Attention: the Rankines Panorama BBC1 20:30 10/11/2008

[johnharding]

That's why I don't pay for a tv licence. When you're forced to pay for a TV station that is blatently biased towards the people who gain financially from their one sided propaganda, then it's time to say a huge NO!!!

 

No, to BBC dectector vans, (both of them that don't actually work.) No, to companies like the BBC who use blatent threats, of detector vans, and intimidating adverts, etc, to scare you into paying money for what is proven to be totally one sided views of what is really happening.

 

The BBC is just like a DCA, to intimidate decent people and use their lack of knowledge of the law to intimidate them into paying debts they don't owe or have the legal paperwork in the first place.

 

The internet is the last call of true freedom. Research your real rights, then use it against the ones who try to take that freedom away and try to profit from it.

 

Go on Google and research "avoid tv licence" Spend a bit of time researching, then use the £140 you saved for more useful things in life.

 

BBC Consider yourselves Fuzzybobbled, and decent people, consider yourself £140 better off as a result.

 

Don't forget to make a donation to the CAG.

 

Not pay my TV license and lose Top Gear!

 

Seriously, though, my four year old would cry if I took away his 30 minutes of CBeebies.

[fuzzybobble]

Not pay my TV license and lose Top Gear!

 

Seriously, though, my four year old would cry if I took away his 30 minutes of CBeebies.

 

Top Gear, even though it used to be good, and Cbeebies, all of which you can download on the net and no tv or tv tuner.

 

If they packaged them and tried to sell it in tesco for £140, how many would really put that box in the trolly?

 

The BBC use intimidation and theats to get you to pay the licence fee. Just like a DCA.

 

Jonathan Ross gets paid £3 million of licence payers money and has just got 3 months holiday paid for by 40,000 peeps who complained but didn't actually listen to the Radio 2 broadcast.

 

The BBC waste millions every week on pointless stuff.

One of their program controllers spent £300 recently, as expenses so he could take his family to the theatre. His reason for it? "I wanted to see the play as It could be a possible comission it for a future BBC drama series." YEAH RIGHT !!!!!

 

In the real world that says. "I took my family out for a freebie and you suckers paid for it once again."

 

Again type in Google BBC waste money theatre trip.

 

Always remember. Rich people never get rich by being honest and decent, and care about the people who made them that way.

 

For every rich person there's 30 on minimum wage strugging to make a decent life for their family. To pay for the rich git that thinks they hav a god given attitude over everyone else.

 

But we're supposed to accept that it's fair????

 

Winners and losers in life they claim???

 

Time we sorted out a level paying field and stood up to 300 years of them saying, "we're better than you, so bow down to what we say."

 

Says in the Bible the meek shall inherit the earth. I'm not religious, but I can agree with that statement.

Edited November 11, 2008 by fuzzybobble

[johnharding]

Top Gear, even though it used to be good, and Cbeebies, all of which you can download on the net and no tv or tv tuner.

 

If they packaged them and tried to sell it in tesco for £140, how many would really put that box in the trolly?

 

The BBC use intimidation and theats to get you to pay the licence fee. Just like a DCA.

 

Jonathan Ross gets paid £3 million of licence payers money and has just got 3 months holiday paid for by 40,000 peeps who complained but didn't actually listen to the Radio 2 broadcast.

 

The BBC waste millions every week on pointless stuff.

One of their program controllers spent £300 recently, as expenses so he could take his family to the theatre. His reason for it? "I wanted to see the play as It could be a possible comission it for a future BBC drama series."

 

In the real world that says. "I took my family out for a freebie and you suckers paid for it."

 

Again type in Google BBC waste money theatre trip.

 

If I analysed everything I paid for I doubt I would get value for money on everything but my wife wears out the TV (we wont go there - its a bugbear of mine), I use BBC News Online and my little one likes CBeebies.

 

If I lived on my own I doubt I would have one. It wouldn't be worth it, but as a family, it is.

