Unlawful TV Licence Enforcement

Paul_DNAP

Cornucopia wrote: »

I'm not interested in the other 266(?). Just the one that doesn't have a legal authority to enter, but likes to pretend it does.

But surely your arguments must apply to all of them? Why focus on just the one?

Cornucopia

Paul_DNAP wrote: »

But surely your arguments must apply to all of them? Why focus on just the one?

I think you may have misread/misunderstood the train of thought you are commenting on. The 266(?) are those organisations that DO have a right of entry to people's homes. Therefore they are (probably) entirely legitimate in terms of compliance with this particular piece of legislation.

If you have examples of other public authorities that do not have a legal right of entry to homes, but nevertheless enter them, then that may trigger the same or similar legal questions. Do you have any such examples?

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

One has to question why in open court, the TV Tax collectors never explain how someone was detected using the TV with their fancy detector van?


SCRAP THE REGRESSIVE TV TAX

Cornucopia

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth wrote: »

One has to question why in open court, the TV Tax collectors never explain how someone was detected using the TV with their fancy detector van?

The truth is that electronic detection is not in routine use by TV Licensing. Electronic Detection has also never been used as supporting evidence for a charge of Licence Evasion in Court.

The vast majority of Licence cases are based upon an unsatisfactory confession obtained during an unsatisfactory interview under caution all based upon an unsatisfactory understanding and implementation of PACE requirements.

If electronic detection is used at all, it is to support (some of) the tiny number of TVL Search Warrants. That would mean that it would be used maybe 20 times per year across the entire country. There are legal issues with the Search Warrant process, too.

Cornucopia

Hopefully FMs can see now in the context of the Cliff Richard case that the BBC is capable of making mistakes, that those mistakes can be in the area of legal misjudgement, and even that it might have a particular issue with Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.

System

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth wrote: »

One has to question why in open court, the TV Tax collectors never explain how someone was detected using the TV with their fancy detector van?


SCRAP THE REGRESSIVE TV TAX

Fair enough, but would you be happy to pay some form of annual subscription?

Cornucopia

Hengus wrote: »

Fair enough, but would you be happy to pay some form of annual subscription?

I would be happy for people who use the BBC to pay for it.

I think that the BBC would probably find a Netflix-style monthly subscription more lucrative than an annual one, but perhaps they could offer both?

Cornucopia

I've received a belated response to my enquiry to the BBC.

The question of whether the BBC's approach to TV Licence enforcement is "in accordance with the law", as required by Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, was prominent in my letter (the first question, with 3 official supporting references and several hundred words).

The question and the official references were pointedly ignored in the BBC's response, leaving me with the distinct impression that they are trying to avoid the issue (and there may therefore be "something to it").

This leaves the complaint as improperly handled, giving rise to a referral to the Ombudsman Service.

sourcrates

In the same way you should never allow a bailiff access to your home, never allow a TV license inspector access either.


I am not a fan of the TV license, it is a draconian way of forcing people to pay for something they may not even watch, although pay it i do, as i watch live TV.


You only need watch the old adds the BBC used to run about evading the license fee, not at all in line with the smiley happy image it portrays today.


I think the whole system is out of date, and not fit for purpose in this day and age, hopefully it will soon go the way of the Dog license.

unforeseen

Maybe its time to change to a licensing model used by a number of European countries where every household and business pays regardless of whether they have TV receiving equipment including PCs, smartphones etc.

Does away with the need for Capita. It would then be a simple case of if no licence registered to an address then an offence is being committed. None of this having to prove that you watch/don't watch TV. A nice, simple absolute liability offence.