TV licensing threats

Kayak10

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

Hence knowing thine enemy.

Had you known what they (and indeed you) can and can't do, you would hopefully not have fallen for the "sign or else" bovine excrement they gave you.



You cannot justify lying to and intimidating people, on the grounds that some people are breaking the law.

You cannot even justify, using it against those who are breaking the law.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

BTW. What do you mean by the phrase effectively innocent :huh:

I'm going away for the weekend so if not before I will dig out the copy of the form But I'm fairly certain there was a paragraph on there
" if you do not sign they will start court action "
Effectively because they elect like I did to go on a payment plan

[Deleted User]

Kayak10 wrote: »

But I'm fairly certain there was a paragraph on there
" if you do not sign they will start court action "

If it does say that, I'd be interested to see a scan of it (suitably redacted of course), because it would be a new one on me.

Cornucopia

Kayak10 wrote: »

What I was trying to say is that evading tv licence is a criminal law as apposed to any other type of debt to company's come under Civil law and the police do NOT get involved in civil law
I'm sure someone will correct me as it seems certain folk take great pleasure in that Instead of sticking to the original post

This is an example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. Yes, it's true that Licence Fee evasion is a criminal offence. Superficially that's different to being in default on, say a loan agreement, which is a civil matter.

However, the distinction has no practical relevance to TVL's powers or lack of. The powers come from legislation, and could conceivably include a variety of different things, if we borrow liberally from other areas of law. e.g. a TV SORN scheme borrowed from the Road Traffic Acts, or a right of entry borrowed from the Utilities Act. But in reality, it doesn't include either of those things, or anything else except the Search Warrant provision and the option to use electronic detection.

The letters and the "visits" are effectively made up by the BBC based on what is allegedly permissible within gaps in the law. My personal opinion is that what they are doing is unlawful (breach of Art. 8.2 of the Human Rights Act) but some people may find that implausible. There are certainly a number of technical breaches of PACE, two of which the BBC accepts.

These are the requirement under PACE code B S.5 for there to be appropriate formalities and paperwork covering a search by consent - which is effectively what their "visits" can turn into, if you let them.

The other is a Scottish legal precedent which requires that the Caution before interview should explicitly reference the right to have a solicitor present, and formally confirm that the interviewee has declined to exercise that right. (At present they rely on an old precedent called McNamara in which the "solicitor" version of the Caution is only required if the interviewee is under arrest or at a Police station).

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

If it does say that, I'd be interested to see a scan of it (suitably redacted of course), because it would be a new one on me.

I'd like to see it, too. In fact, a scan of the original letters would add value to the thread. However, given that Kayak is posting on a phone, we will probably be disappointed.

Kayak10

From cornucopia " I'd like to see it, too. In fact, a scan of the original letters would add value to the thread. However, given that Kayak is posting on a phone, we will probably be disappointed. "
Fraid so as MSE don't have a facility to attach on here BUT I will dig it out on my return and type the paragraph concerned AND if I'm wrong I will also put on here
As for now not replying until back after the weekend

Cornucopia

If you load it to a photo-sharing site, then you can post it using the Insert Image button. It then appears in-post, like this...



(Which is Mrs. Doubtfire watching YOU).

4justice

I have to agree that the tone of the BBC TVL letters is shocking, and rude. They assume that anyone without licence is guilty. I've been LLF for two and a half years now. I've just had the first visit from the TVL [STRIKE]inspector[/STRIKE] salesman. I was out so he left a very rude leaflet printed in red "Your address is unlicensed. I called to find out why". The BBC TVL has no legal right to know why I do not have a tv licence, that's my private business, all they need to know is that I fully comply with the Communications Act 2003 and neither watch or record live tv.
I have of course already told the BBC this but the arrogrant cretins want you to keep telling them.
Now I've just had the "fake court" letter telling me about what happens if they take me to court, for a crime I have not committed!
Ironic that the BBC is full of Watchdog/Rogue Traders slagging off heavy handed tactics by other people, when they are up to the same time.

[Deleted User]

Actually, if you look closely, you will see it tells you what will happen when, not if, you go to court.

Cornucopia

The letters vary in the degree to which cynicism needs to be applied to get to the true meaning.

The letter that 4justice is referring to is by far the worst, and seasoned LLF people have been taken in by it. The thing that stands out to me is that the other letters are a fictitious warning about a fictitious TVL investigation -therefore two opportunities to see through the BS. This letter is a fictitious warning about a Court hearing, which is a real event. I also think that the use of the word "set" implies an inappropriate level of "fake certainty". I would suggest that most people would be deceived on a first reading.

The letter is here, for those that are interested:

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

OldMotherTucker

I just had a letter asking me to confirm I still didn't need a TV License - first one for 2 years.

I rang the 0300 number, listened to options, went straight through to an advisor, answered a few uestions and they updated their system.

So simple - no threats, no hassle.


Just to add, we have not live TV for over 10 years and we've only had one visit. I truthfully said we didn't have 'TV' but the guy pointed to the satellite dish on the front of the house. I said it was there when we moved in but the cable had been cut off just inside the front room - would he like to see? He declined.

I would have uite happily let him into my living room - nothing to hide!

Cornucopia

OldMotherTucker wrote: »

I just had a letter asking me to confirm I still didn't need a TV License - first one for 2 years.

I rang the 0300 number, listened to options, went straight through to an advisor, answered a few uestions and they updated their system.

So simple - no threats, no hassle.

That's fine. But you've effectively agreed to a "visit". For some of the possible legal remedies, you've lessened the strength of your position by doing that.

Hopefully, it won't become an issue for you.

edit: Oh, and you've acceded to the arbitrary demands of an organisation without statutory powers. Which in a small way encourages their anti-social behaviour.