notice is your powerful ally.

[KentPhilip]

I had two visits - the first salesman turned up, read the notice, scratched his head, made a phonecall and left.

The second turned up and rang the bell. I pointed to the notice...

You haven't answered the point I made. Had your TV been on and audible from the front door, then he would have heard it at that point.
In that situation would he not have been able to take the case to court, landing you with a £1000 fine?

You say it normally involves you getting a court order etc, but is that really the case, or is it something you've read on one of these anti-establishment websites?

[Bunk]

You haven't answered the point I made. Had your TV been on and audible from the front door, then he would have heard it at that point.
In that situation would he not have been able to take the case to court, landing you with a £1000 fine?

You say it normally involves you getting a court order etc, but is that really the case, or is it something you've read on one of these anti-establishment websites?

I don't think he would legally have been able to use that visit as evidence to take it to court without incriminating himself, but IANAL.

[minestrone]

When this Mohamed video pish was going down and the usual suspects were tire burning and blowing themselves up across the middle east the BBC after a few days noticeably decided to push the "amateur video" line, now this was complete mince as the video was funded, used paid actors and had a production company backing it but clearly someone from the foreign office asked the BBC to use its international influence to try and calm the situation. Facts went out the window for political propaganda.

Have you noticed how much the BBC push the "All immigrants are lovely" line, especially on regional programming, slots on how they fit into society and work hard. You do not see any programs dedicated to a negative impact no matter how factual. The ICT situation has almost destroyed graduate IT programs in this country but would Panorama ever do a program on it? Not a feckin' chance. The BBC push a idealist leftist view to the masses.

TV licence money should no longer go to producing news or current affairs programing, they have proven that they are not capable and their pretend impartiality is nothing more than a joke.

[hyperD]

You haven't answered the point I made. Had your TV been on and audible from the front door, then he would have heard it at that point.
In that situation would he not have been able to take the case to court, landing you with a £1000 fine?

You say it normally involves you getting a court order etc, but is that really the case, or is it something you've read on one of these anti-establishment websites?

When the second salesman was there, my TV was on and audible. Like a vampire, they need to be invited in first so they can inspect the equipment. Because of the notice, he was more concerned about the civil trespass and left.

Traipsing around my back garden with a video camera and peering through my lounge window might be one way of getting evidence, but the notice prevents that.

Inviting them in is the most common way for a prosecution to go ahead.

You can google one of these "anti-establishment" websites at your leisure!

[KentPhilip]

When the second salesman was there, my TV was on and audible. Like a vampire, they need to be invited in first so they can inspect the equipment. Because of the notice, he was more concerned about the civil trespass and left.

Traipsing around my back garden with a video camera and peering through my lounge window might be one way of getting evidence, but the notice prevents that.

OK that's interesting. I guess you're right then, because on hearing the TV I guess that would be the evidence he needs. But you were not prosecuted.

Did he not say "I can hear the TV, so you're a licence evader"?

Changing the subject slightly, it appears that the TV licencing people will sometimes get a warrent to search a house, and turn up at the home with the police (to "prevent a breach of the peace") and yet if you still refuse them entry they will not try to force entry, apparently because the BBC have a policy of not forcing entry.

Here's the youtube video where this happened (or rather didn't happen):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CZtUaWy-3g

[hyperD]

OK that's interesting. I guess you're right then, because on hearing the TV I guess that would be the evidence he needs. But you were not prosecuted.

Did he not say "I can hear the TV, so you're a licence evader"?

No, he never said that, just listened to what I said and just said OK and left.

As I said, most of the prosecutions appear to be started by people either letting them in or signing a form. They can be quite forceful as they are on commission but they are bound by strict codes of practice. They can't ask a judge for a warrant on suspicion alone e.g. "Give us a warrant beak, 'e looks a little evady to me".

Changing the subject slightly, it appears that the TV licencing people will sometimes get a warrent to search a house, and turn up at the home with the police (to "prevent a breach of the peace") and yet if you still refuse them entry they will not try to force entry, apparently because the BBC have a policy of not forcing entry.

Here's the youtube video where this happened (or rather didn't happen):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CZtUaWy-3g

The warrant is not the same as the fabled police search warrant. If you are not in or refuse to answer the door, they won't kick the door in but simply return until it is answered I believe. The bobby is there as you've said to ensure Joe Public doesn't get a bit punchy.

However, once a warrant is issued, you cannot avoid it. IANAL.

Here's just one of the many sites out there that explains things in a little more detail.

[Sysman]

Have you noticed how much the BBC push the "All immigrants are lovely" line, especially on regional programming, slots on how they fit into society and work hard. You do not see any programs dedicated to a negative impact no matter how factual. The ICT situation has almost destroyed graduate IT programs in this country but would Panorama ever do a program on it? Not a feckin' chance. The BBC push a idealist leftist view to the masses.

About 10 years ago I watched an episode of Doctors. Never again will I make that mistake. Apart from being OTT over-sentimental, the "heroes" of course were an Indian GP and and Asian midwife. It was NHS propaganda and "All immigrants are lovely" all the way through and the sentimentality made me want to puke.

TV licence money should no longer go to producing news or current affairs programing, they have proven that they are not capable and their pretend impartiality is nothing more than a joke.

I was a World Service listener since my teens and I always had good fun spotting what they omitted from domestic news. I think the rot started in the early 90s and progressed during the run up to NL winning the general election. By the time NL got in the Beeb had already sacked a load of presenters whose opinions I respected, and had retired folks like Frank Muir for being "too highbrow".

[stek]

When the second salesman was there, my TV was on and audible. Like a vampire, they need to be invited in first so they can inspect the equipment. Because of the notice, he was more concerned about the civil trespass and left.

Traipsing around my back garden with a video camera and peering through my lounge window might be one way of getting evidence, but the notice prevents that.

Inviting them in is the most common way for a prosecution to go ahead.

You can google one of these "anti-establishment" websites at your leisure!

forget it,..