Whether I, you, or indeed everyone on this forum, can understand them, isn't the issue.
The fact that vulnerable and/or less knowledgeable people might fall for them is.
You will be telling me next, that you don't see anything wrong with these "You've won a prize. Send £50 to claim it" scams, because you and I would never fall for them
i'm not convinced a forum where the regular posters seem to do little more than talk about BBC scum, post paranoid rants about how people who disagree with their views must work for the BBC scum, and generally encourage and applaud fellow members for trolling other forums has that much of a place.
what (constructive) place do you feel it has?
It seems you are allowing their vibrant use of language to get in the way of their concerns, most of which are genuine, and some of which I share. They are the same, familiar things: size, scale and scope; political/cultural bias; celebrity obsession; lack of accountability and abuses of the law in connection with LF enforcement.
yes, i do actually.
given that myself, and others you choose to mention, post reasonable, politely and fairly articulately, i do think it unfair for you to say that that stifles debate.
I suppose the key word I would be looking for, there, would be factual accuracy - it's interesting you didn't mention it.
especially given the attitudes, posting style and self confessed trolling of some posters on the other side of the discussion.
We weren't discussing them. Do you think that "trolls deserve trolls"?
it wasn't the tone i was objecting to per se. i was objecting to where you choose to lay the blame for a lack of constructive debate.
From my standpoint, I think DS should be about the facts. I'm really not interested in seeing dozens (hundreds) of posts about a particular poster's opinion that "letters are not this or that" when the BBC has already decided there are. There are several of this issues that come up from time to time and I feel that the way they inevitably end up going is counter-productive.
my mistake - i assumed the Resistance was some kind of actual Resistance. so is it simply a forum for people to vent their spleens about BBC scum?
Seems to be.
given that the guy said this :
'The BBC Resistance movement work hard behind the scenes to find out the names and addresses of these trespassers. This guy was very easy to find because we have members who work for the DVLA.'
I'm not sure I believe that. I'm certainly not aware of any direct action being taken against any of the people involved in the BBC's shameful activities. Though I wouldn't mind having a few words with the management myself.
i'm finding it disingenuous of you to suggest that i cynically tried to suggest something that wasn't so.
if you want to conclude that he isn't a member, just because he has a different username, that's up to you.
That has to be the spinniest spin I've seen in a long while. Did you believe he was a forum member when you posted what you did? And if so, why?
nonetheless, its difficult to take any serious points raised there when they're surrounded by, essentially, paranoid rantings of the puerile and childish.
I agree. I adopt similar standards of posting there, as here. But that is the culture of their forum.
well, it appears to be blurred out in the video.
Presumably someone must know it for the claims to be true... or perhaps they aren't.
It seems you are allowing their vibrant use of language to get in the way of their concerns, most of which are genuine, and some of which I share. They are the same, familiar things: size, scale and scope; political/cultural bias; celebrity obsession; lack of accountability and abuses of the law in connection with LF enforcement..
So you don't mind abusive terms for people if you agree with what their agenda??!!:mad:
You will be telling me next, that you don't see anything wrong with these "You've won a prize. Send £50 to claim it" scams, because you and I would never fall for them
Isn't that more pay TV's angle? Offering prizes and "free" gifts which are not all that they appear?
Ah - it's the licensing law, now. Okay, that's a start, I suppose.
But what is "the licensing system". Again, where is it defined, what does it do, how is it implemented?
The one law says: It's illegal to watch live TV without a licence. Nothing more.
So there are no laws that give "TVL" any authority over anyone to enable them to track and verify the licence status of the LLF. Isn't that true?
And the consequence of that is that any LLF citizen can legally turn them away - in advance, at the door, indeed, at any time.
And of course, that is the part (bold) that TVL, the BBC & BBC supporters & employees do not like! - but can do sweet FA about it!
It makes you smile:)
As I said the BBC are the licensing authority as appointed by the government.
section 363 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to install or use a television receiver to watch or record any television programmes as they’re being shown on television without a TV Licence.
section 365 of that Act requires that a person to whom a TV Licence is issued must pay a fee to the BBC. The nature and quantity of this fee is set out in the Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004 (as amended).
Since 1991 the BBC, in its role as the relevant licensing authority, has been responsible for collecting and enforcing the TV Licence fee.
Also
"B. Collecting the licence
In his September 2001 criminal courts review, one of the many subjects covered by Lord Justice Auld was TV licence evasion.
In this context the role of the BBC was summarised:
The Government decides what proportion of the licence fee income should go to the BBC, and currently the BBC receives it all.
