Enforcers DO turn up

[buzby]

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..

 

The Communications Act is specific - installed, means just that, plugged in an working. It it your 'slant' that installation only means viewing broadcasts. Which is why this can end in tears (and has done for many). It's like saying - back in the days of the 'glass tax' (look it up), that because your curtains were always closed, you didn't have to pay it because you couldn't see the glass or the daylight.

 

Judges only work with what they are given, and must interpret accordingly. If the Comms Act states you must admit to watching (or be seen to be) to be in breach for not having a licence, your understanding would be vindicated, and you'd have a successful defence.

 

But it doesn't.

 

The same 'installation' taking it out the box and plugging it into the mains completes this, hence no requirement to prove there was an aerial or anyone watching it. The ability to watch is there, and the licence requirement is absolute.. I only heard of once case where the TV didn't have a plug on the end (bare wires) and the accused got off, stating that the TV hadn't worked for years, and the plug was now on the iron! As the inspector didn't disprove the assertion that the TV didn't work, the case fell apart.

[Conniff]

Are you still harping on with your totally misleading drivel.

[anneemack]

And you are still totally missing my point. This about their stupidity in questioning a juvenile under caution without an appropriate adult, or are just picking out the bits that suits you.

I have had a solictor TELL me that anything said by my sixteen year old is not admissable as it a totally ILLEGAL interview.

I haven't admitted to anything so put that in your comms act and smoke it

[anneemack]

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.

Further to own thread, 'enforcers DO turn up', 17 years when i was pregnant with said 16 year old, I was prosecuted for STORING a colour telly for my friend which I was keeping as a surprise present for her sons birthday.

An enforcement officer called at my address and I showed him the black and white (nowadays monochrome!) licence for my own black and white TV.

The colour telly was in an un-opened box in my hallway and I had then in my innocence and stupidity allowed him in.

I explained about said colour telly and he even inspected the box which was clearly Un-opened. It had not been delivered to my address.

Recieved a summons a few weeks later and got a fine which my friend paid.

Seems nothing changes

The above was posted on loopinlouie's thread

Edited February 9, 2010 by anneemack
info

[buzby]

And you are still totally missing my point.

 

And you don't seem to retain the information already imparted. The interview with a 16 year old MAY not be admissible, but it irrelevant to a prosecution.

 

Do you think it'll all stop when you show your 'trump' card of age? It is the household that is covered by the licence. If they made a mistake and got someone inadmissible, there's no double jeopardy attached, they get YOU instead, which is why I said you'd best get a solicitor.

 

This isn't the time for DIY games in a Magistrates Court.

[buzby]

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

 

Very erudite.

 

Similarly, being found Not Guilty doesn't mean you may not have done it.

 

Any additional irrelevant homilies you feel relevant to this?

[loopinlouie]

Dont work for capita do you buzby

[Conniff]

Dont work for capita do you buzby

 

My suspicion exactly - and if not then apply, you have the job.

[buzby]

Do you know - if I had a £1 for every time a forum poster (usually disliking my responses) suggests that I am employed by the company they supposedly 'dislike'. In the last year I'm supposedly working for; BT. 3UK, O2, and Vodafone. Pretty neat, huh? As for Crapita, no - I've too much intelligence to be of use to them, but I have to query this - you seem to think I am somehow supporting their operation.

 

Far from it. I'm pointing out that they are being misleading in the extreme, and leading those without a licence into the arms of the courts with their made-up 'advice' (or interpretation of the Communicatrions Act). You may not believe it, but there are actually people out there that watch TV and have no intention of paying it, citing anything from Jonathan Ross's pay to the fact they 'only watch the news', so it wouldn't be right for them to pay just under £200pa for this, or most likely they cannot afford it So they don't

 

This probably explains why so many 'single mothers' are cited to appear (and lose) for watching a TV without a licence, compared to other social classes. Is it wrong for them to be pursued in this way, when others with more money are not?

 

You decide - but they all get prosecuted to a greater or lesser extent. Because if they weren't nobody would pay. It may all become academic in the next year or two if the licence is done away with, but until then there is no such thing as a simplistic, if you don't watch = no license required. If you have the means, then you remain at risk.

 

What'll be next? I don't need a gun licence as I only polish them, I'd never use it?

 

Yes right!

[anneemack]

If you are so convinced that the info on the TVLA site is so wrong and mis-leading, why are you just stting and pontificating on this forum instead of leading a challenge against something that is clearly, in your opinion, legally if not morally wrong? And is available to all and anyone that has internet access?

[buzby]

What... do YOUR job?

 

I take no heed of the BBC or TVL. I know that the final arbiter in any dispute is the Communications Act as written (and interpretated by JUDGES). I work within the rules, and have never become a cropper - what is there to change?

 

If they choose to give out misleading information, that's their look out. Take THEM to court for providing the wrong advice if you like. The fact you are prepared to believe the monkey's rather than the organ grinder is your decision - and if it goes wrong, you've only yourself to blame.

