TV Licence article Discussion

deadhandle

Cornucopia wrote: »

It doesn't say "installs", it says "installs and uses". .

"installs OR uses".. not And.

Presumably this means the house holder is responsible for installing so is liable if a third party watches while he/she doesn't.

But, how does "This means that anyone who watches or records TV as it is being broadcast"

Yes, the terms of the review and the consultation document are insufficient, but I doubt they'll ever have the power to explore the way BBC is funded.

The review goes on to say the current enforcement system is considered to have a low evasion rate which has been maintained at c.5% for the past 5 years.

But 15% of all Magistrate Court cases are taken up by this..presumably mostly funded by the taxpayer.

Obviously it is considered that enforcing the licence fee as a criminal offence is not value for money, so another many millions £ is being spent on the Perry Review..

deadhandle

sniggings wrote: »

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

:beer: Yup, My original question was where does live TV become catch up. Obviously no one knows.

It's been a good chat though :T

Cornucopia

deadhandle wrote: »

"installs OR uses".. not And.

It actually says both. It says:

A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this Part.

Presumably this means the house holder is responsible for installing so is liable if a third party watches while he/she doesn't.

AFAIK it's never been established in Court at this level of detail.

But, how does "This means that anyone who watches or records TV as it is being broadcast"

Because the term "TV Receiver" has a specific meaning defined in a separate Statutory Instrument. That links "TV Receiver" to watching/recording TV broadcasts.

Yes, the terms of the review and the consultation document are insufficient, but I doubt they'll ever have the power to explore the way BBC is funded.

It depends on who wins the election. If the Tories win, then they will press ahead. The review already touches on it with the idea of it becoming a Civil Debt.

The review goes on to say the current enforcement system is considered to have a low evasion rate which has been maintained at c.5% for the past 5 years.

The figures are highly suspect. The basis for them is the BARB survey, which estimates how many homes have TVs.

But 15% of all Magistrate Court cases are taken up by this..presumably mostly funded by the taxpayer.

The figures are these: 5% evasion - so, about 1.3 million homes. Of which, Capita "catch" around 400,000 per year. Then someone decides to let off half of those, and around 200,000 go forward to prosecution. 75% of those are women, unlike any other offence.

There is some debate about the drain on the Court service. The issue is that whilst there are a lot of TVL cases, they don't tend to take very long, because most defendants don't attend Court. They are found guilty by default.

It's a very poor system - hence the desire to change it.

Obviously it is considered that enforcing the licence fee as a criminal offence is not value for money, so another many millions £ is being spent on the Perry Review..

I doubt it's that much. It's only Perry and a small support team.

The problem for the Government is that they don't want to be seen to be meddling with the BBC. So they need an independent review to advise them.

sniggings

wiogs wrote: »

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

no idea of numbers.

I good example is on youtube, do a search I can't be bothered, a warrant was taking place, the TV was being tested (tho the crime is meant to be watching, so what test on a TV couldprovethe case?) no picture was found yet later in court a picture appeared on the TV, the guy was found guilty of watching TV!!! later it was proved the tape was altered,with a picture added to the TV screen.

Point being he was found guilty for just having the ability to watch,when the crime is watching live TV.

Courts apply the law and each court can apply the law differently.

One magistrate might consider "watching" means havingthe abitlity to watch, not the act of watching,another might want to see the person sitting in front of the TV watching live TV.

If the crime is "watching" does beg the question why a blind person needs a licence :eek:

"A blind concession TV Licence costs £72.75 for colour and £24.50 for a black and white TV Licence."

and why does it cost more for a coloured licence if you are blind :rotfl:

Cornucopia

sniggings wrote: »

no idea of numbers.

Assuming the pattern is roughly the same across the country, I would estimate that 95% of cases are based on a TVL178 confession, with the remainder being based on Section 9 witness statements (ie. based on first-hand observation & testimony by TV staff).

I good example is on youtube...

That is the Michael Shakespeare case. It's not a good example at all, in fact it is unique. Mr. Shakespeare eventually won the case on appeal.

Point being he was found guilty for just having the ability to watch,when the crime is watching live TV.

I've already explained to you how the law works.

Courts apply the law and each court can apply the law differently.

One magistrate might consider "watching" means havingthe abitlity to watch, not the act of watching,another might want to see the person sitting in front of the TV watching live TV.

It's a moot point. With c. 95% of cases being based on confession, what happens around the confession is much more important than what happens in Court. In my complaint to TVL, I have listed 18 issues with the interview process. These issues account for hundreds or thousands of individual cases, and at the margins, potentially affect all TVL cases. The 18 scenarios are:-

a) Failure to inform the citizen that they are being interviewed under Caution with a view to prosecution, and mis-describing the interview process and the form, so that citizens’ informed consent and PACE rights are subverted from the outset.

b) Exaggeration, obfuscation and manipulation of responses such that innocent responses are made incriminating.

c) Use of arbitrary and inconsistent definitions of what constitutes an offence.

d) Tampering with the 178 form during and after the interview.

e) Use of a form that is incapable of rigorously capturing responses that relate directly, specifically and solely to evasion
offences.

f) Use of a form that is fundamentally skewed towards guilt, and does not provide a ready means for a citizen to make
a formal statement asserting their innocence.

