Tv licence agent threatening behaviour

sarahg1969

"Courts decide on a balance of probability..."

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

lucylucky

Q - If I own equipment capable of receiving live broadcasts do I need a TV Licence?

A - No.

Only if you use such equipment to receive the live broadcasts do you then need a licence.

Simple really.

neurotically.yours

Something that nobody has commented on is Dog Law, I know this is a bit off topic.

Dealmad wrote: »

Next time i think ill just let my dog bite him because is it not his fault if he comes in locked area warning of dogs?

For the owner and/or person in charge of the dog at the time of an incident the Court has the power to impose a prison sentence as well as a ban on keeping dogs. Not to mention the dog will be destroyed.

Im a bit of a dog lover

Gers

kwaks wrote: »

Gers, you are miss quoting section 363, a clue to that might be seen above where I quoted section 363 in its entirety.

I am quoting from a BBC reply to a FOI request - see earlier posts. I understand what you are saying however, but don't agree with it.

kwaks wrote: »

Once at court however, the TV not being used is no guarrantee against conviction.

Do you not see I am simply trying to ensure people are simply aware of the difference?

TVL guidlines say using the tv to watch live broadcasts
The law says "(3)A person with a television receiver in his possession or under his control who—
(a)intends to install or use it in contravention of subsection (1), or
(b)knows, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that another person intends to install or use it in contravention of that subsection",

I think that the word 'intends' is key here -goes back to probability again, something difficult to prove.

drayhaw666

neurotically.yours wrote: »

Something that nobody has commented on is Dog Law, I know this is a bit off topic.



For the owner and/or person in charge of the dog at the time of an incident the Court has the power to impose a prison sentence as well as a ban on keeping dogs. Not to mention the dog will be destroyed.

Im a bit of a dog lover

its all in the wording. as the gate was a locked gate that the tv man had to lean over and unlock. so if your dog did bite the person, in your police statement you state "the fence and gate are to keep people out" you are covered by a very old law of this land. but if you say "the fence is to keep the dogs in" you might as well get your cheque book out! the law is funny on these things.

mother in law is a barristor and she sitting next to me so i am not arguing with her!!!!!

you lot can :rotfl:

neurotically.yours

Ooo, I thought the law changed saying that it doesn't matter where an incident happens, the dog must be kept under control if it is deemed to be dangerous. Under control being on a lead with a muzzle.

I know I would be unhappy if the tvl man got in with easy to a space with a dangerous dog, what's to stop a tree climbing child getting in to retrieve a ball.

But Im not gonna argue with your Mother in Law

kwaks

Gers wrote: »

I am quoting from a BBC reply to a FOI request - see earlier posts. I understand what you are saying however, but don't agree with it.





I think that the word 'intends' is key here -goes back to probability again, something difficult to prove.

What the BBC says is not the law, which is the point I am making, the misinformation they give can lead to people slipping up if in front of the beak by conceding they may be tempted to watch a programme in the future.

Lets keep in mind TVL is simply a "trade mark" of the BBC and does not exist as a company. Capita and PR companies do most of the work for TVL which believe it or not actually have the audacity to offer training courses to magistrates!! Wonder how independent the judgement would be if the beak you are in front of had attended one of these courses.

On literature sent out by TVL, many of the contact names and numbers are those of PR companies, although they are listed as some bogus job title under TVL, as an example Fergus Reid, a name often seen in scotland when TVL are mentioned does in fact work for Smarts PR, and Julia Dudley who works for PR firm Fishburn Hedges. TVL have no employees, TVL do not exist as a company. The whole thing is smoke and mirrors.

lucylucky

kwaks wrote: »

What the BBC says is not the law, which is the point I am making, the misinformation they give can lead to people slipping up if in front of the beak by conceding they may be tempted to watch a programme in the future.

Lets keep in mind TVL is simply a "trade mark" of the BBC and does not exist as a company. Capita and PR companies do most of the work for TVL which believe it or not actually have the audacity to offer training courses to magistrates!! Wonder how independent the judgement would be if the beak you are in front of had attended one of these courses.

On literature sent out by TVL, many of the contact names and numbers are those of PR companies, although they are listed as some bogus job title under TVL, as an example Fergus Reid, a name often seen in scotland when TVL are mentioned does in fact work for Smarts PR, and Julia Dudley who works for PR firm Fishburn Hedges. TVL have no employees, TVL do not exist as a company. The whole thing is smoke and mirrors.

And if the are to give into that temptation they need to buy a licence before they do watch anything.

So being tempted to watch and watching are by no means the same.

I was tempted to have a curry last night, but had a Mexican meal instead.;)

kwaks

lucylucky wrote: »

And if the are to give into that temptation they need to buy a licence before they do watch anything.

So being tempted to watch and watching are by no means the same.

I was tempted to have a curry last night, but had a Mexican meal instead.;)

Which is exactly where the prosecution bring out the Rudd case as precedent.

Dave101t

the bottom line is: if you know you have a valid tv licnece, let them harass you, make a log and in court if they take you there (they wont), you can claim harassment and compensation. id claim for the years tv licence fee amount just to screw with them.
seriously tho, its worth the money, no one should be looking at ways of getting out of it, it pays for the radio i listen to every day too.