JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
> On 04/06/2023 05:15 pm, charles wrote:
>> In article <ke3t0pFd55rU1@mid.individual.net>,
>> JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
>>> On 04/06/2023 05:00 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>> On 04/06/2023 16:15, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> On 03/06/2023 06:10 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>> On 03/06/2023 12:16, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 11:40:06 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Almost every piece of electronics you can buy these days has more
>>>>>>>>> capabilities than anyone actually uses, so I doubt if that sort of
>>>>>>>>> nitpicking interpretation would get very far if anyone were foolish
>>>>>>>>> enough to present it in court.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's not nitpicking at all to regard either a tuned in television or
>>>>>>>> Freeview recorder as a television receiver.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is nitpicking to declare someone guilty of an offence because of
>>>>>>> something they're not doing, merely because they possess something
>>>>>>> that could be used to do it, if they were doing it, which they're not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are actually many offences of mere possession.
>>>>>
>>>>> ...but not one of possessing a Freeview recorder.
>>>>
>>>> You mean, apart from Section 363(1) of the Communications Act 2003?
>>
>>> QUOTE:
>>
>>> 363 Licence required for use of TV receiver
>>
>>> (1) A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the
>>> installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under
>>> this Part.
>>> ENDQUOTE
>>
>>> Which bit forbids ownership or possession of a Freeview recorder (or,
>>> for that matter, a television set) where no TV licence is held?
>>
>>> I have a relative who moved to the USA nearly ten years ago. He left all
>>> his furniture and audio visual gear in storage (it's all gone from there
>>> now).
>>
>>> One of the items was a Humax Freeview recorder (which I had given him as
>>> a present a few years earlier). Oh... and a B&O TV. Was he breaking the
>>> law by owning those items whilst not having a licence?
>>
>>> Was the storage company breaking the law by having them in its
>>> possession, perhaps?
>>
>> No, because they are not installed.
>
> Installation doesn't enter this discussion. It is purely about ownership
> and possession.
>
> It arose dirctly, as you can see above, from a remark which went:
>
> "There are actually many offences of mere possession."
>
> The response to that was:
>
> "...but not one of possessing a Freeview recorder".
>

Installing or *intending* to install are what causes an offence. So you
could be done simply by the fact of owning a device, but only if they could
prove intent to install. That might be shown if you’d just ordered an
aerial or booked an aerial fitter, as an example.

On 04/06/2023 21:43, Tweed wrote:
> JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
>> On 04/06/2023 05:15 pm, charles wrote:
>>> In article <ke3t0pFd55rU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>> JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 04/06/2023 05:00 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>> On 04/06/2023 16:15, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> On 03/06/2023 06:10 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>>> On 03/06/2023 12:16, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 11:40:06 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Almost every piece of electronics you can buy these days has more
>>>>>>>>>> capabilities than anyone actually uses, so I doubt if that sort of
>>>>>>>>>> nitpicking interpretation would get very far if anyone were foolish
>>>>>>>>>> enough to present it in court.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's not nitpicking at all to regard either a tuned in television or
>>>>>>>>> Freeview recorder as a television receiver.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is nitpicking to declare someone guilty of an offence because of
>>>>>>>> something they're not doing, merely because they possess something
>>>>>>>> that could be used to do it, if they were doing it, which they're not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are actually many offences of mere possession.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...but not one of possessing a Freeview recorder.
>>>>>
>>>>> You mean, apart from Section 363(1) of the Communications Act 2003?
>>>
>>>> QUOTE:
>>>
>>>> 363 Licence required for use of TV receiver
>>>
>>>> (1) A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the
>>>> installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under
>>>> this Part.
>>>> ENDQUOTE
>>>
>>>> Which bit forbids ownership or possession of a Freeview recorder (or,
>>>> for that matter, a television set) where no TV licence is held?
>>>
>>>> I have a relative who moved to the USA nearly ten years ago. He left all
>>>> his furniture and audio visual gear in storage (it's all gone from there
>>>> now).
>>>
>>>> One of the items was a Humax Freeview recorder (which I had given him as
>>>> a present a few years earlier). Oh... and a B&O TV. Was he breaking the
>>>> law by owning those items whilst not having a licence?
>>>
>>>> Was the storage company breaking the law by having them in its
>>>> possession, perhaps?
>>>
>>> No, because they are not installed.
>>
>> Installation doesn't enter this discussion. It is purely about ownership
>> and possession.
>>
>> It arose dirctly, as you can see above, from a remark which went:
>>
>> "There are actually many offences of mere possession."
>>
>> The response to that was:
>>
>> "...but not one of possessing a Freeview recorder".
>>
>
> Installing or *intending* to install are what causes an offence. So you
> could be done simply by the fact of owning a device, but only if they could
> prove intent to install. That might be shown if you’d just ordered an
> aerial or booked an aerial fitter, as an example.

The words of the Act are that 'A television receiver must not be
installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is
authorised by a licence under this Part'. If one *is* installed, ie is
present and tuned in and ready to go with minimal effort like turning it
on or plugging in an aerial cable, I say that contravenes the 'be
installed' provision.

On 04/06/2023 19:43, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 16:13:56 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> There are actually many offences of mere possession.
>>>>
>>>> ...but not one of possessing a Freeview recorder.
>>>
>>> You mean, apart from Section 363(1) of the Communications Act 2003?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Having one in a box up in the spare room isn’t an offence. Having one set
>> up with an aerial plugged in is. Interestingly, if you’ve got the machine
>> in the box in the spare room with a view to plugging it in next week you
>> are also guilty. (Section 3a)
>
> What about having one that still has an aerial plugged in because you
> used to use it but hasn't been powered for a couple of years and with
> no view to do anything with it for the foreseeable future?

I say that is 'installed'. And the law says:

'A television receiver must not be installed ... unless the installation
and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this Part'.

On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 22:32:34 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>On 04/06/2023 19:43, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 16:13:56 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> There are actually many offences of mere possession.
>>>>>
>>>>> ...but not one of possessing a Freeview recorder.
>>>>
>>>> You mean, apart from Section 363(1) of the Communications Act 2003?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Having one in a box up in the spare room isn’t an offence. Having one set
>>> up with an aerial plugged in is. Interestingly, if you’ve got the machine
>>> in the box in the spare room with a view to plugging it in next week you
>>> are also guilty. (Section 3a)
>>
>> What about having one that still has an aerial plugged in because you
>> used to use it but hasn't been powered for a couple of years and with
>> no view to do anything with it for the foreseeable future?
>
>I say that is 'installed'. And the law says:
>
>'A television receiver must not be installed ... unless the installation
>and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this Part'.

From the legislation.gov.uk website-

“television receiver” means any apparatus installed or used for the
purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or
otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is
installed or used for any other purpose.

If I have something that was installed a long time ago but which I no
longer use, and is still in place only because I can't be bothered to
fumble round the back with its cables, then it is no longer installed
*for the purpose of* receiving anything, and therefore doesn't fit the
description above.

