That video seems like an excellent guide for how to avoid interference from TVL, whilst continuing to watch tv without a licence.
If, however, you legitimately don't need a licence, as a guide it seems to fall down at Rule 1.
There is one statistic you could provide which might convince me though, which is this:
% of people visited by TVL who are prosecuted or fined for not having a tv licence even though they genuinely did not require a tv licence.
Do you know what that figure is?
If you do, great. You'll post it, and if its significant enough to suggest any intent of tyranny, I'll be convinced.
Or more likes, you do not, and you will simply ignore this post. Which will tell us everything we need to know.
Of course that should never happen, but what does happen is, people are taken to court but are found not guilty of committing the alleged offence.
2014 stats show 180,000 attended court for non payment of a tvl where 155,000 were found guilty and fined, 25,000 found innocent of the charge, that's huge a 14% of attendees that have been wrongly accused - that should never happen.
Of course that should never happen, but what does happen is, people are taken to court but are found not guilty of committing the alleged offence.
2014 stats show 180,000 attended court for non payment of a tvl where 155,000 were found guilty and fined, 25,000 found innocent of the charge, that's huge a 14% of attendees that have been wrongly accused - that should never happen.
Thanks - that's certainly a useful figure, although I wouldn't necessarily agree that 14% is huge. 86% conviction rate though? That's very high. Perhaps it would be useful to compare that 86% figure with other crimes. (For want of a better word, so no need to get sidetracked by how much of a crime anything is.)
So if 25,000 are found not guilty, I suppose the other figure that would shed some light on things would be what % that 25,000 is of all households who legitimately do not require a tv licence.
From what I recall, around 5% do not require a licence. So that would be roughly what - 1.25m?
So based on that (25,000 / 1,250,000) just 2% of households who legitimately don't need a licence end up in court in any given year, and 98% do not.
Obviously its not an exact science, especially when so many people do not seem to communicate with TVL, and sometimes it will need to go to court. For example, if someone refuses entry on a point of principle, and it can only be established in court that the person doesn't need a licence, then it likely would not have gotten as far as court had the person simply communicated that fact that to TVL and generally been more co-operative. So you cannot assume they were necessarily wrongly accused - it is likely that in many cases they simply could not establish what the situation was. And it is likely that that will often be down to people being too stubborn to communicate with TVL.
But none of these figures suggest there is anything tyrannical about what TVL does.
2014 stats show 180,000 attended court for non payment of a tvl where 155,000 were found guilty and fined, 25,000 found innocent of the charge, that's huge 14% of attendees that have been wrongly accused - that should never happen.
You make a false assumption, but hey that's not new.
How do you know they were wrongly accused rather than there being insufficient evidence or a technicality that did not result in a conviction?
Hate crime conviction rate 85% (15%).
Successful convictions for disability hate crime cases only 81.9% (18.1%)
Racially aggravated cases prosecuted 85.2% resulted in convictions (14.8%)
Religiously-aggravated hostility prosecutions resulted in a conviction rate of 84.2% (15.8%)
The conviction rate for homophobic and transphobic hate crime stood at 80.7% (19.3%)
How do you know they weren't. You are quite welcome to present evidence to the contrary, it'll make a change to your little quips.....
Here's a question for you - can you think what reasons there might be that those 25,000 out of around 1.2 million legitimately unlicensed homeowners end up in court?
I would bet that its the small proportion who simply will not communicate with TVL, leaving them no option.
If they really were going after everyone in some sort of tyrannical gestapo type fashion, then the proportion of not guilty verdicts would be higher than 14%, and the proportion of legitimately unlicensed homeowners being taken to court would be much higher than 2%.
The fact is that all of these figures suggest that, while it may not be 100% perfect, TVL are likely doing a pretty god job, and certainly do not appear to be hounding anything like a significant proportion of legitimately unlicensed homeowners through the courts.
Here's a question for you - can you think what reasons there might be that those 25,000 out of around 1.2 million legitimately unlicensed homeowners end up in court?
I would bet that its the small proportion who simply will not communicate with TVL, leaving them no option.
