Really Worried - The TV Licence - Unnecessary Trial

prowla

Cornucopia wrote: »

Because in a fair legal process, they would have to prove that. Not badger or deceive a defendant into making a confession without informed consent.

OK, but given that the OP says that they believe that they have done so, then they would have to change that story in order for there to be any ambiguity.

Not_Another_Username

Back home now so apologies for late reply.

You are probably right in me over-complicating things, gjchester. I am concerned for my wife. It's not fair how she is being bombarded with all this TVL aggression.

To clarify, I don't know for 100% certainty if my wife watched a little bit of live TV when we moved into the new property, but I can only guess that she might have done. I am not trying to cover up any of this. As far as I am aware, she was only ever watching catch-up TV via the ITV Player or 4oD, etc. It's just possible she might have seem something 'live', though I don't recall it. The TV antenna was still connected. I wanted to remove it to avoid any discrepancy, but I never got around to doing that.

Yes, by the waym you CAN have an aerial - AND a television, and NOT need a licence. That side of the rules has changed. It's the LIVE television or recording LIVE television which is the key factor. Just to clarify again

Cornucopia

prowla wrote: »

OK, but given that the OP says that they believe that they have done so, then they would have to change that story in order for there to be any ambiguity.

There's some confusion here, as well as ambiguity in post #1.

The OP has now posted above to say that he doesn't know whether live broadcasts were watched or not. This could make for a very interesting time in Court, indeed.

My point is that even people who have broken the law have rights, and in my opinion, some of these rights are being abused by TVL in the way they operate. Case Law on this is often being updated, and the UK authorities are sometimes caught out. The Law in Scotland had to be changed regarding interviews of suspects because of European precedent. (Search "Cadder", if you want to know the details).

bazzyb

Cornucopia wrote: »

The OP has now posted above to say that he doesn't know whether live broadcasts were watched or not. This could make for a very interesting time in Court, indeed.

And he previously said that 10% of what they viewed was live TV, the other 90% was on demand.

I agree, a very interesting time in court when they realise he's making it up as he goes along and changing his story repeatedly.

Cornucopia

I would recommend that he works out how to put over the truth to the Court as best as possible, and endeavours to stick with it.

Of course, it may be possible to arrange the hearing such that neither he or his OH gives evidence. In which case his defence would be simply sniping at the errors in TVL's approach. This would be made easier by having a solicitor in court to represent his OH.

prowla

Cornucopia wrote: »

There's some confusion here, as well as ambiguity in post #1.

The OP has now posted above to say that he doesn't know whether live broadcasts were watched or not. This could make for a very interesting time in Court, indeed.

My point is that even people who have broken the law have rights, and in my opinion, some of these rights are being abused by TVL in the way they operate. Case Law on this is often being updated, and the UK authorities are sometimes caught out. The Law in Scotland had to be changed regarding interviews of suspects because of European precedent. (Search "Cadder", if you want to know the details).

I agree about the tactics and so-on, but "I think I might've done it, or maybe not." is not a credible defence strategy.

Cornucopia

I agree. Although if that is the closest he can get to the truth, it may have to be that, and let the Court make of it what they will in the context of a medical explanation.

Cornucopia

I really don't understand all this "very expensive lesson" business. He and his OH are not going to be clapped in irons for challenging TVL's evidence. In fact, it their right to do so.

If only everyone charged with a TVL offence took as much interest in it as the OP then the system would be wrecked within a few days.

prowla

This thread is certainly of interest to me, as I am debating whether to do away with my TV (and licence).

However, it seems that you have to be quite meticulous about what you do/don't watch via Internet, and you could get caught out clicking on the wrong thing on iPlayer, if another on demand provider changes their model and starts live streaming, or if you click on a page from a breaking news story.

Cornucopia

There are various bits of equipment that either can't accidentally receive TV broadcasts, or can be configured not to.

My Youview box is like that. As configured, and with no aerial connection it is impossible to receive anything other than selected services via the Internet. Without payment of a subscription, this is confined solely to on-demand.

Ideally, it would be much simpler and more straightforward to be legally licence free, but we are where we are. TVL's game is all about numbers - they are (mostly) interested in people who are either wholesale evaders or who lack the money (or the money-management skills) to maintain a licence from month to month.

So-

- Do have an AV configuration that is specific to LLF use.
- Do "know" your AV configuration and do refine any issues that may make it vulnerable to over-zealous inspection.
- Do detune and select out any services that you don't want/you don't need/offer live reception.
- Don't speak to TVL if they call. Ideally don't even open the door.
- If you do speak with them, don't confirm or volunteer your name, or any other information other than "I don't need a licence".
- Never ever sign anything proffered by TVL. It is NEVER a legal requirement to do so.
- Do not use complex legal remedies as a first resort, and only do so if you are sure you understand them, and are prepared for any side-effects.

Once you get into living LLF, it's not that hard. I've been LLF on and off for probably 5 years out of the last 10. I've never met a TVL doorstepper. I have my camera at the ready, but they never come

For those people who have concerns about the BBC whether that's historic child abuse, bias or simply pointlessness, it's a great feeling to know you are voting with your wallet.