If you interpret 'installed' to mean the *action* of installing the
equipment, rather than its current *status* (it's not clear from the
wording) then it would be perfectly legal to carry out that action
while possessing a licence, but if I subsequently cancelled the
licence and stopped using the equipment, its purpose would have
changed (because it no longer has one if I don't use it), so it
shouldn't need a licence. Its current *status* is that it is not
installed for the purpose of receiving broadcasts, and the *action* of
installing it was carried out in the past when it was legal to do so,
and the past cannot be changed.

Rod.

On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 22:25:40 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>The words of the Act are that 'A television receiver must not be
>installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is
>authorised by a licence under this Part'. If one *is* installed, ie is
>present and tuned in and ready to go with minimal effort like turning it
>on or plugging in an aerial cable, I say that contravenes the 'be
>installed' provision.

As I've pointed out elsewhere, legality seems to hinge on whether
'installed' is taken to mean the existing *status* of being installed,
or carrying out the *action* of installing. It's not clear from the
wording exactly which is meant.

Equipment also has to be installed *for the purpose* of receiving
broadcasts to qualify for a licence. This would seem to discount
equipment with includes capabilities that are not being used, and just
as well because nearly everything electronic that you can buy nowadays
includes lots of features and functions you don't need. It would not
be reasonable to expect the purchasers of new equipment to start
snipping wires or scraping circuit boards (even if they knew how) to
disable things they don't want in order to make it legal.

Rod.

On 05/06/2023 09:29, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 22:32:34 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>> On 04/06/2023 19:43, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>> On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 16:13:56 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> There are actually many offences of mere possession.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...but not one of possessing a Freeview recorder.
>>>>>
>>>>> You mean, apart from Section 363(1) of the Communications Act 2003?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Having one in a box up in the spare room isn’t an offence. Having one set
>>>> up with an aerial plugged in is. Interestingly, if you’ve got the machine
>>>> in the box in the spare room with a view to plugging it in next week you
>>>> are also guilty. (Section 3a)
>>>
>>> What about having one that still has an aerial plugged in because you
>>> used to use it but hasn't been powered for a couple of years and with
>>> no view to do anything with it for the foreseeable future?
>>
>> I say that is 'installed'. And the law says:
>>
>> 'A television receiver must not be installed ... unless the installation
>> and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this Part'.
>
> From the legislation.gov.uk website-
>
> “television receiver” means any apparatus installed or used for the
> purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or
> otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is
> installed or used for any other purpose.
>
> If I have something that was installed a long time ago but which I no
> longer use, and is still in place only because I can't be bothered to
> fumble round the back with its cables, then it is no longer installed
> *for the purpose of* receiving anything, and therefore doesn't fit the
> description above.

I disagree. Whether you actually use it or not is irrelevant to its
purpose. And its purpose is pretty obvious if it's a television or a
Freeview disk recorder. The purpose of an electric kettle, for example,
is to heat up water however infrequently it may be used or even if it is
not used at all.

> If you interpret 'installed' to mean the *action* of installing the
> equipment, rather than its current *status* (it's not clear from the
> wording) then it would be perfectly legal to carry out that action
> while possessing a licence, but if I subsequently cancelled the
> licence and stopped using the equipment, its purpose would have
> changed (because it no longer has one if I don't use it), so it
> shouldn't need a licence. Its current *status* is that it is not
> installed for the purpose of receiving broadcasts, and the *action* of
> installing it was carried out in the past when it was legal to do so,
> and the past cannot be changed.

I think the Act is worded as it is, rather oddly in the passive voice,
so as not to be restricted to the actual act of installation, whatever
that may be these days anyway.

On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 09:45:36 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>> If I have something that was installed a long time ago but which I no
>> longer use, and is still in place only because I can't be bothered to
>> fumble round the back with its cables, then it is no longer installed
>> *for the purpose of* receiving anything, and therefore doesn't fit the
>> description above.
>
>I disagree. Whether you actually use it or not is irrelevant to its
>purpose. And its purpose is pretty obvious if it's a television or a
>Freeview disk recorder. The purpose of an electric kettle, for example,
>is to heat up water however infrequently it may be used or even if it is
>not used at all.

The purpose can only mean *my* purpose. How can a non-sentient
inanimate object have a purpose al by itself? If it can be said to
have a purpose it can only have the purpose that is planned or
intended for it by a human being. If I do not use something and do not
intend to, then I have no purpose for it, so it has no purpose.

The person who made or determined the form of something in the factory
might have optimised it for a particular purpose they may have
imagined its owner would have, but if, as the aforementioned owner, I
have a different purpose or none at all, then that's its purpose.

Rod.

On 05/06/2023 10:10, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 09:45:36 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>>> If I have something that was installed a long time ago but which I no
>>> longer use, and is still in place only because I can't be bothered to
>>> fumble round the back with its cables, then it is no longer installed
>>> *for the purpose of* receiving anything, and therefore doesn't fit the
>>> description above.
>>
>> I disagree. Whether you actually use it or not is irrelevant to its
>> purpose. And its purpose is pretty obvious if it's a television or a
>> Freeview disk recorder. The purpose of an electric kettle, for example,
>> is to heat up water however infrequently it may be used or even if it is
>> not used at all.
>
> The purpose can only mean *my* purpose.

Don't be so selfish!

It means in my view the purpose for which it was designed.

> How can a non-sentient
> inanimate object have a purpose al by itself? If it can be said to
> have a purpose it can only have the purpose that is planned or
> intended for it by a human being.

Not necessarily by you though.

On 04/06/2023 09:43 pm, Tweed wrote:

> JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
>> On 04/06/2023 05:15 pm, charles wrote:
>>> JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 04/06/2023 05:00 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>> On 04/06/2023 16:15, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> On 03/06/2023 06:10 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>>> On 03/06/2023 12:16, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>>>>>>> Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>> Almost every piece of electronics you can buy these days has more
>>>>>>>>>> capabilities than anyone actually uses, so I doubt if that sort of
>>>>>>>>>> nitpicking interpretation would get very far if anyone were foolish
>>>>>>>>>> enough to present it in court.
>
>>>>>>>>> It's not nitpicking at all to regard either a tuned in television or
>>>>>>>>> Freeview recorder as a television receiver.
>
>>>>>>>> It is nitpicking to declare someone guilty of an offence because of
>>>>>>>> something they're not doing, merely because they possess something
>>>>>>>> that could be used to do it, if they were doing it, which they're not.
>
Norman:
>>>>>>> There are actually many offences of mere possession.
>>>>>>
JN:
>>>>>> ...but not one of possessing a Freeview recorder.
>>>>>
Norman:
>>>>> You mean, apart from Section 363(1) of the Communications Act 2003?
>
JN:
>>>> QUOTE:
>>>> 363 Licence required for use of TV receiver
>>>> (1) A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the
>>>> installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under
>>>> this Part.
>>>> ENDQUOTE
>>>> Which bit forbids ownership or possession of a Freeview recorder (or,
>>>> for that matter, a television set) where no TV licence is held?
>>>> I have a relative who moved to the USA nearly ten years ago. He left all
>>>> his furniture and audio visual gear in storage (it's all gone from there
>>>> now).
>>>> One of the items was a Humax Freeview recorder (which I had given him as
>>>> a present a few years earlier). Oh... and a B&O TV. Was he breaking the
>>>> law by owning those items whilst not having a licence?
>>>> Was the storage company breaking the law by having them in its
>>>> possession, perhaps?
>
>>> No, because they are not installed.
>
>> Installation doesn't enter this discussion. It is purely about ownership
>> and possession.
>> It arose dirctly, as you can see above, from a remark which went:
>> "There are actually many offences of mere possession."
>> The response to that was:
>> "...but not one of possessing a Freeview recorder".
>
> Installing or *intending* to install are what causes an offence.

