Tv licence agent threatening behaviour

kwaks

darkblue wrote: »

I'm sure that's deterrent enough!

I do think there is a difference between a sort of 'no cold callers' sign and denial of implied right of access.

If it were the case, the postie wouldn't be delivering your mail.

Certainly is a difference. Implied right of access is only for those providing you with a service. Now we can argue what sevice the BBC provide to a property with no TV, or is it a gimme that they listen to radio and thats enough?

darkblue_2

Good point. There are many legal angles which have not yet been explored in court when it comes to TV licensing. I can't wait until they eventually are taken to court and are challenged.

Personally, I have a TV and despite not watching very much of BBC, I pay the license. I have often wondered too if PRS have any recourse to funds when BBC radio is played in, for example, an office - if the office has a TV licence. Again, I don't think we'll find out until someone is brave enough to take them to court.

adouglasmhor

darkblue wrote: »

I'm sure that's deterrent enough!

I do think there is a difference between a sort of 'no cold callers' sign and denial of implied right of access.

If it were the case, the postie wouldn't be delivering your mail.

Our postie is every dog's best mate including ours (so there is at least one non family member on the guest list), the stand in guy when he is on holliday shouts or whistles up and if there is no one in (the dog isn't in the yard if the house is empty) leaves any mail in the coalcellar, worked for years, the old postie had a house key until his depot manager found out.

kwaks

darkblue wrote: »

Good point. There are many legal angles which have not yet been explored in court when it comes to TV licensing. I can't wait until they eventually are taken to court and are challenged.

Personally, I have a TV and despite not watching very much of BBC, I pay the license. I have often wondered too if PRS have any recourse to funds when BBC radio is played in, for example, an office - if the office has a TV licence. Again, I don't think we'll find out until someone is brave enough to take them to court.

I believe the PRS stance on this is that any public performance needs paid for, and TV licence doesn't cover you. As such PRS will be getting paid by the broadcaster AND the end listener. So yeah, PRS will charge an office playing BBC radio.

Gers

kwaks wrote: »

Certainly is a difference. Implied right of access is only for those providing you with a service. Now we can argue what sevice the BBC provide to a property with no TV, or is it a gimme that they listen to radio and thats enough?

http://www.televisionlicence.info/info/rights

Gers

kwaks wrote: »

http://www.jifvik.org/tv/jewell.htm

Good explanation here, and how to fight it as a precedence.
This is a well written report of one persons experience of being prosecuted.

That's the case you quoted earlier - and it's from 1987, I asked for more recent cases where the precedent has been used by the prosecution.

WhiteHorse

sarahg1969 wrote:

Civil courts decide on the balance of probability. The requirement in the criminal courts is much more onerous - beyond reasonable doubt.

True. Unfortunately it cannot be relied upon in the magistrates courts.

If the bench is composed of three amateurs rather than a single professional, you may be in trouble. I have seen absurd decisions and even illegal behaviour.

The statement of the TV licence spy is 'evidence', so it all boils down to whether or not it is believed. In many cases, magistrates believe that the TV licencing agent is some sort of 'official' and therefore accord them a status and credibility that they do not merit.

ganonman

A very related, interesting but not necessarily helpful link:

http://www.bbctvlicence.com/index.htm

Been following this for a while as it's quite interesting, also it reminds me of how private parking companies operate.

Hope you find it interesting

lucylucky

ganonman wrote: »

A very related, interesting but not necessarily helpful link:

http://www.bbctvlicence.com/index.htm

Been following this for a while as it's quite interesting, also it reminds me of how private parking companies operate.

Hope you find it interesting

I have read that side before - it is most entertaining.

Just shows how heavy handed TVL are.

Gers

ganonman wrote: »

A very related, interesting but not necessarily helpful link:

http://www.bbctvlicence.com/index.htm

Been following this for a while as it's quite interesting, also it reminds me of how private parking companies operate.

Hope you find it interesting

That's another link to the site I posted last week

http://www.tvlicensing.biz/



Still no court cases where the Rudd 'precedent' has been succcessfully applied to a TV Licence case?