If they really were going after everyone in some sort of tyrannical gestapo type fashion, then the proportion of not guilty verdicts would be higher than 14%, and the proportion of legitimately unlicensed homeowners being taken to court would be much higher than 2%.
The fact is that all of these figures suggest that, while it may not be 100% perfect, TVL are likely doing a pretty god job, and certainly do not appear to be hounding anything like a significant proportion of legitimately unlicensed homeowners through the courts.
The 25,000 are a part of the 180,000 in 2014 that were initially charged with not holding a valid tv licence.
So presumably an officer has gained entry into the property and has found sufficient evidence that the household is/has been watching live tv, they have then started proceedings. If they have not got sufficient reliable evidence I doubt they would start proceedings, because it would obviously be a waste of money and would just get thrown out of court.
I would have thought it was a pretty cut and dried system, if you are found to be watching live tv without a tvl you get taken to court and fined, if you are found not to be watching live tv you are doing nothing wrong. Apart from a small percentage of administration errors and legitimate excuses, I can't think of many other reasons why someone would be charged, sent to court and have their cased dismissed.
Not disputing it's doing a reasonable job, just merely pointing out there is a percentage that end up in court but are not charged.
did you watch the video i posted where the BBC capita licence man smashes a mans camera in his face even though he wasnt doing anything illegal ? .
over the years i've seen far worse than that but didnt have the easy way of recording we all have now so always make sure you film when the bbc capita thugs bang on your door for your own protection please mikw et all
My issue was sorted out with a simple phone call. Now, if I decided to be a martyr it may have been different.
It's It's hardly tyrannical if you use your smarts.
Honestly, many people have more difficulty cancelling subscription TV packages than they do the tvl.
The 25,000 are a part of the 180,000 in 2014 that were initially charged with not holding a valid tv licence.
So presumably an officer has gained entry into the property and has found sufficient evidence that the household is/has been watching live tv, they have then started proceedings.
Not necessarily - it could just as equally be that an officer has gained entry, but the householder has chosen to be as obstructive as possible, meaning they can't confirm one way or the other.
But that's quite a change from what you said earlier about being wrongly accused.
Just because someone is found not guilty isn't really the same as them being wrongly accused. People end up in court when, as you now say, when there is sufficient evidence to suggest they may be guilty.
As such, it seems a little naive to say it should never happen. The conviction rate will never be 100% for anything, and I suspect the 86% conviction rate in TVL cases will be high compared to other crimes.
If they have not got sufficient reliable evidence I doubt they would start proceedings, because it would obviously be a waste of money and would just get thrown out of court.
I would have thought it was a pretty cut and dried system, if you are found to be watching live tv without a tvl you get taken to court and fined, if you are found not to be watching live tv you are doing nothing wrong. Apart from a small percentage of administration errors and legitimate excuses, I can't think of many other reasons why someone would be charged, sent to court and have their cased dismissed.
Not disputing it's doing a reasonable job, just merely pointing out there is a percentage that end up in court but are not charged.
I don't think 14% is "vast" though, and its not really surprising.
And as I said above, if just 2% of legitimately unlicensed households end up in court, that suggests there is anything but a systematic attempt by tvl to stitch people up, as has seemed to be implied here.
Not necessarily - it could just as equally be that an officer has gained entry, but the householder has chosen to be as obstructive as possible, meaning they can't confirm one way or the other.
But that's quite a change from what you said earlier about being wrongly accused.
Just because someone is found not guilty isn't really the same as them being wrongly accused. People end up in court when, as you now say, when there is sufficient evidence to suggest they may be guilty.
As such, it seems a little naive to say it should never happen. The conviction rate will never be 100% for anything, and I suspect the 86% conviction rate in TVL cases will be high compared to other crimes.
I don't think 14% is "vast" though, and its not really surprising.
And as I said above, if just 2% of legitimately unlicensed households end up in court, that suggests there is anything but a systematic attempt by tvl to stitch people up, as has seemed to be implied here.
I have not changed my stance at all.
Without the facts of why their cases were dismissed there's an element of speculation on both sides.
As it's a fairly straight forward offence to charge I would have thought the conviction rate would have been higher. Precisely why I regard the 14% of dismissals as rather high.
