Re: BBC sends cops to arrest nonviewer for refusing to pay the licensing fee

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

2025-07-11 12:02 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

May 31, 2025 at 4:52:31 PM PDT, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>:

2025-05-31 5:02 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

. . .

After I sent my first reply to this, I noticed that another video on
this topic was visible in my YouTube recommendations so I just watched
it. I think you'll find this interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C58OR8XBAPs [11 minutes]

The presenter argues that revoking permission for the licensing people
to come to your door is NOT effective and can even be
counter-productive.

You misunderstood. He's talking about sending the form to tv licensing
stating "no license required" merely confirms the name of the resident
at that residence. He made no comment about revoking the common law
implied right of access.

He also points to a case of someone who won a case
around his refusal to pay the licence fee.

Those single justice procedures are simply kangaroo court, that the
accused is actively discouraged from defending himself because he's
subject to a higher fine if he seeks a hearing, plus attorney's fees. In
the United States, paying the other side's attorney's fees in a civil
procedure is rare and I've never heard of it for an administrative
hearing.

But the problem was that the inspector filed a false statement to drag
the resident into court. There were no penalties for the false
statement.

. . .