Being prosecuted for using iPlayer when I never have!

Cornucopia

glentoran99 wrote: »

So you don't turn it on then...

Then they are likely to begin interviewing under caution on the basis that your behaviour is suspicious. They don't get 506 prosecutions a day by being a pushover.

glentoran99

Cornucopia wrote: »

Then they are likely to begin interviewing under caution on the basis that your behaviour is suspicious. They don't get 506 prosecutions a day by being a pushover.

They don't have the right to "interview you under Caution" though,


I don't dispute people get prosecuted, but the majority of them are people like the opening poster that sign an admission,


Or argue they don't need one as the pay sky


there is a reason they ask the householder to turn it on and don't do it themselves

Cornucopia

glentoran99 wrote: »

They don't have the right to "interview you under Caution" though,

I don't dispute people get prosecuted, but the majority of them are people like the opening poster that sign an admission,

The "admission" that they sign IS a record of interview under caution (or at least that is how TVL present it to the Courts - there is some doubt whether at actually qualifies).

Anyone can interview anyone else under caution, there is nothing particularly special about it.

there is a reason they ask the householder to turn it on and don't do it themselves

Have you seen this video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QnFwLqCQ24&t=529s

glentoran99

Cornucopia wrote: »

The "admission" that they sign IS a record of interview under caution (or at least that is how TVL present it to the Courts - there is some doubt whether at actually qualifies).

Anyone can interview anyone else under caution, there is nothing particularly special about it.


Have you seen this video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QnFwLqCQ24&t=529s

Presume they didn't get a prosecution from that one?

Cornucopia

glentoran99 wrote: »

Presume they didn't get a prosecution from that one?

I don't think they did - not for evasion, and not for obstruction either.

Xbigman

bertiewhite wrote: »

Which lead have you cut off?

The satelite cable inside (cable is a better word than lead).
The cable to the old TV aerial is completely removed externally and I've cut a 2 foot piece out of the satelite cable outside. I was going to remove it completely but it goes over the roof and I don't have a ladder.



Darren

Marktheshark

You were offered an opportunity to sign a confession to a criminal act,
You signed the confession .
You will be found guilty in my opinion.

All you had to do was slam the door in the goons face.

Mr_Singleton

Buzby wrote: »

It is a ‘Broadcast Receiving Licence’ so you are required to pay if you have the capability, not actually watching.

Utter crap!

Buzby

cajef wrote: »

Rubbish, nowhere on the TV Licence or their website does it state that it is a 'Broadcast Receiving Licence', it says 'TV Licence' and you are not required to pay just because you have the capability.

From their website:-

What a tactful person you are! (Does you mummy know you’re out?). You don’t say who ‘they’ are - but if it isn’t a reference from the Communications Act 2000 (the defining legislation) then you’re being misled.

What the TVLA think it is is their interpretation and has no basis in law. Any prosecution under the Act requires to meet what is stated there - and it is the capability to receive that opens the door to prosecution. Without it, it isn’t possible.

I was at the last prosecution in Glasgow (in 2004) as a witness. They lost. I understand there has been no prosecutions in Scotland since- that’s 13 years without court action.

Read the Act - you might even learn something.

Buzby

Mr_Singleton wrote: »

Utter crap!

Another carefully considered response? You know this, how? It’s the law - read it! (Communications Act 2000 - Section 11 I believe).