TV Licence article Discussion

DavidP24

My lord he doth defend TVL too much

cw18 wrote: »

YouTube is only EVER going to record the bad experiences, so I don't think it's fair to say I'm the exception to the rule based on what's on there.

That is not true, there are people who are quite reasonable and just doing their job, not many but they are there

The simple fact is that when you have seen hundreds of calls (one is 5 hours long) showing bad behaviour you can definately say your experience was the exception, as I said it is just a matter of time. In my area they know a few of them who are nasty, one was even thrown out of a secure community and they are restricted to just dropping off cards.

And as for giving them my name, they already had it as I'd had a licence for this property for over 8.5 years before I cancelled. So I've not given them any new info by completing the form.[/QUOTE]

Well you did give them new info, you SUBMIT you gave them data saying you no longer have a TV or no longer watch live TV.

I paid for over 20 years and as I explained in previous post I was happy to until they would not do the direct debit when I was only obligated to pay for 10.

I was happy to pay as I like the BBC as an institution, I wanted it protected, but no more.

That is what happens when you treat people badly, you lose supporters.

Cornucopia

One of the things that people tend not to believe about BBC/TVL is the extent to which virtually every aspect of their business is suspect.

Admittedly, the different things are suspect in different ways -

- The big questions like:

* Is their overall process compatible with Article 8 of the HRA, and if so, how and what are the limits and constraints on it?
* How can they operate their main processes (letter-writing and doorstepping) without any supporting legislation, and what are the limits on that?


- The policy questions like:

* Are their detailed interview procedures compatible with PACE (including new principles as they are emerging through test cases)?
* Are their demands to search for TVs compatible with PACE (what constraints and limits are missing that ought to be being applied?)
* Is the reasoning they use in applying for Warrants compatible with the Comms Act?
* Is a doorstep an appropriate place to conduct an interview under caution? Does that location tend to mitigate against interviewees asserting (or even suspecting) their rights?
* Is it significant that HSE (who are in a similar but more powerful position to TVL) do give a full caution to suspects before interview, and TVL do not?
* Is it significant that TVL persist with the 178 form, whilst virtually all other UK interviews under caution are made with audio or video recording?



- The issues of rogue staff behaviour and foreseeable breakdowns in management supervision

* What do they do to manage their remote workforce whilst the commission scheme promotes unlawful behaviours?
* What do they do to achieve and to monitor the things (like "informed consent") that they say give them limited exemption from the "big" laws?
* What do they do to achieve compliance with PACE so that evidence has validity?


It's worth pointing out that TVL warrants are very, very few and very far between. They must be very shocking for those affected, though. Their rate of failure suggests that, whatever the process by which they attain "reasonable suspicion", it is not nearly robust enough.

I'm also concerned that there would appear to be forms of discrimination in operation with regards to Warrants, and this would be a breach of Article 14 of HRA.

[Deleted User]

DavidP24 wrote: »

"satisfied" is variable, so it depends on the judge

You are concentrating on the wrong part. The important bit is "that there are reasonable grounds for believing".

No evidence is required. Just "reasonable grounds for believing"

There are other common laws that apply

Such other common laws don't apply, since the BBC are a private company, and are only granted their powers (such and they are), by Statutes, eg. The Communications Act 2003.

Most importantly, even if they searched they have to have evidence against an individual.

And that is the reason for the Search Warrant, ie. to find evidence.

If they already had the evidence, they wouldn't need the Search Warrant.

A bit like the reason so many fake parking penalty notices fail on private land, they have to prove you were the driver

But, in the case of LF Evasion, the offence is committed by anyone who watches/records live broadcasts, without the appropriate licence.

BBC/TVL can prosecute any adult, who they catch, or who confesses. LF Evasion is not limited to the "head of the house".

Some have found ways to get you to incriminate yourself. but most Judges throw them out

Firstly, almost all TVL cases are heard by Magistrates, not judges, and, secondly, TVL 178, self incrimination forms are invariably accepted by the Magistrates, without question.

So if you let a room to a lodger and they had to get a TV license and you made a submission to the Court it would be that person who was liable and had to be charged.

Actually, it would be whoever answered their questions.

All of this does not matter because if you say nothing it does not become an issue.

Hence, why I advised "No contact, no communication, is the way to go."

DavidP24

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

You are concentrating on the wrong part. The important bit is "that there are reasonable grounds for believing".

No evidence is required. Just "reasonable grounds for believing"

Such other common laws don't apply, since the BBC are a private company, and are only granted their powers (such and they are), by Statutes, eg. The Communications Act 2003.



And that is the reason for the Search Warrant, ie. to find evidence.

If they already had the evidence, they wouldn't need the Search Warrant.



But, in the case of LF Evasion, the offence is committed by anyone who watches/records live broadcasts, without the appropriate licence.

BBC/TVL can prosecute any adult, who they catch, or who confesses. LF Evasion is not limited to the "head of the house".

Firstly, almost all TVL cases are heard by Magistrates, not judges, and, secondly, TVL 178, self incrimination forms are invariably accepted by the Magistrates, without question.

Actually, it would be whoever answered their questions.

Hence, why I advised "No contact, no communication, is the way to go."

SORRY BOB

Whilst I appreciate your input, it is clear you do not understand the law.

I will not waste time bouncing back and forth only for you to tell me I am wrong for focusing on the word satisfied rather than reasonable, when it is clear you know what I mean and are just splitting hairs.

A magistrates court is a lower court, their decisions can be escalated on appeal (to JUDGES) and they are subject to sanction.

