TV Licence article Discussion

Zapito

enfield_freddy wrote: »

capita has cost the BBC 560 million pounds

Over what period? And how much money was recovered? Without stating these the figure is meaningless.

pineapple

Zapito wrote: »

Of course, if only those people who should pay would stop lying and cheating their way out of paying the licence then such steps would not be necessary. If your objection is to reasonable enforcement activity the I would suggest directing your ire towards those people.

Can you define 'cheating'?
Also the fact that we are using words like 'enforcement' says a lot.

enfield_freddy

Zapito wrote: »

Over what period? And how much money was recovered? Without stating these the figure is meaningless.

they do not say any figures in improved revenue , and they actually hide the figure that crapita charges them


reminds me of the charity collectors , that work for an agency , they take god knows in the £ before the charity receives the money




just saying

Zapito

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

Firstly, it's not an occasional letter, it's monthly, and some of them are quite aggressive and acusatory.

I would agree that monthly seems excessive, subject to circumstances (eg it might be reasonable for student accommodation). In most cases annually would probably be reasonable.

Secondly, there's the man/woman knocking on my door, wanting to search my home.

I'd have thought they'd need a warrant to compel you to allow a search. If it happened to me excessively then I would complain of harassment, initially to them then, if it persisted, to the police or I'd consult a lawyer.

The police, NRA, DVLA, etc. don't turn up at my door, on a fishing trip, wanting to search my home, on the off chance I might be breaking the law.

No, but if you displayed a lifestyle say that indicated you were using drugs, or living beyond any reasonable expectation of your means, etc, then that might well happen.

So, for example, if you allowed the sound of live TV to get out through an open window, or heard on your phone or something, or they had some evidence from another source, then it would be OK for the TVLA to turn up with a warrant.

Actually, though, it's not at all clear to me what is the purpose of them searching your home, since I don't see how that can tell them whether you are receiving live broadcasts (unless of course you are really stupid and doing it while they are there!). Oh, I suppose if you record stuff from live they could get you on that. But it is presumably possible to record from iPlayer - I simply don't know what the legal position would be concerning that.

Zapito

pineapple wrote: »

Can you define 'cheating'?

Long Answer:
Well IMHO people who (say they) only receive catchup and use that as a squirm to get out of supporting the BBC with a licence are cheating, in a moral if not a legal sense. And of course, anyone who blatantly watches BBC live TV without a licence is clearly cheating.

In all honesty though I think folk know perfectly well what I mean by cheating, and those who say they don't are prevaricating.

Short Answer:
Look it up.

Cornucopia

Zapito wrote: »

I would agree that monthly seems excessive, subject to circumstances ....

Okay, good, we seem to be making progress on what "reasonable" might mean.

To summarise...

- Letters no more frequently than once a year, with some types of high-turnover accommodation more frequently, if reasonable.

- No compulsion, coercion or deception around searching of homes in the absence of a Warrant.

- Application for a Warrant where there is robust evidence that supports a valid suspicion of an offence.

Zapito

Cornucopia wrote: »

Okay, good, we seem to be making progress on what "reasonable" might mean.

To summarise...

- Letters no more frequently than once a year, with some types of accommodation more frequently, if reasonable.

- No compulsion, coercion or deception around searching of homes in the absence of a Warrant.

- Application for a Warrant where there is robust evidence that supports a valid suspicion of an offence.

That all fits pretty well with my opinion, yes. Of course, I haven't consulted anyone on this, and for all I know TVLA may have a perfectly reasonable argument for kicking someone's door in at 3am. But I doubt it.

One codicil - I don't see anything wrong with "deception" - if some fool is stupid enough to swallow a line and let someone search their home without a warrant the onus is on them. Personally I wouldn't allow even the police to search my house without a valid authority; that would be a matter principle.

Zapito

pineapple wrote: »

Also the fact that we are using words like 'enforcement' says a lot.

Sorry, not getting you. It's a perfectly good word that means what it means.

Cornucopia

Zapito wrote: »

Actually, though, it's not at all clear to me what is the purpose of them searching your home, since I don't see how that can tell them whether you are receiving live broadcasts (unless of course you are really stupid and doing it while they are there!). Oh, I suppose if you record stuff from live they could get you on that. But it is presumably possible to record from iPlayer - I simply don't know what the legal position would be concerning that.

Four reasons -

1. They might catch you red-handed.
2. You may have a set-up like Sky which is always inconsistent with being legally Licence-free.
3. They can put pressure on you to confess, and then document your confession on their form.
4. They can still give evidence of intent, based on the configuration of the equipment to the Court, even though it is not usually conclusive evidence for a conviction.

Bear in mind, also, that the vast majority of TVL defendants do not turn up to Court, and are found guilty by default. We have no way to know how weak those cases might have been.

I'm not aware of any equipment that records from iPlayer, such that the recordings "look like" PVR recordings. You can certainly download within the player app, if your platform supports it, but those recordings are managed separately. Recording of iPlayer catch-up content would not require a Licence at the point of recording or playback.

But recordings found on a PVR would not be conclusive evidence of evasion, anyway, because the box could have been physically elsewhere at the point of recording. Watching those recordings would not require a Licence.

Zapito

enfield_freddy wrote: »

they do not say any figures in improved revenue , and they actually hide the figure that crapita charges them

Well that seems quite remiss of them. Could you perhaps point me in the direction of your source, because that doesn't seem at all right and I'd like to look into it.

reminds me of the charity collectors , that work for an agency , they take god knows in the £ before the charity receives the money

I gave up giving through chuggers etc years go. I only give directly.

just saying

Quite so.