TV licensing (Capita) impersonating police officers?
Discussion
Countdown said:
oyster said:
A whole year’s access to the widest range of multi-channel programming for the price of a nice meal out.
It’s the best bargain in most peoples’ lives.
Yes. But why pay for it when you can just pretend you don’t watch live TV?It’s the best bargain in most peoples’ lives.
Graveworm said:
mbcx4jrh said:
Additional question:
Ive seen the videos of the Capita guys turning up with a couple of plod in tow. The Warrant usually says something about allowing them to inspect TV equipment.
Can you refuse entry to the police in tow and ask that they leave the private property?
Could the police in tow then use any laws to insist entry with Capita guys? Can an officer insist on coming in with Captia guy to "prevent a breach of the peace"
.
The warrant will specify who can enter. Normal warrants are for constables and can name others. Looking around I think the TV licence onesIve seen the videos of the Capita guys turning up with a couple of plod in tow. The Warrant usually says something about allowing them to inspect TV equipment.
Can you refuse entry to the police in tow and ask that they leave the private property?
Could the police in tow then use any laws to insist entry with Capita guys? Can an officer insist on coming in with Captia guy to "prevent a breach of the peace"
.
seem to say any employee of Capita with or without constables. In which case plod can come in.
One of the other peculiarities of this warrant are the duties it places on occupants. Looking at the YouTube video I think this was close to falling foul of those provisions :
Where a person has the power by virtue of a warrant under this section to examine or test any television receiver found on any premises, or in any vehicle, it shall be the duty—
(a)of a person who is on the premises or in the vehicle, and
(b)in the case of a vehicle, of a person who has charge of it or is present when it is searched,to give the person carrying out the examination or test all such assistance as that person may reasonably require for carrying it out.
(8)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)intentionally obstructs a person in the exercise of any power conferred on that person by virtue of a warrant under this section; or
(b)without reasonable excuse, fails to give any assistance that he is under a duty to give by virtue of subsection (7).
Red Devil said:
The excerpt from Hansard I linked to is crystal clear.
If you're LLF, don't engage: stay off their radar.
However, I certainly wouldn't recommend refusing entry if a warrant has been obtained.
They are very rare though (around 100 a year max across E&W), so not something to disturb your equanimity.
A more relevant question is what evidence will they have put in front of a magistrate to obtain one?
It's long been suspected that TVL get given an assumption of virtue and integrity by the courts - if they're requesting a warrant I would imagine they rarely have to justify it too hard. Would be interesting to know how many are approved/refused by the courts... If you're LLF, don't engage: stay off their radar.
However, I certainly wouldn't recommend refusing entry if a warrant has been obtained.
They are very rare though (around 100 a year max across E&W), so not something to disturb your equanimity.
A more relevant question is what evidence will they have put in front of a magistrate to obtain one?
The whole process of 'inspection by warrant' is ridiculous though; unless they knock on the door and walk in to find you watching or recording a live signal, anything else proves exactly nothing, mainly because
- you don't need a licence to own a TV
- you don't need a licence to plug a TV into an aerial (for the purposes of receiving digital radio for example)
The whole TVL concept is utter bulls
t - if it's that popular and cherished then make it subscription and lock it all down.Funk said:
The whole process of 'inspection by warrant' is ridiculous though; unless they knock on the door and walk in to find you watching or recording a live signal, anything else proves exactly nothing, mainly because
Not my field but, in the case of the latter, if it's installed and it's a television receiver that is capable of receiving television - isn't that caught under the "Whether or not the apparatus is installed or used for any other purpose" 2017 catch all?- you don't need a licence to own a TV
- you don't need a licence to plug a TV into an aerial (for the purposes of receiving digital radio for example)
Edited by Graveworm on Friday 8th February 13:46
funkyrobot said:
How does one know if a TVL person appears with a genuine warrant?
For all I know, they could just say this to get into the house. Does a real warrant have a specific look about it?
Thanks.
If it is anything like any other warrant then, if they are really CAPITA, then any fake they produce would look exactly like the real thing. The applicant completes the warrant (It's just printed like anything else) and the all the magistrate (Occasionally judge) does is sign and date them. Obviously a fake one won't have a copy at the court along with the information. If anyone were to go down a JR about the issue of a warrant then they would almost certainly be able to get a copy of the information and then would know for sure if they were making stuff up. For all I know, they could just say this to get into the house. Does a real warrant have a specific look about it?
Thanks.
Shuvi McTupya said:
I suppose you would have to demand to take a good quality photo of it, and if it was fake they would probably come up with some bullst about data protection laws say you cant do that.
They have to give the occupant a copy, or leave one at the premises in a prominent place, if no one is in. The issue of warrants has been massively tightened up relatively recently. t about data protection laws say you cant do that.Graveworm said:
As for the second line did they win a prize for being one of the most corrupt and biased? Have you ever watched CNN or Fox news? Have you ever watched TV in China, Russia?
