You should be given the chance to contest jurisdiction before the hearing takes place, in which case there are many arguments you can put forward as to why you would like the case transferred to your local court. Jurisdiction, if properly contested, is usually awarded in favour of the defendant, at least in civil cases.

I thought Atari sacked Davenport Lyons a few months ago, according to an article published on The Register...?

That's why TVL visits should always be filmed - such actions by TVL employees filmed and given as evidence will surely render any claims by them as invalid or inadmissible.

In case of a claim of using a TV set only for watching DVDs or taped programs, looking through the window is rather useless, or even dangerous to the occupant, as the TVL man will see a TV picture that he has no way of knowing whether it's live or not (unless he has a portable TV on him and zaps through all available channels to try and match the one that's showing on the occupant's TV!). Would such a 'proof' be accepted by a judge for the issue of a warrant of entry? Also, electronic means seem to be having tough times nowadays... With a DVD playing, the TV's own local oscillator wouldn't be doing anything as the TV is stuck in AV input - but the CRT is working and an image is being shown. Supposedly an electronic detector would show zero in this case? Even in the case of a license dodger with a freeview box, the TV would still be in AV input mode and so produce no tell tale signature (in my understanding).

Thanks Conniff. A little more investigation turned up the definition of a television receiver as a device that is installed for the purpose of receiving live broadcasts, so you and everyone who says no license is required for TVs used only for videogames, DVDs, etc (including the TVL website) are correct, and Buzby seems to be wrong. However, assuming things reach the point of no return where a TVL person has come in the house, how can you be sure to prove the TV is not used to watch broadcasts? It obviously is not going to be connected to an aerial, but surely an aerial socket will be present somewhere nearby or perhaps further away. Does non-connection suffice or will the TVL insist on plugging in a cable and testing it? I will email the BBC under FOI about this but I also want to know what you guys think about this. Also, the Communications Act 2003 states that an agent authorised by the BBC bearing a warrant can enter a property at any time alone (no need for police presence). Now, one of the conditions that enable a magistrate to issue such a warrant is Can this be taken to mean that if the occupant does not reply to the TVL's letters or answer the door when a TVL man visits, then the condition above is automatically satisfied (i.e. there is no one with whom they can practicably communicate) and a warrant able to be issued easily? Finally, I've found this leaflet issued by the Home Office. On page 4 it strongly suggests that if a caller comes unannounced and the house occupant has ANY doubts about their identity, they should ask the caller to either come back later or to arrange an appointment by letter. Surely this applies to TVL visits too, and if this is the case, can something be done to escalate this observation (i.e. that TVL is going against Home Office recommendations by saying they can visit any time they wish). As far as I've seen there is nothing mentioned about checking or 'enforcement' visits in the Communications Act.

Hello to everyone, I would just like to have things clarified, as there seems to be an endless argument in this thread regarding the need for a TV license whether a person views TV broadcasts or not. The TV Licensing website states that: This, in my understanding, does not cover all possibilities, for example it doesn't imply that you really do NOT need a license if you are only using an installed TV set for other purposes (like videogames, dvds, etc). Then there is the actual wording of the Communications Act 2003, that states: In my understanding, this means that any TV set that is installed and used has to be licensed, regardless of whether it's receiving live broadcast or showing static. It would seem that the actual wording of the law states a TV license is required if you have a TV set plugged in the mains. However some posters have scanned and/or quoted letters from the TVL and/or the BBC that have stated that a license is required only in case the TV set is receiving live broadcast programming. How is it that the TVL and BBC themselves interpret the wording of the law in such restrictive terms, when they could very easily say that a license is required for any TV that is functional, regardless what it is being used for?

