UK TV License Resistance

The European Convention on Human Rights is written into English law by way of The Human Rights Act 1998 (the HRA), which came into force in October 2000, 48 years after the UK signed the treaty creating the convention and the obligation to enforce it in the UK. Thats how much the UK really values that Convention.

The Convention is a treaty between states in Europe, whereby they undertake to respect certain rights regarding those people living within their borders. The treaty is broken into articles to enumerate the rights that a person has in regard to the state. These were formulated in the aftermath of Nazism and World War Two, and they are considered 'fundamental'. Nevertheless they are still not 'absolute' and can be overridden. But such an override must be necessary in a democratic society, must be for a greater public interest from which all including the individual stand to benefit, must be on a legal footing, and must not be more than is necessary to obtain the relevant greater purpose. Since the introduction of the HRA the English judges use this as a get-out clause, but in some cases they cannot manufacture a suitable clause so they just turn a blind eye to the existence of a breach whenever that suits them.

Capita Business Services Ltd, when acting to enforce the TV Licence, is a 'public authority' and so a part of the state. As such it must not breach your human rights during investigation and prosecution. The law courts in England below the level of the Supreme Courts also have to obey and uphold your human rights. The HRA gives immunity from human rights law to the Supreme Courts, I don't think that that is compatible with the Convention, but there you have it. Magistrates and Crown courts are bound by the HRA, the exempt courts are the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. But you will be getting your trials in the former. Where the investigators have thoroughly breached your human rights the trial courts are suppossed to give you a remedy when the prosecution gets under way. That remedy is usually to throw out the prosecution as an 'abuse of process'. Your fundamental rights will be breached by Capita during an investigation, you will use that if they ever prosecute, however ultimately your rights will be ignored by the trial courts. Nevertheless, raise the issue in order to undermine the evidence, the moral authority of the prosecutor and of the courts themselves. But also so as to bump up the expense of the prosecution, ha ha!

So what are the particular human rights to look for? Two stand out. The first is Article 6 the right to a fair trial. The second is Article 8 right to respect for private and family life. Article 8 is always breached by the investigator because he is coming gunning for you in your own home, and he will not do so in accordance with law. Remember what we said above about any interference having to be in accordance with law, so the state has to lay down law for the investigator's interference with you in your home and then the investigator has to stick within that law. The relevant law is the Police And Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which lays down that ALL investigators have to obey its provisions, and it covers searches and interviews. Nothing Capita does to you in your home is in accordance with any law. The threatening letters? Those are unsettling you in your home, there is no legal basis to those, indeed there is no obligation on you to prove positively that you are not committing a crime. Saying they'll knock on your door for a chat? Illegal, they have to have reasonable suspiscion, the reason they are visiting your house is because they have no evidence and hence no reasonable suspiscion. They will interview you, in accordance with a questionaire, but it is illegal by PACE code of conduct for interviews. They will search your house while doing the interview, but that is illegal by PACE code of conduct for searches. Then there is Article 13 right to an effective remedy, which in this case ought to be throwing out the prosecution as an 'abuse of process' - thats why the courts will ignore PACE and its breach by Capita. Obedience to PACE pushes up the cost of the investigative process and reduces the chances of getting any evidence, and if accepted for one prosecution all prosecutions would have to be stopped because the breach is systemic. But at trial you will raise and argue these three Articles in connection with PACE, and you will examine the investigator when he is on the stand about his non-compliance.

So in some detail, how do they breach PACE? What things do you look for? Bearing in mind that the best thing for you to do is send Capita to coventry and slam the door immediately in the face of an investigator and run for a witness, if you fell in with their scam already I will here show you how to make them look like the fraudsters they actually are. You see, they know all that I am about to tell you but they figure you don't.

See this 'interview record'. Remember to enlarge the scan so you can read it by putting mouse over image and hitting enlarge button when it appears in bottom right corner of image.

They tell you that they can put your house under observation to see if you are using a TV. That is regulated by a certain Statutory Instrument. That is secondary legislation by Parliament, usually by a ministry rather than by a vote. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act is the primary legislation for observation of homes, and the particular SI regulates application to surveillance by Capita. Namely, Capita would have to obtain written permission for surveillance from a senior BBC manager, which permission would stand for 8 weeks. The van and its occupants cost a lot of money, and they don't know when you'll use a TV although they can guess, very often they'll be wrong and the surveillance would be an expensive waste. At court you would ask to see the warrant. The fact is, they never put you under surveillance, thats just terroristic propaganda. That out the way, lets go back to PACE for their preferred method, house visits.

If they have a search warrant then they can search against your will and under the Broadcasting Acts there is a criminal offence of not co-operating in that case, with a 6 month jail term. So if they have a warrant then co-operate. That does not mean they have a power to interview generally, you just have to show them where the TV is if there is one or otherwise let them look for one, that doesn't mean they can ask you anything they like. Anyway, they don't usually get warrants, for that it costs money and they would have to show reasonable suspiscion, they don't have reasonable suspiscion beyond the fact that you don't have a license. So when they come to you it will almost certainly be under the guise of you consenting to everything they do, that is how they will portray it to court, and court will node wisely in agreement with them. In fact, by the standard set by PACE there is no consent and the whole process is illegal. They will practice a carefully worked out psychodrama on you to portray that they have a right to be there and to do what they are doing and that you should co-operate, and they will not generally take no for an answer.

