• Existing user of old message board?

    Your username will have transferred over to this new message board, but your password will need to be reset. Visit our convert your account page, to transfer your old password over.

The bbc, again.

Another day another sex scandal.

Apparently the BBC were aware of these allegations as far back as 2018.

www.dailymail.co.uk

UK Home | Daily Mail Online

MailOnline - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from MailOnline, Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk

What a cess pit.
 
Rudi Hedman said:
Just opt out online. They can’t do a thing about it.
Click to expand...
I know some on here no longer pay the BBC so I have a question.

Each year thousands of people plead guilty to not paying their licence. What happens if you plead not guilty?

No doubt the BBC will tell the court they never informed us? So what I have never informed the Environment Agency I don't need a Fishing Rod licence either.

Surely the BBC has to prove that you have broken the law and I don't think they are capable of doing that?

1. Prove I have a TV
2. Prove that I am watching terrestrial TV or any of the other options that require a licence.

So if I am right, if everybody brought to court pleaded not guilty the BBC would be lose these cases. Eventually I can see courts tell the BBC we will not listen to these cases unless you can provide proof?

Thoughts?
 
Badger11 said:
I know some on here no longer pay the BBC so I have a question.

Each year thousands of people plead guilty to not paying their licence. What happens if you plead not guilty?

No doubt the BBC will tell the court they never informed us? So what I have never informed the Environment Agency I don't need a Fishing Rod licence either.

Surely the BBC has to prove that you have broken the law and I don't think they are capable of doing that?

1. Prove I have a TV
2. Prove that I am watching terrestrial TV or any of the other options that require a licence.

So if I am right, if everybody brought to court pleaded not guilty the BBC would be lose these cases. Eventually I can see courts tell the BBC we will not listen to these cases unless you can provide proof?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

To bother taking you to court they have to have evidence that you were watching terrestrial....for that to happen they have to be let into your house to observe or say watch you watching it through the window I'd imagine.

The golden rule is never let them into your house, they have zero right of entry and require a copper to be there and for that there has to be legitimate suspicion......they don't have the time nor resources for fishing expeditions.

After you tell them you're not going to pay the license anymore. They send official sounding letters to your door that dishonesty try to imply that you're breaking the law or doing something wrong...When you know the law on this topic reading those letters can be quite annoying......considering that a small percentage of people are choosing between eating and heating and/or might be lower IQ or have high anxiety I view it as a kind of state backed bullying of the poor/vulnerable.

Always be polite at the door but when they ask....and they will....refuse entry. All you have to do is tell them you don't watch live TV or BBC iplayer or whatever it's called say 'thank you but I'm busy' and close the door. They are third party contractors there to get you to buy the license because they get a commission. Once they realise you know the game they doorstep you less, I haven't had a visit in years now.....but you'll still get the threatening letters occasionally.

Never ever let them in, they have no more rights of entry into your house than I have.

In our house we cut that live tv cord ages ago now, over the years since I've brought loads and loads of boxsets and we don't miss out. Entertainment, news and current affairs doesn't require live TV as it did in the past.

The BBC I grew up with, that was far more balanced and you'd hear right wing stuff, you'd hear left wing stuff, PC wasn't such a thing.......I'd pay the license for that BBC.....However the BBC we have had since the 90s? Na, don't give money to people who look down on you.

This coming year I've decided to look into buying a media server to have my own 'netflix' as it were.
 
Last edited:
Stirlingsays said:
To bother taking you to court they have to have evidence that you were watching terrestrial....for that to happen they have to be let into your house to observe or say watch you watching it through the window I'd imagine.

The golden rule is never let them into your house, they have zero right of entry and require a copper to be there and for that there has to be legitimate suspicion......they don't have the time nor resources for fishing expeditions.

After you tell them you're not going to pay the license anymore. They send official sounding letters to your door that dishonesty try to imply that you're breaking the law or doing something wrong...When you know the law on this topic reading those letters can be quite annoying......considering that a small percentage of people are choosing between eating and heating and/or might be lower IQ or have high anxiety I view it as a kind of state backed bullying of the poor/vulnerable.

Always be polite at the door but when they ask....and they will....refuse entry. All you have to do is tell them you don't watch live TV or BBC iplayer or whatever it's called say 'thank you but I'm busy' and close the door. They are third party contractors there to get you to buy the license because they get a commission. Once they realise you know the game they doorstep you less, I haven't had a visit in years now.....but you'll still get the threatening letters occasionally.

Never ever let them in, they have no more rights of entry into your house than I have.

In our house we cut that live tv cord ages ago now, over the years since I've brought loads and loads of boxsets and we don't miss out. Entertainment, news and current affairs doesn't require live TV as it did in the past.

The BBC I grew up with, that was far more balanced and you'd hear right wing stuff, you'd hear left wing stuff, PC wasn't such a thing.......I'd pay the license for that BBC.....However the BBC we have had since the 90s? Na, don't give money to people who look down on you.

This coming year I've decided to look into buying a media server to have my own 'netflix' as it were.
Click to expand...
I thought this was the case. So if the public plead not guilty and chose not to give evidence I can't see how a court will find them guilty.
 