Why would anyone be deliberately obstructive if they have nothing to hide, why would they put doubt in the officers mind and risk being taken to court, that makes no sense. I would expect someone who has something to hide to be obstructive, these are normally the ones found out and charged.
It isn't necessarily that clear cut at all - if someone has a television, and a disconnected socket to a working aerial, is that proof that they don't need a tv, or is it just proof that they have pulled the aerial out of the socket?
I would have thought in cases like that it would be extremely difficult to establish whether or not someone was watching without a licence.
From reading some of this stuff it is clear that there are definitely some people who are deliberately uncommunicative and obstructive on some sort of point of principle.
Even if its just 2%, that tallies with the 25,000 / 1,250,000 figures.
It isn't necessarily that clear cut at all - if someone has a television, and a disconnected socket to a working aerial, is that proof that they don't need a tv, or is it just proof that they have pulled the aerial out of the socket?
I would have thought in cases like that it would be extremely difficult to establish whether or not someone was watching without a licence.
From reading some of this stuff it is clear that there are definitely some people who are deliberately uncommunicative and obstructive on some sort of point of principle.
Even if its just 2%, that tallies with the 25,000 / 1,250,000 figures.
There is no requirement to remove sockets or plugs, you can have a complete functioning setup, a working tv with Sky, Virgin, android box connected, so long as you are not watching live tv or recording it and you are only watching catchup/on-demand you don't need a licence.
The officer has to prove you are/have been watching/recording live tv, as you say that will difficult, unless the occupant has live tv/recording playing or recordings saved on a stb when they call and inspect the property - and I would have to say that is probably the most single reason they get a conviction, caught in the act.
over the years i've seen far worse than that but didnt have the easy way of recording we all have now so always make sure you film when the bbc capita thugs bang on your door for your own protection please mikw et all
Have you ever thought that it's the act of being filmed whilst you are just doing your job that gets people annoyed? Would you like it?
And, for the record, the one time I needed to call TVL about a property that didn't have one, my issue was also sorted in five minutes or less.
How do you know they weren't. You are quite welcome to present evidence to the contrary, it'll make a change to your little quips.....
You are the one prosecuting the idea that 14% of those taken to court were 'wrongly accused' it is you that has to prove all those people who were known to be innocent by the authorities but were still prosecuted.
But as you readily accept you can't prove your argument as you've based it on a assumption.
You then go on to falsely present a scenario as if it's the only circumstances in which a prosecution can be brought and a conviction secured, when you have no idea what may have occurred or been said by the defendant at the 'scene' and how new or revised defence evidence was presented in court.
Here's a reminder to you of the conviction rate for other crimes....
Hate crime conviction rate 85% (15%).
Successful convictions for disability hate crime cases only 81.9% (18.1%)
Racially aggravated cases prosecuted 85.2% resulted in convictions (14.8%)
Religiously-aggravated hostility prosecutions resulted in a conviction rate of 84.2% (15.8%)
The conviction rate for homophobic and transphobic hate crime stood at 80.7% (19.3%)
Although not TVLA related but just to show how a defence may win or lose an argument when a case gets to court....I give you Jimmy Carr & 'Mr. Loophole'...
Jimmy Carr has escaped a conviction for talking on his phone while driving - because he said he was using it to dictate a joke.
But his solicitor Nick Freeman - known as Mr Loophole for his knack of using intricacies in the law to help clients escape conviction - told Harrow Magistrates Court that Carr, 37, had not been using the phone to make a call.
Mr Freeman said the law regarding mobile phones always refers to them being used as two-way devices.
But dictaphones are one-way devices, he said, and using the phone in that way was no worse than checking the time on it.
The 37-year-old host of 8 out of 10 cats was caught by a mobile speed camera driving his Bentley GT at 50ph in a 40mph zone in Boxford, Suffolk, on April 30 2008.
The comedian, who lives in north London, was represented by celebrity lawyer Nick Freeman – known as Mr Loophole – who tried to argue that the speed limit was "defective" because the speed control order was ambiguous about road names.
The lawyer also argued that there had been an "abuse of process" at an earlier hearing.
