Enforcers DO turn up

[anneemack]

(1) Already covered. This is their interpretation of the Act of Parliament. It has no vasis in law and is 'advice'.

(2) Innocent until proved guilty? No, I don;t believe this is the law of the land anymore. Witness speed in introducing confinement orders all without trial.

Which is why I didnt fill in the form, cos thats admitting you own a TV without a licence!

[loopinlouie]

(1) Already covered. This is their interpretation of the Act of Parliament. It has no vasis in law and is 'advice'.

(2) Innocent until proved guilty? No, I don;t believe this is the law of the land anymore. Witness speed in introducing confinement orders all without trial.

 

Surely their advice (head office)if given should be reliable, they do represent the tv. I would think if you are held accountable for having tv only even though not using live tv, they could be held accountable in law when told that is acceptable:idea:

[buzby]

But - following your 'advice' there's nothing 'illegal' about owning a TV without a licence, is there? It is supposed to be about 'watching' it...?

 

Seriously though, following their advice means the courts have to decide, and it is on the basis of probability. You'll have to provide more than 'it's not plugged into an aerial' as the person without the licence will have to provide a credible explanation as to why they don;t watch TV, which shifts the burden of proof.

 

By having the set made unable to recieve these prodcasts, it shifts the burton of proof, and they lose.

 

[buzby]

Surely their advice (head office)if given should be reliable, they do represent the tv

 

It Is reliable (as far as it goes), but the issue becomes one of proof - you NEED to establish your innocence when challenged. Something you do not have to do if there is no capability of reception.

[anneemack]

But then the beaks all must psychics cos then you are being prosecuted for something you MAY do, not HAVE done

[buzby]

No need to use a crysta ball. I spent a few days listening to questioning from the bench, and it was clear from the questions that it isn't good wnough to state 'I never watch TV', this is a criminal case, and the prosecutor is going to ask many questions... if there are kids, how are they coping with taunts from friends that they don;t watch Hollyoaks (or whatever) are they bullied because of this? Howe do you get your news? Buy a paper? Kids under 5? How do you keep them entertained without TV? The questioning is relentless.

 

All criminal cases are being prosecuted (when the plea is not guilty) on the basis that you MAY have it. If you HAD done it, you would have plead guilty. It's all pretty straightforward.

[loopinlouie]

Probably why the oik who was talking to me thought it okay to laugh at me when I said as long as I dont use it we are okay. He replied you will have to argue that in court.

 

I feel something should be done maybe letter to mp asking for clarity comparing advice given to court case scenario.

[anneemack]

Yes but I have taken some basic free legal advice and the TVLA pit-bull should NOT have interviewed a minor under caution without an appropriate adult in attendance.

Have got appointment with solicitor who says the same.

Illegal interview- no case to answer

[buzby]

Illegal interview- no case to answer

 

Nope. Only if there is a licence for the property. You could argue that she should not have been interviewed, and brought in the irregularities you complain about, BUT what remains is that is is an unlicenced address, and there will be the supposition that illegal viewing takes place.

 

As it is for the householder to prove that they do not have installed 'recieving equipment' (per the Communications Act) this is going to be very difficult to fight, as by your own admission, you do. 'Not Watching' isn't a valid defence. You may find it beneficial to get a solicitor involved, as following one route could leave you liable in other ways.

[anneemack]

unless a solicitor managed to discredit the questioning completely.

from post 23

Edited February 7, 2010 by anneemack
more info

[buzby]

It is the household that requirest the licence - NOT the person. Which is why I suggested a solicitor. As if your sons questioning is discredited, it can quickly move to you as the responsible adult and YOU get the conviction.

[Conniff]

Are you saying I need a license to 'only' listen to radio via my television?

 

Well I can tell you the answer to that is 'no' which turns your completely misleading posts on their head.

I will be operating a television receiver and don't need a license to do so which means I definately do not need a license to just own a television receiver.

 

As license avoidance is a criminal act, the courts cannot dicide for themselves that 'well maybe you were watching'.

Criminal courts work on proof by the accuser and not defence by the accused.

 

In a Landmark Statement of Law, Vicount Sankey in his 'Golden Thread' said:

 

"No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the Common Law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained."

 

If the courts in Scotland have decided that they can take unilateral and treat the law as a joke, that is up to them.

 

TVL does not put it's own interpretation on legislation, it prints what it is told to print by the BBC.

