TV Licence - will they get a warrant?

silverwhistle

Cornucopia wrote: »

That's actually a really complicated question. /SNIP/ .

Thanks for your lengthy and considered reply.

I'm on some mailing lists I'd imagine, but I get very little spam and not too much targetted junk mail, a situation I'd like to continue. I've opted out of being on the published electoral register.

My interest in the matter doesn't extend to being a test case (!) but this is all useful information now in a more public forum, and might come in useful for somebody. I'd be interested in Capita getting a bloody nose. Shame it isn't Carillon running the service. :-)

Glen_Clark

House_Martin wrote: »

easily the best channel in the world ,

How many TV channels are there in the world, and how do you manage to watch them all constantly to see which channel is best?
From my memory most of the corruption exposed in our establishment (MP's bribes and expense fiddles, Royal Family members on the take etc) has been exposed by non BBC media - and I don't see why I should have to pay the BBC to watch their competitor's channels. :mad:

Glen_Clark

Cornucopia wrote: »

Many of the issues with TVL/Capita stem from their lack of legal authority. That means that people can simply ignore them at the door, or politely turn them away. If the Powers That Be don't want that to happen then they know what to do.

The law says 'a man's home is his castle' which means that under the law, the poor mans home has the same protection as the Lord's castle. If the poor man's home does not get the same protection as the Lord's castle that is because of police corruption, not the law.
Their problem is controlling TVL in the same way - if they are given authority to enter the poor man's home whats to stop them entering a Member of Parliament or Royal Family member's home?
So I guess the Establishmen't's answer is to require them to get authorisation warrant from an Establishment Lackey who decides who has privacy and who doesn't.

Cornucopia

Glen_Clark wrote: »

The law says 'a man's home is his castle' which means that under the law, the poor mans home has the same protection as the Lord's castle. If the poor man's home does not get the same protection as the Lord's castle that is because of police corruption, not the law.

Yes - the basic right to privacy/protection from the State goes back centuries in UK law, and is now enshrined both in Common Law and the Human Rights Act.

The problem with TV Licensing is that their approach to this issue is somewhat indirect and deceptive. They've taken it from a black and white statement within the law to something upon which they negotiate, bluff and bluster over on 800,000 doorsteps every year. My reading of the law is that this process of bluff and bluster does not absolve them from compliance with relevant law, but IANAL. Everything I've seen (from various official sources) suggests that what they are doing is unlawful, or at the very best, it has a marginal, parsimonious lawfulness by the letter of the law, but is long way from the spirit of it.

We can only speculate upon the kind of "soft power" corruption or undue influence that leads to the situation where the basic questions about TV Licensing are not only not being answered, but rarely being asked in the first place.

Their problem is controlling TVL in the same way - if they are given authority to enter the poor man's home whats to stop them entering a Member of Parliament or Royal Family member's home?
So I guess the Establishmen't's answer is to require them to get authorisation warrant from an Establishment Lackey who decides who has privacy and who doesn't.

The law as written requires that there are "reasonable grounds for believing that an offence has been or is being committed". Personally, I think that's a reasonable basis as far as it goes, the main questions being the extent to which TV Licensing meets that criterion, the extent to which Magistrates enforce the criterion and whether the overall ex parte process rules (which require full disclosure) are being properly applied. However, the biggest issue is numbers. The tiny number of TV Licensing warrants (around 100 each year for the entire UK) means that the benefit of reviewing/reforming the warrant process is probably marginal. On the other hand, it's difficult to conceive that TV Licensing has a process that can fairly and robustly identify the 100 most egregious cases that require/deserve a Warrant from the 800,000 interactions they have on the doorstep, and the 3.2 million unanswered visits they make. It seems unlikely that the selection process is in any way fair.

House_Martin

Glen_Clark wrote: »

The law says 'a man's home is his castle' which means that under the law, the poor mans home has the same protection as the Lord's castle. If the poor man's home does not get the same protection as the Lord's castle that is because of police corruption, not the law.
Their problem is controlling TVL in the same way - if they are given authority to enter the poor man's home whats to stop them entering a Member of Parliament or Royal Family member's home?
So I guess the Establishmen't's answer is to require them to get authorisation warrant from an Establishment Lackey who decides who has privacy and who doesn't.

Just to set the record straight Glen, your home is nt your "castle " and never has been.
There are over 200 bodies in the UK, some very obscure ones, who have access to your property .
TV Licensing have access to your property too under warrant and they do use it occasionally.
Not very often .
I hope they target people who run websites and who post disgusting Youtube rants who help, aid and abet fellow UK citizens to break the law, or to exist legally licence free properly.
If someone is truly legally licence free then they should admit any Capita officer to verify their claim. What could be easier !

HWW

House_Martin wrote: »

Just to set the record straight Glen, your home is nt your "castle " and never has been.
There are over 200 bodies in the UK, some very obscure ones, who have access to your property .
TV Licensing have access to your property too under warrant and they do use it occasionally.
Not very often .
I hope they target people who run websites and who post disgusting Youtube rants who help, aid and abet fellow UK citizens to break the law, or to exist legally licence free properly.
If someone is truly legally licence free then they should admit any Capita officer to verify their claim. What could be easier !

Yes, websites like this one: http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=9d39d4e29bf70e8b156bb3612289d425;wwwRedirect that will help you save money.
Unlike the BBC/Capita public relations guy: HM, that will cost you money - to the tune of £150.


BTW, Search warrants are really as rare as hens teeth. About 100 a year, for the WHOLE of the UK. You have a better chance of winning the lottery.


Why pay for BBC/Government propaganda & brainwashing?


