Also how does this hold up in court if the only “evidence” is presented by people who are in a conflict of interest and can easily falsify it (point the microphone at a prepared tv / different house)?
Comment on 500,000 households cancel TV licence putting BBC future in jeopardy
rollerbang@lemmy.world 1 month agoAnd that’s a legal tactic? That’s basically spying on people and what they do in their houses.
Hupf@feddit.org 1 month ago
rollerbang@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I’m guessing that’s the reason they’re pressing to to in and inspect. Even though at the end they didn’t go. So they weren’t justified at all.
They’re just pressing so that people cave in and think "well they must be in the right, they have the law (policeman) on their side.
I seriously doubt that they’ve ended up suing the guy.
Agent641@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Welcome to Britain, where the laws are made up and your rights don’t matter
rollerbang@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I actually remember seeing this before. But if not a warrant, what did they have then? Just a pretend paper? Because if it was an actual warrant, they would have gone in?
Agent641@lemmy.world 1 month ago
It’s a real warrant, signed by a justice of the peace, and legally enforceable. They could have forced their way inside. They just have a policy not to do that if it comes to it, so they withdrew. But by refusing to comply with the warrant, the person filming is actually committing obstruction of justice, which carries a much greater fine than just watching TV broadcast without a license. So he’ll probably get a summons for that too.