Badger11 said:
I thought this was the case. So if the public plead not guilty and chose not to give evidence I can't see how a court will find them guilty.
Click to expand...

Officers...that's what they get called but they have no more rights than you or me..... may testify about their visit to the defendant's home, what they observed, and any statements made by the you or those present during the visit.

They often wear body cameras during visits, and footage from these cameras can be presented as evidence.

They have to pass an evidence threshold that you actually watch live tv or iplayer.

Don't let them in without Police....I've always been polite and never seen Police in the two doorstep visits I've had......tell them that you don't watch live tv or BBC iPlayer.

You do not need a TV license if you only watch your blurays or dvds or on-demand content from services other than BBC iPlayer. This means you can legally watch shows on platforms like Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Disney Plus, and YouTube without a TV license, as long as you're not watching live broadcasts. Personally I don't bother with any of those platforms.

Last night I watched 'Friday Night Tights' on Youtube.....more enjoyable than BBC slop for me.

However, you do need a TV license if you watch or record live TV on any channel or service, or if you use BBC iPlayer.
 
Last edited:
Badger11 said:
I thought this was the case. So if the public plead not guilty and chose not to give evidence I can't see how a court will find them guilty.
Click to expand...
Mark my words, don't show up and they f*** you over. Show up and fight your case. And be sure to ask for compensation and fees in the end. It will literally just be a stooge judge.
Make them squirm by highlighting how much they harassed you and how inconvenient this is to you. Don't quiet down about it - double down if anything.
 
ASCPFC said:
Mark my words, don't show up and they f*** you over. Show up and fight your case. And be sure to ask for compensation and fees in the end. It will literally just be a stooge judge.
Make them squirm by highlighting how much they harassed you and how inconvenient this is to you. Don't quiet down about it - double down if anything.
Click to expand...
on another issue completely - what is the point of Greg Wallace - and the 200,000 who follow him on social media?
 
totoshkin said:
on another issue completely - what is the point of Greg Wallace - and the 200,000 who follow him on social media?
Click to expand...
Never watched the show, didn't know who he was.

From the little I have read his behaviour appears at the low end of nastiness with rape being the other extreme.

He may not have committed a crime but it is clearly inappropriate, making his colleagues uncomfortable with his sexual jokes and bullying behaviour.

Complainers are saying the BBC knew about this as far back as 2017. Well 2017 is not the 1970's so even back then if true his behaviour is unacceptable.

The first time they received a complaint he should have been given a final warning.

Yet again just like Saville (whose crimes are on a completely different level) it is the failure to rein in these so called stars (they are not) that seems endemic to the BBC so these people think they are untouchable.

None of us would have got away with this type of boorish behaviour in our places of work.
 
Badger11 said:
Never watched the show, didn't know who he was.

From the little I have read his behaviour appears at the low end of nastiness with rape being the other extreme.

He may not have committed a crime but it is clearly inappropriate, making his colleagues uncomfortable with his sexual jokes and bullying behaviour.

Complainers are saying the BBC knew about this as far back as 2017. Well 2017 is not the 1970's so even back then if true his behaviour is unacceptable.

The first time they received a complaint he should have been given a final warning.

Yet again just like Saville (whose crimes are on a completely different level) it is the failure to rein in these so called stars (they are not) that seems endemic to the BBC so these people think they are untouchable.

None of us would have got away with this type of boorish behaviour in our places of work.
Click to expand...
Tbh I’m not his favourite fan but if you had watched him you will see he’s a bit of a joker. Quick witted and would seem to have told a few jokes at womens expense. Big deal and not one of his employees as yet have got a complaint against him. Storm in a teacup but obviously a front page story to keep something else off the front page. It’s the BBC ffs. s*** is or has happened and the woke will be wetting themselves about Greg
 
cryrst said:
Tbh I’m not his favourite fan but if you had watched him you will see he’s a bit of a joker. Quick witted and would seem to have told a few jokes at womens expense. Big deal and not one of his employees as yet have got a complaint against him. Storm in a teacup but obviously a front page story to keep something else off the front page. It’s the BBC ffs. s*** is or has happened and the woke will be wetting themselves about Greg
Click to expand...

Yep, he's a tw+at, being twatted by a load of twats.

He should have been pulled up a long time ago before they allowed the wine mums to get at him.
 
Last edited:
Stirlingsays said:
Yep, he's a tw+at, being twatted by a load of twats.

He should have been pulled up a long time ago before they allowed the wine mums to get at him.
Click to expand...
Rinsed and not coming back my time soon - apart from all the shows bbc have already recorded for Christmas. Why not dress him as Father Christmas and go full Saville?
 
I have watched it over the years and think he's alright, plus he's been one of the selling points for the show - the cheeky ex-fruit and veg man. Unfortunately he's past his sell by date in terms of what you can and cant say, he is the Jeremy Clarkson of the food show.
I would suggest replacing him with Jim Bowen, but he's dead (God rest his soul)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top