That's fine and in certain other circumstances, would be a valid
observation to make.

But here and now, it isn't, because the topic was mere possession, which
another poster raised on the basis that there are certain (other) things
of which the law makes mere possession an offence.

But a Freeview recorder is not one of them.

> So you
> could be done simply by the fact of owning a device, but only if they could
> prove intent to install. That might be shown if you’d just ordered an
> aerial or booked an aerial fitter, as an example.

Oh come on... how much more irrelevant are you going to try to be in
follow-up posts? ;-)

On 05/06/2023 12:48, JNugent wrote:
> On 04/06/2023 09:43 pm, Tweed wrote:
>> JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:

>> Installing or *intending* to install are what causes an offence.
>
> That's fine and in certain other circumstances, would be a valid
> observation to make.
>
> But here and now, it isn't, because the topic was mere possession, which
> another poster raised on the basis that there are certain (other) things
> of which the law makes mere possession an offence.
>
> But a Freeview recorder is not one of them.

If it is 'installed', and of course unlicensed, I'm saying it is by
virtue of Section 363(1) of the Communications Act 2003.

On 05/06/2023 12:55 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 05/06/2023 12:48, JNugent wrote:
>> On 04/06/2023 09:43 pm, Tweed wrote:
>>> JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Installing or *intending* to install are what causes an offence.
>>
>> That's fine and in certain other circumstances, would be a valid
>> observation to make.
>>
>> But here and now, it isn't, because the topic was mere possession,
>> which another poster raised on the basis that there are certain
>> (other) things of which the law makes mere possession an offence.
>>
>> But a Freeview recorder is not one of them.
>
> If it is 'installed', and of course unlicensed, I'm saying it is by
> virtue of Section 363(1) of the Communications Act 2003.

That is a change of position.

We were discussing mere possession, with no reference to other actions.

It is not an offence to possess a Freeview recorder.

On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 12:07:27 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>On 05/06/2023 10:10, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 09:45:36 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> If I have something that was installed a long time ago but which I no
>>>> longer use, and is still in place only because I can't be bothered to
>>>> fumble round the back with its cables, then it is no longer installed
>>>> *for the purpose of* receiving anything, and therefore doesn't fit the
>>>> description above.
>>>
>>> I disagree. Whether you actually use it or not is irrelevant to its
>>> purpose. And its purpose is pretty obvious if it's a television or a
>>> Freeview disk recorder. The purpose of an electric kettle, for example,
>>> is to heat up water however infrequently it may be used or even if it is
>>> not used at all.
>>
>> The purpose can only mean *my* purpose.
>
>Don't be so selfish!
>
>It means in my view the purpose for which it was designed.
>
>> How can a non-sentient
>> inanimate object have a purpose al by itself? If it can be said to
>> have a purpose it can only have the purpose that is planned or
>> intended for it by a human being.
>
>Not necessarily by you though.

Lots of things end up being used quite differently from what their
designers intended.

It's nonsense to speak of an inanimate object having a purpose of its
own, as it is not capable of having any thoughts or intentions.

The purpose of my possessions is what *I* use or intend to use them
for. How can I be guilty of someone else's purpose?

Rod.

On 05/06/2023 13:14, JNugent wrote:
> On 05/06/2023 12:55 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 05/06/2023 12:48, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 04/06/2023 09:43 pm, Tweed wrote:
>>>> JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Installing or *intending* to install are what causes an offence.
>>>
>>> That's fine and in certain other circumstances, would be a valid
>>> observation to make.
>>>
>>> But here and now, it isn't, because the topic was mere possession,
>>> which another poster raised on the basis that there are certain
>>> (other) things of which the law makes mere possession an offence.
>>>
>>> But a Freeview recorder is not one of them.
>>
>> If it is 'installed', and of course unlicensed, I'm saying it is by
>> virtue of Section 363(1) of the Communications Act 2003.
>
> That is a change of position.

Not at all. It's what the whole discussion has been about.

> We were discussing mere possession, with no reference to other actions.

No, I just pointed out that there were offences of mere possession of
some items, so one in relation to a freeview recorder was not beyond the
realms of possibility.

A lot of simple possession examples have conditions attached, for
example 'without lawful excuse' or 'dishonestly', but with no necessity
of use.

> It is not an offence to possess a Freeview recorder.

Unless it's 'installed' in unlicensed premises, I agree.

On 05/06/2023 04:05 pm, Norman Wells wrote:

> On 05/06/2023 13:14, JNugent wrote:
>> On 05/06/2023 12:55 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> On 05/06/2023 12:48, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 04/06/2023 09:43 pm, Tweed wrote:
>>>>> JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> Installing or *intending* to install are what causes an offence.
>
>>>> That's fine and in certain other circumstances, would be a valid
>>>> observation to make.
>>>> But here and now, it isn't, because the topic was mere possession,
>>>> which another poster raised on the basis that there are certain
>>>> (other) things of which the law makes mere possession an offence.
>>>> But a Freeview recorder is not one of them.
>
>>> If it is 'installed', and of course unlicensed, I'm saying it is by
>>> virtue of Section 363(1) of the Communications Act 2003.
>
>> That is a change of position.
>
> Not at all.  It's what the whole discussion has been about.

No, you've widened it. But even so, that legal provision does not even
begin to make possession of a Freeview recorder an offence.

>> We were discussing mere possession, with no reference to other actions.
>
> No,

You say "no". You mean "yes".

> I just pointed out that there were offences of mere possession of
> some items, so one in relation to a freeview recorder was not beyond the
> realms of possibility.

But it IS beyond the realms of possibility because there is no legal
provision which makes possession of a Freeview recorder - or any other
item of audio-visual equipment - an offence.

> A lot of simple possession examples have conditions attached, for
> example 'without lawful excuse' or 'dishonestly', but with no necessity
> of use.
>
>> It is not an offence to possess a Freeview recorder.

> Unless it's 'installed' in unlicensed premises, I agree.

