TV Licence article Discussion

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Do you agree, though, that using a VPN to hide your browser history isn't a loophole or a Lacuna?

TBH, from my point of view, it's irrelevant. If you are legally Licence-free, it won't stop TV Licensing from harassing you, and if you are an evader, it won't stop them from prosecuting you. It's not illegal to do, though, and there are no "conspiracy" or "aiding and abetting" offences related to Licence Fee evasion, despite some of the rants you may see on the Internet suggesting that there are.

As I've said fairly often on these threads, most TVL prosecutions are based upon confession evidence - documented through fair or foul means depending on the householder's legal knowledge, their physical heft and the demeanour and desperation of the TVL person.

The policy of the BBC is that the TVL interview-under-caution-on-the-doorstep is fundamentally an adversarial encounter. (I've not seen it stated anywhere conclusively in PACE that this is not the case, though all the case law and the minutiae of the codes suggests that it is not). The upshot of which is that TVL staff are given a lot of (too much) discretion in being able to do whatever is necessary to document a confession. That certainly includes bullying and deceit, for which there is ample evidence.

At the same time, the law can protect those who know their rights. For example: I seem to have successfully triggered a permanent ban of TVL from my premises by the BBC, even though they say elsewhere (and often) that such a thing is not even possible. I've done that by little more than being an assertive nuisance, whilst carrying on my life free of the Licence, watching video-on-demand and catch-up. At present, the only practical anti-TVL measures that I have taken are the detuning of my TV, lack of aerial connection, and the deletion of the iPlayer app. I used to have an IP block on BBC addresses, but have deleted that now that iPlayer requires a BBC ID.

So, we have the unfortunate situation where an innocent householder can be prosecuted by not standing up for themselves (and sometimes even if they do), whilst an Evader can evade with impunity by applying their legal rights (the application, if not the objective, being totally acceptable).

This is what happens when a organisation operates for its own interests rather than the public interest.

cw18 wrote: »

My understanding is that is IS an offence, however.....

Incredibly rare
A Royal Mail spokesman admits it's unlikely prosecutions could be brought, simply because of the difficulty of getting evidence. Furthermore, he's not aware of anyone having been prosecuted for throwing misdelivered mail away.
The reported cases of prosecutions for tampering with the mail are incredibly rare, and involve rogue postmen.

A couple of years back I rented for a few months and was opening the mail one day when I opened mail in error addressed to a previous tenant. I should imagine this happens quite often especially given the increase in renters. Nor would I be surprised if many just ditched anything opened in error. It's a bit embarrassing if you have inadvertently seen private information. I should imagine that this sort of thing would be very difficult to police and prosecute.
Normally I would sellotape back up and return to sender with a note on the envelope. However it was a debt collection agency and I realised I had sent several of these back unopened marked 'addressee not known'.
Was glad I had opened it. I rung the agency and that was the last of it. Might have had bailiffs at the door otherwise
Also in the same property I received the summary of a case meeting relating to the mental health of a neighbour - the envelope had been wrongly addressed. Rather than hand it to him and embarrass us both, I patched it up and returned it to the sender with a note of the correct address so that they could re-send.

Sorry Bob, but I've never even had a colour TV, so have no idea how much I've saved, although obviously that wasn't the motivation!

So obviously I'd have no problems with a visit. As they don't know my name I'd just react as I would to any other such visitor at my door and tell them we're not interested and close the door.

I'd be fascinated to know what wording or script they use in such circumstances, as they have nothing to go by. "Can I see your TV licence" and similar are very stupid ones to which we both know the answer. "We have reason to believe you are watching TV without a licence" would be a lie.

Having mail addressed to 'The Occupier' makes sorting of junk mail a lot easier..

Incidentally, the previous occupant to me left many debts with resulting mail following on for 3 years, all of which I RTS. I only had to open one mail which didn't have a return address on it; it was a court summons for non payment of a rail fare, and he'd given his old address. A quick call and the matter was sorted as far as I was concerned.