TV Licensing prosecutions - The next big scandal?
Discussion
In the wake of the Post Office scandal, the Blackbelt Barrister has stated that the next huge miscarriage of justice to blow up, will be prosecutions for TV licence offences.
He made this video recently:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOhOaV-3hRo
He details yet more reasons why he feels many prosecutions may be unsafe or unfair. He has made numerous other videos on the subject regarding what he suggests are illegal, improper, and deceptive behaviours by TV Licensing and Capita.
Other facts include:
There are more than 50,000 prosecutions per year for TV Licence offences (nearly 53,000 last year).
78% of people prosecuted are women.
The conviction rate is usually in excess of 93%.
Most worryingly, the same as the Post Office, BBC/TV Licensing have the legal power to carry out their own investigations and their own prosecutions, with considerable bonuses given to employees who investigate and prosecute the most people.
Even if only 1% of TV Licensing convictions per year were illegal, improper, or erroneous, that would mean almost 5000 people over the last 10 years have been issued with a criminal record, fines, costs, and so on.
My opinion is that Blackbelt Barrister is probably correct. This will be the next big one blow up. There have already been calls in the last couple of weeks to remove the powers of prosecution from BBC/TVL following the outrage caused by the 'Mr Bates' TV series.
He made this video recently:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOhOaV-3hRo
He details yet more reasons why he feels many prosecutions may be unsafe or unfair. He has made numerous other videos on the subject regarding what he suggests are illegal, improper, and deceptive behaviours by TV Licensing and Capita.
Other facts include:
There are more than 50,000 prosecutions per year for TV Licence offences (nearly 53,000 last year).
78% of people prosecuted are women.
The conviction rate is usually in excess of 93%.
Most worryingly, the same as the Post Office, BBC/TV Licensing have the legal power to carry out their own investigations and their own prosecutions, with considerable bonuses given to employees who investigate and prosecute the most people.
Even if only 1% of TV Licensing convictions per year were illegal, improper, or erroneous, that would mean almost 5000 people over the last 10 years have been issued with a criminal record, fines, costs, and so on.
My opinion is that Blackbelt Barrister is probably correct. This will be the next big one blow up. There have already been calls in the last couple of weeks to remove the powers of prosecution from BBC/TVL following the outrage caused by the 'Mr Bates' TV series.
XCP said:
monthou said:
XCP said:
One either has a licence, or one doesn't. Is the claim that hundreds of people who have a licence are being convicted?
Not having a licence isn't an offence.monthou said:
XCP said:
monthou said:
XCP said:
One either has a licence, or one doesn't. Is the claim that hundreds of people who have a licence are being convicted?
Not having a licence isn't an offence.Yes the letters and envelopes are theatrical, but the issue would mostly not exist if people, just cooperated and returned the form in the post or filled in the form on the website. When I bought my house it had been empty for a long period of time to the point that an inspector did by chance turn up. I just let him have a look and he said he'd update the system. His inspection was taking a quick peek inside through the door and it was over within seconds.
No YouTube warrior "you're on camera mate and these are my rights" disinformation, no Magna Carta, no audit nonsense, no tinfoil hat theories about 5G and Covid...
Not to derail the thread but if BBB wants something to investigate then the legality of a lot of PCNs (particularly those issued by councils on private land - been there, done that etc) is a good starting point.
They are liars and tell lies to get convictions.
They tried it with me at work, I get TV's delivered into our warehouse for forward shipping, because we are the address used for delivery they hound us about TV licenses relentlessly, visits and red letters.
They arrived and marched straight in to the office and announced they are here to investigate despite being told repeatedly via email, letter and phone calls we don't even listen to a radio let alone have a TV set up.
One pointed at our computer monitors and told me that was evidence enough and we could watch TV on them. I have no interest in TV, I have work to do. I don't even have any speakers attached tot he work computers.
Then he started going on about smart phones needing a license.
I had a battle to get him out of the office (private office, no public access, he'd walked past multiple signs telling him "no public access") and he was saying the whole l time he wanted me to sign something and buy a license and all this will go away.
I told him to take it to court and id be fighting it.
Heard no more from them until the letters started up again. I expect they rely on self incrimination and admission that you have a device that could be used to watch tv and expand it from there.
I hope it is the next scandal, i hope they get totally reamed personally. Vultures with zero morals is my experience.
They tried it with me at work, I get TV's delivered into our warehouse for forward shipping, because we are the address used for delivery they hound us about TV licenses relentlessly, visits and red letters.
They arrived and marched straight in to the office and announced they are here to investigate despite being told repeatedly via email, letter and phone calls we don't even listen to a radio let alone have a TV set up.
One pointed at our computer monitors and told me that was evidence enough and we could watch TV on them. I have no interest in TV, I have work to do. I don't even have any speakers attached tot he work computers.
Then he started going on about smart phones needing a license.
I had a battle to get him out of the office (private office, no public access, he'd walked past multiple signs telling him "no public access") and he was saying the whole l time he wanted me to sign something and buy a license and all this will go away.
I told him to take it to court and id be fighting it.
Heard no more from them until the letters started up again. I expect they rely on self incrimination and admission that you have a device that could be used to watch tv and expand it from there.
