TV licence people wanting to open a 'full investigation'.

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

In most instances, they wouldn't even know it was being done.

Imagine scenario - TV Licence man with body cam which records everything he sees - approaches front door. Through large picture window sees TV with Eastenders on. Bodycam catches this and notes exact time. Man knocks on door, says I'm from TV licencing and asks if they're watching live TV. Is told no, says thank you, and goes away. Back at office, checks video footage, notes live TV was being watched, and issues summons.

I'm not saying it is being done, I'm saying it could be done.

What about the following scenario.

You approach someone's house and see them watching TV.
The occupier is watching a DVD of Game of Thrones and you notice this
You check the time when you get back to the office and notice Game of Thrones was being broadcast at the same time, but it's a different episode from the one the occupier is watching on TV.

Still justified in a summons and invading people's privacy by filming them unaware through their house windows?

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

I would hope no organisation would make such an elementary mistake as you foresee.

...but you are talking about Crapita:rotfl:

This is all very well as a "fantasy TV Licensing league" kind of discussion.

However, the truth is that the vast majority of TVL defendants are prosecuted through their own confessions, extracted by TVL during a doorstep psycho-drama intended to diminish and suppress their rights.

The prosecuted group is therefore self-selecting as those people who didn't know their rights and weren't able to stand up to TVL.

People's rights can be threatened even if there are no drones involved.

ETRSM: (edited to rant some more...)

In the run-up to Charter review and during the Perry Review of Licence Fee Enforcement, there are some pretty basic questions to be asked about TV Licensing. These include:-

- Do we want public authorities to believe (or act as though they believe) that they can simply turn up at our doors and begin questioning us as to our lawful behaviour without any prior rational suspicion of an offence?

- Do we want public authorities to misuse the privilege of mass communications to threaten, coerce, harass and deceive people?

- Do we want public authorities to deceive people about their rights, or should there be a basic principle that rights must be supported and upheld by public authorities, and that they must obey the letter and the spirit of Human Rights legislation, and of PACE.

- Do we want public authorities to persistently turn a blind eye to the misdeeds of their own workforce?

- Do we want public authorities to engineer their processes to hide abuses and obfuscate the evidence?

- Do we want public authorities to use their own discriminatory test of self-interest in terms of whether to prosecute criminal cases.

- Do we want the Courts to participate in an overall process that is unfair and unjust, and in which the existing weaknesses of our legal system (including lack of availability of legal aid) are exposed and brought to bear upon people who are already economically and socially disadvantaged?

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

A quick photograph or video from a camcord device or an iPhone taken at a noted time of a certain part of a certain soap would be conclusive proof that live TV was being watched.

It would also be a gross invasion of privacy, WAY disproportionate to the supposed "crime", and (very likely) inadmissible in court anyway as it would almost certainly come under illegal search since there wouldn't be a warrant in place at that point.

In fact, I'd be making complaint that he was trying to spy on my teenage daughter who was in the room, the filthy little pervert!

Joe_Horner wrote: »

4. Write to them as in (2) above, but instead of a list of charges inform them that their continued letters are causing you distress and, having told them previously that you don't require a licence, you consider their continued threats as harassment and will take legal action if it continues.

They'll (obviously) be liable for your legal costs in this, which will be MUCH higher than any charges you could levy yourself and may set an unfortunate precedent for them

The advantage of the small claims process (for a small amount of reasonable costs in the handling of TVL activity) is that it only costs a few pounds (£17 IIRC) to instigate the action, even if you lose.

Mounting a full civil claim for major compensation against BBC/TVL would be a significantly more costly approach, and the other side will undoubtedly throw the kind of resources at it that a multi-billion pound organisation would. The potential costs (win or lose) are huge, and there is no guarantee that the case would be won, after you discount all the arguments over exemptions and loopholes in the Law, the general remit of TVL in the Communications Act and Royal Charter, and the "rogue employee" defence.