On 05/06/2023 23:35, JNugent wrote:
> 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?

On what basis do you say there haven't been any?

>>>>> 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.

Hardly. It's just another thing where the default position is that you
need a licence, or can establish a really good reason why not.

On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 08:24:03 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>> Why do you reckon there aren't any prosecutions for the possession of a
>> Freeview recorder?
>
>On what basis do you say there haven't been any?

If the law really is interpreted like this, it seems another good
reason to exercise your right not to engage in conversation with the
inspectors and absolutely never allow them into your home.

Apparently they earn commission based on the number of licences they
sell, and perhaps also the number of prosecutions they bring about, so
they have an incentive to interpret any situation in their favour,
even if that interpretation is ridiculous.

(And before anybody mentions search warrants, I can't imagine that
they would get one for a first approach to a household, at which point
it's easy to forestall a second visit, simply by not talking to them).

Rod.

Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> The purpose can only mean *my* purpose.

IANAL, but I think the purpose that counts would rather be that
assumed by a notionally reasonable person given the circumstances
(e.g. by the member of a jury, should it come to that). If you
leave it set up and plugged in to power and/or aerial, I think
in most cases, most reasonable people would the purpose is clear
- i.e. to watch broadcast tv.

You can certainly claim some purpose, but you will not get to
decide whether it stands as a reasonable one should it come to
a legal test.

#Paul

In article <u5mgqf$le4s$1@dont-email.me>,
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:

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

> It is if you also have intent to install it.

What about if it is installed and there is a cable in the aerial
socket which is connected to a house distribution system which is
switched on BUT the only feed to it are domestic modulators for
things like security cameras and Bluray players and perhaps
computers.

I don't have an opinion on this but interested to see where the logic
goes.

Bob.

On 06/06/2023 11:49, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <u5mgqf$le4s$1@dont-email.me>,
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Ownership and/or possession of a Freeview recorder is simply not
>>> an offence.
>
>> It is if you also have intent to install it.
>
> What about if it is installed and there is a cable in the aerial
> socket which is connected to a house distribution system which is
> switched on BUT the only feed to it are domestic modulators for
> things like security cameras and Bluray players and perhaps
> computers.
>
> I don't have an opinion on this but interested to see where the logic
> goes.
>

You need to read the primary legislation with the regulations made under
it. See in this case regulation 9 (Meaning of “television receiver”) of
The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/692)
(as amended). It provides:

9. Subject to paragraph (2), in Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV
reception), “television receiver” means any apparatus installed or used
for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or
otherwise)—

(a)any television programme service, or

(b)an on-demand programme service which is provided by the BBC,

whether or not the apparatus is installed or used for any other purpose.

Hence CCTV systems don't need a licence - as TV Licensing state clearly.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 06/06/2023 06:39 am, 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.

I bought a NOS Freeview HDD/DVD-R recorder last week.

Please state, with sufficient certainty, what my intentions were in
buying it and subsequently owning and possessing it.

On 06/06/2023 08:24 am, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 05/06/2023 23:35, JNugent wrote:
>> 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?
>
> On what basis do you say there haven't been any?

Since there is no law against the possession of a Freeview recorder,
it's hard to see how there could have been.

But perhaps someone else knows of one.
>
>>>>>> 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.
>
> Hardly.  It's just another thing where the default position is that you
> need a licence, or can establish a really good reason why not.

On 06/06/2023 12:44, JNugent wrote:
> On 06/06/2023 06:39 am, 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:

>>>>> 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.
>
> I bought a NOS Freeview HDD/DVD-R recorder last week.
>
> Please state, with sufficient certainty, what my intentions were in
> buying it and subsequently owning and possessing it.

You know your intentions, so you tell us.

If you have powered it up and tuned it in, you have almost certainly
installed it within the meaning of the Act, which means your intentions
are irrelevant.

If it remains in a tuned-in state and can be used with minimal effort,
eg by plugging in an aerial or just turning it on, you have a television
receiver that is installed within the meaning of the Act. And that
again means your intentions are irrelevant.

JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
> On 06/06/2023 06:39 am, 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.
>
> I bought a NOS Freeview HDD/DVD-R recorder last week.
>
> Please state, with sufficient certainty, what my intentions were in
> buying it and subsequently owning and possessing it.
>
It’s for the prosecution to prove intent. If you’ve just booked an aerial
installer that might swing it.

On 06/06/2023 11:49, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <u5mgqf$le4s$1@dont-email.me>,
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Ownership and/or possession of a Freeview recorder is simply not
>>> an offence.
>
>> It is if you also have intent to install it.
>
> What about if it is installed and there is a cable in the aerial
> socket which is connected to a house distribution system which is
> switched on BUT the only feed to it are domestic modulators for
> things like security cameras and Bluray players and perhaps
> computers.
>
> I don't have an opinion on this but interested to see where the logic
> goes.

If it's tuned-in I don't see there is any argument that it is *not* a
television receiver or that you do not need a licence for it.

On Tue, 06 Jun 2023 09:39:27 +0100,
news20k.noreply@threeformcow.myzen.co.uk (#Paul) wrote:

>Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> The purpose can only mean *my* purpose.
>
>IANAL, but I think the purpose that counts would rather be that
>assumed by a notionally reasonable person given the circumstances
>(e.g. by the member of a jury, should it come to that). If you
>leave it set up and plugged in to power and/or aerial, I think
>in most cases, most reasonable people would the purpose is clear
>- i.e. to watch broadcast tv.
>
>You can certainly claim some purpose, but you will not get to
>decide whether it stands as a reasonable one should it come to
>a legal test.
>
>#Paul

I have a couple of Freeview tuners which have been switched off for
more than a year now, though they are still wired up simply because I
don't need the space for anything else and so I haven't bothered to
disconnect or dispose of them. How can this count as a 'purpose'? A
purpose implies the wish or intent to do something, so neglect seems
more like the lack of one.

I thnk it's very unlikely in practice that it ever would be subject to
a legal test, because unless somebody obtains a search warrant, which
wouldn't be worth their trouble and so won't happen, I'm not obliged
to make any of it available for inspection.

This might be the year I finally cancel the BBC licence, but it goes
against my most deeply ingrained principles to throw way or disable
perfectly functional equipment. In any case, it might be usable again
one day if there's a change in the law, which I think is increasingly
likely given the recent groundswell of change in public opinion. I
understand that people are cancelling their licences in droves, so
eventually it must have enough financial impact to force a change.

Rod.

On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 17:43:37 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>> I bought a NOS Freeview HDD/DVD-R recorder last week.
>>
>> Please state, with sufficient certainty, what my intentions were in
>> buying it and subsequently owning and possessing it.
>
>You know your intentions, so you tell us.
>
>If you have powered it up and tuned it in, you have almost certainly
>installed it within the meaning of the Act, which means your intentions
>are irrelevant.

Your intentions can't be irrelevant if the phrase "for the purpose
of..." is actually part of the specification within the Act.

Rod.

On 06/06/2023 19:37, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 17:43:37 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>>> I bought a NOS Freeview HDD/DVD-R recorder last week.
>>>
>>> Please state, with sufficient certainty, what my intentions were in
>>> buying it and subsequently owning and possessing it.
>>
>> You know your intentions, so you tell us.
>>
>> If you have powered it up and tuned it in, you have almost certainly
>> installed it within the meaning of the Act, which means your intentions
>> are irrelevant.
>
> Your intentions can't be irrelevant if the phrase "for the purpose
> of..." is actually part of the specification within the Act.

The words of the relevant part of the Act are actually:

"1(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".

'Intentions' are not mentioned in that and are irrelevant to it.