It is not an offence to possess a Freeview recorder.

Unlicensed use to receive television broadcasts would be an offence
whether one owned the unit or not.

It's a quite distinct point.

On 05/06/2023 16:15, JNugent wrote:
> On 05/06/2023 04:05 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>
>> On 05/06/2023 13:14, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 05/06/2023 12:55 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>> On 05/06/2023 12:48, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> On 04/06/2023 09:43 pm, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>> JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Installing or *intending* to install are what causes an offence.
>>
>>>>> That's fine and in certain other circumstances, would be a valid
>>>>> observation to make.
>>>>> But here and now, it isn't, because the topic was mere possession,
>>>>> which another poster raised on the basis that there are certain
>>>>> (other) things of which the law makes mere possession an offence.
>>>>> But a Freeview recorder is not one of them.
>>
>>>> If it is 'installed', and of course unlicensed, I'm saying it is by
>>>> virtue of Section 363(1) of the Communications Act 2003.
>>
>>> That is a change of position.
>>
>> Not at all.  It's what the whole discussion has been about.
>
> No, you've widened it. But even so, that legal provision does not even
> begin to make possession of a Freeview recorder an offence.
>
>>> We were discussing mere possession, with no reference to other actions.
>>
>> No,
>
> You say "no". You mean "yes".
>
>> I just pointed out that there were offences of mere possession of some
>> items, so one in relation to a freeview recorder was not beyond the
>> realms of possibility.
>
> But it IS beyond the realms of possibility because there is no legal
> provision which makes possession of a Freeview recorder - or any other
> item of audio-visual equipment - an offence.
>
>> A lot of simple possession examples have conditions attached, for
>> example 'without lawful excuse' or 'dishonestly', but with no
>> necessity of use.
>>
>>> It is not an offence to possess a Freeview recorder.
>
>> Unless it's 'installed' in unlicensed premises, I agree.
>
> It is not an offence to possess a Freeview recorder.
>
> Unlicensed use to receive television broadcasts would be an offence
> whether one owned the unit or not.

What do you think is the significance of the word 'or' in the following:

"A television receiver must not be installed *or* used unless the
installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under
this Part."?

On 05/06/2023 04:33 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 05/06/2023 16:15, JNugent wrote:
>> On 05/06/2023 04:05 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/06/2023 13:14, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 05/06/2023 12:55 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>> On 05/06/2023 12:48, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/06/2023 09:43 pm, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>>> JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> Installing or *intending* to install are what causes an offence.
>>>
>>>>>> That's fine and in certain other circumstances, would be a valid
>>>>>> observation to make.
>>>>>> But here and now, it isn't, because the topic was mere possession,
>>>>>> which another poster raised on the basis that there are certain
>>>>>> (other) things of which the law makes mere possession an offence.
>>>>>> But a Freeview recorder is not one of them.
>>>
>>>>> If it is 'installed', and of course unlicensed, I'm saying it is by
>>>>> virtue of Section 363(1) of the Communications Act 2003.
>>>
>>>> That is a change of position.
>>>
>>> Not at all.  It's what the whole discussion has been about.
>>
>> No, you've widened it. But even so, that legal provision does not even
>> begin to make possession of a Freeview recorder an offence.
>>
>>>> We were discussing mere possession, with no reference to other actions.
>>>
>>> No,
>>
>> You say "no". You mean "yes".
>>
>>> I just pointed out that there were offences of mere possession of
>>> some items, so one in relation to a freeview recorder was not beyond
>>> the realms of possibility.
>>
>> But it IS beyond the realms of possibility because there is no legal
>> provision which makes possession of a Freeview recorder - or any other
>> item of audio-visual equipment - an offence.
>>
>>> A lot of simple possession examples have conditions attached, for
>>> example 'without lawful excuse' or 'dishonestly', but with no
>>> necessity of use.
>>>
>>>> It is not an offence to possess a Freeview recorder.
>>
>>> Unless it's 'installed' in unlicensed premises, I agree.
>>
>> It is not an offence to possess a Freeview recorder.
>>
>> Unlicensed use to receive television broadcasts would be an offence
>> whether one owned the unit or not.
>
> What do you think is the significance of the word 'or' in the following:
>
> "A television receiver must not be installed *or* used unless the
> installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under
> this Part."?

It doesn't matter in the slightest.

Neither "install" nor "use" is a synonym for "possess" or "own".

QED

JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
> On 05/06/2023 04:33 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 05/06/2023 16:15, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 05/06/2023 04:05 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 05/06/2023 13:14, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> On 05/06/2023 12:55 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>> On 05/06/2023 12:48, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>> On 04/06/2023 09:43 pm, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>>>> JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Installing or *intending* to install are what causes an offence.
>>>>
>>>>>>> That's fine and in certain other circumstances, would be a valid
>>>>>>> observation to make.
>>>>>>> But here and now, it isn't, because the topic was mere possession,
>>>>>>> which another poster raised on the basis that there are certain
>>>>>>> (other) things of which the law makes mere possession an offence.
>>>>>>> But a Freeview recorder is not one of them.
>>>>
>>>>>> If it is 'installed', and of course unlicensed, I'm saying it is by
>>>>>> virtue of Section 363(1) of the Communications Act 2003.
>>>>
>>>>> That is a change of position.
>>>>
>>>> Not at all.  It's what the whole discussion has been about.
>>>
>>> No, you've widened it. But even so, that legal provision does not even
>>> begin to make possession of a Freeview recorder an offence.
>>>
>>>>> We were discussing mere possession, with no reference to other actions.
>>>>
>>>> No,
>>>
>>> You say "no". You mean "yes".
>>>
>>>> I just pointed out that there were offences of mere possession of
>>>> some items, so one in relation to a freeview recorder was not beyond
>>>> the realms of possibility.
>>>
>>> But it IS beyond the realms of possibility because there is no legal
>>> provision which makes possession of a Freeview recorder - or any other
>>> item of audio-visual equipment - an offence.
>>>
>>>> A lot of simple possession examples have conditions attached, for
>>>> example 'without lawful excuse' or 'dishonestly', but with no
>>>> necessity of use.
>>>>
>>>>> It is not an offence to possess a Freeview recorder.
>>>
>>>> Unless it's 'installed' in unlicensed premises, I agree.
>>>
>>> It is not an offence to possess a Freeview recorder.
>>>
>>> Unlicensed use to receive television broadcasts would be an offence
>>> whether one owned the unit or not.
>>
>> What do you think is the significance of the word 'or' in the following:
>>
>> "A television receiver must not be installed *or* used unless the
>> installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under
>> this Part."?
>
> It doesn't matter in the slightest.
>
> Neither "install" nor "use" is a synonym for "possess" or "own".
>
> QED
>
Section 3 a is being ignored in this discussion. Owing said recorder,
whilst not having installed it, but *intending* to install it is an
offence. So with that intent simply possessing a recorder is an offence.

