TV Licence article Discussion

Cornucopia

Ego_Shredder said:

Cornucopia said:

There's also a real question as to whether "beyond reasonable doubt" actually means very much in TVL cases that are generally evidenced by confession.   Even when a defendant flat-out denies that they confessed willingly, Courts are very, very reluctant to dismiss TVL's evidence, though there have been some cases with compromise verdicts. 

So what if the householder really did not confess willingly, and then strenously denies it later?  Can TVL lie and say you confessed, even when you did not?  Do TVL have to provide evidence of a confession, e.g. audio/video recording or a signature?

The sole evidence in the vast majority of TVL cases is their paper form, the TVL178.   This is an uncomfortable hybrid of record of interview, pre-populated questions (where it remains ambiguous as to whether they are the verbatim responses of the householder or a creation of the TVL staff member, and the staff member's own notes).  

At the end of the interview, this is presented to the householder for their signature.

It becomes very difficult to disentangle this later on and I think Magistrates are being a little naive not to recognise the many opportunities for the form and the interview process it is based on to depart from the appropriate legal standard.

Whilst the incidents of TVL staff outright lying seem to have reduced, there remains an issue in that the form itself is a misrepresentation, it is often completed in far from ideal circumstances and its multiple uses no doubt confuse the situation from start to finish.   As a minimum, the form needs redesigning to make its multiple uses much clearer, but ultimately they should be using PACE-compliant audio recording which is the standard that other law enforcement organisations use.  

Ego_Shredder

Cornucopia said:

Ego_Shredder said:

Cornucopia said:

There's also a real question as to whether "beyond reasonable doubt" actually means very much in TVL cases that are generally evidenced by confession.   Even when a defendant flat-out denies that they confessed willingly, Courts are very, very reluctant to dismiss TVL's evidence, though there have been some cases with compromise verdicts. 

So what if the householder really did not confess willingly, and then strenously denies it later?  Can TVL lie and say you confessed, even when you did not?  Do TVL have to provide evidence of a confession, e.g. audio/video recording or a signature?

The sole evidence in the vast majority of TVL cases is their paper form, the TVL178.   This is an uncomfortable hybrid of record of interview, pre-populated questions (where it remains ambiguous as to whether they are the verbatim responses of the householder or a creation of the TVL staff member, and the staff member's own notes).  

At the end of the interview, this is presented to the householder for their signature.

Interesting and so once again, so long as I continue to not answer the door or speak to them, and of course continue to not use any of their services I will be ok?  Not sure where you got the image of that form from, but it was a confession but no signature provided at the end.  Hopefully TVL do not engage in forging a signature like our delivery couriers and posties often do.

Cornucopia

Ego_Shredder said:

Cornucopia said:

Ego_Shredder said:

Cornucopia said:

There's also a real question as to whether "beyond reasonable doubt" actually means very much in TVL cases that are generally evidenced by confession.   Even when a defendant flat-out denies that they confessed willingly, Courts are very, very reluctant to dismiss TVL's evidence, though there have been some cases with compromise verdicts. 

So what if the householder really did not confess willingly, and then strenously denies it later?  Can TVL lie and say you confessed, even when you did not?  Do TVL have to provide evidence of a confession, e.g. audio/video recording or a signature?

The sole evidence in the vast majority of TVL cases is their paper form, the TVL178.   This is an uncomfortable hybrid of record of interview, pre-populated questions (where it remains ambiguous as to whether they are the verbatim responses of the householder or a creation of the TVL staff member, and the staff member's own notes).  

At the end of the interview, this is presented to the householder for their signature.

Interesting and so once again, so long as I continue to not answer the door or speak to them, and of course continue to not use any of their services I will be ok?  Not sure where you got the image of that form from, but it was a confession but no signature provided at the end.  Hopefully TVL do not engage in forging a signature like our delivery couriers and posties often do.

Yes, ignoring them is the easiest, best option (for people who do not need a Licence).   Personally, I prefer something a bit more definitive than waiting for the knock, and have used legal means to reject their advances.

I thought that that form was quite interesting because the householder obviously curtailed the interview (and that is their right).     TVL turned the form into a Section 9 Witness Statement, but the case was ultimately withdrawn.   This is the kind of thing that I mean when expressing concerns about the existing investigation process being tacked on to a new prosecution process.

The full story around that form comes from here:  https://tv-licensing.blogspot.com/2015/08/tv-licensing-withdraws-another-dubious.html

kjackson180

I have just sent my claim in to revoke and request a refund on my licence.

The BBC Licencing site says I cannot watch ' commercial ' TV ie All4. ITV Hub, My5, youtube ' live ' without a licence.

Other sites assure me I can.

Confused, do the BBC own and operate every channel ?

Watchkeeper

No.  A TV licence is effectively the State's permission for you to watch/record TV programmes at the time they are transmitted - so-called "live programmes" (which you mentioned) - no matter the device you use. If you watch/record "The Chase" on ITV Hub at the same time as other people are watching it on TV then you need a licence. If you watch/record the same episode a few hours later then you don't. As long as you're watching on-demand and/or catch-up programmes then you don't need a licence.

Cornucopia

I think as the technology gets ever more diverse, we're probably going to need a platform-by-platform guide to whether a TV Licence is required or not.   It's something that TVL really ought to be doing for their benefit and ours, but I think we'll have a long wait...

Something like this:

Platform:   Youtube
Content Type:    Variety of video-on-demand and live streaming from broadcasters, non-broadcast companies and the public
Licence required for:   Live streaming from broadcasters' linear TV channels.

Platform:  Now TV
Content Type:  Commercial video-on-demand and live streaming from Sky
Licence required for:  All live streaming from TV channels

Platform:  BBC iPlayer / BBC Sounds
Content Type:  BBC and S4C video-on-demand, radio and podcasts
Licence required for:  All BBC video content (by statute)

Cornucopia

Mickey666 said:

Watchkeeper said:

A TV licence is effectively the State's permission for you to watch/record TV programmes at the time they are transmitted - so-called "live programmes" (which you mentioned) - no matter the device you use. If you watch/record "The Chase" on ITV Hub at the same time as other people are watching it on TV then you need a licence. If you watch/record the same episode a few hours later then you don't. As long as you're watching on-demand and/or catch-up programmes then you don't need a licence.

That's also my understanding.  But I've often wondered about the definition of 'catch-up'.  For example, a live programme starts at, say, 3pm and runs to 5pm.  To watch it 'live' requires a TV licence, fine.  To watch it later in the evening, say at 9pm, does not need a TV licence, fine.  But suppose I start watching the programme, from the start, at 4:30pm?  I am not watching 'live' in the sense of seeing what a truly live viewer would see, I am 'catching up' on something transmitted 90 minutes ago.  Would this scenario need a TV licence to be legal?  (PS: academic question as I have a TV licence, but all the same . . . )

TVL state that the public should not watch catch-up versions of programs within 2 hours of the start time of their broadcast slot (without a TV Licence).

Which is all very well, but is anyone really going to check when watching, say, a C4 US comedy program whether the same episode is showing on C4, E4, More 4 or 4Music?

The reality is that the legal definition does not depend on scheduling - it depends on the technology being used.   If the program is being viewed on-demand, then it is not "live" irrespective of whether it is being viewed at more or less the same time as (possibly one of many) broadcast slots. 

Watchkeeper

Mickey666 said:

But suppose I start watching the programme, from the start, at 4:30pm?  I am not watching 'live' in the sense of seeing what a truly live viewer would see, I am 'catching up' on something transmitted 90 minutes ago.  Would this scenario need a TV licence to be legal?

Good question, and one to which I do not know the answer. Common sense dictates it's not watching live TV so you're in the clear with no licence. Likely the BBC will disagree, and it's the BBC with a bottomless pit of money to spend on lawyers. Ultimately it's a question either for the Government or the courts, but I don't fancy the Common Man's chances.

cw18

Mickey666 said:

That's also my understanding.  But I've often wondered about the definition of 'catch-up'.  For example, a live programme starts at, say, 3pm and runs to 5pm.  To watch it 'live' requires a TV licence, fine.  To watch it later in the evening, say at 9pm, does not need a TV licence, fine.  But suppose I start watching the programme, from the start, at 4:30pm?  I am not watching 'live' in the sense of seeing what a truly live viewer would see, I am 'catching up' on something transmitted 90 minutes ago.  Would this scenario need a TV licence to be legal?  (PS: academic question as I have a TV licence, but all the same . . . )

The one you need to watch out for is starting it an hour later.   If the channel has a +1 version, they you are still watching as it's being shown live - and that seems to be where the main problem lies, and (I assume) is likely to be why that say we need to wait 2 hours before we class it as catch-up.

Ego_Shredder

The best thing to do is stop watching all TV, as it is pure propaganda and sewage for the mind.  If you can I would also go that extra step, and stop watching movies especially Hollywood produced movies.  Once you do all this, you find your mind recalibrating itself and seeing things for what they really are.  There is no turning back after this "red pill" moment.