Man wins case against TV Licencing Authority

thorsoak

See http://www.thurrockgazette.co.uk/news/9867463.Man_wins_TV_licence_battle/?ref=mr

Thought this might prove of interest to some people here

jayme1

it's good that he won, but he really should have never invited them round in the first place, he didn't need to and all it did was create him A LOT of hassle.

est1984

My hats go off to the guy, Im sure I would have just settled it and then let it be.

chanz4

Best of all the tax payer, pays for it.

opowell

chanz4 wrote: »

Best of all the tax payer, pays for it.

Wait, that's me!

[Deleted User]

seems like a busy body who was deliberately trying to "bait" TV licensing. It's interesting how TV licensing apparently "manufactured" the evidence against him , however.
Did they really alter their video evidence to incriminate him, I wonder?

Kurtis_Blue

He did not "win his case", the TVL did not prove their case.

He was lucky, his own video showed that he had pretty recently been watching live TV.

He claimed someone may have doctored his video, and was in a great position to prove this just by showing the original version, strangely never did.....

Nilrem

I think you've summed it up fairly well Kurtis.

All he had to do was to show that the case was not beyond reasonable doubt, which he did, to get it overthrown.

I'm slightly amazed that if he had the original video he didn't produce that, as the Judge would then be in a great position to "suggest" to the CPS that charges for perjury and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice be looked at.
Both of which could and would apply if the evidence was doctored by the TVL, as opposed to them just not being able to show that whatever was on screen was live (every day cases for things get thrown out either in the first court, or on appeal because of procedural errors such as not logging the time/date correctly on video evidence).

I know I would be pushing for them to be prosecuted if I had original evidence that had been held by an uninterested third party showing someone had doctored evidence to use against me (and it would be a relatively easy case to pursue which given the public interest aspect, the CPS would likely be all over it like ants on sugar).

roddydogs

How would a "Frozen Image" prove anything? Its cost him £18,000 enough to buy how many years of a proper license?

Kurtis_Blue

It didn't prove anything that's the point.
Very difficult for licence evaders to be prosecuted if they do not sign or own up to it.

Hieronymous

Firstly the case was not brought by the TV Licensing Authority (the BBC) but by Capita plc (the BBC's agent).

Kurtis_Blue wrote: »

It didn't prove anything that's the point.
Very difficult for licence evaders to be prosecuted if they do not sign or own up to it.

What evidence do you have that the guy is/was an evader? There are plenty of people who have no need of a licence. A quick look at the "Marmalade" site will show that.

As regards the video, if I was to produce one with a "frozen image" and one without how would anyone be able to tell which was the "doctored" one? If either?