Question about TV licence

pinkcloud

All I want to see is Sky News at my husband's house.

pinkcloud

Cornucopia

silverwhistle wrote: »

I thought that they'd say that you _did_ need to answer their questions, but I suppose confronted with someone who knows about PACE they might be a bit more honest!

I've certainly heard a few accounts like that, but I'm not sure how widespread it is. More likely that the TVL staff will exploit the Householder's credulity (which is obviously unfair and in the context of interview under caution, illegal).

The BBC has created this situation where the PACE compliance and their version of Human Rights compliance are wholly dependent on the conduct of a commission-driven, largely unsupervised workforce and that seems to me to be a recipe for breaches of the law. Their underlying policy also lack compliance with the law, too, so even a very diligent member of their staff is unlikely to be able to deliver full legal compliance on the doorstep, because the Policy precludes it (and because they would not last long in the role if they did).

I think it is probably fair to describe the BBC's position as naive and lacking in due diligence (at best).

As they don't know my name they could conceivably ask if I've lived there long, but as with the double glazing/solar panels/electricity company canvassers I save them their time (as well as mine) by saying "not interested" and closing the door.

Of course if they asked if I were the occupier I could lie and tell them to leave their business card "and I'll make sure it get the attention it warrants"..

One of the reasons why I'm quite happy not to have met them (even though it would be fascinating to do so) is that they are intrinsically unpredictable. I suppose they would justify that in terms of keeping Evaders "on their toes", but there remains the potential for innocent people to end up on the wrong side of it.

Much as I like the idea of baiting and wasting the time of a workforce whose entire regime lacks legal justification and legal compliance, I think caution is justified.

It is not illegal for a householder to bait or waste the time of TVL staff (just before anyone objects).

silverwhistle

Cornucopia wrote: »

Much as I like the idea of baiting and wasting the time of a workforce whose entire regime lacks legal justification and legal compliance, I think caution is justified.

It is not illegal for a householder to bait or waste the time of TVL staff (just before anyone objects).

No, I'm not congenitally disposed to actually utilise my idea, but I just liked the turn of phrase!



As somebody who has done some teaching I find it surprising that these employees, who may often be dealing with vulnerable people, don't have CRBs/DBS.

Cornucopia

silverwhistle wrote: »

As somebody who has done some teaching I find it surprising that these employees, who may often be dealing with vulnerable people, don't have CRBs/DBS.

AIUI, some TVL staff have clearance and others do not. I believe that the idea was that purely sales staff do not need clearance, but enforcement staff do. Whether that is true or more BBC-TVL vagueness, who knows?

silverwhistle

So you'd be entitled to ask to see it?

Cornucopia

silverwhistle wrote: »

So you'd be entitled to ask to see it?

Is there something to see?

As a more general principle, you are entitled to impose any reasonable requirement(s) upon TVL, because their staff have no powers of entry in their routine work, and are therefore there with your consent (variously: given, presumed, coerced, bullied, obtained by deception etc. etc.)

So... no shoes in the house? religious dress-code? required to recite the clauses of PACE that they intend to use? independent witness? chaperone? lawyer? recorded on video? All good options. Ultimately, though, they have no legal right to be inside one's home, and letting them in is consequently a bad idea.

If we ever find out the truth about BBC-TVL, I would put money on one part of it being that the BBC assumed that it was okay to be "theatrical" in regards to information and processes concerning our rights, when of course it isn't. No doubt they will be saying "we never actually demanded to enter people's homes, we just made it sound like we were".

poppikin

It does seem very expensive just for that.

There ought to be a better way.

Does anyone know one?

poppikin

silverwhistle

I seem to recall having a nice official form, so yes.


Religious dress code? My imagination is working overtime.. :-)

Cornucopia

silverwhistle wrote: »

Religious dress code? My imagination is working overtime.. :-)

Or cultural dress code...



"Tell me again about these Licences...?"

pinkcloud

If anyone has any other advice I would appreciate it.

pinkcloud