On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 22:45:45 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>On 06/06/2023 19:37, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 17:43:37 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> I bought a NOS Freeview HDD/DVD-R recorder last week.
>>>>
>>>> Please state, with sufficient certainty, what my intentions were in
>>>> buying it and subsequently owning and possessing it.
>>>
>>> You know your intentions, so you tell us.
>>>
>>> If you have powered it up and tuned it in, you have almost certainly
>>> installed it within the meaning of the Act, which means your intentions
>>> are irrelevant.
>>
>> Your intentions can't be irrelevant if the phrase "for the purpose
>> of..." is actually part of the specification within the Act.
>
>The words of the relevant part of the Act are actually:
>
>"1(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".
>
>'Intentions' are not mentioned in that and are irrelevant to it.
>

From tvlicensing.co.uk -

"Refunds can be given where the licence holder ceases to use TV
receiving equipment at their address. The licence holder should not
watch live on any channel, TV service or streaming service, or use BBC
iPlayer".

There's no stipulation that the equipment must be disabled or disposed
of, only that it must not be used, so it seems clear that they regard
the use of television receiving equipment, not the possession of it,
to be what determines the need for a licence.

Even if the wording of the act can be interpreted to mean that an
offence is committed by mere possession of equipment which is not
being used, nobody seems interested in pursuing the matter on those
grounds, because I haven't heard of this ever happening. Have you?
Please direct me to any news report of anyone being prosecuted simply
for possession of an unused TV set.

Rod.

On 07/06/2023 08:57, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 22:45:45 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>> On 06/06/2023 19:37, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>> On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 17:43:37 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I bought a NOS Freeview HDD/DVD-R recorder last week.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please state, with sufficient certainty, what my intentions were in
>>>>> buying it and subsequently owning and possessing it.
>>>>
>>>> You know your intentions, so you tell us.
>>>>
>>>> If you have powered it up and tuned it in, you have almost certainly
>>>> installed it within the meaning of the Act, which means your intentions
>>>> are irrelevant.
>>>
>>> Your intentions can't be irrelevant if the phrase "for the purpose
>>> of..." is actually part of the specification within the Act.
>>
>> The words of the relevant part of the Act are actually:
>>
>> "1(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".
>>
>> 'Intentions' are not mentioned in that and are irrelevant to it.
>>
>
> From tvlicensing.co.uk -
>
> "Refunds can be given where the licence holder ceases to use TV
> receiving equipment at their address. The licence holder should not
> watch live on any channel, TV service or streaming service, or use BBC
> iPlayer".
>
> There's no stipulation that the equipment must be disabled or disposed
> of, only that it must not be used, so it seems clear that they regard
> the use of television receiving equipment, not the possession of it,
> to be what determines the need for a licence.

Only as a matter of policy, not as a matter of law.

> Even if the wording of the act can be interpreted to mean that an
> offence is committed by mere possession of equipment which is not
> being used, nobody seems interested in pursuing the matter on those
> grounds, because I haven't heard of this ever happening. Have you?
> Please direct me to any news report of anyone being prosecuted simply
> for possession of an unused TV set.

I can't offhand, nor can I be bothered to search.

Obviously, the law is very difficult to apply to the letter, which
presumably accounts for the now stated 'we've given up' policy. With
the technologies now involved in television receivers, it's virtually
impossible even to prove anyone is actually using one, so the law is
there to be broken with virtual impunity. It's one of the reasons why
the licence fee is thought to be outmoded and will in due course be
abolished. In the meantime, though, it's a very efficient and
inexpensive way of raising money, with a very high compliance rate.

On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 09:21:10 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

[...]
>It's one of the reasons why
>the licence fee is thought to be outmoded and will in due course be
>abolished.

I hope you're right.

Rod.

On 06/06/2023 05:43 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 06/06/2023 12:44, JNugent wrote:
>> On 06/06/2023 06:39 am, 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:
>
>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> I bought a NOS Freeview HDD/DVD-R recorder last week.
>>
>> Please state, with sufficient certainty, what my intentions were in
>> buying it and subsequently owning and possessing it.
>
> You know your intentions, so you tell us.