The BBC collects the fees on behalf of the Government and decides on enforcement and prosecution policies. These policies are based on the Code for Crown Prosecutors issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions and, therefore, take into account public interest considerations such as whether alleged offenders are in genuine financial hardship or otherwise vulnerable. The BBC devolves responsibility for prosecution to a contractor...5
If you are still trying to make out the BBC have no lawful remit to enforce the LF then why does 366 specifically name them and ofcom WRT to warrants?
366
Powers to enforce TV licensing
(1)
If a justice of the peace, a sheriff in Scotland or a lay magistrate in Northern Ireland is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing—
(a)
that an offence under section 363 has been or is being committed,
(b)
that evidence of the commission of the offence is likely to be on premises specified in the information, or in a vehicle so specified, and
(c)
that one or more of the conditions set out in subsection (3) is satisfied,
he may grant a warrant under this section.
(2)
A warrant under this section is a warrant authorising any one or more persons authorised for the purpose by theBBC or by OFCOM—
(a)
to enter the premises or vehicle at any time (either alone or in the company of one or more constables); and
(b)
to search the premises or vehicle and examine and test any television receiver found there.
(3)
Those conditions are—
(a)
that there is no person entitled to grant entry to the premises or vehicle with whom it is practicable to communicate;
(b)
that there is no person entitled to grant access to the evidence with whom it is practicable to communicate;
(c)
that entry to the premises or vehicle will not be granted unless a warrant is produced;
(d)
that the purpose of the search may be frustrated or seriously prejudiced unless the search is carried out by a person who secures entry immediately upon arriving at the premises or vehicle.
(4)
A person is not to enter premises or a vehicle in pursuance of a warrant under this section at any time more than one month after the day on which the warrant was granted.
(5)
The powers conferred by a warrant under this section on a person authorised by OFCOM are exercisable in relation only to a contravention or suspected contravention of a condition of a TV licence relating to interference with wireless telegraphy.
(6)
A person authorised by theBBC, or by OFCOM, to exercise a power conferred by a warrant under this section may (if necessary) use such force as may be reasonable in the exercise of that power.
The BBC are clearly named as agents to enforce the warrant. The BBC run the licensing system so are responsible for determining if they think a household requires a license and therefore would be the appropriate authority to make applications for warrants etc.
So there are no laws that give "TVL" any authority over anyone to enable them to track and verify the licence status of the LLF. Isn't that true?
And the consequence of that is that any LLF citizen can legally turn them away - in advance, at the door, indeed, at any time.
Erm.... sorry no it isn't quite true. They are the licensing authority as appointed by the government. As part of that they administer and enforce the LF. That will obviously include tracking addresses that require / do not require a license. Verifying that information is an inherent part of correctly administering the system, as this information can and does change all the time.
No, it's as a consequence of the legislation which states they do not have power of entry, they can be turned away. That has nothing to do with your claimed lack of legal remit to administer and enforce the LF.
The BBC has explained that its responsibility to enforce the licensing regime arises as a consequence of its powers to issue TV licences and to collect and recover licence fees under sections 364 and 365 of the Communications Act 2003. This responsibility was expressly confirmed by the Home Office in 1991, the year in which the BBC became the statutory authority for the licensing regime. It is a criminal offence to install or use television receiving equipment to receive television programmes without a valid licence. TV Licensing investigates and prosecutes unlicensed use of television receiving equipment, and uses search warrants to assist in this activity.
So corn, get your amateur lawyer kit out if you want, but I would suggest that challenging in court on the basis you have described would be, to say the least, a misguided and total waste of time.
so are you saying that the government / BBC have tasked tvl with running / enforcing tvl ownership, but it isn't written down anywhere?
I don't think there is a formal written agreement. I certainly have never seen anything, and no one has ever posted anything (convincing) here.
It's utterly inexplicable that the BBC/"TVL" sees fit to make 3.5 million home visits each year and send 83 million letters, when its remit in doing so is not publicly stated or adequately explained.
that does sound odd, i must admit.
surely it must be - what was the thing in the Royal Charter that U00... posted a few pages ago all about?
We've already established that it wasn't the Charter.
Erm.... sorry no it isn't quite true. They are the licensing authority as appointed by the government. As part of that they administer and enforce the LF. That will obviously include tracking addresses that require / do not require a license. Verifying that information is an inherent part of correctly administering the system, as this information can and does change all the time.
Why would they need to track addresses that don't need a licence? I know that's the basis of modern marketing, but in reality all they need to know is (a) who has a licence and (b) how to detect evasion using detection equipment.
That is how the law is framed, isn't it?
No, it's as a consequence of the legislation which states they do not have power of entry, they can be turned away. That has nothing to do with your claimed lack of legal remit to administer and enforce the LF.
That makes no sense. They have no right of entry whether legislation says that or not.
And, in fact, if you read the legislation it says something more specific than your interpretation - it says that the BBC can determine the terms and conditions of a licence, but in doing so cannot create a right of entry.
As for your exploration of the legislation... I've already said that they have no powers EXCEPT for the search warrant stuff that they do not routinely use.
So you don't mind abusive terms for people if you agree with what their agenda??!!:mad:
It's Sao Paulo's forum. I'm hardly going to object to the prevailing use of language there, whether I agree or not. If I felt that strongly about it, I would not post there.
If you understand that some of the members there believe the BBC to have committed some kind of treason with respect to their receiving support from the EU combined with their political bias, then you can see how feelings run high.
It's Sao Paulo's forum. I'm hardly going to object to the prevailing use of language there, whether I agree or not. If I felt that strongly about it, I would not post there.
If you understand that some of the members there believe the BBC to have committed some kind of treason with respect to their receiving support from the EU combined with their political bias, then you can see how feelings run high.
Why would they need to track addresses that don't need a licence? I know that's the basis of modern marketing, but in reality all they need to know is (a) who has a licence and (b) how to detect evasion using detection equipment.
That is how the law is framed, isn't it?
That makes no sense. They have no right of entry whether legislation says that or not.
And, in fact, if you read the legislation it says something more specific than your interpretation - it says that the BBC can determine the terms and conditions of a licence, but in doing so cannot create a right of entry.
As for your exploration of the legislation... I've already said that they have no powers EXCEPT for the search warrant stuff that they do not routinely use.
It's the basis of modern marketing.
There are many areas where detection does not work, ie. secure blocks of flats, so letters are presumably effective.
Comments
Whether I, you, or indeed everyone on this forum, can understand them, isn't the issue.
The fact that vulnerable and/or less knowledgeable people might fall for them is.
You will be telling me next, that you don't see anything wrong with these "You've won a prize. Send £50 to claim it" scams, because you and I would never fall for them
Do you think misleading adverts are wrong, only if it can be proven that someone has actually been mislead
Oh give it up please.
The government made the BBC the public licensing authority.
Their responsiblity is to enforce the licensing system which includes the licensing law.
Yes they do. The fact that nothing unlawful is going on, however much you want to spin that there is.
I suppose the key word I would be looking for, there, would be factual accuracy - it's interesting you didn't mention it.
We weren't discussing them. Do you think that "trolls deserve trolls"?
From my standpoint, I think DS should be about the facts. I'm really not interested in seeing dozens (hundreds) of posts about a particular poster's opinion that "letters are not this or that" when the BBC has already decided there are. There are several of this issues that come up from time to time and I feel that the way they inevitably end up going is counter-productive.
Seems to be.
I'm not sure I believe that. I'm certainly not aware of any direct action being taken against any of the people involved in the BBC's shameful activities. Though I wouldn't mind having a few words with the management myself.
That has to be the spinniest spin I've seen in a long while. Did you believe he was a forum member when you posted what you did? And if so, why?
I agree. I adopt similar standards of posting there, as here. But that is the culture of their forum.
Presumably someone must know it for the claims to be true... or perhaps they aren't.
Ah - it's the licensing law, now. Okay, that's a start, I suppose.
But what is "the licensing system". Again, where is it defined, what does it do, how is it implemented?
The one law says: It's illegal to watch live TV without a licence. Nothing more.
So there are no laws that give "TVL" any authority over anyone to enable them to track and verify the licence status of the LLF. Isn't that true?
And the consequence of that is that any LLF citizen can legally turn them away - in advance, at the door, indeed, at any time.
that does sound odd, i must admit.
surely it must be - what was the thing in the Royal Charter that U00... posted a few pages ago all about?
Iain
So you don't mind abusive terms for people if you agree with what their agenda??!!:mad:
Isn't that more pay TV's angle? Offering prizes and "free" gifts which are not all that they appear?
And of course, that is the part (bold) that TVL, the BBC & BBC supporters & employees do not like! - but can do sweet FA about it!
It makes you smile:)
Hardly.
SCAMS.
Widespread? Really?
Did you mean to say a tiny number of DS posters?
Or people such as yourself with an axe to grind who have a clear anti BBC agenda?
Iain
As I said the BBC are the licensing authority as appointed by the government.
section 363 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to install or use a television receiver to watch or record any television programmes as they’re being shown on television without a TV Licence.
section 365 of that Act requires that a person to whom a TV Licence is issued must pay a fee to the BBC. The nature and quantity of this fee is set out in the Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004 (as amended).
