: Must be thought of as well to do. Inspection priority is based on a neighbourhood deprivation : score calculated by the National Statistics Office. The more deprived your area, the more likely : you are to be inspected
Ah. That would explain why I'm being hassled less in my new house (very middle-class, lots of academics type of area) than in my last (working class, two-up-two-down terrace areas)
Mind, with prices the way they are, all your average academic can afford these days is a two-up-two- down so they'll have to re-do those neighbourhoods 🙂
Arthur
-- Arthur Clune clune.orgclune.orgOpen ↗ "Technolibertarians make a philosophy out of a personality defect" - Paulina Borsook
Of course there is. If you choose to cycle rather than drive 100% of the time you need to get anywhere you're "obviously" either poorer than a church mouse and/or A Bit Weird, and if you choose not to have a TV rather than do then you're "obviously" either poorer than a church mouse and/or A Bit Weird.
Or you spend so long cycling everywhere, that you don't have time for TV. Erm... replace "cycling everywhere" with "reading USENET". Who needs a TV when you have USENET?
- Richard
-- _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard dot Corfield at ntlworld dot com _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street, _/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ Except in the Twilight Zone.
Of course there is. If you choose to cycle rather than drive 100% of the time you need to get anywhere you're "obviously" either poorer than a church mouse and/or A Bit Weird, and if you choose not to have a TV rather than do then you're "obviously" either poorer than a church mouse and/or A Bit Weird.
"The only aura you EVER want to give off to a British Customs official is "I am a worm. A slithering worm, not worthy of your attention." You NEVER want to approach even the furthermost edges of banter with a Customs official. Forget all the "Sure, you can check the contents of my camcorder. No, hang on - could you just clarify this whole child pornography thing for me again?" unless you want to be standing naked in a cell being blasted with jets of icy water thirty seconds later. Customs officers enter into a Faustian bargain whereby they are given absolute power in exchange for their sense of humour. [censored]'s dad, you will remember noddingly, was a Customs officer. And /[censored]/ thought he was a nasty piece of work."
Customs officers enter into a Faustian bargain whereby they are given absolute power in exchange for their sense of humour.
Hi Dave
With the exception of my late mother of course. She was in VAT, which is probably worse coming to think about it. :-)
Ironically, in the early 90s, she was the one person on a mini-bus load of people whose baggage was actually searched. She had my extra [censored], booze etc. (If in doubt, go for the little old lady.)
Fortunately, the total amounts of contraband in our combined luggage was within the permitted limits, as was my intention when I packed the cases.
A pal with a B&W TV did get a visit to make sure she really did have a B&W set. She said the inspectors were rather amazed and amused to find she'd been telling the truth!
Hi Peter
The B&W TV owning parents of an old school friend of mine have been though that more than once.
Also, I have read of non-TV owning people having their PCs being examined or even taken away for inspection just to make sure there was no TV card hidden inside.
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 20:51:49 +0000 someone who may be James Hodson <[email hidden]> wrote this:-
Quoted message said:
Also, I have read of non-TV owning people having their PCs being examined or even taken away for inspection just to make sure there was no TV card hidden inside.
They should not have let the petty officials do either.
-- David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 20:47:34 +0000, James Hodson <[email hidden]> wrote in message <[email hidden]>:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Customs officers enter into a Faustian bargain whereby they are given absolute power in exchange for their sense of humour.
Quoted message said:
With the exception of my late mother of course. She was in VAT, which is probably worse coming to think about it. :-)
Mrs Haigh was, too. Several Mrs. Haighs, in fact.
IGMC.
Having said which, in order to remind myself that it was Haigh, I done typed "acid bath murders" into Google and was offered a range of enticing deals on acid bath murders at Kelkoo! I kid you not!
Seems you can get anything on the interweb these days...
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 20:51:49 +0000 someone who may be James Hodson <[email hidden]> wrote this:-
Quoted message said:
Also, I have read of non-TV owning people having their PCs being examined or even taken away for inspection just to make sure there was no TV card hidden inside.
They should not have let the petty officials do either.
Quite true, David.
But what does one actually do in such a situation? After all, a TV licence is compulsory.
"And what exactly do you have to hide, sir?" ... blah, blah, blah
Also, I have read of non-TV owning people having their PCs being examined or even taken away for inspection just to make sure there was no TV card hidden inside.
They should not have let the petty officials do either.
Quite true, David.
But what does one actually do in such a situation? After all, a TV licence is compulsory.
"And what exactly do you have to hide, sir?" ... blah, blah, blah
Either say "nothing, but I object to a) paying for a TV licence b) your bully-boy tactics or, as they are not airport security you can just say something along the lines of "I have several TVs and TV cards to hide and am trying to buy some time so I can hide them in the loft" then be out a lot. Who knows, if they're gullible and really are as bad as everyone thinks you'll get a new front door from them.