 

I have other things to fight - such as an ICO complaint about MBNA (still not progressed in eight months!), Central Heating installers who installed a leaking valve and a Car Insurance company which I think, are breaking a verbal promise (thank god for call recording being mandatory, eh?!)

 

The BBC and the monthly £12 "Entertainment" tax is really not a problem to me. I don't like it, but if the alternative is ITV or Five then I can bear it. Not that I am saying the BBC is perfect. Far from it. And the Panorama programme shows that.

[Muffintop]

Hya I watched the programme what do I do now? cant seem to find any information out on this subject, almost a closed door. pse advise skeggsy

I watched this programme with mixed feeling, certainly I thought the couple who were promoting clearing all their debts and profiting out of it were getting some excellent advertising, i was tempted to take a look at their site, but was sceptical and not taken in... however a bit of me has to ask is it possible, who wouldnt pay off all their remaining debt if they could? my husband was taken in and has written to his credit card companies for his t and c's,,, but why, for what? i cant get my head around it, i took out the card, i spent the money, is it really possible to have it paid off because they havent kept the original agreements? im very naive and very confused please someone clarify it. i have reclaimed bank charges, is this the same? or is this just a [problem] by this couple

Edited November 11, 2008 by skeggs885
read through whole thread.

[Muffintop]

Hi All

 

Following a suggestion from a Site Team Member I'm copying the info (already posted in the General Debt forum) regarding next weeks Panorama program here:

 

 

Just a quick heads-up regarding next Mondays edition of Panorama which may interest a few of you, brief details of which are pasted below.

 

 

 

 

 

Cheers

Rob

I saw this programme and dont know where to go for further info on this subject, its almost a closed door, is there any forum discussing it at the moment? better still templates and knowledge?

[miaow99]

I'm a proud TV license non-payer as well - don't have a telly, just watch what little nonsense I want on iplayer

[fuzzybobble]

complaint made to BBC earlier today - could we not have a thread started to try and count the many people on CAG that have complained mods?

 

fuzzybobble - i nearly split my wine all over the keyboard - if you need a bit of light relief go and watch his promo vid

 

The first ever debt collection agency's truthful promotional video

 

hope this links works

 

The first ever debt collection agency's truthful promotional video

 

This one works

 

Thanks Redsue.

 

I saw my Youtube stats last weekend. It said since March 2008 I had viewed 1700 videos. lol. Proves to me that YouTube has more interesting things that BBC and ITV can ever show. But then YouTube shows the stuff you type in, then suggests other things as a result.

 

Then you get a nights entertainment that honest and relavent, with users ratings and coments, and leads you to things that you like and wouldn't otherwise search for. No TV channel can offer that. But the BBC and SKY make you pay through the nose for what they want you to see, and nothing else.

 

Make your own choice in this world. Do it now until they force you to make their choice.

Edited November 11, 2008 by fuzzybobble

[smt37]

Just a quick one for all those that are concerned about the morality of 'getting out of debt' using your legal rights:

 

Referring to a written comment which I feel is extremely relevant from Francis Bennion the draftsman of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and a very well respected Barrister who specializes in Consumer Law. On his own website he states;

 

“As the draftsman of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 I would like to thank Dr Richard Lawson for his interesting and well-argued article (30 August 2003) on Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2003] UKHL 40, [2003] 4 All ER 97.

Dr Lawson may be interested to know that I included the provision in question (section 127(3)) entirely on my own initiative. It seemed right to me that if the creditor company couldn’t be bothered to ensure that all the prescribed particulars were accurately included in the credit agreement it deserved to find it unenforceable, and that the court should not have power to relieve it from this penalty. Nobody queried this, and it went through Parliament without debate. I’m glad the House of Lords has now vindicated my reasoning and confirmed that nobody’s human rights were infringed.” - 167 Justice of the Peace (2003) 773.

