up until now, i was under the impression that the presumption of innocence was a principle that was protected by legislation.
As I've said before, the law is a complex, multi-layered system.
The formal "presumption of innocence" is protected by Article 6.2 of the ECHR, and modified by anti-terrorism legislation. (Not sure if there any modifications in PACE, so I will not claim that).
This less formal "reasonable suspicion" principle is not part of the ECHR as far as I can tell. It is part of PACE, though, and therefore applies to the Police under relevant circumstances. It also appears in the Search Warrant process in the 2003 Comms Act.
I conclude that because "TVL" do not have a right to enter premises and interview suspects, that there is no general requirement for "reasonable suspicion". The law is an ass, sometimes - but all the more reason to content that Article 8 is relevant.
i think somewhere along the way you're still missing my point, in that as long as no-one is actually being accused of anything, then the principle holds.
i think i asked you whether or not you would argue that tvl visiting someone actually involves anyone being accused of anything?
which, IIRC, may be where you replied before about how some people may think it feels like that.
in which case i'm sorry - but someone feeling like that isn't actually the same as actually being accused of anything.
Daily Mail? Clearly this is not an issue otherwise it would surely be general knowledge.
Why would it?
How likely is it that something like this would enter the public domain?
If someone buys a licence they don't need then it seems reasonable to suppose they've done so under a mistaken belief that they do need one.
On the one hand they may continue in blissful ignorance or, on the other, if they discover their mistake then, due to embarrassment, they're hardly likely to shout it from the rooftops.
EVERY visit by a TVL inspector I know of, or have read of, the inspector has not informed the householder they can refuse entry.
That's funny, every time I have ever been stopped for speeding the policeman has not informed me that I need not answer his questions, apart from name and car owner's name.
This is a train of discussion that I don't think you have been involved in.
For reasons unknown, certain posters were making the assertion (strawman?) that the use of the principle of the "presumption of innocence" in the context of "TVL" was not only fatally undermined if any other agency did not have to respect the principle (by law), but also individuals who accepted that the principle could vary between cases were somehow manipulating the principle for debating advantage... or something similar.
If you read #2263-6, #2269, #2271, #2275, #2278, #2291, and the final explanation of the Freedom of Speech analogy at the end of #2295... it should become clearer.
So how does any of that affect the fact that you have no freedom of speech rights on a website?
As I've said before, the law is a complex, multi-layered system.
The formal "presumption of innocence" is protected by Article 6.2 of the ECHR, and modified by anti-terrorism legislation. (Not sure if there any modifications in PACE, so I will not claim that).
This less formal "reasonable suspicion" principle is not part of the ECHR as far as I can tell. It is part of PACE, though, and therefore applies to the Police under relevant circumstances. It also appears in the Search Warrant process in the 2003 Comms Act.
I conclude that because "TVL" do not have a right to enter premises and interview suspects, that there is no general requirement for "reasonable suspicion". The law is an ass, sometimes - but all the more reason to content that Article 8 is relevant.
That is nothing to do with Presumption Of Innocence. Even if you suspect someone is guilty, and you have lots of evidence, witnesses etc that person is still Presumed Innocent.
You can be formally accused of murder, but you are still presumed innocent.
i think somewhere along the way you're still missing my point, in that as long as no-one is actually being accused of anything, then the principle holds.
I thought your point was that it couldn't be much of a principle if we let mere legislators mess about with it? Since I disagree with that, I'm happy that you want to move on.
i think i asked you whether or not you would argue that tvl visiting someone actually involves anyone being accused of anything?
It's easy for these threads to become a confusing mess of misunderstanding piled on top of vagueness. There are a number of different scenarios under which "TVL" visit people...
1) People who invoke common law:
TVL letter-Common Law letter-Confirmation-Visit only if reasonable suspicion
that means that by executing common law remedies, in addition to other benefits, you also enforce the need for there to be reasonable suspicion before "TVL" engage.
