Options
FOI request to the Ministry of Justice
![[Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/2357d32ba2db3662161377fa32b425f7.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 27 Forum Member
✭
Relating to the BBC's Section 366 powers to apply to a JP for Search Warrants, and there use of 'detector evidence' under oath as exampled in the 'Heather case'...
Dear Ministry of Justice,
In August 2010, a Mr Heather wrote to TV Licensing™ (see http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2vty1xl&s=6) advising them that he did not require a television licence as he does not receive or record live television broadcasts. I would like to draw your attention to the opening sentence: "I do not require a television licence, as I do not receive or record live television Broadcasts". Please note that he is not claiming not to have a television set at his premises.
You don't need a licence if you don't use any of these devices to watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV - for example, if you use your TV only to watch DVDs or play video games, or you only watch ‘catch up’ services like BBC iPlayer or 4oD. See: http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/how-to-tell-us-you-dont-watch-tv-top12/
On the basis of the above quote from the TVL official website I hope you will agree there are many ways to watch a TV and remain legally licence-free.
On the 28th of June 2011 an application for a Section 366 Search Warrant was made to a local magistrates' court claiming, under oath, reasonable grounds to believe that an offence was being committed.
Here are links to the Search Warrant application:
Paragraphs 1-5 http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=10mmmop&s=6
Paragraphs 6-11 http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=auz4ac&s=6
Paragraphs 2, 5 and 6 are of particular interest
2) In a letter from "The Legal Occuppier" dated the 10th August 2010, the correspondent stated that they did not have a television set at his premises...
5) A television display generates light at specific frequencies. Some of that light escapes through windows usually after being reflected from one or more walls of the room in which the television is situated. The optical detector in the detector van uses a large lens to collect that light and focus it on to an especially sensitive device, which converts fluctuating light levels into electrical signals, which can be electronically analysed. If a receiver is being used to watch broadcast programmes then a positive reading is returned. The device gives a confidence factor in percentage terms, which is determined by the strength of the signal received by the detection equipment and confirms whether or not the source of the signal is a "possible broadcast".
6 On the 31st March 2011 at 18.36 hours the detector van was positioned near the Premises. When the detector camera was pointed at the window of the Premises a positive signal was received indicating a TV receiver was in use receiving a possible broadcast with a confidence factor of 97%. A television aerial and a satellite dish was also seen affixed to the Premises.
Paragraph 2 was perjurious as the letter only states that Mr Heather does not receive or record live television Broadcasts. Furthermore, this lie would doubtlessly influence the JP's decision when weighing the alleged dishoesty of the letter against the 'detection evidence' of paragraphs 5 and 6.
Before addressing paragraphs 5 and 6, please consider the following. TV Licensing's Mark Whitehouse featured on BBC Radio Northampton's Stuart Linnell show on 4th July 2011. The following is an excerpt from the transcript relating to their detection equipment:
SL: “Can it even work out which channel they’re watching?”
MW: “It doesn’t tell us what they’re watching but it tells us which room they’re watching it in, and we can tell that in as little as 20 seconds. Again, we’re keen people don’t take that risk. We’re keen that people do realise their obligations and don’t run the risk being caught watching telly if they’re unlicensed.”
As you can see, the detection equipment does not show what is being watched, so is only capable of detecting if a TV or monitor is switched on. It therefore can't distinguish live broadcasts from DVDs, wedding videos, screensavers, YouTube, CatchUp, photo galleries etc. The "possible broadcast" outlined in paragraphs 5 and 6 could be any of these things.
As for the aerial/dish mentioned in paragraph 6, this is not evidence of evasion. The following is from a recent BBC FOI response:
You asked the following question:
“Is there any legal/lawful objection to a cash-strapped household taking a 1 year “TV Licence Fee Holiday” by simply switching off their fully functional TV and ensuring that, without exception, it remains switched off for a 12 month period, thereby spending the entire year never using it to watch or record live programming as it is broadcast?”
The answer in response is:
There is no objection to a household taking this decision.
Legally, the ownership of a television receiver does not require a TV Licence. Therefore if you choose not to switch your television receiver on for twelve months, you do not need a TV Licence during that period. Under the Communications Act 2003, a TV Licence is only required to watch or record live television programmes.
I trust that this has provided a clear answer to your question.
Living legally licence-free does not require the removal of old aerials and dishes.
In summation there is nothing of credit in this Search Warrant Application to support reasonable suspicion of illegal activity, yet it was granted nonetheless. Mr Heather was cleared of wrongdoing as no evidence of evasion was found.
This is the only Search Warrant Application I've seen, however I am led to understand that others have been granted on properties which have turned out to be empty!
I am concerned that Capita (the debt-collection agency used by the BBC to enforce licensing) are abusing the BBC's right under Section 366(1) of the Communications Act 2003 to apply for warrants, by applying for Search Warrants that constitute little more than 'fishing expeditions'.
I am concerned that Search Warrant Applications contain 'sexed up' and spurious 'detection evidence' that would not survive scrutiny in a court of law.
