TV Licence article Discussion

Cornucopia

The sheer secrecy of the BBC over most matters of detail pertaining to TVL is mystifying. I can only agree with your analysis that it is to confuse the Public and sell unnecessary Licences through ignorance and fear.

It may ultimately be the undoing of BBC/TVL, though, because information does not stay secret for long, these days.

The reality of the "watching/possessing" requirement for the offence is that the offence is based on watching/recording/downloading Live or BBC TV, and that has been the basis of it for 13 years, at least. However, the actual legislation uses the wording of "install/use a TV Receiver", which creates a more complex situation in which if a TV Set can be shown to be capable of receiving, and it seems likely that it is being used for that, then the offence can be proven. In other words, although the offence is about watching TV, it does not require BBC/TVL to catch a person red-handed in order to prove the offence.

It's certainly possible to glue something over your TV's aerial socket, though in practice the days when that would have been a powerful impediment to BBC/TVL are now gone.

That's mainly for the practical reason that most households have multiple devices that can receive BBC/Live TV programs in various ways. There's not much point in sealing the aerial socket on your TV if you also have, say, a Chromecast connected to it.

The other reason is that TVL people do not examine equipment that much any more. Their main weapon is confession, and they tend to prefer to jump straight to that, added to which is the complexity and diversity of equipment, and the legal limitations preventing them accessing Computers, Phones and Tablets.

There is best practice, and for me it is this:-

- No aerial, cable TV or satellite connections anywhere near the TV and any Set-top boxes you may still have.

- No Sky or VM contract bundles that include TV (even if you never use it).

- If you currently listen to Radio using your TV, find an alternative, especially if your TV does not have the facility to selectively delete or hide TV channels, leaving just radio channels.

- Detune the TV and any STBs.

- Only commercial catch-up and video-on-demand services to be used.

- Block BBC iplayer using your Router or ISP, if possible.


At the same time, BBC/TVL operatives have no authority to enter your home, and the BBC itself says that its enforcement process is "consensual", i.e. requires the agreement of the householder.

Furthermore, once the Caution has been read to you, you have the right to require the TVL person to cease questioning and leave. Above all else, though, never sign any paperwork. There is no legal requirement for you to do so, even if you are guilty (technically or otherwise) of Licence evasion.

Blue_Max

I have heard that even when there in no evidence that the TV is capable of TV reception (for example, no aerial cable), some TVL employees become vindictive and pursue obstruction charges.

Warrant is "to enter and search premises and to examine and test any television found on the premises".

Occupier freely lets them in and allow them to search all rooms.

Is the householder required to anything more?
Such as comply with request to operate the TV or give instruction on how to operate the TV, DVD or Media Player ?
Is it a legal requirement for the occupier to give name or any other information?
If he does not do any of these, will that be construed as "obstruction due to the attitude of the occupier" ?

Thanks!

Cornucopia

Warrants are the only instance when it can be an offence to obstruct TVL staff.

TVL Warrants are incredibly rare (c. 100 per year executed for the entire country). On that basis, they are not something that most law-abiding people need to concern themselves with.

The requirements for what citizens need to do are set out in S.366 of the Communications Act 2003. Essentially, it boils down to:-

- Opening the door as soon as you realise a Warrant is a possibility. (Usually this will be because TVL or the Police shout "we have a Warrant" through the letterbox). There are some further technicalities that I won't go into here.

- Allowing them to search the premises for AV equipment that may require a Licence (there is no obligation to assist them).

- Providing reasonable assistance to them whilst they examine and test any AV equipment they find that might require a Licence. It's not defined how extensive this assistance should be, and obviously any configuration changes that might change its status under the Licensing law need to be resisted.

Failure to do what the Law requires could result in a Obstruction charge (this is a TVL-specific charge, as defined in S.366). You are correct that Obstruction can be physical, verbal or simply not doing what is required of you.

The issue is that their evidence-gathering prior to Warrant application does not seem to be that effective, and there is a suggestion that they bring Obstruction charges as a "consolation prize" when their search for evidence of Evasion fails.