2) No Contact solution:
TVL Letter-TVL Letter-TVL Letter indefinitely-Search Warrant only if reasonable suspicion
again, by using common law rights directly, we get engagement from "TVL" only if there is reasonable suspicion
3) Compliance / no reasonable suspicion
TVL Letter - Claim of licence free status - Confirmation and counter claim for home visit - home visit with no evidence
In this case, the citizen has already stated their innocence in writing. When "TVL" challenge that directly, with no evidence, it's effectively accusing the citizen of lying, and it means that a licence free citizen, complying with "TVL" has fewer rights than someone stopped & searched in the street by the Police.
4) Compliance - visit with reasonable suspicion
This would be acceptable.
So, once again, we see that there is no benefit from compliance, because those that enforce their common law rights get access to a further right that "TVL" would otherwise seek to deny them.
which, IIRC, may be where you replied before about how some people may think it feels like that.
in which case i'm sorry - but someone feeling like that isn't actually the same as actually being accused of anything.
What people feel, what they fear, what they expect - all of those things will drive their level of resistance or compliance, and their feeling of being exploited when they learn the truth.
That is nothing to do with Presumption Of Innocence. Even if you suspect someone is guilty, and you have lots of evidence, witnesses etc that person is still Presumed Innocent.
You can be formally accused of murder, but you are still presumed innocent.
I agree - which is why I have now split the concept into "presumption of innocence" and "reasonable suspicion".
What people feel, what they fear, what they expect - all of those things will drive their level of resistance or compliance, and their feeling of being exploited when they learn the truth.
and?
As Iain said
in which case i'm sorry - but someone feeling like that isn't actually the same as actually being accused of anything.
Or perhaps most reasonable people can figure out why they are being asked the questions.
I think you underestimate people.
Perhaps, this is more about the individuals concerned rather than TVL. Just like your woman example.
What percentage object? Try not to answer with "ones too many".
I agree - which is why I have now split the concept into "presumption of innocence" and "reasonable suspicion".
I could argue there is no reasonable suspicion to believe I am a terrorist or that I fiddle my meter readings, tax etc etc.. They still check however....and I don't object.
Yet they all still presume innocence. Just like TVL.
And I'd be happy to help TVL, including allowing inspectors into my home, if only they'd ask politely, as you normally do if asking a favour of someone. But while they persist with their "action required" etc type of letter I refuse to communicate with them.
Well, is "action required" or not? If yes, then what's the problem? If no then tell them that anyway.
What you are doing is usually called cutting of one's nose to spite one's face
So why did you say "Freedom of Speech is another of these broad legal/moral principles. When people post here they are taking advantage of that, but there are many limitations on what they can post."?
"People should weigh up the benefit of allowing TVL into their home to sort out an issue of complying with the law against the small risk of a rogue agent stealing from them or trying to make false charges..."
Seems a pretty straightforward question: do you believe that "TVL" have a legal/moral/other justification for investigating people against whom there is no reasonable suspicion of an offence?
So why did you say "Freedom of Speech is another of these broad legal/moral principles. When people post here they are taking advantage of that, but there are many limitations on what they can post."?
As I've already explained, this was an analogy to demonstrate that these broad principles are not cast in stone, but are necessarily open to modification.
It was never intended to be an opening to a debate on freedom of speech - sorry if that's disappointing to you.
I agree - which is why I have now split the concept into "presumption of innocence" and "reasonable suspicion".
They were never together in the first place. :rolleyes:
From Magna Carta we have had Presumption of Innocence happily existing alongside the right of the state to investigate, arrest, hold and question a person.
They have never been mutually exclusive.
Why did you ever think they were? Why did you think they needed to be "split"?
As I've already explained, this was an analogy to demonstrate that these broad principles are not cast in stone, but are necessarily open to modification.
My last word on this, as it is OT.
How many times have you done this now? Bring up something because you think it supports you but as soon as it is shown not to you suddenly declare it "irrelevant" or "OT"?
