TV Licence article Discussion

Cornucopia

cw18 wrote: »

I have no sympathy for anyone falling into the latter group who gets caught, and can't help feeling that if it weren't for those people they may not be trying to change the rules such that every household (or at least those with an internet connection, which I believe will become the criteria) has to pay. My OH said he's seen something in the news about it not being a full £145 "contribution", but I've not managed to track down the details on line. If it's true, I'll then have to decide whether it's worth paying the difference in order to be able to enable my aerial again or not. (If the contribution is £20-30 then no, but if it's £100 then maybe.)

This has not been resolved yet, and it's likely to be another 2-3 years before anything changes.

It's too early to call how it will go.

Personally, I think "multi-rate" is unlikely, but that's just my opinion.

The Perry Review into the Licence Fee is open for public consultation until June, and I would encourage anyone who is interested to submit their views.

deadhandle

Sorry, But I've got to Rant!! :mad:

I stopped watching Live TV because
1. 99% of the content is absolute carp.
2. If there's something worth watching it's usually scheduled at times I can't watch.

I cancelled my monthly prepaid S/O (prepaid for 6 months) but didn't have time (then forgot) to tell them.
But when the next payment was due, they telephoned me. I told them I would let the current licence run til January when it ran out. (only because the GF wanted to watch over Xmas).
They were happy with this and said "no problem, and sent me a refund for the amount prepaid past January.

Since January I've had at least 8 RED letters telling me to buy a licence each one more intimidating than the last.
I registered on line at least twice !!
This week I had another letter saying the were sending officers round to investigate..
WHAT do they expect to find? I've already told them I have a computer and TV, used as a monitor but that I CHOOSE not to watch live content.
HOW can they prove otherwise.. obviously they can't unless you tell them yourself.

The whole policy of TVL and Capita is to Intimidate and harrass honest people.
Obviously, as admitted in the last few posts, there are those who decide NOT to pay.. but apparently these tactics won't work on them.

Sorry again, but had to get it out of my system :rotfl:

sniggings

deadhandle wrote: »

HOW can they prove otherwise.. obviously they can't unless you tell them yourself.

If someone rings the police, says they heard a scream from my flat, come round, sees a dead body on the floor and a knife in my hand, chances are I would be found guilty of murder.

Same for the licence, if you have a TV able to receive live TV, even if not caught watching it, chances are you will be found guilty, even tho the crime is "watching" not just having the ability to watch.

Remember these cases are heard by magistrates not "proper judges", following the rule of law, even if they know the law, is questionable.

deadhandle

sniggings wrote: »

if you have a TV able to receive live TV, even if not caught watching it, chances are you will be found guilty

So Guilty before proven Innocent ???

Your example is circumstantial evidence, not proof you did the murder. maybe your wife tripped as she was cutting the meat for dinner, you pulled the knife while trying to save her life.

It's not necessary to have a driving licence, RFT or insurance to own a car, .. only if you drive it on a public road - They still have to catch you at it. (yes.. you do need to register it as off road)

If owning a TV is proof I use it to watch live transmissions, then it should be compulsory to buy the licence. (yes, I have told them I dont watch live TV)

deadhandle

Cornucopia wrote: »

The Perry Review into the Licence Fee is open for public consultation until June, and I would encourage anyone who is interested to submit their views.

Google : TV Licence Enforcement Review

The Perry Review is about how they handle what is currently a criminal offense. i.e. how it's handled by the courts, criminal or civil.

It has nothing to do with the TV licencing laws as they now stand.

According to The Review's terms:
A person who installs or uses a television receiver without a TV licence is guilty of a criminaloffence under the Communications Act 2003 and is liable to a level 3 fine (currently a maximum of £1000). This means that anyone who watches or records TV as it is being broadcast must be covered by a valid TV licence. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder.

Even this seems contradictory.. someone who "installs" capable equipment (of any sort) is guilty..but then qualify that by saying "watch or record".

??????????????

wiogs

sniggings wrote: »

If someone rings the police, says they heard a scream from my flat, come round, sees a dead body on the floor and a knife in my hand, chances are I would be found guilty of murder.

Same for the licence, if you have a TV able to receive live TV, even if not caught watching it, chances are you will be found guilty, even tho the crime is "watching" not just having the ability to watch.

Remember these cases are heard by magistrates not "proper judges", following the rule of law, even if they know the law, is questionable.

Since you have no reason to let anyone from TVL into your home, or indeed up to your front door, chances are you will never be caught.

Which is presumably what @rseholes such as castle96 bank on.

Cornucopia

sniggings wrote: »

If someone rings the police, says they heard a scream from my flat, come round, sees a dead body on the floor and a knife in my hand, chances are I would be found guilty of murder.

Err... no. There would be a proper investigation.

Same for the licence, if you have a TV able to receive live TV, even if not caught watching it, chances are you will be found guilty, even tho the crime is "watching" not just having the ability to watch.

No. Most people (as I previously said) are prosecuted by a confession statement, given willingly or otherwise. "Otherwise" would be potentially unlawful and/or a breach of PACE.

Remember these cases are heard by magistrates not "proper judges", following the rule of law, even if they know the law, is questionable.

The Clerk in the Magistrates Court is the person responsible for the legal aspects of the hearing.

If you have evidence that the Law is not being properly observed in a specific hearing, or generally, I suggest you raise it with the Court concerned or your MP.

Cornucopia

deadhandle wrote: »

Google : TV Licence Enforcement Review

The Perry Review is about how they handle what is currently a criminal offense. i.e. how it's handled by the courts, criminal or civil.

The first thing I will say to Perry is that the terms of the review are way too narrow.

It has nothing to do with the TV licencing laws as they now stand.

I think he will have to widen the scope. He cannot with any integrity, for example, propose converting it to a Civil Debt process without ensuring that the process by which the "debt" arises is legally and practically sound.

Even this seems contradictory.. someone who "installs" capable equipment (of any sort) is guilty..but then qualify that by saying "watch or record".

It doesn't say "installs", it says "installs and uses". The issue is the use of equipment to watch or record. At the extreme there is also case law called "Rudd" under which it was determined that for a licensed activity, it was reasonable to expect a plausible explanation for any installation that was capable (of reception) if there was no licence.

sniggings

Cornucopia wrote: »

Err... no. There would be a proper investigation. my point was you do not have to be seen stabbing someone to be found guilty, you can be found guilty without having been caught watching TV. Even tho the crime is watching live TV not just having the equipment.

No. Most people (as I previously said) are prosecuted by a confession statement, given willingly or otherwise. "Otherwise" would be potentially unlawful and/or a breach of PACE. I was addressing those that have been found guilty for just having the means to watch live TV,the post I addressed my comments to was asking HOW can you be found guilty without admitting the crime, I was giving an example.

The Clerk in the Magistrates Court is the person responsible for the legal aspects of the hearing.

If you have evidence that the Law is not being properly observed in a specific hearing, or generally, I suggest you raise it with the Court concerned or your MP.You can also appeal, we know this, it doesn't stop people being found guilty wrongly tho, again I was giving a reason why some people are found guilty without admitting it.
Using this argument you seem to be saying no one has ever been found guilty without admitting the crime, which with both know is not the case.

You have made a lot of good points in this thread,now you have gone to arguing for the sake of arguing.

wiogs

sniggings wrote: »

You have made a lot of good points in this thread,now you have gone to arguing for the sake of arguing.

Have many people been found guilty merely for having the means to watch live TV?