District Judge Stuart Miller ordered Carr to pay a £300 fine and £15 victim surcharge. His license was endorsed with three points and he was also ordered to pay £1,860 in prosecution costs and expert witness costs of £1,344.05.
There is no requirement to remove sockets or plugs, you can have a complete functioning setup, a working tv with Sky, Virgin, android box connected, so long as you are not watching live tv or recording it and you are only watching catchup/on-demand you don't need a licence.
The officer has to prove you are/have been watching/recording live tv, as you say that will difficult, unless the occupant has live tv/recording playing or recordings saved on a stb when they call and inspect the property - and I would have to say that is probably the most single reason they get a conviction, caught in the act.
Hold on - so you're saying you can have Sky or cable installed, all connected up, but all you have to do is not actually be watching it?
So if you are visited all you have to do is switch the tv off, and hey presto! Don't need a licence?
I'm sure that isn't right. I'm sure the idea is that you have any means of receiving live tv actually disconnected from the television.
You are the one prosecuting the idea that 14% of those taken to court were 'wrongly accused' it is you that has to prove all those people who were known to be innocent by the authorities but were still prosecuted.
I've said no such thing - I said that should never happen. I think you have misread something along the way.
But as you readily accept you can't prove your argument as you've based it on a assumption.
You then go on to falsely present a scenario as if it's the only circumstances in which a prosecution can be brought and a conviction secured, when you have no idea what may have occurred or been said by the defendant at the 'scene' and how new or revised defence evidence was presented in court.
I said it's probably the most single reason they get a conviction, and probably not too hard to proove and get a conviction either, given the high conviction rate - said address holds no licence on database, send reminder, reminder ignored, send officer, officer confirms live tv being watched, summons, court, no defense, found guilty and fined. Why would an officer start court proceedings if the household was not watching or recording live TV, they wouldn't.
To say all 25,000 were wrongly accused (not prossecuted) would be an exaggeration I admit, but to say they have all got off because of a loophole would be an exaggeration too.
Hold on - so you're saying you can have Sky or cable installed, all connected up, but all you have to do is not actually be watching it?
So if you are visited all you have to do is switch the tv off, and hey presto! Don't need a licence?
I'm sure that isn't right. I'm sure the idea is that you have any means of receiving live tv actually disconnected from the television.
Yes, that's the way I understand it.
If you had to disconnect the aerial and weren't allowed stb's you would also have to restrict ownership of laptops, tablets and mobiles too, because they can just as easily provide live tv.
Do I need a TV Licence if I only ever watch on demand or catch-up TV online?
No you don’t. If you only ever watch on demand services or catch-up TV and don’t watch or record live TV, you don’t need a licence. On demand includes catch-up TV, streaming or downloading programmes after they’ve been shown on live TV, or programmes available online before being shown on live TV.
Services that provide on demand or catch-up TV include BBC iPlayer, ITV Player, Channel 4 Watch Live, Sky Go, Virgin Media, BT Vision, Apple TV, Now TV, YouTube, Roku and Amazon Instant Video.
Remember, if you watch or record any live TV through these services, you need to be covered by a TV Licence.
Live TV*means any programme you watch or record at the same time as it’s being shown on TV or an online TV service.
If you had to disconnect the aerial and weren't allowed stb's you would also have to restrict ownership of laptops, tablets and mobiles too, because they can just as easily provide live tv.
Your understanding is that TVL visit homes to check whether or not the property requires a licence, and all the homeowner needs to do to demonstrate that they do not need a licence is to switch off the tv?
I really can't believe its as easy as that.
Whilst laptops can provide access to live tv, I don't think you can assume someone is necessarily using it to watch live tv in the same way that you can assume (if not be 100% sure) that someone with a television connected to a satellite dish, cable or aerial is almost certainly using that tv to watch live tv.
Your understanding is that TVL visit homes to check whether or not the property requires a licence, and all the homeowner needs to do to demonstrate that they do not need a licence is to switch off the tv?
I really can't believe its as easy as that.
Whilst laptops can provide access to live tv, I don't think you can assume someone is necessarily using it to watch live tv in the same way that you can assume (if not be 100% sure) that someone with a television connected to a satellite dish, cable or aerial is almost certainly using that tv to watch live tv.