How many times have you done this now? Bring up something because you think it supports you but as soon as it is shown not to you suddenly declare it "irrelevant" or "OT"?
DVLA, PACE, the Liberty website....
Is it ever going to be possible to make a post here in good faith, or is the accusation of underhand behaviour always sure to follow?
What would you like to say about Freedom of Speech that is relevant to whether "TVL" are bullies or not?
Comments
The formal "presumption of innocence" is protected by Article 6.2 of the ECHR, and modified by anti-terrorism legislation. (Not sure if there any modifications in PACE, so I will not claim that).
This less formal "reasonable suspicion" principle is not part of the ECHR as far as I can tell. It is part of PACE, though, and therefore applies to the Police under relevant circumstances. It also appears in the Search Warrant process in the 2003 Comms Act.
I conclude that because "TVL" do not have a right to enter premises and interview suspects, that there is no general requirement for "reasonable suspicion". The law is an ass, sometimes - but all the more reason to content that Article 8 is relevant.
i think i asked you whether or not you would argue that tvl visiting someone actually involves anyone being accused of anything?
which, IIRC, may be where you replied before about how some people may think it feels like that.
in which case i'm sorry - but someone feeling like that isn't actually the same as actually being accused of anything.
Iain
Why would it?
How likely is it that something like this would enter the public domain?
If someone buys a licence they don't need then it seems reasonable to suppose they've done so under a mistaken belief that they do need one.
On the one hand they may continue in blissful ignorance or, on the other, if they discover their mistake then, due to embarrassment, they're hardly likely to shout it from the rooftops.
Are they?
If victim perception is good enough for the Police, I think it's good enough for this case.
That's funny, every time I have ever been stopped for speeding the policeman has not informed me that I need not answer his questions, apart from name and car owner's name.
So how does any of that affect the fact that you have no freedom of speech rights on a website?
That is nothing to do with Presumption Of Innocence. Even if you suspect someone is guilty, and you have lots of evidence, witnesses etc that person is still Presumed Innocent.
You can be formally accused of murder, but you are still presumed innocent.
It's easy for these threads to become a confusing mess of misunderstanding piled on top of vagueness. There are a number of different scenarios under which "TVL" visit people...
1) People who invoke common law:
What people feel, what they fear, what they expect - all of those things will drive their level of resistance or compliance, and their feeling of being exploited when they learn the truth.
and?
As Iain said
in which case i'm sorry - but someone feeling like that isn't actually the same as actually being accused of anything.
Or perhaps most reasonable people can figure out why they are being asked the questions.
I think you underestimate people.
Perhaps, this is more about the individuals concerned rather than TVL. Just like your woman example.
What percentage object? Try not to answer with "ones too many".
I could argue there is no reasonable suspicion to believe I am a terrorist or that I fiddle my meter readings, tax etc etc.. They still check however....and I don't object.
Yet they all still presume innocence. Just like TVL.
What you are doing is usually called cutting of one's nose to spite one's face
I am not satisfied by any of your arguments, so .... a need for what?
Throughout all of these threads, many thousands of posts have failed to prove that. My view is that it is because it isn't true.
So why did you say "Freedom of Speech is another of these broad legal/moral principles. When people post here they are taking advantage of that, but there are many limitations on what they can post."?
You said that my statement should have read:-
It was never intended to be an opening to a debate on freedom of speech - sorry if that's disappointing to you.
My last word on this, as it is OT.
They were never together in the first place. :rolleyes:
From Magna Carta we have had Presumption of Innocence happily existing alongside the right of the state to investigate, arrest, hold and question a person.
They have never been mutually exclusive.
Why did you ever think they were? Why did you think they needed to be "split"?
How many times have you done this now? Bring up something because you think it supports you but as soon as it is shown not to you suddenly declare it "irrelevant" or "OT"?
DVLA, PACE, the Liberty website....
What would you like to say about Freedom of Speech that is relevant to whether "TVL" are bullies or not?
The floor is yours...
Don't play games, it just maked you look silly.
But not when that argument isn't used.