TV Licence article Discussion

Cornucopia

Zapito wrote: »

Your Zapito credibility rating just took a nose dive!

I'm not sure it aids the atmosphere of the forum, or its general orderliness to attempt to rate other posters and their comments in this way. It makes you seem like you have a fundamentally bad attitude, and I'm sure you don't really want to appear that way.

Moreover, given the number of errors you've made in posts in this thread, I'm not sure that the "Zapito credibility rating" has a great deal of credibility.

I don't know the exact scenario that Bedsit Bob has in mind, but cases in which TVL "178" Forms have been misused run into the hundreds, probably thousands. Most of those involve improper use of information provided (pretty much by definition). We wouldn't necessarily know what proportion of those involve abuse of information from databases, as opposed to information provided directly.

I've personally assisted several hundred people who have reported that TVL have falsified their statement in various ways. In many cases, I have seen copies of the actual falsified documents, and I am happy to share some of those on the forum if that will aid your transition from cynic to supporter.

Overall, there is a wide range of known issues with BBC/TVL interviews under caution. In a previous letter to the BBC, I documented 18... or was it 19 areas of concern.

One of the problems with this is that victims are usually so relieved to have the issues resolved and the Summons cancelled that persuading them to make a formal complaint is very difficult, especially since BBC/TVL, the Police and the Courts have a record of not taking them seriously.

[Deleted User]

Here you go Zapito.

LIES OF LICENCE OFFICER.

One of his victims told of his horror at getting a summons for not having a licence - because he doesn't have a TV.

Cornucopia

Zapito wrote: »

Fair enough to assume they are guilty then. Don't see the problem. If I was innocent of a charge I'd make darned sure I turned up to defend myself. Even if guilty I'd want to make my case for mitigation. If I were the "judge", as a point of principle I'd whack the maximum charge on those who can't even be bothered to turn up.

Another Zapito misunderstanding...

The Courts depend on TVL defendants not turning up (and it is defendants' prerogative to do so). The Court still applies the Means Form to determine the fine, and Mitigation can be supplied in writing, in which case, the Clerk reads it aloud in Court.

BBC/TVL cases are scheduled in batches of 80-120 per session. A session is 2-3 hours. The only way that can work is if 90%+ of defendants plead Guilty by post or simply don't turn up. It's just another aspect of the BBC/TVL regime that is dysfunctional.

[Deleted User]

Cornucopia wrote: »

Overall, there are a wide range of known issues with BBC/TVL interviews under caution.

Not to mention that, the caution isn't always given, or is given at the end of the interview.

Then there's not leaving he occupier with their copy of the form, thereby allowing additional information to be added after the event, and inviting the occupier to "sign here just to confirm I've called".

Cornucopia

pineapple wrote: »

But is it?. I have Freesat from Sky so don't pay a subscription. When my previous television went to CRT heaven I considered giving up on TV alltogether.
However the Sky dish is on the roof. No way would I have gone to the expense of removing it.

I'm not quite sure I understand the question.

Some people with Sky have asked if the platform is suitable as a Licence-free solution, on the basis of watching catch-up and on-demand only. The answer is that it isn't because Sky boxes require a satellite connection, and when connected and switched on they are receiving all the time, and recording for live pause, too.

Freesat by Sky doesn't have a catch-up/on-demand capability (IIUC), so you'd only be using it to receive TV. In which case you'd need a Licence.

Cornucopia

JJ_Egan wrote: »

Can you point me towards that actual law please .
The one that says if its set-up plugged in etc .

Rather than if you actually watch live .

The basic offence is specified in S.363(2) of the Communications Act 2003. The key to understanding it is to know that the term "television receiver" has a specific meaning as defined in the The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004.

There's also the Rudd precedent, which basically says that where a Licence is required for a TV receiver, a person can deflect an accusation of evasion by citing a reasonable non-licenceable use that the installation is used for. i.e. "I had my TV attached to an aerial, but I only ever used it to receive radio channels".

Cornucopia

Zapito wrote: »

Of course, I haven't consulted anyone on this...

Meaning what? Who would you consult with?

...and for all I know TVLA may have a perfectly reasonable argument for kicking someone's door in at 3am. But I doubt it.

"TVLA" - no such animal. We're talking about TV Licensing, a part of the BBC. BBC/TVL doesn't break down doors at all - it is not BBC policy.

... I don't see anything wrong with "deception"...

I thought you had a moral perspective on all of this? It's a strange morality, I would say, that doesn't see lying as wrong.

BBC/TVL is a consummate liar. Sometimes you almost have to almost respect the way they can twist words to create a false impression presumably with the intention of manipulating the public. On the other hand, sometimes you have to wonder what they are thinking - the reputational damage to the BBC must be huge.

The BBC/TVL position at present is that their lies are not lies, rather than that lying is okay. So, they don't need the "Liar's Charter" which you seem to be suggesting. The modern corporation has the capability to easily abuse such a thing, and before we know it, lying will have gone from permitted to mandatory, and they'll be employing psychologists to help them work out what the most effective lies would be.

Zapito

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

Here you go Zapito.

LIES OF LICENCE OFFICER.

One of his victims told of his horror at getting a summons for not having a licence - because he doesn't have a TV.

Shocking! I mean that. I'm against all cheats and liars, and Mr Olaniyan appears to have certainly been one such. But he was caught, and rightly so, and so should all such wherever they exist. Those people of whom Cornucopia says:

are usually so relieved to have the issues resolved and the Summons cancelled that persuading them to make a formal complaint is very difficult

should, IMHO, be strenuously encouraged to do so, because that sort of carry on simply will not do!

Such unethical activity represents a slur on the reputation of our great and fabulous BBC which is regarded, both in the UK and abroad, as a precious jewel in the field of broadcasting, and all such wrongful actions carried out in its name must be stamped out wherever they are found to occur.

I say this as one who is a loyal and proud supporter of the BBC.

I unequivocally urge all who have genuinely experienced any such unprincipled behaviour to make representation to their Members of Parliament, and to make them with as much accompanying publicity as they can muster, but to do so in a spirit of defence of, never an attack upon, the BBC.

[Deleted User]

Can I take it my "Credibility rating" has been restored?

[Deleted User]

Zapito wrote: »

but to do so in a spirit of defence of, never an attack upon, the BBC.

Why?

As the licensing authority, the BBC are complicit in the illegal behaviour of their operatives.

Perhaps, if the "financial incentives" were removed, the doorsteppers wouldn't be acting in such ways?