My understanding is - They have to prove you are watching live tv, not assume, pointless taken someone to court just because they have a tv and Virgin box connected but switched off. You are allowed to have that equipment connected in the home, you're just not allowed to watch/record live tv on it, the terms and conditions clearly state - Remember, if you watch or record any live TV through these services, you need to be covered by a TV Licence.
So you accept you can have a tv and cable all connected without the need for a tvl?
I don't know if they have the power to search stb's/hard drives etc or live tv or a recording has to be physically playing, maybe they have other methods of detecting a live broadcast.
I'd say a high percentage of convictions are those caught in the act - simply because its hard to say if someone is watching live tv if all the equipment is switched off - there has to be no doubt.
Pointless visiting people off all those people have to do is switch their tv off. if that's all people need to do, that figure of 86% is remarkable.
I'm pretty sure the idea is to show that you don't have a tv set up which is currently connected to a device (dish / cable / aerial) capable of receiving live tv broadcasts.
I cannot believe anyone is connected to, and paying for, Sky or Virgin but doesn't watch any live tv.
Computers are obviously a different matter, but I would think that common sense dictates that if someone has Sky or Virgin connected you would not give them the benefit of the doubt, on the grounds that is is incredibly unlikely that anyone would have that set up, but never watch live tv.
But if someone had a laptop, but no television set up, you probably would give them the benefit of the doubt, on the grounds that there are a million and one things that people use computers for other than watching live tv.
Try getting to court to observe justice being done in the cases being brought before the magistrates.Funnily enough I was unable to find out and witness justice being handed out.
It maybe because they wish to keep the TVL operatives identitys secret .
Try getting to court to observe justice being done in the cases being brought before the magistrates.Funnily enough I was unable to find out and witness justice being handed out.
It maybe because they wish to keep the TVL operatives identitys secret .
Really?
Maybe it's that you're not looking in the right places, or simply there wasn't one listed for the court you were looking at.
IIRC most magistrates courts that do TVL cases book them for one or two sessions a month (a session being either morning or aternoon).
But it's got to be some sort of conspiracy to keep the identity of the TVL staff secret.
Maybe it's that you're not looking in the right places, or simply there wasn't one listed for the court you were looking at.
I just found someone who seems to off FOI's at a drop at a hat who requested to know how many TVL cases had been at a court that doesn't deal with such cases.
With regard to the terminology used by the MOJ (Ministry of Justice), “cases proceeded against” are cases registered with the court. It is not correct to assume that the difference in numbers between “cases proceeded against and “found guilty” are cases where a “not guilty” verdict is returned. There are a number of reasons why a case may be withdrawn before it is heard in court and our informal statistics confirm that TV Licensing has a 99% conviction rate for cases of licence fee evasion when cases come to court in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Could it be the 14% (not guilty) referred to by some is a misunderstanding of the figures by themselves or a newspaper?
Comments
2014 stats show 180,000 attended court for non payment of a tvl where 155,000 were found guilty and fined, 25,000 found innocent of the charge, that's huge a 14% of attendees that have been wrongly accused - that should never happen.
Thanks - that's certainly a useful figure, although I wouldn't necessarily agree that 14% is huge. 86% conviction rate though? That's very high. Perhaps it would be useful to compare that 86% figure with other crimes. (For want of a better word, so no need to get sidetracked by how much of a crime anything is.)
So if 25,000 are found not guilty, I suppose the other figure that would shed some light on things would be what % that 25,000 is of all households who legitimately do not require a tv licence.
From what I recall, around 5% do not require a licence. So that would be roughly what - 1.25m?
So based on that (25,000 / 1,250,000) just 2% of households who legitimately don't need a licence end up in court in any given year, and 98% do not.
Obviously its not an exact science, especially when so many people do not seem to communicate with TVL, and sometimes it will need to go to court. For example, if someone refuses entry on a point of principle, and it can only be established in court that the person doesn't need a licence, then it likely would not have gotten as far as court had the person simply communicated that fact that to TVL and generally been more co-operative. So you cannot assume they were necessarily wrongly accused - it is likely that in many cases they simply could not establish what the situation was. And it is likely that that will often be down to people being too stubborn to communicate with TVL.
