Unlawful TV Licence Enforcement

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

Is there not a tradesman's button on the plate (entrance button plate)?

There are so many potential variables here, it is difficult to speculate about Essex Boy's exact situation without further info.

In our work we do a lot of work in blocks of flats in the risers etc, it is handy to have tradesman's buttons so we don't actually have to disturb anyone in the flats. And they might have more people to visit there too.

I think you'll find that TV Licensing are actively trying to disturb the people they are targeting - that is part of their charm(lessness).

The essential problem is this: they (and we) may use the euphemism "visit", but what we are actually talking about are two activities that both have legal limitations imposed upon them: (1) entering a person's home and seeking evidence of an offence by examining all or part of the interior and certain items that may be located there, and (2) interviewing someone under caution.

There are also enough accounts of TVL making false allegations and enough doubt over TVL's legal compliance within these two activities to make a reasonable person seriously consider non-compliance as their best option, bolstered by the fact that compliance is entirely optional.

Part of my issue is that I don't entirely understand how the law was supposed to work in practice - the info that the BBC is holding may help explain that. What seems to have happened is that law-makers and the BBC have simply adopted the processes previously used by the GPO prior to 1990, without taking account of the changes in technology usage and human rights that have occurred in the meantime.

robin58 wrote: »

Bit rich. We only have your definition that your not in cloud cuckoo land.

I provided three official references in post #5 that confirm what I am saying. (We're not clear what was meant by "cloud cuckoo land", as the poster concerned has yet to say).

I do find it strange how people seem to want to trash the messenger on this particular subject, rather than engage with the facts.

I thought that this was a discussion board where we discuss things that we feel are not right.

I am. The subject of the thread is the things that aren't right with the BBC's enforcement of the TV Licence.

But I see you have just lost your argument by being abusive.

I wasn't abusive. Just teeing-up for the inevitable denial that black is black and white is white. (And the Licence is cheaper).

You are not fit to be a board monitor in my opinion then.

Please resign your post as you are not unbiased.

There is no requirement for Board Guides to be "unbiased" whatever you mean by that in this context. The issue being that I am suggesting that the BBC's approach is at odds with the prevailing law. That is simply a statement of alleged fact based on reading what the BBC says and comparing it with legislation and supporting documents. I don't see how that constitutes bias, but by all means elaborate.

I think part of the problem is that we've all been brought up to believe that the sun shines out of the BBC's transmitters. To many people it is therefore inconceivable that there could be a serious legal problem at the heart of its funding process. Nevertheless, the language used by the official bodies would seem to be incontrovertible. Not only that, but the BBC's response to the allegations thus far is not so much to deny it, but to withhold the very information that the law says it should publish. To that extent, it is already guilty.

robin58 wrote: »

To be honest all this thread is about your constant fight against being accused of not having a licence, which you have evidently have complained about more than once on MSE.

I think you'll find that many/most people who have experienced the BBC's enforcement processes are not happy about it.

I don't think the sun shines out of the BBC's behind but I do like the fact I don't have to sit through up to 10 minutes of ads I'm not interested in.

There are more choices that BBC or ads.

The human rights angle is someone clutching as straws but I suppose you have to have a go at it now as I believe we may be dropping this Act soon.

The Human Rights Act will not disappear when Brexit happens.

And so I'm up front I will NOT be backing your campaign. Good luck in stoping the other people by law who have the right to enter your home. 266 I believe at the last count.

I'm not interested in the other 266(?). Just the one that doesn't have a legal authority to enter, but likes to pretend it does.

unforeseen wrote: »

You mean the RSPCA?

Is the RSPCA the subject of this thread? No, I mean TV Licensing (obviously).

TBH, I'm slightly surprised at the reaction to the allegation I have made. This allegation is not made lightly or frivolously, and I make it in good faith based on information gathered from reputable official sources as stated in post #5. Not only that, but it's basic common sense that we do not allow public authorities to operate by hidden laws in the UK. Perhaps TVL laws are non-existent, rather than hidden? Well, that would make interference with privacy unlawful.

MSE has a noble history in both reporting the actions of large organisations that fall short of acceptable practice, and where possible giving the space for FMs to discuss and in some cases organise against them. This TV Licensing issue has much in common with the issues regarding Private Parking Companies or debt-chasing bailiffs.

Rather than heckle, can I suggest that you read the references I have provided and then explain how YOU think the BBC's TVL operation can be squared with the wording, for example, from the EU document:-

A measure which constitutes an interference with an Article 8 right will only be compatible with that provision where it is in accordance with law. If the measure complained of does not fulfil this legality requirement it will violate Article 8 and the case will end there. Certain areas of law appear to be particularly vulnerable in this regard, including secret surveillance law...

In order to be "in accordance with law" the interference complained of must have a legal basis and the law in question must be sufficiently precise and contain a measure of protection against arbitrariness by public authorities.

Measures will be problematic in this regard where they are not specifically authorised by statute and are regulated instead by administrative practice, or other non binding guidelines. An administrative practice, however well adhered to, thus does not provide the guarantee required by "law".

I should say that the BBC accepts the basic premise that entering people's homes engages Article 8.