 

This has been repealed in the 2006 Act for all new agreements under the 2006 Act - mainly because of industry pressure, but the reason given was because the upper limit of £25,000 for unsecured consumer credit agreements has been lifted (no cap now) and that no creditor should lose 'untold' amounts because of a technical provision that is missing...

 

In any case, creditors have always known what they should have done, but most did not bother - they simply lent money out happily without the proper legal documentation in most cases and those that did it properly didn't bother to keep the documentation safely. Now we are biting back and why shouldn't we? We did it with bank charges that were unfair.

 

For agreements governed by the 1974 Act, it is what it is - the law and case law proves it so.

[rory32]

however a bit of me has to ask is it possible, who wouldnt pay off all their remaining debt if they could? my husband was taken in and has written to his credit card companies for his t and c's,,, but why, for what?

There's no point in asking for a copy of the t&c's. There is however a point in asking for a copy of the credit agreement. Without a compliant copy of the agreement then the account is unenforceable even in a court of law. This leaves the creditor with the options of writing the debt off or accepting a vastly reduce full and final payment.

 

i was tempted to take a look at their site, but was sceptical and not taken in

Quite right. They lost their case because it would appear they didn't have a clue what they were doing and their case wasn't based on anything to do with statute. IMO it was based on nothing but their foolish opinion.

[foolishgirl]

They lost their case because it would appear they didn't have a clue what they were doing and their case wasn't based on anything to do with statute. IMO it was based on nothing but their foolish opinion.

 

...and greed & arrogance!

[cerberusalert]

Totally agree with you FB.

 

You think how powerful banks really are, right throughout history. If you have the power to lend money, created out of thin air may I add, then you are complete masters of all. You dictate who gets what and when, you have total power. Wasn't is a Rothschild that said 'I do not care who makes the laws, just give me the power over money' or something like that.

 

What I am getting at is the banks have a near total monopoly over the people. Most of us have no choice but to use a bank. I can't decide to get my wages paid in cash. I get penalised if I choose not to use direct debits. Yet they can charge extortionate charges and interests if we slip up. It is sites like this that give us some power back. Why the hell shouldn't we use them?

 

Nothing's changed much in a couple of thousand years has it? Wasn't there some guy who threw a wobbler back then against the Userers?

[mr.ton]

I'm a proud TV license non-payer as well - don't have a telly, just watch what little nonsense I want on iplayer

 

A proud non tv license payer here as well....im laughing at the authorities i am

Anyway..there are thousands of tv channels on the internet..so who needs a tv anymore these days?

[hillards]

I do some work for a not-for-profit community project, based in a small office in a community centre. Because of it's nature, it's been registered as a company limited by guarantee, so they can add 'Limited' to the name.

 

However, that's also been passed to the TV licensing people, amongst others, who have slapped in a letter telling us we've no license and they can take us to court if we fail to comply.

 

Obviously, I contacted them to put them right, we don't have a TV, we're not there to watch telly all day.

 

"AH, but do you have a computer..., and Internet connection...?" and went on to tell us that ANY equipment that COULD be used to watch TV needs to be licensed and therefore we should have one, even if we were not watching it !!!

 

The lady all but insisted that we could watch live TV over the Internet and we must be in the wrong.

 

Call terminated with the phrase "don't be so stupid". We await their written response, or a visit. No doubt they'll insist our CCTV monitor could also be used to watch TV.

 

The world is going mad I tells ya!

[amdmlivingstone]

Hi all,

 

I'm a newbie here. I have visited the website a while ago but never joined. I watched Panorama and what an eye opener.

 

After the programme, I googled the "Credit Card Killers" and felt they were capitalising on everyones misfortunate buy charging people in excess of £300 for them to go through your credit agreements - Not Fair.

 

I dediced to come back to the Action Group and see would I could dig up. I have posted 1 thread already for FirstPlus and will be posting another shortly for Provident (just waiting on my CCA).

 

Thank you to everone here for the advise and support. I wish I found out about this 3 years ago before I entered into my Trust Deed.

 

Keep up the good work.