But none of these figures suggest there is anything tyrannical about what TVL does.
You make a false assumption, but hey that's not new.
How do you know they were wrongly accused rather than there being insufficient evidence or a technicality that did not result in a conviction?
From October 2014
Hate crime conviction rate 85% (15%).
Successful convictions for disability hate crime cases only 81.9% (18.1%)
Racially aggravated cases prosecuted 85.2% resulted in convictions (14.8%)
Religiously-aggravated hostility prosecutions resulted in a conviction rate of 84.2% (15.8%)
The conviction rate for homophobic and transphobic hate crime stood at 80.7% (19.3%)
Here's a question for you - can you think what reasons there might be that those 25,000 out of around 1.2 million legitimately unlicensed homeowners end up in court?
I would bet that its the small proportion who simply will not communicate with TVL, leaving them no option.
If they really were going after everyone in some sort of tyrannical gestapo type fashion, then the proportion of not guilty verdicts would be higher than 14%, and the proportion of legitimately unlicensed homeowners being taken to court would be much higher than 2%.
The fact is that all of these figures suggest that, while it may not be 100% perfect, TVL are likely doing a pretty god job, and certainly do not appear to be hounding anything like a significant proportion of legitimately unlicensed homeowners through the courts.
So presumably an officer has gained entry into the property and has found sufficient evidence that the household is/has been watching live tv, they have then started proceedings. If they have not got sufficient reliable evidence I doubt they would start proceedings, because it would obviously be a waste of money and would just get thrown out of court.
I would have thought it was a pretty cut and dried system, if you are found to be watching live tv without a tvl you get taken to court and fined, if you are found not to be watching live tv you are doing nothing wrong. Apart from a small percentage of administration errors and legitimate excuses, I can't think of many other reasons why someone would be charged, sent to court and have their cased dismissed.
Not disputing it's doing a reasonable job, just merely pointing out there is a percentage that end up in court but are not charged.
My issue was sorted out with a simple phone call. Now, if I decided to be a martyr it may have been different.
It's It's hardly tyrannical if you use your smarts.
Honestly, many people have more difficulty cancelling subscription TV packages than they do the tvl.
Not necessarily - it could just as equally be that an officer has gained entry, but the householder has chosen to be as obstructive as possible, meaning they can't confirm one way or the other.
But that's quite a change from what you said earlier about being wrongly accused.
Just because someone is found not guilty isn't really the same as them being wrongly accused. People end up in court when, as you now say, when there is sufficient evidence to suggest they may be guilty.
As such, it seems a little naive to say it should never happen. The conviction rate will never be 100% for anything, and I suspect the 86% conviction rate in TVL cases will be high compared to other crimes.
I don't think 14% is "vast" though, and its not really surprising.
And as I said above, if just 2% of legitimately unlicensed households end up in court, that suggests there is anything but a systematic attempt by tvl to stitch people up, as has seemed to be implied here.
Without the facts of why their cases were dismissed there's an element of speculation on both sides.
As it's a fairly straight forward offence to charge I would have thought the conviction rate would have been higher. Precisely why I regard the 14% of dismissals as rather high.
Why would anyone be deliberately obstructive if they have nothing to hide, why would they put doubt in the officers mind and risk being taken to court, that makes no sense. I would expect someone who has something to hide to be obstructive, these are normally the ones found out and charged.
I would have thought in cases like that it would be extremely difficult to establish whether or not someone was watching without a licence.
From reading some of this stuff it is clear that there are definitely some people who are deliberately uncommunicative and obstructive on some sort of point of principle.
Even if its just 2%, that tallies with the 25,000 / 1,250,000 figures.
There is no requirement to remove sockets or plugs, you can have a complete functioning setup, a working tv with Sky, Virgin, android box connected, so long as you are not watching live tv or recording it and you are only watching catchup/on-demand you don't need a licence.
The officer has to prove you are/have been watching/recording live tv, as you say that will difficult, unless the occupant has live tv/recording playing or recordings saved on a stb when they call and inspect the property - and I would have to say that is probably the most single reason they get a conviction, caught in the act.