 

I may have an opinion on whether I believe the licence is a good idea or not - but the Comms Act states the law, and that's NOT changed by a 'helpful' leaflet from anyone. If you dislike the way things stand, take it to your MP. I have my licence, and I know the rules - so there's no problem.

[anneemack]

The BBC Have sent a letter threatening prosecution. Let them try, been gaining HELPFUL advice from elsewhere. such as this FOI

http://www.televisionlicence.info/downloads/foi/RFI2007000441.pdf

[buzby]

Er - the point being? If there is nobody to 'caution' it doesn't take place on that occasion. But having confirmed that there is an active reciever in place, and no licence extant, how long do you think before they return. 5 Hours? A day? A week? The probability of success of having no person to pursue would only work in limited circumstances. Why do you think the DVLA moved to 'continuous registration' for their purposes?

 

As for it being 'helpful' - I would think it makes matter worse, as when it does go to court, the full circuymstances of avoidance will be disclosed and any fine modified accordingly.

 

Bit of an own goal, when you think about it.

[anneemack]

tut tut, even when its in black and white that people under the age of eighteen aren't liable for prosecution, you still have to try to undermine the information. its straight from the horses mouth

[buzby]

'Undermine'? What, in that you need a licence to view broadcast television? Or that you believe you can avoid such a financial nuisance by saying if challenged you're babysitting?

 

If you watch, you pay. No excuses.

 

PS: In Scotland, the lower age age for prosecutions is 16, as there have been several successful pursuits of single mothers aged 16 & 17, so I presume the BBC did not point this out due to the letter writer having an address in England.

Edited June 3, 2010 by buzby

[anneemack]

we dont watch tv

[postggj]

Buzby

 

Quick Question

 

Pal Of Mine Had A Visit Yesterday By Tvlo

 

He Was Going Out And Refused To Answer Any Of There Questions

 

His Reply Was

 

We Will Just Get A Right Of Entry Warrant

 

Do They Have This Power Or Is It Just Bluff

 

HE ONLY MOVED IN LAST WEEK

[anneemack]

its all just bluff mate. have you any idea how complicated it is to get a search warrant? even the police struggle sometimes! the BBC even refuse FOI requests regarding the amounts of warrants issued. they only go after high profile refuseniks and only then cos these people have put themselves in the spotlight.

NO CONTACT. slam the door on them

the goons that come-a-visting have no more powers than me or you, unless of course your a police officer

[postggj]

Many Thanks For That

 

I Thought So But It Will Put His Mind At Rest

 

He Has A Tv Licence From His Previous Addres So He Will Get It Transfered

[buzby]

Sorry, it isn't a standard SEARCH warrant, they are applying for a licence to confirm whether there is unlicenced recieving equipment is installed. When they have a warrant, a uniformed police officer will (usually) be present if they expect trouble or have had reason to believe a situation may arise.

 

Regarding 'not giving a name', the solution to that is having the police officer call. The information is then provided with the TVL inspector present, so it all rolls on from there.

 

Regarding licence transfers, this often happens without you doing anything. Providing you get the PO to arrange mail redirection, RM notify TVL of the change, and the change is made in the virtual world. Previously, you went to a PO and they noted the new address and stamped it, but they lost this facility when they dumped the PO as licence issuing agents.

[postggj]

To Apply For A Search Warrant, Dont They Need Grounds, Not Just Suspicion Or Has Her Brown/blair Sewn That One Up Also

[buzby]

A 'reasonable suspicion' is all that is required. TVL always needs to apply for the warrant if they do not get entry, but rarely do so as a first effort. Police can search the person 'on suspicion' (say for drugs) without a warrant.

[Conniff]

 

in that you need a licence to view broadcast television

 

 

If you watch, you pay. No excuses.

 

 

 

 

He's said it - look everyone, Buzby has admitted that you need a license to watch and not just to own a tv.

[buzby]

If you think that, you're sadly mistaken. If you have a Reciever capable of recieving broadcast transmissions, you are at risk at having to prove you didn't watch it unlicenced. Which you cxnnot with any guarantee of success. So it then falls to the judge to believe on the balance of probabilities whether you did or did not.

 

Sorry if this wasn't clear enough for you - but then, since this thread goes back many months, there's no change (and for the avoidance of soubt) if you have a TV and no licence, you'll be arguing with a judge. Not me.

 

Perhaps the following will provide more useful information - which I'm told is 'hidden' by the BBC. 8)

 

BBC Trust - review of TV Licence fee collection strategy

 

How about; You don't watch? If you have a TV, you'd still better get a licence. or get rid of the TV."

[Conniff]

Why you continue to pedal such misinformation completely baffles me. Is it embarassement, will it hurt your ego if you admit your wrong?

 

There has to be some hidden reason why once you have said it, you are afraid to then admit your are totally, completely and utterly wrong.