Enforcers DO turn up

[buzby]

Oh please.

 

There speaks someone that clearly has never read the Communications Act (or probably the Act the preceeded it, the Wireless Telegraphy Act).

 

I;m wimply trying to correct your misleading and incorrect nonsense that you are not at risk unless you are seen 'watching' a a broadcast transmission. The law (as quoted by TVL and the BBC) is also wrong on a number of issues. For the truth, see the Act of Parliament directly - anything else is conjecture.

 

Shame you don't appreciate it, but hey - it'll be your loss not mine as you claim you never watch the TV you have and the judge doesn't believe you.

 

8) 8) 8)

[Conniff]

And as I have said, the BBC has been given the authority to administer the license on all but price. I have read the comms act and even quoted from it but you buzby know best, he is the leading authority on the tv license and the rest of the world is wrong.

[buzby]

Yes yes. They (BBC) have no 'authority' it is the COURTS that are the arbiter here. They have to work within the Act

 

Your point being...? The BBC administer within the framework of the Comms Act, no more, no less. Which 'bit' of this act did you 'quote' that had any relevance? Like your nonsensical cartoon, I'm glad you think it funny for people to be harassed by Capita employees, I don't.

 

Would TVL employees misuse their 'powers'? Surely not? I'm assuming we both would not treustr them as far as we could throw them, but thsat isn't the issue, it is all about minimising the risk to CAggers from these people... having a TV but not 'watching it' when the inspector calls is and remains a bogus argument. Onne case I witnessed had the TVL inspector turning it on to 'make sure it worked' having confirmed that it did so, gave him the slam dunk required. The woman hadn't been watching it - but that wasn't what she was charged with. This was 'Having a TV set installed withour a licence' (it having expired 2 years previously).

 

The 'rest of the world' isn't daft ebough to have a TV licence system like the ours - just us and the RoI in this neck of the woods, so spare me the sweeping statements in the hope you get the sympathy vote.

 

You want to play with fire, be my guest. But please, if your stance is that you don't need a TV licence if you have a TV 'but don't watch it' - show me that in the Comms Act and I'll be amazed, but until then, put a sock in it, or better yet keep playing with those crayons.

[Conniff]

You're like Chubby Checker, doing the twist. I haven't said, or even hinted, that I agree with what TVL does or their harassment, so that don't wash.

 

I haven't said that the BBC have the authority to do the courts work, I said they have been given the authority to administer the license.

 

I have said so many times that the license is for watching live broadcast as displayed on the TVL site and published by the BBC as set out in the rules drawn up by the BBC under the administrative powers given to them, (Oh I forgot, the BBC nor tvl know whay they are talking about).

 

There is a world of difference in having a set sitting in the corner just turned off. There is no real defence against that, but if there was no aerial and a computer was plugged into it then a license is not required and if a prosecution is successfull when this is the situation, they did not know the rules and they have not put forward a proper defence.

 

And yet again the last sentence is not what I have said or even intimated at, having a tv and not watching it is completely opposite from having a tv and not watching live broadcast.

 

If I want some of the aaaahhhh factor or sympathy vote as you call it, I would post a picture of my granddaughter.

[dragonkeeper]

into the fray

 

thread starter must of given the name and address of were the T.V. was going too to the shop :confused:mmmmm!!!!!!!! :eek:of course it is a legal requirement for the shop to record were T.V.s are going.

with todays technolgy you do not need a T.V. to watch broadcast signals i can plug £12 usb aerial into my computer or laptop.

with all recieving equipment a small signal is transmitted and can be picked up. no need for big vans anymore the detectors are hand held can even walk round blocks of flats as well as streets.

google mapping vans picked up all kinds of personal e-mails becuase the equipment was so sensitive.

 

now the finer pionts of law regarding all i have in this post i know nothing at all.

 

i do know that my address is covered with broadcast licence :grin:

[dragonkeeper]

to conniff and buzby

 

i am not posting and running but will not be logged back on till 10-11 June

[anneemack]

into the fray

 

thread starter must of given the name and address of were the T.V. was going too to the shop :confused:mmmmm!!!!!!!! :eek:of course it is a legal requirement for the shop to record were T.V.s are going.

with todays technolgy you do not need a T.V. to watch broadcast signals i can plug £12 usb aerial into my computer or laptop.

with all recieving equipment a small signal is transmitted and can be picked up. no need for big vans anymore the detectors are hand held can even walk round blocks of flats as well as streets.

google mapping vans picked up all kinds of personal e-mails becuase the equipment was so sensitive.

 

now the finer pionts of law regarding all i have in this post i know nothing at all.

 

i do know that my address is covered with broadcast licence :grin:

 

Well, well well, hand held detectors eh? The fairies at the bottom of my garden are real too, don't you know?