Edited February 7, 2010 by Conniff

[loopinlouie]

I was starting to worry a little that you cant win no matter what you do and feeling a little desperate when I am not even in that situation yet. I am awaiting a reply, if I get one, from an email to capita asking them to confirm the advice given by the tvl head office, just that been watching a few things on you tube and they appear quite intimidating.

 

Will post reply if get one, if not, will write and persevere till I do.

[buzby]

Are you saying I need a license to 'only' listen to radio via my television?

 

Well I can tell you the answer to that is 'no' which turns your completely misleading posts on their head.

 

Listem matey. I care not a whit what YOU think, and rather than attempt to open a door on something that is totally irrelevant, can you just read the Communications Act, and up the length of this thread when it has been stated repeatedly that the courts have to apply the rules as laid down by Parliament. What the TVL or BBC say is irrelevant.

 

I might further add, in the scenario you gave - listening to radio on an unlicenced TV isn't even a grey area - as I witnessed this argument being demolished in 1978, and this was a TV that actually had dual VHF/UHF tuners. Since you are referring to (I believe) Freeview audio content, this also has a data bearer carrying graphics and information on the programme.

 

No skin off my nose either way - I was only correcting the assumption that if you don't watch TV, you are at no risk from prosecution. I am pointing out that not only is there a risk, there remains the issue of being found guilty.

 

Viscount Sankey gives fine words - but think on what he actually said. For a conviction, all they need is a confirmation that a TV set it 'installed' which is all the act stipulates. In cases where no direct evidence exists, a judge has the power to decide on probabilities, as I outlined earlier.

 

I will be operating a television receiver and don't need a license to do so which means I definately do not need a license to just own a television receiver.

 

Aha! You have lost your grip on reality. You agree you will be operating a television receiver. You require a licence. End of. Read the Act if you do not believe me.

 

The Scottish courts are a lot fairer than those you seem to praise - we don't allow extortion (clamping). I don't condone illegal viewing at all - but we have to work with the framework to protect ourselves. Unless the TV tuners are disabled, your become liable and have to plead your case. Without them, there is no contest - they've lost before they started.

 

I've been in court for neatly 185 licence avoidance cases since 1970 to see their disposition. How many have you managed?

 

 

And the BBC has no power to say what the regulations are. So why you think this has ANY relevance eludes me.

[Conniff]

Listem matey. I care not a whit what YOU think, and rather than attempt to open a door on something that is totally irrelevant, can you just read the Communications Act,

 

364 TV licences

(1) A licence for the purposes of section 363 (“a TV licence”)—

(a) may be issued by the BBC subject to such restrictions and conditions as the BBC think fit; and

(b) must be issued subject to such restrictions and conditions as the Secretary of State may require by a direction to the BBC.

 

 

and up the length of this thread when it has been stated repeatedly that the courts have to apply the rules as laid down by Parliament. What the TVL or BBC say is irrelevant.

 

They are not irrelevant - they set the conditions and the Secretary of State can veto them if required.

 

I might further add, in the scenario you gave - listening to radio on an unlicenced TV isn't even a grey area - as I witnessed this argument being demolished in 1978, and this was a TV that actually had dual VHF/UHF tuners. Since you are referring to (I believe) Freeview audio content, this also has a data bearer carrying graphics and information on the programme.

 

I was refering to all digital full stop.

 

No skin off my nose either way - I was only correcting the assumption that if you don't watch TV, you are at no risk from prosecution. I am pointing out that not only is there a risk, there remains the issue of being found guilty.

 

Viscount Sankey gives fine words - but think on what he actually said. For a conviction, all they need is a confirmation that a TV set it 'installed' which is all the act stipulates. In cases where no direct evidence exists, a judge has the power to decide on probabilities, as I outlined earlier.

 

 

 

Aha! You have lost your grip on reality. You agree you will be operating a television receiver. You require a licence. End of. Read the Act if you do not believe me.

 

Is that so - and I suppose this is irrelevnt as well?

 

 

Unless the TV tuners are disabled, your become liable and have to plead your case. Without them, there is no contest - they've lost before they started.

 

I've been in court for neatly 185 licence avoidance cases since 1970 to see their disposition. How many have you managed?

 

 

 

And the BBC has no power to say what the regulations are. So why you think this has ANY relevance eludes me.

 

364 TV licences

(1) A licence for the purposes of section 363 (“a TV licence”)—

(a) may be issued by the BBC subject to such restrictions and conditions as the BBC think fit; and

(b) must be issued subject to such restrictions and conditions as the Secretary of State may require by a direction to the BBC.