363Licence required for use of TV receiver

(1)A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the
installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this
Part.

(2)A person who installs or uses a television receiver in contravention of
subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.

(3)A person with a television receiver in his possession or under his
control who—

(a)intends to install or use it in contravention of subsection (1), or

(b)knows, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that another person
intends to install or use it in contravention of that subsection,

On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 16:33:58 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>>>> It is not an offence to possess a Freeview recorder.
>>
>>> Unless it's 'installed' in unlicensed premises, I agree.
>>
>> It is not an offence to possess a Freeview recorder.
>>
>> Unlicensed use to receive television broadcasts would be an offence
>> whether one owned the unit or not.
>
>What do you think is the significance of the word 'or' in the following:
>
>"A television receiver must not be installed *or* used unless the
>installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under
>this Part."?

I draw your attention yet again to the lack of clarity in the words
"must not be installed", which I think are ambiguous. It's not clear
whether they refer to the action of installing the equipment, or the
state of existence of the equipment itself.

If the former is the intended meaning then you must not perform the
action of installing receiving equipment, but if it is already
installed (either by someone else, or perhaps by yourself at some
earlier time when you had a licence) then you commit no offence.

If the latter meaning is intended, then theoretically some people
could be commiting offences without even knowing it if they happened
to have in their possession anything that is capable of receiving
broadcasts. Connection of an aerial cannot be the sole definition of
this because in some places some equipment can work without one.

Rod.

On 05/06/2023 06:12 pm, Tweed wrote:
> JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
>> On 05/06/2023 04:33 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> On 05/06/2023 16:15, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 05/06/2023 04:05 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 05/06/2023 13:14, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> On 05/06/2023 12:55 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>>> On 05/06/2023 12:48, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 04/06/2023 09:43 pm, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Installing or *intending* to install are what causes an offence.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's fine and in certain other circumstances, would be a valid
>>>>>>>> observation to make.
>>>>>>>> But here and now, it isn't, because the topic was mere possession,
>>>>>>>> which another poster raised on the basis that there are certain
>>>>>>>> (other) things of which the law makes mere possession an offence.
>>>>>>>> But a Freeview recorder is not one of them.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it is 'installed', and of course unlicensed, I'm saying it is by
>>>>>>> virtue of Section 363(1) of the Communications Act 2003.
>>>>>
>>>>>> That is a change of position.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not at all.  It's what the whole discussion has been about.
>>>>
>>>> No, you've widened it. But even so, that legal provision does not even
>>>> begin to make possession of a Freeview recorder an offence.
>>>>
>>>>>> We were discussing mere possession, with no reference to other actions.
>>>>>
>>>>> No,
>>>>
>>>> You say "no". You mean "yes".
>>>>
>>>>> I just pointed out that there were offences of mere possession of
>>>>> some items, so one in relation to a freeview recorder was not beyond
>>>>> the realms of possibility.
>>>>
>>>> But it IS beyond the realms of possibility because there is no legal
>>>> provision which makes possession of a Freeview recorder - or any other
>>>> item of audio-visual equipment - an offence.
>>>>
>>>>> A lot of simple possession examples have conditions attached, for
>>>>> example 'without lawful excuse' or 'dishonestly', but with no
>>>>> necessity of use.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is not an offence to possess a Freeview recorder.
>>>>
>>>>> Unless it's 'installed' in unlicensed premises, I agree.
>>>>
>>>> It is not an offence to possess a Freeview recorder.
>>>>
>>>> Unlicensed use to receive television broadcasts would be an offence
>>>> whether one owned the unit or not.
>>>
>>> What do you think is the significance of the word 'or' in the following:
>>>
>>> "A television receiver must not be installed *or* used unless the
>>> installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under
>>> this Part."?
>>
>> It doesn't matter in the slightest.
>>
>> Neither "install" nor "use" is a synonym for "possess" or "own".
>>
>> QED
>>
> Section 3 a is being ignored in this discussion. Owing said recorder,
> whilst not having installed it, but *intending* to install it is an
> offence. So with that intent simply possessing a recorder is an offence.
>
>
> 363Licence required for use of TV receiver
>
> (1)A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the
> installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this
> Part.
>
> (2)A person who installs or uses a television receiver in contravention of
> subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.
>
> (3)A person with a television receiver in his possession or under his
> control who—
>
> (a)intends to install or use it in contravention of subsection (1), or
>
> (b)knows, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that another person
> intends to install or use it in contravention of that subsection,

None of that makes an offence of owning and/or possessing a Freeview
recorder.

If it were an offence, the offence would subsist immediately on
purchase, even for a retailer.

On 05/06/2023 22:17, JNugent wrote:
> On 05/06/2023 06:12 pm, Tweed wrote:
>> JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
>>> On 05/06/2023 04:33 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>> On 05/06/2023 16:15, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> On 05/06/2023 04:05 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 05/06/2023 13:14, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>> On 05/06/2023 12:55 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 05/06/2023 12:48, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 04/06/2023 09:43 pm, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Installing or *intending* to install are what causes an offence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's fine and in certain other circumstances, would be a valid
>>>>>>>>> observation to make.
>>>>>>>>> But here and now, it isn't, because the topic was mere possession,
>>>>>>>>> which another poster raised on the basis that there are certain
>>>>>>>>> (other) things of which the law makes mere possession an offence.
>>>>>>>>> But a Freeview recorder is not one of them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If it is 'installed', and of course unlicensed, I'm saying it is by
>>>>>>>> virtue of Section 363(1) of the Communications Act 2003.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is a change of position.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not at all.  It's what the whole discussion has been about.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you've widened it. But even so, that legal provision does not even
>>>>> begin to make possession of a Freeview recorder an offence.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> We were discussing mere possession, with no reference to other
>>>>>>> actions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No,
>>>>>
>>>>> You say "no". You mean "yes".
>>>>>
>>>>>> I just pointed out that there were offences of mere possession of
>>>>>> some items, so one in relation to a freeview recorder was not beyond
>>>>>> the realms of possibility.
>>>>>
>>>>> But it IS beyond the realms of possibility because there is no legal
>>>>> provision which makes possession of a Freeview recorder - or any other
>>>>> item of audio-visual equipment - an offence.
>>>>>
>>>>>> A lot of simple possession examples have conditions attached, for
>>>>>> example 'without lawful excuse' or 'dishonestly', but with no
>>>>>> necessity of use.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is not an offence to possess a Freeview recorder.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless it's 'installed' in unlicensed premises, I agree.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is not an offence to possess a Freeview recorder.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unlicensed use to receive television broadcasts would be an offence
>>>>> whether one owned the unit or not.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think is the significance of the word 'or' in the
>>>> following:
>>>>
>>>> "A television receiver must not be installed *or* used unless the
>>>> installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under
>>>> this Part."?
>>>
>>> It doesn't matter in the slightest.
>>>
>>> Neither "install" nor "use" is a synonym for "possess" or "own".
>>>
>>> QED
>>>
>> Section 3 a is being ignored in this discussion. Owing said recorder,
>> whilst not having installed it, but *intending* to install it is an
>> offence. So with that intent simply possessing a recorder is an offence.
>>
>>
>> 363Licence required for use of TV receiver
>>
>> (1)A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the
>> installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under
>> this
>> Part.
>>
>> (2)A person who installs or uses a television receiver in
>> contravention of
>> subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.
>>
>> (3)A person with a television receiver in his possession or under his
>> control who—
>>
>> (a)intends to install or use it in contravention of subsection (1), or
>>
>> (b)knows, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that another person
>> intends to install or use it in contravention of that subsection,
>
> None of that makes an offence of owning and/or possessing a Freeview
> recorder.

