None Payment, What to Expect

[Freeman Craig R]

hmmm... I think I want a fight with them, but maybe I should just ignore them for a while first then.. Thanks

[pedawson]

Found on

http://tv-licensing.blogspot.com/2011/04/bbc-confirm-detector-vans-never-used-in.html

Just exactly 'IS' this PLONKER in the photo doing

BBC Confirm Detector Vans Never Used in Court
Despite being very reluctant the BBC has finally confirmed what we all knew anyway - detector van/portable detector evidence has never been presented in court.

The revealing Freedom of Information Act response came after the BBC u-turned on their earlier decision to withhold the information under the law enforcement exemptions of the 2000 Act.

In their revised response , issued after an internal review found in our favour, Beeb Kiwi lawyer Dan McGregor says the following:

"I can confirm that TVL has not, to date, used detection evidence in Court.

"You may be interested to understand why this is the situation. Under TVL’s current prosecution process the presentation of detection evidence in court is unnecessary . This is because TVL uses detection evidence when applying for search warrants . If, following service of the warrant an individual is found to be evading payment of the TV Licence, then the evidence obtained via the search warrant is used in court, not the detection evidence.

"It is worth noting that search warrants are only issued at the discretion of a magistrate (or sheriff in Scotland) in accordance with strict legal requirements. Detection evidence would be carefully considered by the magistrate (or sheriff in Scotland) during the warrant application process."

"It does, of course, remain open to TVL to use detection evidence in court whenever it wishes in the future."

Given the fact they haven't used it so far, in the fifty-odd years the shit-scary (not) TV detector van has allegedly been in existence, it's pretty unlikely they'll be changing that habit.

Sadly the BBC's internal reviewer, James Leaton Gray, can't bring himself to admit what everyone reading this knows - the BBC had little option but to respond, given my warning that I would refer their obstruction to the Information Commissioner. If that had happened the Commissioner would have definitely ordered them to disclose the information in full given the huge valid public interest.

The full trail of my request can be found http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/evidence_from_tv_detection_equip.

The interesting and 'TELLING' bit is this:

If, following service of the warrant an individual is found to be evading payment of the TV Licence, then the evidence obtained via the search warrant is used in court

The detection is the FACT that one was found evading 'PAYMENT' 'THEN' the evidence obtained via the search warrant is used in court
The EVIDENCE obtained 'VIA' the search warrant? Is used in court.

Have I gone BARKING mad or am I reading this wrong. The evidence, that you do not have a TV licence, is gleaned from the search warrant!
Don't they mean:

'On execution of the search warrant, evidence found will be used in court?

'

It's a bit like the 'STUPID phrase 'Win a million pound a minute!'
NO YOU CAN'T
One can 'will a million pound'
NOT
EVERY MINUTE!

The TVL have surpassed themselves, I think they need to go back to school.
WORDS FAIL ME

Namaste, phil;

[Freeman Craig R]

so they do carry out search warrants? or do we just do the freeman thing "No consent"?

[rebelwithoutaclue]

If they come knocking at your door freeman craig, they are more than likely to say " are you the house holder" to which you should reply, who are you?. when they say TVL, just tell them you dont buy from cold callers and shut the door

[ROO13]

I can't see any judge signing a search warrant regarding a TV license

so they do carry out search warrants? or do we just do the freeman thing "No consent"?

[pedawson]

It is very rare that a judge does, in fact, sign a warrant of any kind.
It is imperative that one asks, once a warrant is issued / served that the warrant is actually a valid and lawfully administered.

A warrant 'HAS' to have the crown seal - a proper one not a photo-copied one or one that is in 'RED' because it looks official and , HAS, to have a WET signature; that is a signature that has been placed on the 'actual' document by an actual 'JUDGE'. Otherwise it is NOT a warrant, and this 'HAS' been tested in court and the defendant was released with no charge because of it.

The same pretty much goes for default of payment summons or debt recovery notices. If there is no wet signature it was not read nor signed by the individual responsible for the notice.

Sausage machine.

I read recently on a police site that we freemen are free-loaders just wanting to get out of debt - well in response I would say we are not free-loaders we just want our notices and fines to be lawfully processed; that is if a crime has been committed in the first place. I would turn this on its head and say all these pretend notices and warrants are due to the police and or judiciary being 'PLAIN lazy'. Sausage machine.

Namaste, phil;

[kevin]

I would turn this on its head and say all these pretend notices and warrants are due to the police and or judiciary being 'PLAIN lazy'. Sausage machine.

Namaste, phil;

not only that but they take it for granted that they are right, we are guilty before any case is heard, and we know no better and accept everything they say, yes sir, yes sir, three bags full sir.

Times are changing!!

[pedawson]

I can predict quite confidently that all this will be coming to and end. The movement is gathering pace, I am seriously beginning to think that 2012 'will in fact' be a year to remember but 2011 about August time is when things will get 'REALLY' started. But don't expect to hear it on the NEWS cos it won't happen, this is going to happen quite differently.

Our movement is getting bigger and more educated than at any other time. The authorities will not know what has hit them.

What exciting times we live in.

Namaste, phil;

[huntingross]

Just exactly 'IS' this PLONKER in the photo doing

His light sabre is phucked.

I can predict quite confidently that all this will be coming to and end.

"They" are already considering placing the licence fee into taxation.....thereby everyone pays at source regardless of use.

I find that even more objectionable than the current position as I never watch TV....I got rid of back in '91....they may aswell put drink and cigaraettes onto taxation too....

Promote the idea that we've all paid for it anyway, we may aswell get out monies worth.

Logically, potato crips and sofas should be paid for through taxation.

(i think i have hit on an excellent money spinner here)

[kevin]

here are a few of their "facts" (that is: this is what they claim on the TVL website)

TV Licensing facts


Around 25 million licences are currently in force, a record number.

TV Licensing's database contains almost 30 million UK addresses. (Kevin's note: 5 million unlicensed addresses then)

TV Licensing enquiry officers made 3.5 million visits in 2007/08.

Enquiry officers together catch an average of over 1,000 evaders every day. (Kevin's note: catch...not prosecute and convict)

TV Licensing collected £3.4 billion in revenue in 2007/08