It's the sort of thing that people with an axe to grind, who don't tend to travel outside of the UK very often, tend to say.I'd ignore him, if I were you - he only really posts about things he hates (mostly London), and it's all a little bit sad. I try not to encourage him, as I fear he may be in the midst of some kind of breakdown.
C70R said:
Graveworm said:
As for the second line did they win a prize for being one of the most corrupt and biased? Have you ever watched CNN or Fox news? Have you ever watched TV in China, Russia?
It's the sort of thing that people with an axe to grind, who don't tend to travel outside of the UK very often, tend to say.I'd ignore him, if I were you - he only really posts about things he hates (mostly London), and it's all a little bit sad. I try not to encourage him, as I fear he may be in the midst of some kind of breakdown.
You have no idea how stupid that statement is? Then again you wouldn't as you don't know me, you just spout made up rubbish about me because I don't agree with the nonsense you spout about London and as a result you feel the need to deride and belittle at every opportunity. I think you need to take a long hard look in the mirror before you criticise others on here as you continually rub posters up the wrong way and you might want to try and work out why ... it's obvious to many of us, but clearly you don't seem to get it!Slightly off topic but it looks like a lot of people are soon going to be motivated to cancel their TV license. Panorama is about to be exposed for creating fake news.
They have been making a documentary to bring down Tommy Robinson but he seems to have infiltrated the making of it and has video evidence of lots of very dodgy goings on.
There will be a big event showing this evidence on massive screens outside the BBC offices in Birmingham on Feb 23rd. (unless they somehow manage to stop it, but it will be published online either way.
No matter what you think of the guy, this will be interesting!
They have been making a documentary to bring down Tommy Robinson but he seems to have infiltrated the making of it and has video evidence of lots of very dodgy goings on.
There will be a big event showing this evidence on massive screens outside the BBC offices in Birmingham on Feb 23rd. (unless they somehow manage to stop it, but it will be published online either way.
No matter what you think of the guy, this will be interesting!
Shuvi McTupya said:
Slightly off topic but it looks like a lot of people are soon going to be motivated to cancel their TV license. Panorama is about to be exposed for creating fake news.
They have been making a documentary to bring down Tommy Robinson but he seems to have infiltrated the making of it and has video evidence of lots of very dodgy goings on.
There will be a big event showing this evidence on massive screens outside the BBC offices in Birmingham on Feb 23rd. (unless they somehow manage to stop it, but it will be published online either way.
No matter what you think of the guy, this will be interesting!
Interesting. Where did you find out about this?They have been making a documentary to bring down Tommy Robinson but he seems to have infiltrated the making of it and has video evidence of lots of very dodgy goings on.
There will be a big event showing this evidence on massive screens outside the BBC offices in Birmingham on Feb 23rd. (unless they somehow manage to stop it, but it will be published online either way.
No matter what you think of the guy, this will be interesting!
Graveworm said:
Funk said:
The whole process of 'inspection by warrant' is ridiculous though; unless they knock on the door and walk in to find you watching or recording a live signal, anything else proves exactly nothing, mainly because
Not my field but, in the case of the latter, if it's installed and it's a television receiver that is capable of receiving television - isn't that caught under the "Whether or not the apparatus is installed or used for any other purpose" 2017 catch all?- you don't need a licence to own a TV
- you don't need a licence to plug a TV into an aerial (for the purposes of receiving digital radio for example)
The relevant legislation is The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004 as amended by The Communications (Television Licensing) (Amendment) Regulations 2016.
The answer to your question is no. Section 9 doesn't say what you appear to think it does. The devil, as always, is in the detail. .
If you read the 2016 amendment carefully you will see Funk's second example does not come within the defintion of a "television receiver".
It is not installed or used for the defined purpose.
It is no wonder that some people succumb to C*apitas sales pitch. While ignorance of the law is no excuse, correct knowledge of it is power.
Shuvi McTupya said:
funkyrobot said:
Interesting. Where did you find out about this?
Facebook, he posted a video tonight and lots of people shared it. 20,000 watched it live!I'm definitely no fan of TR, but if what he alleges is true then they have played into his hands.
Talk about dumb and dumber.
Red Devil said:
The Facebook page is public, you don't need a FB account to view it. It's on youtube as well.
I'm definitely no fan of TR, but if what he alleges is true then they have played into his hands.
Talk about dumb and dumber.
Calling them dumb would be really giving them the benefit of doubt, if what he is saying is true than what they have done is a lot worse than being dumb!I'm definitely no fan of TR, but if what he alleges is true then they have played into his hands.
Talk about dumb and dumber.
Shuvi McTupya said:
They have been making a documentary to bring down Tommy Robinson but he seems to have infiltrated the making of it and has video evidence of lots of very dodgy goings on.
Tommy Robinson isn't a real person, its just a character played by Stephen Yaxley-Lennon. Pretty much like Keith Lemon or Alan Partridge. 
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff