Followed Tv license rules

Cornucopia

elsien said:

They probably couldn’t. 

I’m just finding it slightly disingenuous of the OP to be claiming ignorance when registering with iPlayer does make it clear you do need a licence and asks you to tick a box confirming it. 

If it does that, presumably it means a valid Licence at the point of registration.  So someone could honestly click that button and then cancel their Licence the next day.   There are all sorts of scenarios that render TVL's emails inappropriate.

I think it's quite clear from the overall tone and content of the thread that there's a right way to watch without a Licence, and we can all move on from there.

pphillips

uk1 said:

Thanks.
My presumption is that TVL cannot prosecute a case if they simply “strongly suspect” that a person has breached the law but must know that thry can “prove beyond a reasonable doubt”.  I’m struggling to think of a single piece of evidence they could secure without the cooperation of the suspect?

Here's one reported example:

"McNamara v TVL Regional Centre [2002] EWHC 2798 Admin

This is an appeal to the High Court by way of case stated. Mr Mcnamara was visited and was asked if he had a television. On confirming this he was asked if he had an appropriate licence, to which he answered no. He was cautioned and refused to answer any further questions. Evidence of active use was in the form of a witness statement obtained from Sky. The appellant questioned TVL procedure. 

It was held that the questions put to the interviewee before the caution, were not about the use of a television but if he possessed a television and whether he had a relevant licence. The caution should be given before any questions are asked which if answered, might incriminate the interviewee. They were not incriminating and therefore the caution was in the right place."

Cornucopia

Interesting choice of case.   

It's worth saying that things have moved on a lot in terms of PACE rights since then.

uk1

It seems that in this case the sole incriminating evidence was helpfully provided by Sky? 

I wonder whether they did so in response to  a court order. 

pphillips

uk1 said:

It seems that in this case the sole incriminating evidence was provided by Sky? 

That's right.

uk1

By way of a court order?  If so I wonder whether the order was properly secured.

pphillips

uk1 said:

By way of a court order?  If so I wonder whether the order was properly secured.

A witness statement is provided voluntarily by a witness, you don't need a court order to get one.

Cornucopia

McNamara is an unusual case, even for the "bad old days".   I would caution against drawing any conclusions from it today = a lot has changed.

The reason why I said it was an interesting choice is because it is the case that TVL cite if you challenge their decision not to remind interviewees of their entire range of PACE rights.   Other, newer case law throws some doubt on its validity.  

uk1

It might be inadmissible if a judge decides it is because it breaks a law or wasn’t properly disclosed or adequately tested. 

But to the specific point, are you stating that you know that in this case Sky provided the information voluntarily?

Mickey666

Cornucopia said:

elsien said:

It’s not weasel words in this case though, is it, because the OP had been watching iPlayer. And if I recall correctly you have to tick a box confirming you do have a licence as part of the registration. 

The email doesn't know whether the allegation is valid, so it shouldn't assume.    I did say in my first reply that it seemed justified in this case.

I'm not sure how the BBC ID works if you don't have a Licence.   I keep meaning to sign up to use BBC Sounds, but never seem to get round to it.

Hmm, now there's an interesting point.  There is no requirement for a radio licence in the UK so is a TV Licence really required to use iPlayer per se, or only to use iPlayer to view BBC television content?