The trick, I think, is to remain calm and broadly cooperative within the Law. You should also ask them when they finish searching & testing whether they are happy that they have seen everything they need i.e. their progress has not been obstructed. They may then caution you, in which case you simply say that wish to have your solicitor present during questioning, and you need time to arrange this. They should then leave.

Providing your name remains a grey area. TVL themselves have no legal right to demand you give them your name. It is not Obstruction if you refuse to provide your name to them. However, the Police will usually be in attendance, and they can "compel" your name under certain circumstances. It remains unknown whether the circumstances of an offence alleged by TVL satisfies those requirements. If TVL have already stated to you that they do not believe an offence has been committed, then there should be no question of them asking for your name. Giving a false name to a Police officer is justification for them taking further steps to confirm your identity.

Blue_Max

Thats and excellent video DavidP24
It was that video and articles at http://tv-licensing.blogspot.co.uk that caused alarm and prompted me to post here.
Many thanks to 'Cronucopia' for the detailed and helpful reply.

If the TVL staff pursue false obstruction charges what can be done?
Can the Police Officers present be called as witnesses?

There are loads of YouTube videos about how poeple handle visits from TVL.
Some of the TVL staff deserve it but many are polite and try to be helpful.
I was appalled by the way an occupier was shouting at a police woman.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPwNgIsH9BA
Police has the duty to investigate a complaint. She was very polite.
Her humility was tested to the limit.
The occupier was intend on picking up an argument. Very uncivilised and rude.
Did he publish this video to be a hero of some sort?

Blue_Max

Latest edition of this 70 page booklet can be viewed or downloaded as a .pdf file at
http://tv-licensing.blogspot.co.uk/p/free-book.html

Hope this helps!

Cornucopia

Blue_Max wrote: »

If the TVL staff pursue false obstruction charges what can be done?

The definition of "Obstruction" is so broad that it is unlikely that the charges would be false, as such. The authorities don't like it when someone obstructs them.

The biggest barrier to more obstruction charges is the tiny number of warrants.

Can the Police Officers present be called as witnesses?

Yes, potentially. It's unlikely that they will do anything other than confirm the TVL version of events.

There are loads of YouTube videos about how poeple handle visits from TVL. Some of the TVL staff deserve it but many are polite and try to be helpful. I was appalled by the way an occupier was shouting at a police woman. Police has the duty to investigate a complaint. She was very polite. Her humility was tested to the limit. The occupier was uncivilised, rude and appear to have personality issues.

You need to watch any such "interactions" with a knowledge of the background, including the fact that TVL operations are of questionable legality from the outset.

The other issue is that the BBC operate the regime with incredible bad faith. They are secretive and defensive well beyond what is appropriate for a publicly-funded, publicly-owned organisation.

Against that background, I can quite understand if individual householders get angry. I've never received such a "visit", but I would probably caution them as soon as they identified themselves, on the basis that their conduct is already in scope to breach Article 8 (privacy) and Article 6 (fair trial) of the Human Rights Act.

DavidP24

Blue_Max wrote: »

Thats and excellent video DavidP24
It was that video and articles at http://tv-licensing.blogspot.co.uk that caused alarm and prompted me to post here.
Many thanks to 'Cronucopia' for the detailed and helpful reply.

If the TVL staff pursue false obstruction charges what can be done?
Can the Police Officers present be called as witnesses?

There are loads of YouTube videos about how poeple handle visits from TVL.
Some of the TVL staff deserve it but many are polite and try to be helpful.
I was appalled by the way an occupier was shouting at a police woman.
Police has the duty to investigate a complaint. She was very polite.
Her humility was tested to the limit.
The occupier was uncivilised, rude and appear to have personality issues.

Do NOT be fooled by these Goons, first off, they did not pursue the obstruction charge, YouTube is full of bailiffs saying kwap, things like "if you film with that camera it will be seized as evidence" when actually it is you that can do a subject access request for their content.

Tell me what Law or Act says you have to do your job for these A-Wipes?

