TV licensing (Capita) impersonating police officers?

[Runes]

DELETED: Comment made by a member who's account has been deleted.

The number of licences has been increasing recently, and research suggests that the reputation of TV Licensing has improved during this decade: http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/docum...

[Tony 1234]

Runes said:

The number of licences has been increasing recently, and research suggests that the reputation of TV Licensing has improved during this decade: http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/docum...

Probably paid for by the BBC!!!

[Runes]

Tony 1234 said:

Probably paid for by the BBC!!!

I think it is, but that doesn't get us very far does it? Do you think the researchers' finding are wrong? If so, why?

[surveyor_101]

I watched a Video on youtube saying there is a declaration online you can fill out every two years, that states you won't watch live TV or use iplayer and then they just leave you alone. Read various sources that the detection vans are a load of tosh.

The BBC as an organisation has lost its way and is wasting millions on expenses and crazy procurement. I don't watch their left-wing tosh anymore so I am going to cancel my licence and do the declaration!

The inspector needs to be invited into your home or see your tv from the window to be able to prove you are watching live telly.

Capita have had to get bully boy as the Beeb want their champagne money and since it the licence was decriminalised they have to bully and threaten to collect the money.

I am mean I am sat watching tv on my tablet using its internal battery (Legal without a tv licence)

I plug the power cable in and bang I need a TV licence now! Its a joke

[HantsRat]

surveyor_101 said:

I am mean I am sat watching tv on my tablet using its internal battery (Legal without a tv licence)

Not legal if it's Live TV.

[Atomic12C]

Trying to find an answer to my question earlier and found this:

https://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/forum/index.p...

Regarding "The Inspection" paragraph - It would seem that one is guilty for prosecution simply if the TV is available for use - ie. is capable of receiving live broadcasts and has channels tuned to receive.
Therefore, whether you watch live broadcasts or not - you are presumed guilty if your TV has any channels tuned in.

Surely that can't be right?
Because as mentioned, one could have tuned in the TV when the property had a licence, then when the license expired one could choose only to listen to radio channels thereafter.

Anybody clarify the law further?

[psi310398]

Atomic12C said:

So still wondering if a crapita goon can configure a TV, turn it on to a live broadcast, then issue you a penalty or court papers ?

Let me preface this by saying IANAL but no, not in principle: this is why when you look at YouTube clips of their activities, they are always careful to attempt to entrap the homeowner into operating the TV.

There are examples where they can be seen even attempting to get the homeowner to hook up an antenna and tune the TV to receive broadcast signals.

Even if they are there with a warrant from the magistrates, the homeowner only has a duty not to obstruct them and to provide reasonable assistance to the inspectors' examination and testing of relevant equipment (e.g. handing over a remote control/explaining configuration/providing user manuals etc) but, self-evidently, the duty to assist cannot be extended to his being required to break the law in doing so.

Section 366 of the Communication Act explicitly states that it is the authorised person who searches the premises or vehicle and examines and tests any television receiver found there.

It goes on to say:

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.

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).

The homeowner is well within his rights to refuse to operate such equipment.

The CPS guidance on the decision to prosecute is here:

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/ss/Satellite?blobcol=...

What is particularly worrying, given the evidence that several search warrants have been obtained by Capita staff, on the basis of (shall we be polite?) fanciful evidence, is 7.4.1 (b) where the fact that a warrant had been obtained is then weighed against the potential defendant. I am not aware of any review undertaken into the quality of evidence given in cases where a warrant was executed and no infraction found.

These warrants are obtained ex parte (obviously) but appear to be rubber stamped by magistrates. The general obligation under the Criminal Procedure Rules (47.26 (3)) for the applicant in ex parte applications to set out facts which might undermine the application does not appear to be much observed either.

I had cause to look into all this because I refused to give the time of day to a particularly obnoxious inspector who lied repeatedly about his authority to enter my property without a warrant and then threatened me with a search warrant when I told him to bugger off, after the fourth or fifth doorstepping.

Ironically, I had then and have now, a TV licence but there is an anomaly on the database relating to the address which means I get a stream of crap from TVL. I have no interest in saving them, or the BBC, money or effort so I make just bin everything and don't deal with their doorsteppers.

I don't normally wear a tin foil hat BTW but TVL gets my goat!

[Mandat]

Sa Calobra said:

News readers read from a screen infront of them as a prompt.

Yes, it's called an auto cue.

[shakotan]

Sa Calobra said:

shakotan said:

Sa Calobra said:

OddCat said:

I think the OP should just pay for a licence anyway.

How the hell are they going to afford to pay John Humpries £600k per annum, Jeremy Vine £700k per annum, Naga Munchetty £400k per annum etc etc if we don't all pay up ?

They are on THAT much for reading an auto que?!?!?!!?

News readers read from a screen infront of them as a prompt.

Queue = A line of people
Cue = a signal or prompt
Que = Spanish for 'what'

[Funk]

HantsRat said:

surveyor_101 said:

I am mean I am sat watching tv on my tablet using its internal battery (Legal without a tv licence)

Not legal if it's Live TV.

Correct - it would only be legal if there were a valid TV Licence for the home and the battery-powered device is being used away from home for example.

It just shows how stupid these rules/laws are. Just make the whole damn thing subscription-only and leave those of us who don't want the BBC alone.

[surveyor_101]

HantsRat said:

Not legal if it's Live TV.

Sorry to clarify legal if you have a tv licence for home address or your a student away at uni.

Moment you plug the device into the mains the address your at needs its own licence!