Go to the start of this thread and see what a bunch of lying scumbags TVL goons really are!

[anneemack]

'Undermine'? What, in that you need a licence to view broadcast television? Or that you believe you can avoid such a financial nuisance by saying if challenged you're babysitting?

 

If you watch, you pay. No excuses.

 

PS: In Scotland, the lower age age for prosecutions is 16, as there have been several successful pursuits of single mothers aged 16 & 17, so I presume the BBC did not point this out due to the letter writer having an address in England.

 

That should be UN-NECESSARY financial nuisance.

[anneemack]

'Undermine'? What, in that you need a licence to view broadcast television? Or that you believe you can avoid such a financial nuisance by saying if challenged you're babysitting?

 

If you watch, you pay. No excuses.

 

PS: In Scotland, the lower age age for prosecutions is 16, as there have been several successful pursuits of single mothers aged 16 & 17, so I presume the BBC did not point this out due to the letter writer having an address in England.

 

If the above statement is true, this FOI statement is relly mis-leading or the poster is telling lies

 

Request for Information – RFI20100780

Thank you for your email, received 4 June 2010, requesting information under the terms of the Freedom of

Information Act 2000 (“the Act”).

You have requested the following information:

 

"In your FOI RFI2007000441, you state that persons under the age of eighteen do not fulfil the criteria for

prosecution. Is this also the case under Scottish law?”

 

Yes, this is also the case under Scottish law.

 

Your appeal rights

This enquiry has been dealt with under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act, as indicated above. If

you are not satisfied that we have complied with the Act in responding to your request, you have the right

to an internal review by a BBC senior manager or legal adviser. Please contact us at the address above

explaining what you would like us to review and including the reference number given at the start of this

letter. If you are not satisfied with the internal review, you may appeal to the Information Commissioner,

whose contact details are as follows: Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane,

Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF; telephone: 01625 545700; Data Protection and Freedom of Information Advice - Information Commissioner's Office (ICO).

Yours sincerely,

Dan McGregor

Senior Policy Adviser, TV Licensing Management Team

[anneemack]

We recently had a threat-o-gram and the boy wonders name has been replaced by the legal occupier.

A hollow victory to a farcical scenario that should have never happened in the first place.

No contact at all times!

[anneemack]

Can't help you with the vagaries of English Law, as I'm only up to speed on matters as they relate to Scotland, however - the issue of teTlro tactcs is not the core issue. That does not have any criminal ramifications (unless it can be proved), and from what you say there is no corroboration, so that;s a non-starter.

 

What is off and running that there was a TV Reciever installed at the address without a licence, and according to the Act, that needs a licence.

 

 

 

Suggest you get yourself up to speed with Scottish Law and check that your replies are true before you post your mis-leading drivel and point folk in the wrong direction

[buzby]

I am, my dear. It is you that hasn't a clue. It also appears you have no idea what it means when the TVL start sending letters addressed tto the 'legal occupier'. But since you know it all, I'll not bother enlightening you.

[anneemack]

Tut-tut, don't try to patronise me, you just know you are wrong regarding the prosecution age in Scotland.

[buzby]

Actually, I wasn't referring to age limits at all, simply the the ability of the PF to prosecute under the Communications Acts. If you've an issue about ages, expand please. If the boys from Crapita interview someone who is under age, that's their look out, and I doubt the PF would be caught out prosecuting a minor. That said, if the address is unlicensed, clearly the owner/renter of the property would need to be of legal age to purchase or rent, therefore the target got enforcement action.

[anneemack]

If the above statement is true, this FOI statement is relly mis-leading or the poster is telling lies

 

Request for Information – RFI20100780

Thank you for your email, received 4 June 2010, requesting information under the terms of the Freedom of

Information Act 2000 (“the Act”).

You have requested the following information:

 

"In your FOI RFI2007000441, you state that persons under the age of eighteen do not fulfil the criteria for

prosecution. Is this also the case under Scottish law?”

 

Yes, this is also the case under Scottish law.

 

Your appeal rights

This enquiry has been dealt with under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act, as indicated above. If

you are not satisfied that we have complied with the Act in responding to your request, you have the right

to an internal review by a BBC senior manager or legal adviser. Please contact us at the address above

explaining what you would like us to review and including the reference number given at the start of this

letter. If you are not satisfied with the internal review, you may appeal to the Information Commissioner,

whose contact details are as follows: Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane,

Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF; telephone: 01625 545700; Data Protection and Freedom of Information Advice - Information Commissioner's Office (ICO).

Yours sincerely,

Dan McGregor

Senior Policy Adviser, TV Licensing Management Team

 

Mmm....

[buzby]

Strange then, that in 1988 (as I recall) and unmarried mother appeared in Court 11 at Lanarkshire House (Ingram Street) for licence evasion. I know this, as I was there on the day covering another matter. She was found guilty and fined £200.