I am concerned that JPs are blinded by woolly science and mischievous wording in their consideration of these warrants, and that no effort has been, or is being, made to rectify this.
I would like all JPs to be made fully aware of the limitations of detection equipment, especially that such equipment gives the same positive reading when a DVD is being watched on a TV as it would if the TV were receiving live broadcasts. Search warrants should not be issued on the basis of such evidence.
I hope you concur with my opinion that Mr Heather had his right to privacy abused and would like to ensure that, with your help, such abuses are not allowed to continue. I also hope that you agree with my own view that making the choice to stop watching live TV should not attract corporate court-backed harrassment and home invasion.
Under the Freedom of Information Act, please provide as many examples of approved Section 366 Search Warrant Applications (where detector evidence was included) as you reasonably can obtain within the budgetary confines set out by the FOI act. Please, of course, redact any personal information contained therein.
Outside of this FOI request I would also appreciate your assurance that the concerns outlined in the rest of this letter are taken seriously, and that positive steps will be taken to educate your JPs.
Dear Ministry of Justice,
In August 2010, a Mr Heather wrote to TV Licensing™ (see http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2vty1xl&s=6) advising them that he did not require a television licence as he does not receive or record live television broadcasts. I would like to draw your attention to the opening sentence: "I do not require a television licence, as I do not receive or record live television Broadcasts". Please note that he is not claiming not to have a television set at his premises.
You don't need a licence if you don't use any of these devices to watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV - for example, if you use your TV only to watch DVDs or play video games, or you only watch ‘catch up’ services like BBC iPlayer or 4oD. See: http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/how-to-tell-us-you-dont-watch-tv-top12/
On the basis of the above quote from the TVL official website I hope you will agree there are many ways to watch a TV and remain legally licence-free.
On the 28th of June 2011 an application for a Section 366 Search Warrant was made to a local magistrates' court claiming, under oath, reasonable grounds to believe that an offence was being committed.
Here are links to the Search Warrant application:
Paragraphs 1-5 http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=10mmmop&s=6
Paragraphs 6-11 http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=auz4ac&s=6
Paragraphs 2, 5 and 6 are of particular interest
2) In a letter from "The Legal Occuppier" dated the 10th August 2010, the correspondent stated that they did not have a television set at his premises...
5) A television display generates light at specific frequencies. Some of that light escapes through windows usually after being reflected from one or more walls of the room in which the television is situated. The optical detector in the detector van uses a large lens to collect that light and focus it on to an especially sensitive device, which converts fluctuating light levels into electrical signals, which can be electronically analysed. If a receiver is being used to watch broadcast programmes then a positive reading is returned. The device gives a confidence factor in percentage terms, which is determined by the strength of the signal received by the detection equipment and confirms whether or not the source of the signal is a "possible broadcast".
6 On the 31st March 2011 at 18.36 hours the detector van was positioned near the Premises. When the detector camera was pointed at the window of the Premises a positive signal was received indicating a TV receiver was in use receiving a possible broadcast with a confidence factor of 97%. A television aerial and a satellite dish was also seen affixed to the Premises.
Paragraph 2 was perjurious as the letter only states that Mr Heather does not receive or record live television Broadcasts. Furthermore, this lie would doubtlessly influence the JP's decision when weighing the alleged dishoesty of the letter against the 'detection evidence' of paragraphs 5 and 6.
Before addressing paragraphs 5 and 6, please consider the following. TV Licensing's Mark Whitehouse featured on BBC Radio Northampton's Stuart Linnell show on 4th July 2011. The following is an excerpt from the transcript relating to their detection equipment:
SL: “Can it even work out which channel they’re watching?”
MW: “It doesn’t tell us what they’re watching but it tells us which room they’re watching it in, and we can tell that in as little as 20 seconds. Again, we’re keen people don’t take that risk. We’re keen that people do realise their obligations and don’t run the risk being caught watching telly if they’re unlicensed.”
As you can see, the detection equipment does not show what is being watched, so is only capable of detecting if a TV or monitor is switched on. It therefore can't distinguish live broadcasts from DVDs, wedding videos, screensavers, YouTube, CatchUp, photo galleries etc. The "possible broadcast" outlined in paragraphs 5 and 6 could be any of these things.
As for the aerial/dish mentioned in paragraph 6, this is not evidence of evasion. The following is from a recent BBC FOI response:
You asked the following question:
“Is there any legal/lawful objection to a cash-strapped household taking a 1 year “TV Licence Fee Holiday” by simply switching off their fully functional TV and ensuring that, without exception, it remains switched off for a 12 month period, thereby spending the entire year never using it to watch or record live programming as it is broadcast?”
The answer in response is:
There is no objection to a household taking this decision.
Legally, the ownership of a television receiver does not require a TV Licence. Therefore if you choose not to switch your television receiver on for twelve months, you do not need a TV Licence during that period. Under the Communications Act 2003, a TV Licence is only required to watch or record live television programmes.
I trust that this has provided a clear answer to your question.
Living legally licence-free does not require the removal of old aerials and dishes.