 

What you mean is they have no power to change the communications regulations.

 

 

 

Just stop misleading people.

One thing I am in agreement with you is that license dodging is not on. If people don't like the BBC, then fight with their MP to get the regs changed. It won't happen though.

Edited February 7, 2010 by Conniff

[buzby]

Just stop misleading people.

 

HOW many times. The BBC IS irrelevant. It is not a 'BBC Licence'. The Government have enacted a licence for a 'Broadcast Receiving Licence'. THis requires payment on a sliding scale.... NOT to watch BBC broadcasts, as you appear to think, but ANY transmission within the UK.

 

Just as an argument that 'I don't watch BBC' so I don't need a licence, wouldn't get you very far - this letter from a BBC employee doesn't even refer to the enabling statutory instruments that gives them the power to collect. An oversight, perhaps? Or the fact that they haven't a clue? Considering the bulk of their programmes are carp, it is best to be guided by the prima facie instrument that will be used to prosecute you. Not an FoI letter from someone who has no idea of the ramifications. Even if you called them into court to support their assertions, it might as well have been Davina McCall. An 'understanding' (and misinterpretation) of the law is no excuse.

 

You also seem to think that a DIGITAL TV can be used to listen to the radio is OK. Yet I explained why this would not fly, (it still requires the 'installation' of a broadcast receiver).

 

I'll stick with the Communication Act as the defining instrument, not your interpretation of it. Unless you plan to indemnify everyone who follows your cavalier attitude to the law? Better yet, check with your local court - there will be a day when all the prosecutions will be stacked up (usually one or two days each six months) if you care to see it all first hand.

 

I'm talking from actual experience at the actual litigation, not what you seem to think is 'right'. I mislead nobody - I've pointed out the law as it stands, and until rescinded or revoked, like it or loath it that's what we have to work with. Feel free to defend the indefensible if you like, but for anyone in a situation that they have no plans to purchase a TV licence, ENSURE you cannot be compromised, get the tuner disconnected. Better yet,m if you plan to listen to the radio on Freeview of Freesat, you STILL need a licence.

 

That about covers it. Take care, and don't trust anyone from the BBC or TVLRO, they are not your friends.

[Conniff]

HOW many times. The BBC IS irrelevant. It is not a 'BBC Licence'. The Government have enacted a licence for a 'Broadcast Receiving Licence'.

 

And the BBC has been give the power to administer that license.

364 TV licences

(1) A licence for the purposes of section 363 (“a TV licence”)—

(a) may be issued by the BBC subject to such restrictions and conditions as the BBC think fit;

 

THis requires payment on a sliding scale.... NOT to watch BBC broadcasts, as you appear to think, but ANY transmission within the UK.

 

In no place at all have I ever said this is a license for the BBC - it is a license to receive 'live' television broadcast from any source. The fee goes to the BBC, Channel 4 and S4C.

 

Just as an argument that 'I don't watch BBC' so I don't need a licence, wouldn't get you very far - this letter from a BBC employee doesn't even refer to the enabling statutory instruments that gives them the power to collect. An oversight, perhaps? Or the fact that they haven't a clue? Considering the bulk of their programmes are carp, it is best to be guided by the prima facie instrument that will be used to prosecute you. Not an FoI letter from someone who has no idea of the ramifications. Even if you called them into court to support their assertions, it might as well have been Davina McCall. An 'understanding' (and misinterpretation) of the law is no excuse.

 

You also seem to think that a DIGITAL TV can be used to listen to the radio is OK. Yet I explained why this would not fly, (it still requires the 'installation' of a broadcast receiver).

 

I don't think that, the BBC has said you don't.

 

I'll stick with the Communication Act as the defining instrument, not your interpretation of it. Unless you plan to indemnify everyone who follows your cavalier attitude to the law? Better yet, check with your local court - there will be a day when all the prosecutions will be stacked up (usually one or two days each six months) if you care to see it all first hand.

 

In Scotland since 1970 there has been in excess of 1million people caught and you think that 175 cases in some little Scottish court is representative of the whole country - get a life.

 

I'm talking from actual experience at the actual litigation, not what you seem to think is 'right'. I mislead nobody - I've pointed out the law as it stands, and until rescinded or revoked, like it or loath it that's what we have to work with. Feel free to defend the indefensible if you like, but for anyone in a situation that they have no plans to purchase a TV licence, ENSURE you cannot be compromised, get the tuner disconnected. Better yet,m if you plan to listen to the radio on Freeview of Freesat, you STILL need a licence.