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (grisoft.comgrisoft.comOpen ↗). Version: 6.0.601 / Virus Database: 382 - Release Date: 29/02/2004
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:50:47 +0000 someone who may be James Hodson <[email hidden]> wrote this:-
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Also, I have read of non-TV owning people having their PCs being examined or even taken away for inspection just to make sure there was no TV card hidden inside.
But what does one actually do in such a situation?
Prevent them from stealing your property. One may use reasonable force to do so.
Quoted message said:
After all, a TV licence is compulsory.
Incorrect.
-- David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 20:51:49 +0000 someone who may be James Hodson <[email hidden]> wrote this:-
Quoted message said:
Also, I have read of non-TV owning people having their PCs being examined or even taken away for inspection just to make sure there was no TV card hidden inside.
They should not have let the petty officials do either.
Quite true, David.
But what does one actually do in such a situation? After all, a TV licence is compulsory.
"And what exactly do you have to hide, sir?" ... blah, blah, blah
Just tell them the last time you looked at the basic principles of English Law it was for them to prove your guilt, not you to prove your innocence. If they can show evidence to support their assertion that the law has been broken then take it to a magistrate and get a warrant. Even the police cannot search your premises or remove evidence without either your permission or a search warrant.
Also ask for their name and number if they persist.
Just tell them the last time you looked at the basic principles of English Law it was for them to prove your guilt, not you to prove your innocence.
Except that there is an ever-increasing range of offences in which it _is_ down to you to prove innocence. Not only recent terrorism, but also (eg) RIP Act has a requirement for defendants to prove innocence.
It might be a basic principle, but it's far from fundamental or universal.
Quoted message said:
Even the police cannot search your premises or remove evidence without either your permission or a search warrant.
Not entirely true either, is it? I'm pretty certain tehy can search your person for firearms if they have reason to believ you might be concealing one and confiscate them, and under recent terrorism legislation they can search for anything they like as long as the home secretary says it's OK to do so this month. There's also various odd bits of legislation kicking around - I think they can search your person for dead badgers without your consent, and presumably also confiscate any they find.
Richard Goodman wrote: > It's not really the same. Although TV licensing are a nuisance, they can't prosecute you > if you really don't have a set. On the other
hand
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
> you can become liable for certain fines and penalties merely by
being
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
> the registered keeper of a vehicle. If you were not the true keeper/owner at the relevant > time then you'd better make your representations about it in time if you want to avoid > having to pay
the
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
> penalty (plus the additional penalties and costs of late payment). Rich
So you are saying that theorectically I could be sent fines for driving offences despite the fact I don't own a car and am not even the holder of a driving lciense, and have never driven a car in my life and only been inside one a handful of times. Of course if I told them that they would then sue me for driving without a license, insurance etc etc!!!!! ;-)
For some reason davebee's response hasn't appeared directly on my newserver, but anyway, insurance matters aside yes, that is a fact. Under the Road Traffic Act 1991, the owner of a vehicle is liable for the penalty charge when a Penalty Charge Notice is issued to a vehicle. The Act says the owner is presumed to be the registered keeper. So if for some reason someone registers you as the keeper of a vehicle, with or without your knowledge or consent (and we have had clients who have claimed it has been done without their knowledge and consent) you will be faced with a powerful presumption that you are the owner and therefore liable in law for the payment of any penalty charges that have been incurred on that vehicle. That presumption can be rebutted, but only by making representations to the effect that you are not the owner - and the burden of proof will be on you. If you fail to make representations, you could find yourself liable for charges running into the £00's or £000's, which has actually happened to clients of ours who for whatever reason did not deal with the various notices which were sent until they had bailiffs knocking at their doors. Then it is just hell and very time consuming to try and get them out of liability at that stage.
So what happenned to innocent until proven guilty?
For some reason davebee's response hasn't appeared directly on my
newserver,
Quoted message said:
but anyway, insurance matters aside yes, that is a fact. Under the Road Traffic Act 1991, the owner of a vehicle is liable for the penalty charge when a Penalty Charge Notice is issued to a vehicle. The Act says the
owner
Quoted message said:
is presumed to be the registered keeper. So if for some reason someone registers you as the keeper of a vehicle, with or without your knowledge or consent (and we have had clients who have claimed it has been done without their knowledge and consent) you will be faced with a powerful presumption that you are the owner and therefore liable in law for the payment of any penalty charges that have been incurred on that vehicle. That presumption can be rebutted, but only by making representations to the effect that you are not the owner - and the burden of proof will be on you. If you fail to make representations, you could find yourself liable for charges running into the £00's or £000's, which has actually happened to clients of ours
who
Quoted message said:
for whatever reason did not deal with the various notices which were sent until they had bailiffs knocking at their doors. Then it is just hell and very time consuming to try and get them out of liability at that stage.
That's an interesting though ethically testing opportunity for the unlicensed carless in this group. Offer, for a hefty fee plus payment of any fines, to be the registered keeper of vehicles driven by those with lots of points on their licenses. They can go about speeding and other offences unhindered while you absorb all the points for them on your non-license. Presumably the worst they could do is ban you from driving.
