TVL Demands License for Laptop and WiFi

Discussion in 'Home Networking' started by CJB, Sep 11, 2006.

  1. Perhaps you want to read some then.
     
    Mark McIntyre, Sep 13, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. If you were given permission to . And you'd lose that, and get costs
    awarded against you, and possibly a short spell indoors for wasting
    the courts time.

    You /really/ do need to get down to the court and watch it in action
    ,before mouthing off about rights and burdens of proof. Except in the
    crown court, the burden is firmly on the accused.
     
    Mark McIntyre, Sep 13, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. This is true if and only if the whole property is a joint tenancy. If
    you have separate tenancy agreements with your landlord, you need
    separate licenses.
    This is true.
     
    Mark McIntyre, Sep 13, 2006
  4. Yes, though this is much less common IME.
     
    Mark McIntyre, Sep 13, 2006
  5. CJB

    Alex Heney Guest

    If that is true, then I expect our court system to be up before the
    ECHR before too long.
     
    Alex Heney, Sep 13, 2006
  6. CJB

    Alex Heney Guest

    Perhaps you would care to cite the law under which it is fraud?

    It is *just* possible that it *could* be IF you gave a false name &
    address for the purpose of evading the licence fee, although even then
    I'm not convinced.

    It most certainly isn't otherwise.
     
    Alex Heney, Sep 14, 2006
  7. CJB

    Alex Heney Guest

    *YOU* are the one who keeps saying that the burden of proof is on the
    defence.

    Which in a criminal case is simply incorrect in law;.
     
    Alex Heney, Sep 14, 2006
  8. CJB

    Guest Guest

    That just proves the point that you are so out of touch with reality that
    you "/really/ do need to get down to the court and watch it in action
    ,before mouthing off about rights and burdens of proof."
     
    Guest, Sep 14, 2006
  9. CJB

    Alex Heney Guest

    While you most abundantly obviously have no clue about the law.

    You are right in that I have only been in a magistrates court twice,
    the most recent of which was 22 years ago, so obviously I don't have
    recent experience of how it actually works in practice.

    But I do know what the law says.

    And what the magistrates guidance says (from the bench book, a link to
    which was kindly provided by Bystander recently).

    And that is that the burden of proof lies upon the prosecution, and it
    must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

    If actual courts are not working on that basis, then they are not
    working in accordance with either the law or their own guidelines.
    The other Alex was clearly correct in stating that you don'

    know the difference between civil law and criminal law.

    *Civil* cases are decided on the balance of probabilities.

    Criminal case are decided on beyond reasonable doubt.

    And use of a TV receiver without a licence is a criminal offence.

    In those situations where the defence does have to show something
    (e.g. that they have insurance when they are accused of driving
    without it), then they only have to show that on the balance of
    probability.
     
    Alex Heney, Sep 14, 2006
  10. CJB

    Guest Guest

    FFS grow up.
    If you are accused of a crime, you have to defend it.
     
    Guest, Sep 14, 2006
  11. CJB

    Alex Heney Guest

    It proves nothing.
     
    Alex Heney, Sep 14, 2006
  12. CJB

    Alex Heney Guest

    Of course.

    Who ever suggested otherwise?
     
    Alex Heney, Sep 14, 2006
  13. CJB

    Guest Guest

    What makes you think anyone did?
     
    Guest, Sep 14, 2006
  14. CJB

    Mike Guest

    I've seen cases fail without the defence presenting any evidence at
    all - even in magistrates' courts. All the defendant need do is cast
    doubt on the prosecution evidence - sometimes not even that.
     
    Mike, Sep 14, 2006
  15. CJB

    Alex Heney Guest

    Agreed.

    Defending the case need not involve presenting evidence.
     
    Alex Heney, Sep 14, 2006
  16. CJB

    Alex Guest

    At 23:42:35 on 13/09/2006, Mark McIntyre delighted uk.legal by
    announcing:
    So you don't have a clue, in other words.
     
    Alex, Sep 14, 2006
  17. CJB

    Alex Guest

    At 23:44:09 on 13/09/2006, Mark McIntyre delighted uk.legal by
    announcing:
    By all means, if you feel you're right, feel free to cite the relevant
    Act.
     
    Alex, Sep 14, 2006
  18. CJB

    Alex Guest

    At 23:41:51 on 13/09/2006, Mark McIntyre delighted uk.legal by
    announcing:
    Again, you're confusing civil and criminal cases.
     
    Alex, Sep 14, 2006
  19. CJB

    Doz Guest

    If you have a VHS recorder to play the tapes you would need a licence...
    The I guess you could "try" and find a VHS player only..

    As the OP said.. he would never use the TV card...
     
    Doz, Sep 14, 2006
  20. CJB

    Alex Guest

    At 11:03:09 on 14/09/2006, Doz delighted uk.legal by announcing:
    WRONG!
     
    Alex, Sep 14, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.