He is correct in one respect, there are a few agencies that can have emergency/safety access to your "Castle" Gas leak reasons, etc
BBC/Capita are not at their level though - occasionally, if the resident is high profile or is abusive, Capita will get a warrant (Claim they have heard TV sound, or other lies) - they will not kick your door in though like the Interceptors - but if your seen, they can try an obstruction charge - more serious.


But keep it polite if no warrant, no abuse - just "Not today thanks" & shut the door. If they start screaming & banging your door again, (They are poorly trained) Call the police for a disturbance of the peace.


If you DO watch Live TV, or use the BBC insipid player for vision use, go buy a Licence - other than that, carry on with your BBC free existence.

Robisere

When the TVL is finally abolished, what kind of work will people like House Martin have to find next?

Are there any Guard vacancies at Guantanamo Bay, I wonder?

The truth is that he and those like him, have no legal right to enter anyone's home, and this annoys him into ranting pointlessly on this forum. Can HM please enlighten us with a list of those 200 bodies that he insists do have a legal right to enter our homes? I do like reading imaginative fiction....

I have a TVL and I watch BBC TV. I partially agree with HM that the BBC has some wonderful programmes, but I do not include any form of televisual garbage like Come Dancing. I choose good drama, documentaries and wildlife programmes, all of which the BBC excels at producing: but they are not the only channel which does excel at those programmes. I also like some NOWTV, Netflix and similar, because I don't think the BBC is the only game in town, and because I have something that HM would like to see us all deprived of: a free choice and free speech.

House_Martin

Robisere wrote: »

When the TVL is finally abolished, what kind of work will people like House Martin have to find next?

Are there any Guard vacancies at Guantanamo Bay, I wonder?

The truth is that he and those like him, have no legal right to enter anyone's home, and this annoys him into ranting pointlessly on this forum. Can HM please enlighten us with a list of those 200 bodies that he insists do have a legal right to enter our homes? I do like reading imaginative fiction....

I have a TVL and I watch BBC TV. I partially agree with HM that the BBC has some wonderful programmes, but I do not include any form of televisual garbage like Come Dancing. I choose good drama, documentaries and wildlife programmes, all of which the BBC excels at producing: but they are not the only channel which does excel at those programmes. I also like some NOWTV, Netflix and similar, because I don't think the BBC is the only game in town, and because I have something that HM would like to see us all deprived of: a free choice and free speech.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/feb/26/law

This is the reference I was referring to Robisere, definitely not in my imagination..So you are now "enlightened " and realise that your home is not your castle.
Or have a listen to Harry having a chat to Big Brother Watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sq5v9DwFk4
There are well over 200 bodies and agencies having a right of entry, many without warrants.This list would include the BBC TV licensing agents Capita, with a warrant of entry.
The book is called Crossing the Threshold 266 Ways the State Can Enter Your Home.
The report by Barrisister Harry Snook listed 266 official bodies and agencies with some weird and wonderful rights of entry such as checking for stolen Seals or under the Bees Act, officers can enter to search for foreign bees
This actually happened to a farmer near the coast who woke up one morning to find officials who had blocked the main road off to raid him to check him at 6 am in the morning to see if he was harbouring Seals .
A meter reading colleague has just told me about National Grid getting a dozen locksmiths out in one go to enter houses and flats in my area this week , without warrants, to check for escaping gas..
Sorry Glen , nice try, but we live in the real world not your quaint old idea of your "castle ". Try it and they will be getting the locksmith out and coming in whether you like it or not.

Tony Hall has indicated that by 2025 there will be different method in place for funding the BBC. One which does not basically rely on honesty and trust .
Can t rely on trust and honesty in the UK nowadays given the number of greedy tight fisted cheats who inhabit this land.
The old way is nt working as can be seen by the growth of websites advising how to deal with Capita. The people who run this little income stream are doing ok out of it and hopefully paying their taxes or declaring the income to the DWP.
. I would nt be surprised if these people actually pay for their TV licences unlike most of their forum members.
Hopefully this will shut down these awful websites BBC bashing constantly
Jimmy Savile of course is their star of the show to keep up morale.
I think they do this to assuage their guilt about freeloading. Pretty disgusting cheap tactic
When we reach figures of up to 200,000 magistrate court applications for licence evasion per year then we can all see the law has got completely out of hand and the £150 licence fee is now not obligatory when it should be like Sky, Netflix , Amazon Prime and be mandatory..
Whilst so many more get away with it and grotty little websites like TVLR flourish then something drastic has to be done .

Glen_Clark

House_Martin wrote: »

If someone is truly legally licence free then they should admit any Capita officer to verify their claim. What could be easier !

This is nothing personal against you. In fact I thank you for your contribution. But if TVL came to my door all I would know about them is they work for Capita. And I have good reason not to trust Capita employees after seeing things like this https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/fitness-work-assessors-mock-disabled-7730136 - who would want him in their home?

Robisere

The vast majority of the 266 organisations and people who are"allowed" to break into homes in the UK, are doing so as part of a legal process which has taken some considerable time and expense to get to that point.
Or has some sort of legal backing. I maintain that Capita agents such as yourself, do not have the power to force entry without a High Court Warrant. Any other warrant, can be refused by the householder and the warrant holder legally refused entry. Too many officers of your organisation, have used bullying tactics to gain entry when they should have been legally refused. The fact is, no matter how morally you aproach your work, not all Capita colleagues apply the same standard. This leads to media accounts which promote public opposition to Capita. Your own work may be above board, but after reading stories such as the one featured by Glen Clark, how can you be surprised when you meet opposition? I do not condone violence against you or anyone else in the performance of their work, but I understand where it comes from. Bleating about "... only doing me job, guv" is not going to reduce that opposition. Capita is already defiled, in the eyes of the public. It should be closed down and the BBC should attempt to find a company with morals to do their tawdry 'investigations'.