Now even if you were to hide the remote and say you did not have one, they could still operate the TV via buttons on the TV to determine if there was a live feed and THAT is all they need to do, if there are NO CABLES to an Aerial, Sky Box or Internet then there can be no live connection or iplayer connection.

Remember that the situation in the video is after a warrant has been obtained (often on false evidence - there are at least two cases on YouTube where they have be proven to lie about observing live TV).

This one sends them packing even with warrant, probably because householder was not given chance to go to Court (these things are signed in batches because TVL are trusted by MOJ- what we need is a collection of false evidence so they can have that right taken away).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-Fn4BiHekk

Note this differs from the warrants where the person has not paid the fine, it is only on state fines (Council Tax, Court fines etc) that people will force entry. It is totally wrong that the BBC and TVL Crapita get this kind of authority.

TVL are not an authority, they have a certain amound of powers granted by the warrant, that is all.

I love this one, they do not get in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez_ZpmjBbxM

nor here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpKHYKnGp2c

It does not matter whether some of them are civil, they are all the same scum working for the same scum outfit representing the same scum !!!!!phile hiding and supporting BBC.

See the guy who hits the person filming him, then the one who says you are not allowed to film me, the one that obtained entry into a house by a minor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-fDU0aonUM

On this thread we have people saying how they have even picked on a person with severe autism living in assisted accomodation who has a TV that they are emotional attached to in their room, no power, no aerial but through lies and intimidation they conned them into getting a licence.

The trick is to NEVER engage the scum, do not answer the door to them, if you do by accident ask for their ID, write their name on a prepared word doc removing their implied right of access. Make a note of the name.

Understand it is a cycle, 2 sets of three fake letters over a couple of months, then a visit, then a card you can put in the bin, then a month or so later a repeat cycle of the letters and then another visit. After about 3 visits they then to give up for a while depending on how big their patch is.

Remember DO NOT ENGAGE and they will never get that far.

However, if you have a TV which is visible from the front of the house some will try to fake evidence, hell some will go look in kiddies bedroom. It does not matter, if it gets that far challenge it and ask for proof. Think about it, in this day and age they can video from outside if they see a live feed using their chest cams, these are time stamped and the live tv schedules can be compared, this was how they got thrown out of court before.

Now if you watch live TV I would urge you to pay your way, but if not there is no reason to let the gestapo goons in.

There is a simple thing you can do to disable your TV from receiving live broadcasts, open up the back cover, look where the aerial plugs in and you will see a tuner module, there is usually a cable from that going to another PCB or part of a PCB, just gently unplug that cable. Then put back on and test with aerial, then if a smart TV disable iplayer or even the web, setting DNS to 10.10.10.10 will prevent it finding anything.

Do not install iPlayer, remove iPlayer on any devices it came pre-installed on.

DO NOT ENGAGE.

Cornucopia

DavidP24 wrote: »

I love this one, they do not get in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez_ZpmjBbxM

That one went to Court on the Obstruction charge, and after a hearing lasting several hours, resulted in a Guilty verdict. The legalistic noises made by the householders in the video are mostly nonsense, AFAICT.

The law is mostly still on the side of the householder, so there is no need to get all "Citizen Smith". It's an especially bad idea if you don't know what you're doing. It can easily make matters worse.

On the other hand, that really only works when you can trust what the "authority figure" is telling you. Unfortunately, TVL went in a different direction a long time ago, such that I'm not even sure that they know what the truth is any more.

[Deleted User]

Blue_Max wrote: »

I was appalled by the way an occupier was shouting at a police woman.

He was shouting at her :huh:

Did he publish this video to be a hero of some sort?

I think he published it, to show how the police overstep their powers, to support what one police officer described as "our colleagues from TV Licensing".

Blue_Max

I don't know if the occupier complied with the wording on the warrant or did anything more than refusing to give his name, but in this video police is colluding with TCL and bringing obstruction charges.
Shocking!
Also, is it legal for the police pass on your name to TCL staff?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQDqEVpM1_c

Does Cornucopia or anyone else know the outcome?