[hillards]

After the programme, I googled the "Credit Card Killers" and felt they were capitalising on everyones misfortunate buy charging people in excess of £300 for them to go through your credit agreements - Not Fair.

 

And I wonder where they get a lot of their info from anyway? All they are doing is the same as CAG, providing people with the details of how to request basic documentation to prove that the Debt Collection Agencies have any right at all to be demanding money from you.

 

Cashing in on people who are already worried sick is no better than the DCA's demands, in my humble opinion (which I'm entitled to ;-) ).

 

Ah, but then again, they have some legal fees to pay don't they? Wonder which DCA is chasing them for those...

[banker_rhymes_with]

Ah, but then again, they have some legal fees to pay don't they? Wonder which DCA is chasing them for those...

 

Or which DCA is paying the fees for them. There's always been something very fishy about that pair. They are just too good to be true as far as the Debt Industry are concerned.

 

They are the Debt Industry's star Rouge Debtors. The big question remains, were they created or are they genuine?

 

Cheers,

BRW

[amdmlivingstone]

LOL - I share your opinion. I'm so glad I came back to this website.

[adamski]

Hi All

 

Thought I would put my twopeneth worth in here for what its worth.

 

Having now watched this twice and read this thread I feel that this is probably one of the biggest pieces of Government/BBC propaganda I have ever witnessed, I hope that the experienced members and the newbies can see this also, this piece of propaganda led journalism is plain to see for me, just a scare tactic that is purely government led pay up or else, or Else what Mr Brown?

 

Because the British public are fighting back they are scared witless, my feeling that largely due to this site and others if this could become much bigger the government would be worried.

 

I note that this site was not mentioned, of course not that would defeat the object of the programme to scare and intimidate the British public into paying something they should not, the banks have made more than enough money out of us now what with the odd 5 billion here and there, interest unlawful charges, mis-sold PPI but to mention a few, mortgage ERC which I believe should be reclaimed under UTCCR regs but thats IMHO this site does not advocate such claims.

 

All in all I hope you all can see as I do that this programme was pure propaganda influenced by the government.

 

Rant over!

[angry cat]

Just sent off my complaint!

 

AC

[adamski]

Does anyone else see this as pure propaganda?

[spamheed]

Of course it's propaganda.

 

The state run media circus is finally sending in the clowns. If this had been shown on Russian, or Chinese television we would have all raised a knowing eyebrow at the way the commentator displayed the superior forces of justice as they are fighting the subversives who will not pay their party approved creditors what they owe.

 

I really can't wait for the BBC to get the chop as it will be when the licence fee is revoked.

 

How many of the current generation are going to pay when they have a choice over whether they have to pay for Terry Wogan to invade their sitting rooms every week (how has that man managed to con so many people for so long? - but that's another story) T

[mr.ton]

Or which DCA is paying the fees for them. There's always been something very fishy about that pair. They are just too good to be true as far as the Debt Industry are concerned.

 

They are the Debt Industry's star Rouge Debtors. The big question remains, were they created or are they genuine?

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

The conspiracy theorist in me reckons they may not be all they seem - you only have to look at the penthouse they live in

[adamski]

and they claim to have been consumer activists since 2003 before bank charges etc.

 

From the interview they both seem of below average intelligence and seem to have no idea what they are talking about, almost like puppets... the mind boggles!

[mr.ton]

and they claim to have been consumer activists since 2003 before bank charges etc.

From the interview they both seem of below average intelligence and seem to have no idea what they are talking about, almost like puppets... the mind boggles!

 

They cant not know what they are talking about or have not much intelligence living in a place like that

[banker_rhymes_with]

From the interview they both seem of below average intelligence and seem to have no idea what they are talking about, almost like puppets

 

...puppets with a DCA's hand up their backsides I think.

 

It would be very interesting to investigate their full background in some depth. Is it just me, or can you see them sitting very comfortably in DCA-land. Somewhere that seems all too familiar for them, like they've been there before!

 

Cheers,

BRW