And, for the record, the one time I needed to call TVL about a property that didn't have one, my issue was also sorted in five minutes or less.
You are the one prosecuting the idea that 14% of those taken to court were 'wrongly accused' it is you that has to prove all those people who were known to be innocent by the authorities but were still prosecuted.
But as you readily accept you can't prove your argument as you've based it on a assumption.
You then go on to falsely present a scenario as if it's the only circumstances in which a prosecution can be brought and a conviction secured, when you have no idea what may have occurred or been said by the defendant at the 'scene' and how new or revised defence evidence was presented in court.
Here's a reminder to you of the conviction rate for other crimes....
Hate crime conviction rate 85% (15%).
Successful convictions for disability hate crime cases only 81.9% (18.1%)
Racially aggravated cases prosecuted 85.2% resulted in convictions (14.8%)
Religiously-aggravated hostility prosecutions resulted in a conviction rate of 84.2% (15.8%)
The conviction rate for homophobic and transphobic hate crime stood at 80.7% (19.3%)
Not Guilty verdict...and therefore prosecutors were being tyrants...
Guilty as sin.....but not according to his lawyer
Hold on - so you're saying you can have Sky or cable installed, all connected up, but all you have to do is not actually be watching it?
So if you are visited all you have to do is switch the tv off, and hey presto! Don't need a licence?
I'm sure that isn't right. I'm sure the idea is that you have any means of receiving live tv actually disconnected from the television.
I said it's probably the most single reason they get a conviction, and probably not too hard to proove and get a conviction either, given the high conviction rate - said address holds no licence on database, send reminder, reminder ignored, send officer, officer confirms live tv being watched, summons, court, no defense, found guilty and fined. Why would an officer start court proceedings if the household was not watching or recording live TV, they wouldn't.
To say all 25,000 were wrongly accused (not prossecuted) would be an exaggeration I admit, but to say they have all got off because of a loophole would be an exaggeration too.
If you had to disconnect the aerial and weren't allowed stb's you would also have to restrict ownership of laptops, tablets and mobiles too, because they can just as easily provide live tv.
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/watching-online-and-on-mobile-devices-TOP14
Your understanding is that TVL visit homes to check whether or not the property requires a licence, and all the homeowner needs to do to demonstrate that they do not need a licence is to switch off the tv?
I really can't believe its as easy as that.
Whilst laptops can provide access to live tv, I don't think you can assume someone is necessarily using it to watch live tv in the same way that you can assume (if not be 100% sure) that someone with a television connected to a satellite dish, cable or aerial is almost certainly using that tv to watch live tv.
So you accept you can have a tv and cable all connected without the need for a tvl?
I don't know if they have the power to search stb's/hard drives etc or live tv or a recording has to be physically playing, maybe they have other methods of detecting a live broadcast.
I'd say a high percentage of convictions are those caught in the act - simply because its hard to say if someone is watching live tv if all the equipment is switched off - there has to be no doubt.
I'm pretty sure the idea is to show that you don't have a tv set up which is currently connected to a device (dish / cable / aerial) capable of receiving live tv broadcasts.
I cannot believe anyone is connected to, and paying for, Sky or Virgin but doesn't watch any live tv.
Computers are obviously a different matter, but I would think that common sense dictates that if someone has Sky or Virgin connected you would not give them the benefit of the doubt, on the grounds that is is incredibly unlikely that anyone would have that set up, but never watch live tv.
But if someone had a laptop, but no television set up, you probably would give them the benefit of the doubt, on the grounds that there are a million and one things that people use computers for other than watching live tv.
It maybe because they wish to keep the TVL operatives identitys secret .
Really?
Maybe it's that you're not looking in the right places, or simply there wasn't one listed for the court you were looking at.
IIRC most magistrates courts that do TVL cases book them for one or two sessions a month (a session being either morning or aternoon).
But it's got to be some sort of conspiracy to keep the identity of the TVL staff secret.
I just found someone who seems to off FOI's at a drop at a hat who requested to know how many TVL cases had been at a court that doesn't deal with such cases.
With this interesting paragraph....
Could it be the 14% (not guilty) referred to by some is a misunderstanding of the figures by themselves or a newspaper?