If it is tuned in, it's a television receiver, and is almost certainly
'installed' for the purposes of the Act.

> If it were an offence, the offence would subsist immediately on
> purchase, even for a retailer.

Special conditions apply to dealers, including S.363(5).

On 05/06/2023 10:26 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 05/06/2023 22:17, JNugent wrote:
>> On 05/06/2023 06:12 pm, Tweed wrote:
>>> JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 05/06/2023 04:33 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>> On 05/06/2023 16:15, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> On 05/06/2023 04:05 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 05/06/2023 13:14, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 05/06/2023 12:55 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 05/06/2023 12:48, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 04/06/2023 09:43 pm, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Installing or *intending* to install are what causes an offence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's fine and in certain other circumstances, would be a valid
>>>>>>>>>> observation to make.
>>>>>>>>>> But here and now, it isn't, because the topic was mere
>>>>>>>>>> possession,
>>>>>>>>>> which another poster raised on the basis that there are certain
>>>>>>>>>> (other) things of which the law makes mere possession an offence.
>>>>>>>>>> But a Freeview recorder is not one of them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If it is 'installed', and of course unlicensed, I'm saying it
>>>>>>>>> is by
>>>>>>>>> virtue of Section 363(1) of the Communications Act 2003.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is a change of position.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not at all.  It's what the whole discussion has been about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, you've widened it. But even so, that legal provision does not
>>>>>> even
>>>>>> begin to make possession of a Freeview recorder an offence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We were discussing mere possession, with no reference to other
>>>>>>>> actions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You say "no". You mean "yes".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I just pointed out that there were offences of mere possession of
>>>>>>> some items, so one in relation to a freeview recorder was not beyond
>>>>>>> the realms of possibility.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But it IS beyond the realms of possibility because there is no legal
>>>>>> provision which makes possession of a Freeview recorder - or any
>>>>>> other
>>>>>> item of audio-visual equipment - an offence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A lot of simple possession examples have conditions attached, for
>>>>>>> example 'without lawful excuse' or 'dishonestly', but with no
>>>>>>> necessity of use.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is not an offence to possess a Freeview recorder.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unless it's 'installed' in unlicensed premises, I agree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is not an offence to possess a Freeview recorder.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unlicensed use to receive television broadcasts would be an offence
>>>>>> whether one owned the unit or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think is the significance of the word 'or' in the
>>>>> following:
>>>>>
>>>>> "A television receiver must not be installed *or* used unless the
>>>>> installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under
>>>>> this Part."?
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't matter in the slightest.
>>>>
>>>> Neither "install" nor "use" is a synonym for "possess" or "own".
>>>>
>>>> QED
>>>>
>>> Section 3 a is being ignored in this discussion. Owing said recorder,
>>> whilst not having installed it, but *intending* to install it is an
>>> offence. So with that intent simply possessing a recorder is an offence.
>>>
>>>
>>> 363Licence required for use of TV receiver
>>>
>>> (1)A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the
>>> installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under
>>> this
>>> Part.
>>>
>>> (2)A person who installs or uses a television receiver in
>>> contravention of
>>> subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.
>>>
>>> (3)A person with a television receiver in his possession or under his
>>> control who—
>>>
>>> (a)intends to install or use it in contravention of subsection (1), or
>>>
>>> (b)knows, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that another person
>>> intends to install or use it in contravention of that subsection,
>>
>> None of that makes an offence of owning and/or possessing a Freeview
>> recorder.
>
> If it is tuned in, it's a television receiver, and is almost certainly
> 'installed' for the purposes of the Act.

"If... if... if..."
>
>> If it were an offence, the offence would subsist immediately on
>> purchase, even for a retailer.
>
> Special conditions apply to dealers, including S.363(5).

Ownership and/or possession of a Freeview recorder is simply not an offence.

Trying to compare it with the possession of things whose possession IS
illegal (Class A drugs, most firearms, etc) is silly.

On 05/06/2023 22:49, JNugent wrote:
> On 05/06/2023 10:26 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 05/06/2023 22:17, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 05/06/2023 06:12 pm, Tweed wrote:
>>>> JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 05/06/2023 04:33 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>> On 05/06/2023 16:15, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>> On 05/06/2023 04:05 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 05/06/2023 13:14, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 05/06/2023 12:55 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 05/06/2023 12:48, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/06/2023 09:43 pm, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Installing or *intending* to install are what causes an
>>>>>>>>>>>> offence.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That's fine and in certain other circumstances, would be a valid
>>>>>>>>>>> observation to make.
>>>>>>>>>>> But here and now, it isn't, because the topic was mere
>>>>>>>>>>> possession,
>>>>>>>>>>> which another poster raised on the basis that there are certain
>>>>>>>>>>> (other) things of which the law makes mere possession an
>>>>>>>>>>> offence.
>>>>>>>>>>> But a Freeview recorder is not one of them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If it is 'installed', and of course unlicensed, I'm saying it
>>>>>>>>>> is by
>>>>>>>>>> virtue of Section 363(1) of the Communications Act 2003.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is a change of position.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not at all.  It's what the whole discussion has been about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, you've widened it. But even so, that legal provision does not
>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>> begin to make possession of a Freeview recorder an offence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We were discussing mere possession, with no reference to other
>>>>>>>>> actions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You say "no". You mean "yes".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I just pointed out that there were offences of mere possession of
>>>>>>>> some items, so one in relation to a freeview recorder was not
>>>>>>>> beyond
>>>>>>>> the realms of possibility.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But it IS beyond the realms of possibility because there is no legal
>>>>>>> provision which makes possession of a Freeview recorder - or any
>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>> item of audio-visual equipment - an offence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A lot of simple possession examples have conditions attached, for
>>>>>>>> example 'without lawful excuse' or 'dishonestly', but with no
>>>>>>>> necessity of use.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is not an offence to possess a Freeview recorder.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unless it's 'installed' in unlicensed premises, I agree.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is not an offence to possess a Freeview recorder.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unlicensed use to receive television broadcasts would be an offence
>>>>>>> whether one owned the unit or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you think is the significance of the word 'or' in the
>>>>>> following:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "A television receiver must not be installed *or* used unless the
>>>>>> installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under
>>>>>> this Part."?
>>>>>
>>>>> It doesn't matter in the slightest.
>>>>>
>>>>> Neither "install" nor "use" is a synonym for "possess" or "own".
>>>>>
>>>>> QED
>>>>>
>>>> Section 3 a is being ignored in this discussion. Owing said recorder,
>>>> whilst not having installed it, but *intending* to install it is an
>>>> offence. So with that intent simply possessing a recorder is an
>>>> offence.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 363Licence required for use of TV receiver
>>>>
>>>> (1)A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the
>>>> installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence
>>>> under this
>>>> Part.
>>>>
>>>> (2)A person who installs or uses a television receiver in
>>>> contravention of
>>>> subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.
>>>>
>>>> (3)A person with a television receiver in his possession or under his
>>>> control who—
>>>>
>>>> (a)intends to install or use it in contravention of subsection (1), or
>>>>
>>>> (b)knows, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that another person
>>>> intends to install or use it in contravention of that subsection,
>>>
>>> None of that makes an offence of owning and/or possessing a Freeview
>>> recorder.
>>
>> If it is tuned in, it's a television receiver, and is almost certainly
>> 'installed' for the purposes of the Act.
>
> "If... if... if..."