PACE recognises two types of search, by warrant or by consent. In both cases they must hand you a Notice of Powers and Rights, telling you what they can do and what your rights are. Even under search by warrant you are allowed to obtain a witness from a neighbour before the search begins. In any case, even for a search by consent they have to give you this notice, they do not because you would see that you can tell them to piss off. That is the first deliberate trick of Capita, cleared by the Law Dept, it means any consent was not informed consent and therefore for purposes of PACE there was no consent. Additionally, for search by consent, they have to prove you consented by getting your signature on a consent form before they set foot in your house, they skip this as Capita's second deliberate trick cleared by the Law Dept. You see, at court they will say you 'invited' them in and the court will nod sagely and say PACE does not apply. Parliament intended PACE to apply to ALL searches period, there is in law no third category of search by invitation outside of PACE. So you will hammer this through both trials, and in appeals to the High Court.

So how do they get in and search? By their third trick. They portray it to you that you are being interviewed under caution. From the above form you will see the caution they read you. It says your defence may be harmed if you do not co-operate. THEN they ask to come in. That is subtle coercion don't you think? And it is not invitation at all is it? Court will nod sagely and say you invited them in! This brings us to PACE on interviews.

Their fourth trick is that caution! It is illegal to read that to you. There are two cautions under PACE. One is for use when you are being arrested, for a mandatory interview, that is what Capita reads you but they cannot arrest you or mandatorily interview you. There is a second milder caution under PACE for situations where an investigator is not arresting and has no RIGHT of interview, and that one allows an absolute right of silence and you can slam the door in their face with no consequences for your defence. If you do slam the door in their face and if at court they do try to use it against you just point out that it was the wrong caution, okay. They know it is wrong, the bastards!

PACE control of interviews also covers the specific topic of 'confession'. You will note in the above form that the investigator has said I admitted use. That is a form of confession, right? That is known as 'verballing', namely the investigator just says you confessed. It is very unreliable and has led to serious injustice in the past, which PACE seeks to correct. It is normally not admissable. Confessions normally have to be on tape at a detention center, but they can't take you to a detention center and they never interview you with a tape. He just writes down anything he likes. The court will nod sagely and say he wrote it at the time so it must be true, but he is a pro and he knows he is writing for impact at court later. I didn't sign any confession, but hey, I must have confessed cos he wrote that I did and the court agreed. But that is just verballing and not admissable. Hammer away at it in your briefs if he does write that in your case, though expect to be ignored, at least it stretches out the court proceedings, brings into dispute the moral authority of the proceedings etc. Anyway, verballing is the fifthd trick.

If you ask for a lawyer they're suppossed to let you get one. Well, you see I asked for a lawyer, you see he didn't let me have one. Court just ignored that. You see they continue even when you say no. They do not care about consent and do not take no for an answer, and when the court sees that it just closes its eyes. He just says he never proceeds without consent and he thought you meant you wanted one later, and the court just nods sagely and accepts it!!! That is Capita's sixth trick.

Now to a seventh trick. He writes you confessed, you don't let him test your TV, he writes No next to Channels Tested because he wants you to sign the confession and you won't if he wrote that he tested. But when time comes to ask you to sign you have a dilemna. If you sign you are signing a confession so he doesn't need to have tested. If you don't sign he just stands there and writes that he tested anyway! What does he say at court? You admitted, you didn't let him test when he asked, you didn't sign, just as you were about to be rid of him you dragged him to the TV and made him test it! There is a remedy. In the law of evidence his own notes can prove he did not make up things later, but that does not preclude him having written falsehoods at the time with an eye to the court, and his own notes may count against him but not being independent of him they do not corroborate him. Amd where a party makes mixed statements on a point the one against his case is taken as true and decides the point without further debate. So applying those rules to the interview above, Channels Tested No means he did not test. Use that in your briefs, but expect to be ignored anyway. I was!

They will not use the interview form if you do not sign it, but I put it in evidence myself for the Channels Tested No bit, especially in consideration that a confession is inadmissable for a strict liability offence. The court ignored the Channels Tested No bit and convicted partly on confession and partly on investigator's twisted testing story. If you don't put in that form, they will just put in his 'notes' which purportedly he does in his car when he gets around the corner after the interview, they'll introduce that anyway. And there in peace and quiet he can 'write it up good' with an eye later to the court.

The eighth trick has already been alluded to. They send out investigators generally alone, and they seek to prosecute essentially on his word. They really don't want you to have a witness, they love to have you alone. Why? Because at court you only need one witness to get a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, that can be the investigator, you have a reason to lie so although you are allowed to take the stand the court can ignore anything you say in your favour and pounce on anything you say that goes against your case. You cannot afford to be caught alone with one of these guys, got it?

What is the motive behind this fraudulent psychodrama? To get evidence on crime for a prosecution? Nope. It is part of their terror campaign. They do not want to prosecute because that costs money. Capita has a deal with the BBC whereby it has to meet sales targets each year, and if it does it gets a bonus and if it does not it misses the bonus. Capita passes this on to the investigator, who gets a sales commission, and he loses the commission if you do not buy and they have to prosecute. The investigator's job is to make you feel like a crook in your own home, make you feel afraid of proceedings, and so break your will and get you to go and buy a licence. They have 6 months after that violation of your home in which to file a prosecution, so they wait almost 6 months to see whether you buy. If not, on to the next step, prosecution. Yeah, all the letters before the visit and the few after are intended to have the same terror effect - and are outside the law so outside Article 8.

UK TV License Resistance - Investigation