 

You DON'T need a license - the BBC have confirmed that in a letter.

 

That about covers it. Take care, and don't trust anyone from the BBC or TVLRO, they are not your friends.

 

 

Why are you always right and everyone else in the world is wrong - either you are blind or just don't want to see what is in black and white in front of you.

 

Have the guts to admit for once that you are just plain wrong.

 

You do not require a license to have a tv other than to watch 'live' television broadcasts.

 

The above has been enlarged as someone has forgotten their glasses.

Edited February 9, 2010 by Conniff

[loopinlouie]

I would love to be wrong, but I would think the problem therefore is the enforcers having a different opinion, which is infact wrong and biased to them getting commision and therefore akin to clampers trying to make as much as possible. I went on capita recruitment site and it clearly says commision is paid, I think from what I saw by them to people on youtube, then their attitude is sell sell sell even if dont need one and its a matter of fighting back. Anotherwords apart from making sure there is a camcorder on when they visit its a matter of their word against ours whcih unfairly would cause stress in court when doen nowt wrong. I think they play on that.

 

I am going to along with letter of non using when license ends going to send a removal of right of access letter.

[buzby]

Whatever. As to your facetious comments - funny how that's all you can degenerate to when you haven't a leg to stand on. Let me know when you appear in court with this defence. You won't need a hearing aid to hear me laughing at your stupid defences.

[loopinlouie]

buzby, whats wrong with you? You dont need to become annoyed just because people differ in views. You seem very negative when it comes to the rights of the consumer regarding anything and could use your knowledge to help in the best way forward positively. Do you work on prosecution side of law? because that is the side you wouldnt expect to get positive input from. Try defence:D

[buzby]

Nothing at all. I only react when I'm told I mislead (when I don't), and am supposed to take for gospel what the monkey (BBC/TVL) say, rather than the Organ Grinder (Govt Act of Parliament), which dictates wehat happens in court.

 

My only concern is that I have seen too many cases end in failure where the viewer is forced into admitting that they had a TV 'installed' on their premises.

 

The 'not watching' defence is bogus - and I would go far as to say is misinformation our out by those who wish to achieve higher convictrion rates. What other benefit could there be?

[loopinlouie]

Are 'installed' is a helpful comment. If a tv is not tuned in or connected to aerial or tuner box then I would answer I dont have one installed, but have one I use as a monitor, like pc, they can be used to watch dvds etc and my son uses one for xbox, but thats not a tv in itself.

 

I suppose one is installed can be misinterpreted with yes response, rather than us interpret that as do you have a telly in the house using non live tv. They obviously mean installed as ready for use for live tv:D

 

Like a pc if you have windows installed means its ready for use if wished, without it you cant do didly squat, maybe youve hit something there.

[Conniff]

My only concern is that I have seen too many cases end in failure where the viewer is forced into admitting that they had a TV 'installed' on their premises.

 

That is a completely different thing from the terms of the license. Yes you will see convictions as tvl will turn up but the defendent wont have a solicitor as most people think of not having a license as a misdemeaner or petty charge and not as a criminal charge so don't make a proper defence, in which case it is a forgone conclusion.

 

There are also a lot of people in prison who are not guilty of any crime because the defence was rubbish.

 

Being found guilty of something doesn't necessarily mean you have committed a crime.

[anneemack]

I have a mind to just wait for the sixteen year old to be summonsed. Then go to court and watch the egg drip down the prosecutions face

[anneemack]

11 Interviews – general

(a) Action

11.1A An interview is the questioning of a person regarding their involvement or suspected

involvement in a criminal offence or offences which, under

paragraph 10.1, must be

 

carried out under caution. Whenever a person is interviewed they must be informed

of the nature of the offence, or further offence.

© Juveniles and mentally disordered or otherwise mentally vulnerable people

11.15 A juvenile or person who is mentally disordered or otherwise mentally vulnerable must

not be interviewed regarding their involvement or suspected involvement in a criminal

offence or offences, or asked to provide or sign a written statement under caution or

record of interview, in the absence of the appropriate adult

This is an extract from the P.A.C.E. 2008

My sixteen year was only read the caution, AFTER answering the TVLA vultures quesions

Edited February 9, 2010 by anneemack
info