Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Should this to be take into court with him or should he send something in earlier?
    • This is the other sign  parking sign 1a.pdf
    • 4 means that they need to name and then tell the people who will be affected that there has been an application made, what the application relates to (specificially "whether it relates to the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction in relation to P’s property and affairs, or P’s personal welfare, or to both) and what this application contains (i.e what order they want made as a result of it) 5 just means that teh court think it is important that the relevant people are notified 7 means that the court need more information to make the application, hence they have then made the order of paragraph 1 which requires the applicant to do more - this means the court can't make a decision with the current information, and need more, hence paragraph one of the order is for the applicant to do more. paragraph 3 of the order gives you the ability to have it set aside, although if it was made in january you are very late. Were you notiifed of the application or not?    
    • These are the photos of the signs. At the entrance there is a 7h free sign. On some bays there is a permit sign.  Also their official website is misleading as it implies all parking is free.  I can't be certain of the exact parking bay I was in that day, and there was no PCN ticket on my car and no other evidence was provided.  parking sign 2.pdf
    • Hi, In my last post I mentioned I had received an email from SS who were asking me to hand over the keys to my mother’s flat so they could pass them to the Law firm who have been appointed court of protection to access, secure and insure my mother’s property.  Feeling this, all quickly getting out of my hands I emailed ss requesting proof of this. I HAVEN’T HEARD BACK FROM SS.  Yesterday, I received an email (with attached court of protection order) from the Law Firm confirming this was correct (please see below a copy of this).  After reading the court of protection order I do have some concerns about it:   (a)   I only found out yesterday, the Law firm had been appointed by the court back in January.  Up until now, I have not received any notification regarding this.  (b)   Section 2   - States I am estranged from my mother.  This is NOT CORRECT    The only reason I stepped back from my mother was to protect myself from the guy (groomer) who had befriended her & was very aggressive towards me & because of my mother’s dementia she had become aggressive also.  I constantly tried to warned SS about this guy's manipulative behaviour towards my mother and his increasing aggressiveness towards me (as mentioned in previous posts).  Each time I was ignored.  Instead, SS encouraged his involvement with my mother – including him in her care plans and mental health assessments.   I was literally pushed out because I feared him and my mother’s increasing aggression towards me. Up until I stepped back, I had always looked after my mother and since her admission to the care home, I visit regularly.   .(c)    Sections -  4, 5 and 7  I am struggling to understand these as I don’t have a legal background.  I was wondering if there is anyone who might be able to explain what they mean.  It’s been a horrendous situation where I had to walk away from my mother at her most vulnerable because of; ss (not helping), scammer and groomer. I have no legal background, nor experience in highly manipulative people or an understanding of how the SS system operates, finding myself isolated, scared and powerless to the point I haven’t collected my personal belongings and items for my mother’s room in the care home.  Sadly, the court has only had heard one version of this story SS’s, and based their decision on that. My mother’s situation and the experience I have gone through could happen to anyone who has a vulnerable parent.    If anyone any thoughts on this much appreciated.  Thank you. ______________________________________________________  (Below is the Court of Protection Order)  COURT OF PROTECTION                                                                                                                                                                                   No xxx  MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005 In the matter of Name xxx ORDER Made by  Depty District Judge At xxx Made on xxx Issued on 18 January 2024  WHEREAS  1.     xxx Solicitors, Address xxx  ("Applicant”) has applied for an order under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.  2.     The Court notes (my mother) is said to be estranged from all her three children and only one, (me) has been notified.  3.     (Me) was previously appointed as Atorney for Property and Affairs for (my mother).  The Exhibity NAJ at (date) refers to (me) and all replacement Attorneys are now officially standing down.  4.     Pursuant to Rule 9.10 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 and Practice Direction 9B the Applicant 2must seek to identify at least three persons who are likely to have an interest in being notified that an application has been issues.”  The children of (my mother), and any other appointed attorneys are likely to have an interest in the application, because of the nature of relationship to (my mother).  5.     The Court considers that the notification requirements are an important safeguard for the person in respect of whom an order is sought.  6.     The Court notes that it is said that the local authority no longer has access to (my mother’s) Property.  7.     Further information is required for the Court to determine the application.  IT IS ORDERED THAT  Within 28 days of the issue date this order, the Applicant shall file a form COP24 witness statement confirming that the other children of (my mother) and any replacement attorneys have been notified of the application and shall confirm their name, address, and date upon which those persons were notified.  If the Applicant wishes the Court to dispense with any further notification, they should file a COP9 and COP24 explaining, what steps (if any) have been taken to attempt notification and why notification should be dispensed with.   Pending the determination of the application to appoint a deputy for (my mother), the Applicant is authorised to take such steps as are proportionate and necessary to access, secure and insure the house and property of (my mother).   This order was made without a hearing and without notice.  Any person affected by this order may apply within 21 days of the date on which the order was served to have the order set aside or varied pursuant to Rule 13.4 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 (“the Rules”).  Such application must be made on Form COP9 and in accordance with Part 10 Rules.              
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
        • Thanks
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

BBC using new detectors hokum


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2776 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I am not sure how scanning peoples wifi would prove anything anyway. Unless they can match a PC or mobile device to someone who should be paying a licence?