Dear all, I've been participating recently in a discussion on a certain mobile network's forums, which unfortunately cannot go on any longer as the mobile network's forum admins are selectively deleting all posts that question its attitudes, policies and T&Cs wording. I am hoping that my posts won't have the same fate in the CAG forum Briefly, recently a certain customer lost access to a certain range of phone numbers from her mobile. Within this range of numbers are several ones used by RebTel, an Internet Telephony company that uses local numbers to forward calls via the internet to any location at affordable costs,as well as many regular landline numbers of various companies and people's houses. The customer did various tests and checks and determined that said range of numbers was blocked only from her mobile account, but not from any other. According to the customer's saying, the mobile network is denying the block (be it because their Customer Support is explicitly instructed to deny it or be it because they simply are ignorant of it, we don't know). The mobile network's Terms and Conditions include the following: Of course this doesn't mention completely blocking any such numbers anywhere, only taking them out of a customer's allowance. But apart from that, there are two issues that I would like your opinion on. The first issue is that the mobile network, in my opinion, can never 'reasonably believe' that a certain number range is being used for call forwarding services, as there can always be found phone numbers in that range that in reality belong to regular homes or businesses and have nothing to do with VoIP, forwarding, etc. My argument is that if it is demonstrable unambiguously that within a certain range of numbers there are included regular landlines, then the mobile network cannot successfully argue (in a dispute or in legal proceedings) that they reasonably believed this number range to be used for forwarding services. Is my reasoning here correct or would such a 'reasonable belief' argument pass? The second issue is that when talking vaguely about call forwarding services, what we really mean is legitimate VoIP (Internet Telephony) companies offering calls to destinations abroad at rates much more affordable than the actual mobile network providers. My argument, or thought process anyway, is that if a mobile network actively prevents access to such services, especially when such access may be gained through legitimate and policy-conforming use of the network's service, then we may have a competition issue at hand, as the mobile network would be effectively prohibiting its customers from using competitive more affordable services and forcing them to use its own, more highly-priced services. I would be immensely interested to hear everybody's thoughts on these issues. Am I on the right track of thought, do I have some bits inconsistent or invalid, or am I totally nonsensical?

Those of you with more legal knowledge than I have... what do you think about a defense based on the following points... how would it hold? - as mentioned by posters above, location of purported downloads is unlikely, like family with grown up children, or office etc. - wifi devices are never completely secure and while one can take basic precautions it is a fact that wifi devices can be hijacked relatively easily from anyone in the vicinity, so that no person can be singled out for this offence - as OSWALDO mentions above, Davenport don't forget to mention lots of IT gobblygook about sophisticated monitoring programs etc, but never anything concrete about which monitoring program it is, how it works, how it collects data about IP addresses, how does it know these results are valid, who gave it the authority to collect IP addresses (can it be noted that IP addresses are personal information?), and have the creators and operators of this monitoring system ever been independently audited to verify the system's accuracy and validity in the results it produces? If not, how do we know the results are valid and not a concoction of the claimant? Finally a few questions for those of you who might be able to answer: - if it can be shown that it is probable a wifi device was hijacked at some point (perhaps there was a hack on the user's computer or webpage in the past, showing vulnerability to similar attacks), is this a defence in such a case, i.e. how does uk law treat the wifi device owner's responsibility in cases of breaching its security? Favourably I should think, as wifi devices are never 100% secure, especially when set up by non-IT professionals. - would the sum of the defence points above provide for sufficient reasonable doubt with regards to the defendant's guilt in such a case, so as to tip the balance of probabilities in favour of the defendant? Thanks in advance!

Hello, I would like to ask what happens in case one receives a small claim through the County Court which has the defendant's name mis-spelled or wrong altogether (showing part of a name, only a first name or a completely different name). I would guess it would be easy to ignore it in case of the name being completely different (i.e. not a legal name of the defendant), but what happens if the name is mis-spelled in such a way that the names pronunciation would change if read out loud? Would this be a defense, in way of responding saying that the defendant named does not exist? Or would it be a better defense strategy to claim that if the claimant could not produce a valid and accurate name for the defendant, then their whole evidence must be doubted for its accuracy and validity? Finally, if such a claim is ignored, resulting in a CCJ against that wrong or mis-spelled name, what would happen with regards to credit records and execution of warrants? Presumably in the case of a completely wrong name, the defendant would not need to worry about their credit record being amended with a CCJ, or even a bailiff gaining entry to their premises? But what about mis-spelled names? If the defendant was, for example, Colin Smith but a CCJ was issued against the name of Conin Slith, would it somehow find its way into Colin Smith's credit record? I've been dealing with business small claims lately and all these questions pop up in my mind but have no one knowledgable enough to ask them to! Good I found this very useful and informative forum! Thanks in advance for your input!