Fined £275 for watching YOUTUBE

[Deleted User]

Flyboy152 wrote: »

A jury convicts or acquits on the basis that they believe either the evidence of the prosecution or the defence.

Correction, a jury convicts only if they are satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused committed the offence.

They do not need to believe the defence evidence.

Indeed, the defence need not present any evidence.

The burden of proof lies entirely with the prosecution.

Even TVL state this.

Flyboy152

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

Correction, a jury convicts only if they are satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused committed the offence.

They do not need to believe the defence evidence.

Indeed, the defence need not present any evidence.

The burden of proof lies entirely with the prosecution.

And you accuse others of being naive, oh the irony.

So, is the law based on what someone believes or not?

Flyboy152

The_Safordian wrote: »

Have you ever thought about writing fiction because everything you've said on this thread is an opinion put across as a fact. YOu have been given factual information which has been backed up so whats in this defense of the BBC at all costs?

I am going to guess you agree with my premise then.

Flyboy152

The_Safordian wrote: »

From what I've seen and what others have said the only person who agrees with anything you said is yourself

With your inability to engage sensibly and like a grown-up, I am now putting you on ignore, farewell.

[Deleted User]

Flyboy152 wrote: »

So, is the law based on what someone believes or not?

No it's not.

It's based on evidence.

"I believe Bedsit Bob is a Licence evader" is NOT evidence.

It is an unsupported belief, and carries no evidential weight.

If such a statement was made from the witness box, the Magistrate(s) would disregard it, and, in a Crown Court, the Judge would instruct the Jury to disregard it.

Flyboy152

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

No it's not.

It's based on evidence.

"I believe Bedsit Bob is a Licence evader" is NOT evidence.

It is an unsupported belief, and carries no evidential weight.

If such a statement was made from the witness box, the Magistrate(s) would disregard it, and, in a Crown Court, the Judge would instruct the Jury to disregard it.

If a police officer believes a crime is being committed, he can enter a premises.

Cornucopia

In the spirit of Saving Money, these are the things you can do without a TV licence:-

• Watch pre-recorded media like Blu-ray and DVDs
• Play video games
• Use on-line movie rental services
• Use broadcasters' video streaming services (but not to view broadcasts as they are transmitted)
• Stream content from overseas

WelshBluebird

Flyboy152 wrote: »

But it still has the potential to receive television signals.

Which doesn't matter at all.

Flyboy152 wrote: »

The television was capable of receiving television signals, I don't get your point.

So?
You do not need a licence just for owning a TV.

Cornucopia

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

No it's not.

It's based on evidence.

"I believe Bedsit Bob is a Licence evader" is NOT evidence.

It is an unsupported belief, and carries no evidential weight.

If such a statement was made from the witness box, the Magistrate(s) would disregard it, and, in a Crown Court, the Judge would instruct the Jury to disregard it.

It's worth saying that a lot (probably most) licensing cases involve a confession documented on a "TVL" form. We can only speculate about how many (how few) of those people knew that they did not have to speak to "TVL".

[Deleted User]

Flyboy152 wrote: »

If a police officer believes a crime is being committed, he can enter a premises.

A bit more to it than that.

Merely believing isn't enough. He needs good reason to suspect, and it has to a specific crime, not just "a crime".

It isn't a general right of entry, because it only applies to certain specific crimes/situations, of which LF evasion isn't one of them.

Going back to TVL, what grounds do they have to suspect I am committing a crime (more accurately an offence)?