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not see how they can identify the difference between someone watching iPlayer and 4OD or Youtube.

 

Stigman

NEVER telephone a DCA

If a DCA rings you, refuse to go through the security questions & hang up!

 

If I have helped you, click on the star & say thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

A hard wired network would render any WiFi sniffing tools completely useless. That said, I do not believe that TVL/Capita have been given the authority to go snooping on private networks to identify "streamed live broadcasts" or any iPlayer content. I doubt very much that they have the equipment, resources, and suitably trained staff to engage in such activities anyway.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

No... you can't eat my brain just yet. I need it a little while longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If these packets, even if they are encrypted as they should be with WPA2 or whatever, match the size and pattern of iPlayer video packets, then presumably you'll start getting angry letters demanding £145.50, doorsteppings and potentially prosecution and fines.

 

Love to know who actually managed to blag the BBC with that load of crap.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be able to go to Court, they must have to then know who the end user is.

 

So even if they can identify the encrypted packets between the wi-fi box and the computer/tablet/phone etc. They cannot identify to who the packets of information is going to.

 

This has the hallmarks of another classic internet [problem] as we have previously seen with ACS and Golden Eye, but this time the BBC/Capita will be sending the bill payer of the network connection a Court summons.

 

Stigman

NEVER telephone a DCA

If a DCA rings you, refuse to go through the security questions & hang up!

 

If I have helped you, click on the star & say thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I first saw this article I had to check my calendar! Had I somehow overslept and woken up on April 1!

 

 

The biggest load of Bull Faeces ever produced!

 

 

Are Capita/BBC TV Licensing going to start to do what Golden Eye already tried and failed, even if they could somehow match wifi packets to iPlayer video packets how would that prove someone was watching iPlayer?

 

 

It would be interesting to see the first persecution brought on this evidence, and of course to bring about a successful prosecution the complete details of any technique would have to be provided to the defence, which would mean that the technique would be rendered immediately useless!

Link to post
Share on other sites

So the ONLY evidence they are going to rely on is that the packet sizes are the same size as iplayer packets?

 

Who the hell gave them advice on this? it will NEVER stand up in court at all. Even a first year uni student could tear it apart

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

So the ONLY evidence they are going to rely on is that the packet sizes are the same size as iplayer packets?

 

Who the hell gave them advice on this? it will NEVER stand up in court at all. Even a first year uni student could tear it apart

 

The advice may have been "let's put out a warning that sounds all technical" (a bit like the old "TV detector vans", with aerials that rotated and everything!), "so that it scares Joe Q. Public. We know it won't work / stand up in court, but we don't need it to work, only scare people!"

 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/06/bbc_detector_van_wi_fi_iplayer/

Link to post
Share on other sites

A hard wired network would render any WiFi sniffing tools completely useless. That said, I do not believe that TVL/Capita have been given the authority to go snooping on private networks to identify "streamed live broadcasts" or any iPlayer content. I doubt very much that they have the equipment, resources, and suitably trained staff to engage in such activities anyway.

 

Or more importantly to be able to deal with the resulting legal issues, it is complete hokum in much the same way as Tv detector vans.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolute rubbish, but I wonder the source of this story ?, leaked by the BBC to make people worry ?

 

So let's look at it, a van drives down the road and detects a signal. Firstly how does it relate a wifi signal to a name and address ?, it can't !, secondly nearly all wifi is encrypted, now whilst it maybe possible to hack this, this would be s very drastic step probably requiring some sort of court order due to security concerns, for example many people use online banking, etc, also lets go back to the first point, even if the wifi is hacked, how is it linked to an individual or address.

 

Even if access is made to the wifi it would take some very serious technical skills to identify what websites are being accessed, like alleged tv detectors vans the cost would outweigh the benefits of catching an individual, also would the BBC be willing to disclose this information in court ?

 

In reality nothing will change it will still need Capita goons knocking at your door but they will ask difference questions, the ability to actual catch someone will be much harder, I dont believe there have been any convictions for watching live iPlayer programs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The excellent Register article debunks most of this story

 

I found it here http://m.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/06/bbc_detector_van_wi_fi_iplayer/

 

"Updated to add

 

As our analysis suggested, the Telegraph's article about the BBC sniffing Wi-Fi is complete bollocks"

 

BBC admit here it's complete crap https://mobile.twitter.com/bbcpress/status/762218984938889216/photo/1

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolute rubbish, but I wonder the source of this story ?, leaked by the BBC to make people worry ?