Since 1991 the BBC, in its role as the relevant licensing authority, has been responsible for collecting and enforcing the TV Licence fee.
Also
"B. Collecting the licence
In his September 2001 criminal courts review, one of the many subjects covered by Lord Justice Auld was TV licence evasion.
In this context the role of the BBC was summarised:
The Government decides what proportion of the licence fee income should go to the BBC, and currently the BBC receives it all.
The BBC collects the fees on behalf of the Government and decides on enforcement and prosecution policies. These policies are based on the Code for Crown Prosecutors issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions and, therefore, take into account public interest considerations such as whether alleged offenders are in genuine financial hardship or otherwise vulnerable. The BBC devolves responsibility for prosecution to a contractor...5
If you are still trying to make out the BBC have no lawful remit to enforce the LF then why does 366 specifically name them and ofcom WRT to warrants?
366
Powers to enforce TV licensing
(1)
If a justice of the peace, a sheriff in Scotland or a lay magistrate in Northern Ireland is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing—
(a)
that an offence under section 363 has been or is being committed,
(b)
that evidence of the commission of the offence is likely to be on premises specified in the information, or in a vehicle so specified, and
(c)
that one or more of the conditions set out in subsection (3) is satisfied,
he may grant a warrant under this section.
(2)
A warrant under this section is a warrant authorising any one or more persons authorised for the purpose by the BBC or by OFCOM—
(a)
to enter the premises or vehicle at any time (either alone or in the company of one or more constables); and
(b)
to search the premises or vehicle and examine and test any television receiver found there.
(3)
Those conditions are—
(a)
that there is no person entitled to grant entry to the premises or vehicle with whom it is practicable to communicate;
(b)
that there is no person entitled to grant access to the evidence with whom it is practicable to communicate;
(c)
that entry to the premises or vehicle will not be granted unless a warrant is produced;
(d)
that the purpose of the search may be frustrated or seriously prejudiced unless the search is carried out by a person who secures entry immediately upon arriving at the premises or vehicle.
(4)
A person is not to enter premises or a vehicle in pursuance of a warrant under this section at any time more than one month after the day on which the warrant was granted.
(5)
The powers conferred by a warrant under this section on a person authorised by OFCOM are exercisable in relation only to a contravention or suspected contravention of a condition of a TV licence relating to interference with wireless telegraphy.
(6)
A person authorised by the BBC, or by OFCOM, to exercise a power conferred by a warrant under this section may (if necessary) use such force as may be reasonable in the exercise of that power.
The BBC are clearly named as agents to enforce the warrant. The BBC run the licensing system so are responsible for determining if they think a household requires a license and therefore would be the appropriate authority to make applications for warrants etc.
This is enforcing the LF.
Erm.... sorry no it isn't quite true. They are the licensing authority as appointed by the government. As part of that they administer and enforce the LF. That will obviously include tracking addresses that require / do not require a license. Verifying that information is an inherent part of correctly administering the system, as this information can and does change all the time.
No, it's as a consequence of the legislation which states they do not have power of entry, they can be turned away. That has nothing to do with your claimed lack of legal remit to administer and enforce the LF.
The BBC has explained that its responsibility to enforce the licensing regime arises as a consequence of its powers to issue TV licences and to collect and recover licence fees under sections 364 and 365 of the Communications Act 2003. This responsibility was expressly confirmed by the Home Office in 1991, the year in which the BBC became the statutory authority for the licensing regime. It is a criminal offence to install or use television receiving equipment to receive television programmes without a valid licence. TV Licensing investigates and prosecutes unlicensed use of television receiving equipment, and uses search warrants to assist in this activity.
So corn, get your amateur lawyer kit out if you want, but I would suggest that challenging in court on the basis you have described would be, to say the least, a misguided and total waste of time.
It's utterly inexplicable that the BBC/"TVL" sees fit to make 3.5 million home visits each year and send 83 million letters, when its remit in doing so is not publicly stated or adequately explained.
We've already established that it wasn't the Charter.
That is how the law is framed, isn't it?
That makes no sense. They have no right of entry whether legislation says that or not.
And, in fact, if you read the legislation it says something more specific than your interpretation - it says that the BBC can determine the terms and conditions of a licence, but in doing so cannot create a right of entry.
As for your exploration of the legislation... I've already said that they have no powers EXCEPT for the search warrant stuff that they do not routinely use.
If you understand that some of the members there believe the BBC to have committed some kind of treason with respect to their receiving support from the EU combined with their political bias, then you can see how feelings run high.
What's this?
It's the basis of modern marketing.
There are many areas where detection does not work, ie. secure blocks of flats, so letters are presumably effective.
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article3257748.ece