There's only one 'if', and it's a perfectly reasonable scenario.

>>> If it were an offence, the offence would subsist immediately on
>>> purchase, even for a retailer.
>>
>> Special conditions apply to dealers, including S.363(5).
>
> Ownership and/or possession of a Freeview recorder is simply not an
> offence.

It can be. It depends only on whether it falls within the ambit of the
Communications Act 2003, S363(1). Which it almost certainly does.

> Trying to compare it with the possession of things whose possession IS
> illegal (Class A drugs, most firearms, etc) is silly.

Why?

On 05/06/2023 10:55 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 05/06/2023 22:49, JNugent wrote:
>> On 05/06/2023 10:26 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> On 05/06/2023 22:17, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 05/06/2023 06:12 pm, Tweed wrote:
>>>>> JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 05/06/2023 04:33 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>>> On 05/06/2023 16:15, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 05/06/2023 04:05 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 05/06/2023 13:14, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 05/06/2023 12:55 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 05/06/2023 12:48, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/06/2023 09:43 pm, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Installing or *intending* to install are what causes an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> offence.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's fine and in certain other circumstances, would be a
>>>>>>>>>>>> valid
>>>>>>>>>>>> observation to make.
>>>>>>>>>>>> But here and now, it isn't, because the topic was mere
>>>>>>>>>>>> possession,
>>>>>>>>>>>> which another poster raised on the basis that there are certain
>>>>>>>>>>>> (other) things of which the law makes mere possession an
>>>>>>>>>>>> offence.
>>>>>>>>>>>> But a Freeview recorder is not one of them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If it is 'installed', and of course unlicensed, I'm saying it
>>>>>>>>>>> is by
>>>>>>>>>>> virtue of Section 363(1) of the Communications Act 2003.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That is a change of position.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not at all.  It's what the whole discussion has been about.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, you've widened it. But even so, that legal provision does
>>>>>>>> not even
>>>>>>>> begin to make possession of a Freeview recorder an offence.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We were discussing mere possession, with no reference to other
>>>>>>>>>> actions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You say "no". You mean "yes".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I just pointed out that there were offences of mere possession of
>>>>>>>>> some items, so one in relation to a freeview recorder was not
>>>>>>>>> beyond
>>>>>>>>> the realms of possibility.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But it IS beyond the realms of possibility because there is no
>>>>>>>> legal
>>>>>>>> provision which makes possession of a Freeview recorder - or any
>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>> item of audio-visual equipment - an offence.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A lot of simple possession examples have conditions attached, for
>>>>>>>>> example 'without lawful excuse' or 'dishonestly', but with no
>>>>>>>>> necessity of use.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is not an offence to possess a Freeview recorder.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Unless it's 'installed' in unlicensed premises, I agree.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is not an offence to possess a Freeview recorder.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unlicensed use to receive television broadcasts would be an offence
>>>>>>>> whether one owned the unit or not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do you think is the significance of the word 'or' in the
>>>>>>> following:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "A television receiver must not be installed *or* used unless the
>>>>>>> installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence
>>>>>>> under
>>>>>>> this Part."?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It doesn't matter in the slightest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Neither "install" nor "use" is a synonym for "possess" or "own".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> QED
>>>>>>
>>>>> Section 3 a is being ignored in this discussion. Owing said recorder,
>>>>> whilst not having installed it, but *intending* to install it is an
>>>>> offence. So with that intent simply possessing a recorder is an
>>>>> offence.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 363Licence required for use of TV receiver
>>>>>
>>>>> (1)A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the
>>>>> installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence
>>>>> under this
>>>>> Part.
>>>>>
>>>>> (2)A person who installs or uses a television receiver in
>>>>> contravention of
>>>>> subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.
>>>>>
>>>>> (3)A person with a television receiver in his possession or under his
>>>>> control who—
>>>>>
>>>>> (a)intends to install or use it in contravention of subsection (1), or
>>>>>
>>>>> (b)knows, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that another person
>>>>> intends to install or use it in contravention of that subsection,
>>>>
>>>> None of that makes an offence of owning and/or possessing a Freeview
>>>> recorder.
>>>
>>> If it is tuned in, it's a television receiver, and is almost
>>> certainly 'installed' for the purposes of the Act.
>>
>> "If... if... if..."
>
> There's only one 'if', and it's a perfectly reasonable scenario.

Why do you reckon there aren't any prosecutions for the possession of a
Freeview recorder?
>
>>>> If it were an offence, the offence would subsist immediately on
>>>> purchase, even for a retailer.
>>>
>>> Special conditions apply to dealers, including S.363(5).
>>
>> Ownership and/or possession of a Freeview recorder is simply not an
>> offence.
>
> It can be.  It depends only on whether it falls within the ambit of the
> Communications Act 2003, S363(1).  Which it almost certainly does.
>
>> Trying to compare it with the possession of things whose possession IS
>> illegal (Class A drugs, most firearms, etc) is silly.
>
> Why?

Apples and oranges.

JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
> On 05/06/2023 10:26 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 05/06/2023 22:17, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 05/06/2023 06:12 pm, Tweed wrote:
>>>> JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 05/06/2023 04:33 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>> On 05/06/2023 16:15, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>> On 05/06/2023 04:05 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 05/06/2023 13:14, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 05/06/2023 12:55 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 05/06/2023 12:48, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/06/2023 09:43 pm, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Installing or *intending* to install are what causes an offence.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That's fine and in certain other circumstances, would be a valid
>>>>>>>>>>> observation to make.
>>>>>>>>>>> But here and now, it isn't, because the topic was mere
>>>>>>>>>>> possession,
>>>>>>>>>>> which another poster raised on the basis that there are certain
>>>>>>>>>>> (other) things of which the law makes mere possession an offence.
>>>>>>>>>>> But a Freeview recorder is not one of them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If it is 'installed', and of course unlicensed, I'm saying it
>>>>>>>>>> is by
>>>>>>>>>> virtue of Section 363(1) of the Communications Act 2003.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is a change of position.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not at all.  It's what the whole discussion has been about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, you've widened it. But even so, that legal provision does not
>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>> begin to make possession of a Freeview recorder an offence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We were discussing mere possession, with no reference to other
>>>>>>>>> actions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You say "no". You mean "yes".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I just pointed out that there were offences of mere possession of
>>>>>>>> some items, so one in relation to a freeview recorder was not beyond
>>>>>>>> the realms of possibility.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But it IS beyond the realms of possibility because there is no legal
>>>>>>> provision which makes possession of a Freeview recorder - or any
>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>> item of audio-visual equipment - an offence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A lot of simple possession examples have conditions attached, for
>>>>>>>> example 'without lawful excuse' or 'dishonestly', but with no
>>>>>>>> necessity of use.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is not an offence to possess a Freeview recorder.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unless it's 'installed' in unlicensed premises, I agree.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is not an offence to possess a Freeview recorder.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unlicensed use to receive television broadcasts would be an offence
>>>>>>> whether one owned the unit or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you think is the significance of the word 'or' in the
>>>>>> following:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "A television receiver must not be installed *or* used unless the
>>>>>> installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under
>>>>>> this Part."?
>>>>>
>>>>> It doesn't matter in the slightest.
>>>>>
>>>>> Neither "install" nor "use" is a synonym for "possess" or "own".
>>>>>
>>>>> QED
>>>>>
>>>> Section 3 a is being ignored in this discussion. Owing said recorder,
>>>> whilst not having installed it, but *intending* to install it is an
>>>> offence. So with that intent simply possessing a recorder is an offence.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 363Licence required for use of TV receiver
>>>>
>>>> (1)A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the
>>>> installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under
>>>> this
>>>> Part.
>>>>
>>>> (2)A person who installs or uses a television receiver in
>>>> contravention of
>>>> subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.
>>>>
>>>> (3)A person with a television receiver in his possession or under his
>>>> control who—
>>>>
>>>> (a)intends to install or use it in contravention of subsection (1), or
>>>>
>>>> (b)knows, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that another person
>>>> intends to install or use it in contravention of that subsection,
>>>
>>> None of that makes an offence of owning and/or possessing a Freeview
>>> recorder.
>>
>> If it is tuned in, it's a television receiver, and is almost certainly
>> 'installed' for the purposes of the Act.
>
> "If... if... if..."
>>
>>> If it were an offence, the offence would subsist immediately on
>>> purchase, even for a retailer.
>>
>> Special conditions apply to dealers, including S.363(5).
>
> Ownership and/or possession of a Freeview recorder is simply not an offence.
>
It is if you also have intent to install it.

On 06/06/2023 06:39, Tweed wrote:
> JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
>> On 05/06/2023 10:26 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> On 05/06/2023 22:17, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 05/06/2023 06:12 pm, Tweed wrote:
>>>>> JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 05/06/2023 04:33 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>>> On 05/06/2023 16:15, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 05/06/2023 04:05 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 05/06/2023 13:14, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 05/06/2023 12:55 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 05/06/2023 12:48, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/06/2023 09:43 pm, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Installing or *intending* to install are what causes an offence.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's fine and in certain other circumstances, would be a valid
>>>>>>>>>>>> observation to make.
>>>>>>>>>>>> But here and now, it isn't, because the topic was mere
>>>>>>>>>>>> possession,
>>>>>>>>>>>> which another poster raised on the basis that there are certain
>>>>>>>>>>>> (other) things of which the law makes mere possession an offence.
>>>>>>>>>>>> But a Freeview recorder is not one of them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If it is 'installed', and of course unlicensed, I'm saying it
>>>>>>>>>>> is by
>>>>>>>>>>> virtue of Section 363(1) of the Communications Act 2003.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That is a change of position.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not at all.  It's what the whole discussion has been about.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, you've widened it. But even so, that legal provision does not
>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>> begin to make possession of a Freeview recorder an offence.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We were discussing mere possession, with no reference to other
>>>>>>>>>> actions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You say "no". You mean "yes".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I just pointed out that there were offences of mere possession of
>>>>>>>>> some items, so one in relation to a freeview recorder was not beyond
>>>>>>>>> the realms of possibility.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But it IS beyond the realms of possibility because there is no legal
>>>>>>>> provision which makes possession of a Freeview recorder - or any
>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>> item of audio-visual equipment - an offence.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A lot of simple possession examples have conditions attached, for
>>>>>>>>> example 'without lawful excuse' or 'dishonestly', but with no
>>>>>>>>> necessity of use.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is not an offence to possess a Freeview recorder.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Unless it's 'installed' in unlicensed premises, I agree.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is not an offence to possess a Freeview recorder.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unlicensed use to receive television broadcasts would be an offence
>>>>>>>> whether one owned the unit or not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do you think is the significance of the word 'or' in the
>>>>>>> following:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "A television receiver must not be installed *or* used unless the
>>>>>>> installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under
>>>>>>> this Part."?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It doesn't matter in the slightest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Neither "install" nor "use" is a synonym for "possess" or "own".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> QED
>>>>>>
>>>>> Section 3 a is being ignored in this discussion. Owing said recorder,
>>>>> whilst not having installed it, but *intending* to install it is an
>>>>> offence. So with that intent simply possessing a recorder is an offence.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 363Licence required for use of TV receiver
>>>>>
>>>>> (1)A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the
>>>>> installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under
>>>>> this
>>>>> Part.
>>>>>
>>>>> (2)A person who installs or uses a television receiver in
>>>>> contravention of
>>>>> subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.
>>>>>
>>>>> (3)A person with a television receiver in his possession or under his
>>>>> control who—
>>>>>
>>>>> (a)intends to install or use it in contravention of subsection (1), or
>>>>>
>>>>> (b)knows, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that another person
>>>>> intends to install or use it in contravention of that subsection,
>>>>
>>>> None of that makes an offence of owning and/or possessing a Freeview
>>>> recorder.
>>>
>>> If it is tuned in, it's a television receiver, and is almost certainly
>>> 'installed' for the purposes of the Act.
>>
>> "If... if... if..."
>>>
>>>> If it were an offence, the offence would subsist immediately on
>>>> purchase, even for a retailer.
>>>
>>> Special conditions apply to dealers, including S.363(5).
>>
>> Ownership and/or possession of a Freeview recorder is simply not an offence.
>>
> It is if you also have intent to install it.

And some pedantic judge or magistrate might ask himself why you have it
if not. And he might, wholly unreasonably of course, jump to a
conclusion that doesn't accord with yours.