 

It springs from the annual report from the National Audit Office: https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/British-Broadcasting-Corporation-Television-Licence-fee-Trust-Statement-for-the-Year-Ending-31-March-2016.pdf

 

The pertinent paragraphs are 1.31 on page 37 and 1.37 the following page. In both paragraphs, it is claimed that the BBC has the technology to detect whether a TV or non-TV device is being used to view live TV.

 

In paragraph 1.19 (page 34), it states that The BBC views the number of people watching TV on a non-TV device as too small to warrant a specific strategy to tackle evasion using the new technology.

 

I suspect extra spin has been added by the BBC press department and the "reporters" have embellished the story further. Must be a quiet day in the newsrooms.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

No... you can't eat my brain just yet. I need it a little while longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Love to know who actually managed to blag the BBC with that load of crap.

 

2nd this!!

 

And @ what extortionate cost £xxxxxxx that we will pay for.....

 

Absolutely ludicrous indeed!!

I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every single minute of it!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

As the register suggests, whilst it may technically be possible to snoop onto wifi, if would a) be amazingly time consuming and expensive b) probably be illegal c) infringe all sort of privacy concerns d) wouldn't work for hard wired systems e) unlikely to satisfy a court and f) the BBC said they won't.

 

What is most interesting is that the BBC claim that they can detect non tv devices. Is this a lie ?, whilst it may technically be possible the BBC won't ever use it due to legal implications (they won't tell us how they do it) or due to technical/cost implications.

 

The only real posdible way would be some sort of real time isp log lcross referenced with details from Isp providers and a database of every uk address. As a court order is needed to obtain this info from ISPs this simply wouldn't work and the sheer complexity and cost would bankrupt the BBC 😄

Link to post
Share on other sites

As the register suggests, whilst it may technically be possible to snoop onto wifi, if would a) be amazingly time consuming and expensive b) probably be illegal c) infringe all sort of privacy concerns d) wouldn't work for hard wired systems e) unlikely to satisfy a court and f) the BBC said they won't.

 

What is most interesting is that the BBC claim that they can detect non tv devices. Is this a lie ?, whilst it may technically be possible the BBC won't ever use it due to legal implications (they won't tell us how they do it) or due to technical/cost implications.

 

The only real posdible way would be some sort of real time isp log lcross referenced with details from Isp providers and a database of every uk address. As a court order is needed to obtain this info from ISPs this simply wouldn't work and the sheer complexity and cost would bankrupt the BBC 😄

 

With the iplayer APP, you don't even have to register it. Therefore there is no log on. There is no warning about needing a licence to view live channels.

 

Given that you can use any free open wifi spot, i don't see how they can monitor who is accessing BBC programmes and to match it against the licence database.

 

Government have put off making a decision to change the licence system for 10 years because they think it is too difficult. Or they think in 10 years things will have changed with the BBC able to generate revenues without needing licence money.

 

I think the government could have implemented a change, where say £5 or £10 was added to the purchase cost of every mobile phone, TV, laptop etc that could access TV content. This revenue would have gone a long way towards making up for lost licence money. They could have kept a reduced licence for say 3 years and told the BBC that they needed to start selling advertising for peak viewing hours. The BBC will have to reduce in size anyway, as the way people access what they view continues to change.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Although they could make logging on a requirement quite easily, but requiring a licence number would be more problematic, and would lead to people letting others use their number, and I suspect is something that would never be implemented as it would get too complicated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Since this requirement went live on 1 September, I have accessed iPlayer to find out how they are checking if people have a TV license!

 

 

What a surprise there is now a question when you connect to iPlayer that asks if you have a TV license, and has a simple yes/no answer. If you enter Yes then you get connected and can watch, if you answer No presumably it disconnects you. So the question to ask now is, if you don't have a TV license and you answer the question Yes what are they going to do?

 

 

PS it only seems to ask the question the first time you connect!

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a surprise there is now a question when you connect to iPlayer that asks if you have a TV license, and has a simple yes/no answer. [...] if you answer No presumably it disconnects you.

 

PS it only seems to ask the question the first time you connect!

 

Should you answer No, you get redirected to the TV Licensing site and prompted to purchase a licence.

 

If you clear out all your cookies, you will get asked the question again.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

No... you can't eat my brain just yet. I need it a little while longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Never thought about the cookies as mine get cleared out every week automatically, so I expect to see the question again shortly, I think I will keep answering yes every time it pops up and asks me

 

 

Its still not going to get people to buy a TV license to use iPlayer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...