I hope it is the next scandal, i hope they get totally reamed personally. Vultures with zero morals is my experience.
captain.scarlet said:
monthou said:
XCP said:
monthou said:
XCP said:
One either has a licence, or one doesn't. Is the claim that hundreds of people who have a licence are being convicted?
Not having a licence isn't an offence.Yes the letters and envelopes are theatrical, but the issue would mostly not exist if people, just cooperated and returned the form in the post or filled in the form on the website. When I bought my house it had been empty for a long period of time to the point that an inspector did by chance turn up. I just let him have a look and he said he'd update the system. His inspection was taking a quick peek inside through the door and it was over within seconds.
No YouTube warrior "you're on camera mate and these are my rights" disinformation, no Magna Carta, no audit nonsense, no tinfoil hat theories about 5G and Covid...
Not to derail the thread but if BBB wants something to investigate then the legality of a lot of PCNs (particularly those issued by councils on private land - been there, done that etc) is a good starting point.
If you have no need of a TV licence, you should not have to interact with the licencing authority.
They'll be desperate for it not to blow up, just think of the numbers involved.
Capita are useless at the best of times. Just a vessel to extract public money for the smallest investment possible.
Their tactics are to intimidate a signed confession, most of the women that sign the forms have no idea what they're signing they just sign to make the intimidating bloke leave their front door.
It would be interesting to know how many prosecutions there are that don't originate from a signed confession.
Capita are useless at the best of times. Just a vessel to extract public money for the smallest investment possible.
Their tactics are to intimidate a signed confession, most of the women that sign the forms have no idea what they're signing they just sign to make the intimidating bloke leave their front door.
It would be interesting to know how many prosecutions there are that don't originate from a signed confession.
Colonel Cupcake said:
The point is that you shouldn't have to do all that. It's not the same for gun licences, driving licences, dog licences, fishing licences or anything else you need a licence for, is it?
You don't need a licence for a dog and haven't since 1988, at least in England, Wales and Scotland. You may do in NI.vaud said:
Colonel Cupcake said:
The point is that you shouldn't have to do all that. It's not the same for gun licences, driving licences, dog licences, fishing licences or anything else you need a licence for, is it?
You don't need a licence for a dog and haven't since 1988, at least in England, Wales and Scotland. You may do in NI.monthou said:
XCP said:
monthou said:
XCP said:
One either has a licence, or one doesn't. Is the claim that hundreds of people who have a licence are being convicted?
Not having a licence isn't an offence.However, all it would take for an unsafe conviction is two steps:
A Captia inspector visits the house and sees a TV screen lit up through the window. That gives them a reasonable suspicion that broadcast TV was being watch, so they get a warrant to enter the premises.
They come back with the warrant and satisfy themselves that I was watching broadcast TV. They shouldn't be able to, as nothing in the house is tuned in, but they will say that they saw be doing so (see above) and take it to court.
We get to court and who is the judge going to believe - the trained (and financially motivated) Capita employee, or me the individual who genuinely doesn't need a licence among the thousands and thousands of others who thought they wouldn't get caught?
I haven't yet had the opportunity to find out, but I do still get the letters through the door on the regular cycle.
This would be an unsafe conviction simply because it is all based on the inspector's evidence. Which could simply be made up and is impossible to corroborate.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
What a surprise. Hopefully this will be the end for the TV tax and the s
t house state broadcaster (yes it is) that feeds off it.
It will become a media tax added to everyone's broadband subscription, which we all now need t have with the end of landlines. That's already being talked about. t house state broadcaster (yes it is) that feeds off it.Germany have used that approach for years.
It;s a shame as I think the BBC should compete on a level playing field just with all the others. It doesn't do anything the others don't. I fail so see how it educates, entertains and informs.
dxg said:
.
It;s a shame as I think the BBC should compete on a level playing field just with all the others. It doesn't do anything the others don't. I fail so see how it educates, entertains and informs.
You don’t watch the BBC though so how would you know?It;s a shame as I think the BBC should compete on a level playing field just with all the others. It doesn't do anything the others don't. I fail so see how it educates, entertains and informs.
The BBC does a lot of work with Education for example, maybe look it up?
Edited by chrispmartha on Sunday 28th January 12:08
dxg said:
monthou said:
XCP said:
monthou said:
XCP said:
One either has a licence, or one doesn't. Is the claim that hundreds of people who have a licence are being convicted?
Not having a licence isn't an offence.However, all it would take for an unsafe conviction is two steps:
A Captia inspector visits the house and sees a TV screen lit up through the window. That gives them a reasonable suspicion that broadcast TV was being watch, so they get a warrant to enter the premises.
They come back with the warrant and satisfy themselves that I was watching broadcast TV. They shouldn't be able to, as nothing in the house is tuned in, but they will say that they saw be doing so (see above) and take it to court.
We get to court and who is the judge going to believe - the trained (and financially motivated) Capita employee, or me the individual who genuinely doesn't need a licence among the thousands and thousands of others who thought they wouldn't get caught?
I haven't yet had the opportunity to find out, but I do still get the letters through the door on the regular cycle.
This would be an unsafe conviction simply because it is all based on the inspector's evidence. Which could simply be made up and is impossible to corroborate.
Although that never happens. Apparently.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff