TV Licence article Discussion

Paul_Varjak

At least if they do visit, I now know how to handle the situation. But they should not visit now as I have withdrawn that right, even if the letter I received (addressed to the 'legal occupier') after withdrawing that right, states that they 'may visit'.

I guess many people people would see the TV licence inspector's van or hand held detector as the equivalent of a 'speed camera'. The difference being of course, that the inspector may call at your door, whereas the Police just send a letter.

But the Police will not even send a letter unless you exceed the speed limit but the licence inspector may knock on your door whether his 'detector' detects anything or not!

Can you imagine if all the speed cameras around the country merely took photos of every car that passed and did not measure their speed, followed by a policeman at your door to check if your car is capable of exceeding the speed limit?

Cornucopia

What I don't understand is this:

The BBC say that they are required to interfere with the basic right to privacy in one's home because LF evasion is an offence, and they are charged with detecting and prosecuting it.

But any enforcement agency could say that. Why are more serious offences not tackled in a similar way. Imagine the effect on drugs crime of a door-to-door exercise in certain areas, backed up by the threat of the "detector dog" in the event of non-compliance. "Just a simple check - take 2 minutes - to see if there is any drugs paraphernalia in your living room or kitchen...."

There are a whole list of things that are arguably more serious than LF evasion that could be tackled this way: Benefit & Council Tax fraud, Child abuse, Immigration Offences... anything, in fact, where the privacy of the home is standing in the way of effective policing.

Paul_Varjak

Going back to an earlier point I hinted at...

Has anyone considered the legality of Capita's self-employed TV licence inspectors pursuing private prosecutions against licence evaders?

Surely, the crime of licence evasion is a crime against the BBC? Yet it is the self-employed TV licence inspector who brings the private prosecution. As far as I know, private prosecutions can only be brought by the injured party.

Any thoughts anyone?

[Deleted User]

Paul_Varjak wrote: »

The difference being of course, that the inspector may call at your door, whereas the Police just send a letter.

The main difference is, we know speed cameras actually work.

What we know of "Detectors", suggests they don't work.

MiserlyMartin

Cornucopia wrote: »

There are some classic TVL-related videos. This is my favourite (long but both interesting and entertaining)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRQTkOk__48

I thought at the start the copper was going to try and force his way past. He certainly mellowed towards the end. You have to laugh at the TV Licence goon who started to read the guy his rights. Who did he think he was?? He doesn't have the legal or any authority to do that, he is just a jumped up BBC TV salesman that's all!

Cornucopia

Anyone can read the rights, but it takes a certain imagination not to hear them.

Cornucopia

Paul_Varjak wrote: »

Has anyone considered the legality of Capita's self-employed TV licence inspectors pursuing private prosecutions against licence evaders?

I don't think they are private prosecutions, as such. IIUC, the complaint is brought by Capita plc trading as TV Licensing - but the BBC is given the authority to bring prosecutions without the involvement of the CPS.

It's an interesting point, but beyond my understanding of court processes.

Paul_Varjak

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

The main difference is, we know speed cameras actually work.

What we know of "Detectors", suggests they don't work.

That is why, in my analogy, I referred to speed cameras that only took pictures but could not measure speed.

Paul_Varjak

MiserlyMartin wrote: »

I thought at the start the copper was going to try and force his way past.

I don't think TV Licensing ever force entry, even if they have a warrant.

MiserlyMartin wrote: »

You have to laugh at the TV Licence goon who started to read the guy his rights. Who did he think he was?? He doesn't have the legal or any authority to do that, he is just a jumped up BBC TV salesman that's all!

I think anyone, including you, have a right to read a caution under PACE guidelines. Why not read the TV Licence Inspector his rights too? Alternatively, just say that you don't unxderstand the caution - that may throw them a little if they don't know the alternative wording.

Paul_Varjak

Cornucopia wrote: »

I don't think they are private prosecutions, as such. IIUC, the complaint is brought by Capita plc trading as TV Licensing - but the BBC is given the authority to bring prosecutions without the involvement of the CPS.

It's an interesting point, but beyond my understanding of court processes.

I am really not sure either but I thought about it after a case last year at my local County Court, which was thrown out because the claimant had no authority to bring such a case...

Mr I parked his car in Wickes car park in S!!!!horpe but then left the premises. When he returned, he had an £80 ticket which he did not pay.

The parking company was not representing Wickes at Court but were claimants in their own name.

The case got thrown out because the parking company had no authority from Wickes to sue in Court. Any contract by Mr. I was with Wickes and not the parking company. The parking company was not a party to that contract.