 

She was 17.

[IdaInFife]

They state is does not fullfil their criteria. It does not sates that a 17 year old cannot br prosecuted,

 

Anyone in Scotland from the age of 16 can be tried as an adult at court and treated as such.

 

TVL have proceeded with cases with people under the age of 18 before. Whether they have now revised this or not remains to be seen.

[buzby]

Interestingly Ida, I've not found ANY Scottish prosecutions in the last few years. I might have missed them, of course, but the main Scottish towns could at least keep the local Sheriff Courts topped up with 20 or so each quarter, as they were usually proccessed on the same day which made it easy to nip round and see the circus in action. This was in the says when it was the PO that hand the contract. Since Crapita took it over, I have been hard pressed to find any cases cluttering up the courts. They may have snuck one or two past that I might not have spotted, but since an FoI Request asking for fihures of prosecutions and successful prosecutions (never mind those split out by age of the defender) these are declined as exempt under the act.

 

I wonder why? Becasue it is easier to harass by post than go to court? It makes you wonder whether they've learned from the PPC's or indeed, the other way around!

[kwaks]

Must say that was an interesting read.

 

Was a bit surprised seeing animosity towards Buzby from the OP when he was simply laying down the facts as they are!!

 

Just so the OP doesn't misunderstand, prosecutions for tv licence evasion are done using the telecommunications act, having a tv capable of receiving a live broadcast can lead to you being found guilty of breaching this act.

 

TVL have their own guidlines and give out their own "advice". They put their own intepretation onto the legislation, however as it is ultimately the Judge that decides, you can follow TVL rules or the Law. To make the choice easier the Judge follows the law

 

Interviewing the son and recieving a statement from him is neither here nor there. As she is now aware they will take the matter to the owner/occupier, and would never have proceeded against the son.

 

 

 

Buzby is telling it like it is, to be 100% sure of not losing a case brought under the act, the TV must be rendered incapable of receiving a signal. To tell people that not having an aerial, or not tuning it in etc etc would be to mislead them.

[mtaj65]

hi just came on this site to tell people that i had a tv licence which i used to pay all off. Then came the recession and I had to cut back like everyone else. I asked TV licensing can i pay my license in monthly instalments not by direct debit but by your cash payment plan. basically a card like a credit card which is registered to your address and you can pay off a set amount of money every month. I took this option. Where the first month i would pay something like £24 which would cover me for 2 months the 2nd month another 24 so I would be covered for 4 months until 6 months later I have paid off the whole years license. Sorted bobs not my uncle. Then I thought they will send me license request next year but lo and behold tv licensing send me a letter 6 months in advance and ask me to start paying for next years license SIX months in advance. Now under normal circumstances (no recession) i probably wouldn't have given it a second thought but these are tough times everyone is watching there pennies let alone their pounds.

So I harassed TV licensing and said to them that gas electricity & water do not ask for payment six months in advance so why should I pay you. TAKE ME TO COURT. I knew the courts will have throwed it back in their face as no organisation does this. I have succesfully kept my tv license payment card and pay the way I want to pay not letting them dictate how they want payment. i.e. one month pay for two 2nd pay upto 4 and so on until the 6th month I have paid for the whole years license which is the payment I heve adhered to and so should tv licensing rather than ask everyone payment 6 months in advance and make you feel like a criminal.

 

I strongly urge everyone out there to do exactly the same as what I have done and stop this daylight robbery. 30 million households businesses pay for their tv licenses. someone some where is making some serious money by taking money so much in advance. You can only win by giving this organisation a piece of there own medicine.

[Conniff]

It's not exactly robbery, it works like car tax, you can cancel and get a refund of the months not used.

[loopinlouie]

Won a small ammount on my lottery ticket, only four numbers, but enough to pay off the next two months of my tv license so paid off. Remember last year that I was shocked that they started asking for more money apparanlty towards following years license on same dates had paid in advance payments for current license. Well my last payment is due this year Dec 15 on the payment plan for the license ending may next year. So you would expect next plan starting second week after that date. Lets see if the tvlicense bods are going to be greedy beggers again and demand I now due to planning in advance to pay it off early due to xmas and win, that I should be hit by new bill. Lets see, bet they cant resist it. Whos gonna lay a bet on first week of dec........

[dragonkeeper]

 

Just a thought

 

Instead of hi-jacking a 98 posted thread a new thread should be started about " the where's and how to pay for TVL"

 

 

I am ducking for cover

 

 

 

 

 

dk

[loopinlouie]

 

Just a thought

 

Instead of hi-jacking a 98 posted thread a new thread should be started about " the where's and how to pay for TVL"

 

 

I am ducking for cover

 

 

 

 

 

dk

 

 

 

OOOOOOH you are awfull as the carry on crew used to say