[pavarotti1980]

What about a VPN enabled router who thinks you are in Slovenia and using an IPTV service to watch Homes under the Hammer on BBC1 at 10am every morning

[Atomic12C]

psi310398 said:

The CPS guidance on the decision to prosecute is here:

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/ss/Satellite?blobcol=...

Thanks for that reply.

Looking at Crapita's policy document (section 2 - Scope)....it would seem they interpret the law to mean that a TV license is required if a TV is 'installed', or if the property owner is intending to 'install' a TV. And they also extend that to simply "being in possession of a TV receiver".

That surely is not what the law states.

I guess this is then allowing crapita to submit evidence that a TV is simply being used, without any evidence that it is live broadcast being watched. (ie. from noticing a TV in use through a window or noticing typical light reflections through curtains etc).

Once at court, how is one supposed to convince a judge that the TV is not being used for live broadcast?
I just hope that as it is a criminal matter, the level of evidence is similar to other criminal cases whereby its beyond reasonable doubt etc. ?

[pits]

I never ever understand this attitude on PH where everyone ignores the letters and have these guys knocking on their door, just fill out the online form, it takes 10 minutes and they don't bother you for 2 years.

[Atomic12C]

pits said:

I never ever understand this attitude on PH where everyone ignores the letters and have these guys knocking on their door, just fill out the online form, it takes 10 minutes and they don't bother you for 2 years.

True, from what people generally say there is less hassle in just reporting via the website that you don't need a licence.
But that still doesn't prevent the situation of a goon turning up to look around your house.

I'm trying to pin down what happens if they gain entry (via invite or via warrant), and whereby they do their 'inspection'.
Regardless of whether you do or do not watch live broadcasts and have followed all the rules, if they can still get you to court for a judge to decide?

From what I've read on crapita's own guidance (mentioned in previous post), it would seem the very fact that you have a TV is enough for them to take things further.

I guess the next step to investigate is how the judges decide and on what evidence, and if the honesty of the home owner is enough?
(as I think it is accepted that craptia goons are know for fabricating evidence)

Or whether its a case of having to prove a negative (ie. proving something didn't happen) - which if its a criminal case I am guessing not as the burden is likely on the prosecution rather than the defendant?
(legal eagles may be along soon to clear that one up)

Edited by Atomic12C on Monday 29th January 16:09

[psi310398]

pits said:

I never ever understand this attitude on PH where everyone ignores the letters and have these guys knocking on their door, just fill out the online form, it takes 10 minutes and they don't bother you for 2 years.

Because some of us don't care for spongers and bullies?

It's not true that they leave you alone. They might but they still often come and check up. They presume that you are a wrong 'un simply because you state you do not need a licence.

As a matter of principle, I should not need to prove to anybody that I'm not breaking the law, least of all a bunch of spivs on sales targets.

The law requiring me to do so apart, I also don't see why I should pay for a "service" I don't really use, and wouldn't use at all if I could subscribe to it or not. The BBC's output is largely the same sort of st and drivel that is put out on ITV and I wouldn't pay anything to watch it if I weren't compelled to in order to have access to the stuff I do want to watch. Its news output is poor and largely tendentious sub-Guardian virtue signalling and I don't watch it. All the decent sports programmes are on Sky or BT and I have to pay to watch them anyway on top of the licence fee. Ditto most films. So I am forced on pain of conviction in a criminal court to subsidise an organisation I can't stand provide services I don't want or need.

Lastly, I'm not much enamoured of the way the BBC uses goons and bullies to collect this tribute and, as a consequence, will do nothing to help them and as much as I can legally to hinder them and make their collection as painful and expensive as I can.

[TobyLerone]

psi310398 said:

.....As a matter of principle, I should not need to prove to anybody that I'm not breaking the law.....

This is precisely why I have no contact with them.

Since when does the law operate this way? You don't get speeding fines, court summons, parking tickets (etc) just because you were in an area where you might be able to commit a crime, and then have to prove you won't!

Innocent until proven guilty, right?

[Runes]

Runes said:

Why?

DELETED: Comment made by a member who's account has been deleted.

TR, Do what I did and ignore him looks like a BBC luvie to me

[psi310398]

psi310398 said:

It's not true that they leave you alone. They might but they still often come and check up. They presume that you are a wrong 'un simply because you state you do not need a licence.

DELETED: Comment made by a member who's account has been deleted.

Edited by TinRobot on Monday 29th January 18:13

Actually, they explicitly reserve the "right" to check anyway when you make the declaration.

As for being a scally, perhaps, but there is a lot of evidence to suggest that they tend to avoid the countryside and leafy suburbs and concentrate their efforts on lower hanging revenue-raising fruit which is why so many less well-off and less well-educated women on the rougher urban estates end up in court for evasion.

[Funk]

pits said:

I never ever understand this attitude on PH where everyone ignores the letters and have these guys knocking on their door, just fill out the online form, it takes 10 minutes and they don't bother you for 2 years.

You are continually giving them information they're not legally entitled to.

Do you get in touch with Apple to tell them you don't have a Mac and therefore don't need an OS licence? Of course not.

After 2 years Crapita have to purge their data about you; you'll notice when as letters start arriving addressed to 'the legal occupier' which in itself is meaningless mumbo jumbo. It's like calling someone walking along a pavement a 'legal pedestrian'.

You're not required to contact them at all, nor give them any information. I've been legally licence-free for about 6 years now and I any letters conveniently addressed to the legal occupier go straight in the recycling. I've never had a goon turn up and if one did I'd just ignore them.