g) Use of a form that is not designed to capture a verbatim record of the interview, and does not do so in spite of a
PACE requirement that it should.

h) Failure to caution.

i) Preventing citizens from reading the form before signature.

j) Deception over the nature of, and requirement for the signature. (e.g. “Sign here to say I called”, “You are legally required to sign”.)

k) Failure to leave the “customer” copy of the 178 form with the interviewee.

l) Use of coercive language and arguments. Use of intimidating body language.

m) Failure to treat people with poor English skills fairly, and failure to provide translation resources where mandated in the interests of justice.

n) Failure to properly address Right to Silence and Right to Counsel.

o) Failure to adequately supervise this legally-critical process in the context of financial incentives for TV Licensing operatives.

p) Failure to consider the interests of justice, including failure to assess the difficulty within the overall legal process of a citizen overturning a “confession” obtained by subterfuge or oppression, or of proving the falsification of details.

q) In extreme cases: falsification of entire 178 forms, or substantial parts thereof.

r) In extreme cases: falsification of signatures.

If the crime is "watching" does beg the question why a blind person needs a licence :eek: and why does it cost more for a coloured licence if you are blind :rotfl:

Because blind covers people who are partially sighted, and because some blind people live with sighted people.

I'm all for criticism of the Licence Fee and its enforcement - it stinks. But understanding the facts, such as they are, is an important first step.

sniggings

Cornucopia wrote: »

Assuming the pattern is roughly the same across the country, I would estimate that 95% of cases are based on a TVL178 confession, with the remainder being based on Section 9 witness statements (ie. based on first-hand observation & testimony by TV staff).

That is the Michael Shakespeare case. It's not a good example at all, in fact it is unique. Mr. Shakespeare eventually won the case on appeal.It's a very good example for the reason I put it forward...it's an example of someone being found guilty without admitting the crime or caught watching live TV, the side issue of the fake evidence used was not relivant to the point I was making.

I've already explained to you how the law works. and I explained how it has it's failings.

It's a moot point. I wasn't making a general point, I was answering a specific question, on how you can be found guilty without admitting the crime.With c. 95% of cases being based on confession, what happens around the confession is much more important than what happens in Court. In my complaint to TVL, I have listed 18 issues with the interview process. These issues account for hundreds or thousands of individual cases, and at the margins, potentially affect all TVL cases. The 18 scenarios are:-

a) Failure to inform the citizen that they are being interviewed under Caution with a view to prosecution, and mis-describing the interview process and the form, so that citizens’ informed consent and PACE rights are subverted from the outset.

b) Exaggeration, obfuscation and manipulation of responses such that innocent responses are made incriminating.

c) Use of arbitrary and inconsistent definitions of what constitutes an offence.

d) Tampering with the 178 form during and after the interview.

e) Use of a form that is incapable of rigorously capturing responses that relate directly, specifically and solely to evasion
offences.

f) Use of a form that is fundamentally skewed towards guilt, and does not provide a ready means for a citizen to make
a formal statement asserting their innocence.

g) Use of a form that is not designed to capture a verbatim record of the interview, and does not do so in spite of a
PACE requirement that it should.

h) Failure to caution.

i) Preventing citizens from reading the form before signature.

j) Deception over the nature of, and requirement for the signature. (e.g. “Sign here to say I called”, “You are legally required to sign”.)

k) Failure to leave the “customer” copy of the 178 form with the interviewee.

l) Use of coercive language and arguments. Use of intimidating body language.

m) Failure to treat people with poor English skills fairly, and failure to provide translation resources where mandated in the interests of justice.

n) Failure to properly address Right to Silence and Right to Counsel.

o) Failure to adequately supervise this legally-critical process in the context of financial incentives for TV Licensing operatives.

p) Failure to consider the interests of justice, including failure to assess the difficulty within the overall legal process of a citizen overturning a “confession” obtained by subterfuge or oppression, or of proving the falsification of details.

q) In extreme cases: falsification of entire 178 forms, or substantial parts thereof.

r) In extreme cases: falsification of signatures.

Because blind covers people who are partially sighted, and because some blind people live with sighted people. So lets get this right...a blind person needs a licence just incase someone lives with them that can see or just incase they can see just a little bit, maybe the odd shadow:eek:
So a totally blind person living alone doesn't need a licene then?:rotfl: nope they do, please argue sensibly.

I'm all for criticism of the Licence Fee and its enforcement - it stinks. But understanding the facts, such as they are, is an important first step.

A understand the arguments, shame you feel you need to argue with someone that is clearly on the same side of the argument.

Cornucopia

Apologies if you think I'm arguing.

I'm simply trying to put over the facts.

They are facts, BTW, researched in actual Courts, and with many, many victims of TVL skulduggery, and drawn from BBC and BBC Trust documents and FOI responses.

There is a huge amount of misunderstanding and misinformation around about the Licence Fee and its enforcement. BBC/TVL undoubtedly exploit this.

rasengirl

hi if my landlady buys a tv for my room will l be covered by her tv licence or will l need my own tv licence. if l rent a room and the landlady lives there as well will l need a tv licence or l am l covered by her tv licence

enfield_freddy

you are covered , however if a house is converted into flats then each flat needs a licence

Cornucopia

A lodger needs their own licence (assuming they are watching/recording TV broadcasts).

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/for-your-home/tenants-and-lodgers-aud2