Where I have to stop responding to you is where you say common law does not apply, EVERY PERSON and EVERY ORGANISATION is subject to common law, whether they like it or not.

Inn your world a child answers the door and they are guilty, I don't think so.

The fact is that TVL operate a two stage process, gather information, obtain a warrant to prove there is a TV with live TV showing, go watch any of the videos on YT where they let them in.

Find the name of the occupier, it is ALWAYS the first question they ask "Are you the occupier" then try and get their name, ask questions to get them to incriminate themselves, try to get the resident to give them entry.

Then they come back with the search warrant and it is at that point that they have the police with them, they obtain access, then try to get the TV's to show live TV. The funniest of these is where the TVL tries to RECONNECT THE AERIAL to enable live TV. Another funny one is where the guy starts trying to go through a PC.

These guys can barely figure out a scart connection, my dead grandpa would have a better understanding!

So after all that that I have to consider that you are ill informed even if your basic premise of not to engage the TVL people is CORRECT and GOOD ADVICE as I have said on numerous occasions.

[Deleted User]

DavidP24 wrote: »

Inn your world a child answers the door and they are guilty, I don't think so.

You might want to try reading, what is actually in front of you.

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

BBC/TVL can prosecute any adult, who they catch, or who confesses.

Also, I never said anyone was guilty. I said they can prosecute.

Kindly stop misquoting me.

BTW. How long have you been LLF?

DavidP24

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

Kindly stop misquoting me.

This is me me quoting you verbatim, AGAIN

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

Actually, it would be whoever answered their questions.

Cornucopia

DavidP24 wrote: »

The fact is that TVL operate a two stage process, gather information, obtain a warrant to prove there is a TV with live TV showing, go watch any of the videos on YT where they let them in.

Find the name of the occupier, it is ALWAYS the first question they ask "Are you the occupier" then try and get their name, ask questions to get them to incriminate themselves, try to get the resident to give them entry.

Then they come back with the search warrant and it is at that point that they have the police with them, they obtain access, then try to get the TV's to show live TV. The funniest of these is where the TVL tries to RECONNECT THE AERIAL to enable live TV. Another funny one is where the guy starts trying to go through a PC.

Sorry, David, this is simply not the process they use in the vast, vast majority of cases.

HMCTS have confirmed that the number of warrants in specific, sample, major urban areas is tiny (IIRC the figure they gave for Sheffield, for example, was 6 over a 2 year period). There are no warrants in Scotland, at all.

The vast majority of cases start as you describe: TVL bod calls at the door, knowing already that there is no Licence. Then they ask incriminating questions of ANY ADULT who opens the door, and they try to obtain their name. They do all of this using a form called a TVL178, which when complete, they ask the person to sign.

That form, and the name & signature on it are all they need to prosecute. And confession evidence is extremely hard to counter in Court, even if there are doubts over how it was obtained.

There are various subterfuges in use around that interview under caution and their obtaining of the signature.

Warrants are not part of the usual procedure.

DavidP24

Thanks Cornucopia

So it is still a two stage process, it is just if you are dumb enough to engage them they may get info out of you to get you fined in one go and stage 2 is effectively their continued harrassment after you have told them to Foxtrot Oscar and so they try to peep through windows etc to get evidence for the warrant to enter.

Funny how some of them got caught on CCTV in the YouTube videos entering a property and looking through windows, then later knocking at the door.

Thanks for clarifying that, as Bob Says best not to engage, in my old place I never answered the buzzer unless I was expecting someone and none of my neighbours buzzed people in.

In my current place a TVL guy turned up when I was expecting an engineer and I saw his data entry device thinking it was some meter tester, when I opened the door he started his "are you the occupier" drivel, I still did not twig he was TVL, I thought he was selling something, asked him 3 times what organisation he was representing, he refused to answer and just repeated in a loud voice ARE YOU THE OCCUPIER, at which point I told him to Foxtrot Oscar.

Letters say a new investigation started a month ago so I am keeping my mobile ready to film the next idiot from TVL.

I wonder if I should play dumn and see how much he will lie, for example should I say "Oh do I have to let you in" or "TV License, what is that" just to make him think he might get a commission!

DavidP24

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

It cannot be overstated, how much I disagree with this idea.

It reverses the burden of proof, which you were referring to, just a couple of paragraphs earlier.

I get that Bob, but consider this, you only have to make a statement to the DWP, no Capita, No BBC.

The reality is it would save hundreds of millions wasted on TVL, get rid of the 200,000 court cases choking the legal system which has already become a playground only affordable by the rich.

It would also reduce the cost benefits.

Of Course Crapita would try to get their £560m contract with the BBC transferred to the DWP but if being on social security exempted you from the TV License because you already paid it by deduction then the ROI for involving Crapita would be pathetic as only a tiny fraction would actually go to the trouble of making their kit unable to accept live TV as I have.

Then over time the BBC would be asked to pay for the people on Social Security as they have the over 75's

The fact is that the TVL fee is factored into the amount paid in benefits so deducting it and giving them the right to claim it back is a win win for all concerned (except the BBC and TVL Goons).

To me it is about social responsibilty of the big corporations.

The problem is that the BBC has become like the NHS, top heavy with Turkeys who will sacrifice all that is good in their organisation before they ever vote for Christmas.

[Deleted User]

DavidP24 wrote: »

I get that Bob, but consider this, you only have to make a statement to the DWP

It's still a reversal of the burden of proof, and the thin end of the wedge.

The reality is it would save hundreds of millions wasted on TVL

Why should I care, how much is wasted on TVL :huh:

The fact is that the TVL fee is factored into the amount paid in benefits

Are you sure?