In summation there is nothing of credit in this Search Warrant Application to support reasonable suspicion of illegal activity, yet it was granted nonetheless. Mr Heather was cleared of wrongdoing as no evidence of evasion was found.
This is the only Search Warrant Application I've seen, however I am led to understand that others have been granted on properties which have turned out to be empty!
I am concerned that Capita (the debt-collection agency used by the BBC to enforce licensing) are abusing the BBC's right under Section 366(1) of the Communications Act 2003 to apply for warrants, by applying for Search Warrants that constitute little more than 'fishing expeditions'.
I am concerned that Search Warrant Applications contain 'sexed up' and spurious 'detection evidence' that would not survive scrutiny in a court of law.
I am concerned that JPs are blinded by woolly science and mischievous wording in their consideration of these warrants, and that no effort has been, or is being, made to rectify this.
I would like all JPs to be made fully aware of the limitations of detection equipment, especially that such equipment gives the same positive reading when a DVD is being watched on a TV as it would if the TV were receiving live broadcasts. Search warrants should not be issued on the basis of such evidence.
I hope you concur with my opinion that Mr Heather had his right to privacy abused and would like to ensure that, with your help, such abuses are not allowed to continue. I also hope that you agree with my own view that making the choice to stop watching live TV should not attract corporate court-backed harrassment and home invasion.
Under the Freedom of Information Act, please provide as many examples of approved Section 366 Search Warrant Applications (where detector evidence was included) as you reasonably can obtain within the budgetary confines set out by the FOI act. Please, of course, redact any personal information contained therein.
Outside of this FOI request I would also appreciate your assurance that the concerns outlined in the rest of this letter are taken seriously, and that positive steps will be taken to educate your JPs.
0
Comments
tvl officer quote:
"Every old TV & radio is also a transmitter!!!. This was the signal used to detect if a TV was in use. With the advent of digital TV they now use a light spectrum analyser. Every TV broadcasts (shines) a very specific range of colours (frequencies) from the screen."
If the linked documents are correct then it does look like the warrant was gained under false grounds.
But van eck phreaking can, it appears, work on modern LCD equipment. There are loads of videos on YT such as this one that show it working and being able to see what is on screen.
Personally I don't think it would need any specialised equipment other than a zoom lens to deduce whether someone is watching live TV. Pictures change colour and brightness all the time as scenes in a TV show change. With a monitor showing the image from a zoom lens showing the light from someone's curtains next to a TV showing live TV an operator could change channels and watch each channel for a few seconds until they find a live broadcast that synchs up to what is seen coming from someone's house. If you find a match and then watch for a couple of minutes and every change in brightness matched exactly then you can be positive they are watching that broadcast and that specific channel.
Perhaps this is why TVL Capita do not reveal how detection evidence is gained? it would encourage some people who resent being spied on, to buy thick lined blackout curtains:D - & help to keep the place warmer in the winter too. I bought some for my bedroom recently, helps stop the sun waking us up too early on a bright morning.
http://www.dunelm-mill.com/shop/curtains/blackout-curtains/?cm_mmc=ppc_google-_-Curtains%20-%20Blackout%20Curtains-_-Blackout%20Curtains-_-lined%20blackout%20curtains&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Curtains%20-%20Blackout%20Curtains
Actually I find MWs comments curious and I would question what he has stated. It is relatively easy to correlate the light output of a TV to a broadcast channel, which is what has been described.
Try it yourself with TVs in different rooms. It's not at all difficult to see when cuts, fades and changes in scenes and brightness happen.
Section 2, obviously was incorrect and should not have used as a basis for a warrant - but this also sounds like the JP was not taking due care regarding issuing the warrant.
Anyway, this is anther reason why I support the move to general taxation.:D;)
Lets campaign for that eh?;):D
.....waits for the wails of protest because we all know this is actually about people not wishing to fund this public service.;):D
A person was asked something by an official body and replied to them with an answer.
After that answer from the person, some further information came to light (excuse the pun), that cast doubt on what the person had said.
As the original question was regarding something that is a criminal offence (peoples own personal views on whether this should be a criminal offence is utterly irrelevant), a request was made to confirm whether the person had been telling the truth when ask about the alleged offence...
Honestly - Am I missing something??
"This is the only Search Warrant Application I've seen"
Also why has the OP re-posted the contents of his previous thread which was locked and has no relevance the the new point?
All points to more contrived posting.
Investigating the matter is not a problem, however applying for warrants with false information is.
It's always seems to be the lower social classes that get this kind of quasi-fascist stuff thrown at them, concerning relatively trivial sums of money as well.
Plot to defraud £5m in tax, that's fine and dandy. Don't pay your £145 TV Licence?, you fiend!
Neither do I.
Oh dear, what utter nonsense. The government put plenty of effort into tackling tax evasion.
The law is the law, it apples to any class and the sum is obviously irrelevant.
OMG, where did you get "quasi fascist" from???
You do your credibility no favours.
It's a different FOI request about a different topic to a different organisation.
Apart from that it's the same.