classic33
Leg End Member
"But I'm here to check" or words to that effect, before I shut the door and locked it, to prevent him opening it again.No problems with them being civvies, no ID, no coming in.
"But I'm here to check" or words to that effect, before I shut the door and locked it, to prevent him opening it again.No problems with them being civvies, no ID, no coming in.
Aye, and they're checking your WiFi now as well.Do they still use those magic TV detector vans that can even tell what channel you are using?
once upon a time when this kind of thing was all the rage, I sellotaped a credit card companies' freepost envolope to a car tyre and took it round to the post office.I believe the latter. Reminds me of stories, possible apocryphal, of people preventing junk mail by attaching any such firmly to a house brick and marking it 'return to sender'.
No they're not. Did you read the article?Aye, and they're checking your WiFi now as well.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/06/bbc_detector_van_wi_fi_iplayer/
In the same way they're checking which channel you're watching.No they're not. Did you read the article?
It's the assumption of guilt and the way their frequent threatening letters are worded that's the problem... and the fact that my first notification (by post) was ignored and their letters continued. My second notification (online) was also ignored and the letters continued. My third contact with them (by phone) resulted in them saying they wouldn't send me any more letters for three years. They began again after six months. I now ignore their correspondence since they appear to be ignoring mine.I would rather the inspector working and paying taxes rather than on the dole,, I cannot understand why letting somebody check you do have a tv is a problem. I am sure somebody will enlighten me.
Do they still use those magic TV detector vans that can even tell what channel you are using?
No problem with that. But why private companies doing the work, sending out letters with the name of a person known not to exist and operating in the same role in different countries. If you got a few like that as e-mails what would you be thinking?If somebody might be avoiding tax should they be investigated? Note the words might be.
No problem with that. But why private companies doing the work, sending out letters with the name of a person known not to exist and operating in the same role in different countries. If you got a few like that as e-mails what would you be thinking?
SPAM
Well, how much effort should we put into those who are avoiding £147, compared to those who are avoiding millions?If somebody might be avoiding tax should they be investigated? Note the words might be.
But why private companies doing the work
Those with millions usually find it easier to make it difficult for the authorities to enforce collection.Well, how much effort should we put into those who are avoiding £147, compared to those who are avoiding millions?