TV Licence article Discussion

FreeBear

Cornucopia wrote: »

The thing about TV Licensing is that THEY believe they have some kind of official role, and that means that they readily accept that HRA, PACE and Common Law apply to their activities.

Except that they conveniently forget to advise their victims of their legal rights before starting the interrogation... Like the one about having legal representation during questioning or the right to remain silent.

Cornucopia

FreeBear wrote: »

Except that they conveniently forget to advise their victims of their legal rights before starting the interrogation... Like the one about having legal representation during questioning or the right to remain silent.

Like a lot of the detail of TV Licensing, this is shrouded in mystery (which of course is a bad thing in itself).

The BBC says that it has a legal precedent (called "McNamara") which states that because the suspect is not under arrest and is not at a Police station at the time of questioning, they do not have to tell the suspect about their right to consult a legal representative or have them present during questioning. This right still applies, but they claim it does not need to be stated.

Personally, I think this goes against more modern case law, and the general principles of PACE. Their position is not helped by the fact that details of the McNamara case are not freely available in the public domain. I conclude that the BBC takes some kind of perverse pleasure in undertaking activities involving the public whilst the legal detail remains hidden beyond the public's reach.

As far as the right to silence is concerned, that presents two other conundrums of the TV Licensing regime:-

1. That legal compliance reduces in direct relation to the distance from Lord Hall's office. I've certainly had meaningful discussions on PACE with BBC-TV Licensing head office, but obtaining the same outcome on the doorstep may prove more challenging.

2. Some people seem to believe (presumably having seen many "Cop" shows) that when they are told they have the right to remain silent, it somehow means the exact opposite. I'm sure that TV Licensing use manipulative words and body language to provoke this response.

It remains one of those situations where it is wise to be wise, and where the authority concerned simply doesn't have your best interests at heart, no matter what they may say.

Cornucopia

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

None, because everyone would just treat them like Double Glazing sales people.

You know, like we already do.

It's a tricky one. The truth is partly obscured by the BBC, which should not be the case. If they have a claimed authority, then they need to properly reference it. Otherwise, I think (as you suggest) that people are within their rights to ignore it, and to make the not unreasonable assumption that TVL staff are nothing more than salespeople, with no relevant authority. It is within the hands of the BBC to fix this - simply state the basis of the claimed authority.

However, for an impartial third party like MSE, this presents something of a quandary. How do you report on a law enforcement activity that has certain "questions" around it, but where the authority concerned claims that it is all above board, and "nothing to see, here...". Short of a major (possibly expensive, possibly inconclusive) investigative exercise, I'm not sure what they should do. Perhaps they need more caveats to match the weasel words that the BBC uses?

Traveller11

Can anyone confirm for me that there is NO Legal Requirement to advise TVL/BBC that you do not need a TV Licence?

I seem to have read this somewhere and having been through a really bad time with both the BBC & TVL which resulted in a complaint from me being upheld by the Communications Ombudsman, I do not wish to go down a similar route again so would prefer to say nothing while we still have no signal receiving equipment, and so prefer the radio.

Cornucopia

Traveller11 wrote: »

Can anyone confirm for me that there is NO Legal Requirement to advise TVL/BBC that you do not need a TV Licence?

That is correct. (The only proviso being that if there is an existing payment scheme in place, then they need to be notified to cancel it).

[Deleted User]

Cornucopia wrote: »

and to make the not unreasonable assumption that TVL staff are nothing more than salespeople

Which they are.

[Deleted User]

Traveller11 wrote: »

Can anyone confirm for me that there is NO Legal Requirement to advise TVL/BBC that you do not need a TV Licence?

Yes, I can confirm that.

From Hansard - 15 May 2006.

Mr. Holloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether those who do not have a television set are required to inform Television Licensing that they do not require a TV licence.

Mr. Woodward: A television licence is required to install or use a television receiver, as defined in regulations made by the Secretary of State, rather than a television set. Members of the public who do not require a television licence are under no obligation to inform TV Licensing of the fact.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/vo060515/text/60515w0003.htm

zaax

There is a petion at https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/231342 to abolish the licence fee

EachPenny

zaax wrote: »

There is a petion at https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/231342 to abolish the licence fee

It seems to be a particular cause of complaint for the residents of Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford
https://petitionmap.unboxedconsulting.com/?petition=231342

Cornucopia

There have been several TV Licensing petitions, leading to at least one Parliamentary debate. However, nothing has changed.