You're the one whose claim is that third parties (eg, the BBC and its
enforcement officers) can know what are the intentions of someone who
possesses a Freeview recorder.

So why exclude yourself from that select group?

> If you have powered it up and tuned it in, you have almost certainly
> installed it within the meaning of the Act, which means your intentions
> are irrelevant.
>
> If it remains in a tuned-in state and can be used with minimal effort,
> eg by plugging in an aerial or just turning it on, you have a television
> receiver that is installed within the meaning of the Act.  And that
> again means your intentions are irrelevant.

On 06/06/2023 05:45 pm, Tweed wrote:
> JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
>> On 06/06/2023 06:39 am, 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.
>>
>> I bought a NOS Freeview HDD/DVD-R recorder last week.
>>
>> Please state, with sufficient certainty, what my intentions were in
>> buying it and subsequently owning and possessing it.
>>
> It’s for the prosecution to prove intent. If you’ve just booked an aerial
> installer that might swing it.

We actually had a whole new rooftop aerial fitted a couple of months
ago, with a new branch off into a bedroom (the set-top option was
proving a nuisance).

Now... what were my intentions in buying that recorder last week?

On 07/06/2023 15:37, JNugent wrote:
> On 06/06/2023 05:45 pm, Tweed wrote:
>> JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
>>> On 06/06/2023 06:39 am, 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.
>>>
>>> I bought a NOS Freeview HDD/DVD-R recorder last week.
>>>
>>> Please state, with sufficient certainty, what my intentions were in
>>> buying it and subsequently owning and possessing it.
>>>
>> It’s for the prosecution to prove intent. If you’ve just booked an aerial
>> installer that might swing it.
>
> We actually had a whole new rooftop aerial fitted a couple of months
> ago, with a new branch off into a bedroom (the set-top option was
> proving a nuisance).
>
> Now... what were my intentions in buying that recorder last week?

On 07/06/2023 03:54 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 07/06/2023 15:37, JNugent wrote:
>> On 06/06/2023 05:45 pm, Tweed wrote:
>>> JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 06/06/2023 06:39 am, 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.
>>>>
>>>> I bought a NOS Freeview HDD/DVD-R recorder last week.
>>>>
>>>> Please state, with sufficient certainty, what my intentions were in
>>>> buying it and subsequently owning and possessing it.
>>>>
>>> It’s for the prosecution to prove intent. If you’ve just booked an
>>> aerial
>>> installer that might swing it.
>>
>> We actually had a whole new rooftop aerial fitted a couple of months
>> ago, with a new branch off into a bedroom (the set-top option was
>> proving a nuisance).
>>
>> Now... what were my intentions in buying that recorder last week?
>
> Your intentions are not decisive or even necessarily relevant.

On 07/06/2023 16:44, JNugent wrote:
> On 07/06/2023 03:54 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 07/06/2023 15:37, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 06/06/2023 05:45 pm, Tweed wrote:
>>>> JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 06/06/2023 06:39 am, 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> I bought a NOS Freeview HDD/DVD-R recorder last week.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please state, with sufficient certainty, what my intentions were in
>>>>> buying it and subsequently owning and possessing it.
>>>>>
>>>> It’s for the prosecution to prove intent. If you’ve just booked an
>>>> aerial
>>>> installer that might swing it.
>>>
>>> We actually had a whole new rooftop aerial fitted a couple of months
>>> ago, with a new branch off into a bedroom (the set-top option was
>>> proving a nuisance).
>>>
>>> Now... what were my intentions in buying that recorder last week?
>>
>> Your intentions are not decisive or even necessarily relevant.
>
> But what were they?
>>
>> I've given you two examples of factual situations where they're not:
>>
>> If you have powered it up and tuned it in, you have almost certainly
>> installed it within the meaning of the Act, which means your
>> intentions are irrelevant.
>>
>> If it remains in a tuned-in state and can be used with minimal effort,
>> eg by plugging in an aerial or just turning it on, you have a
>> television receiver that is installed within the meaning of the Act.
>> And that again means your intentions are irrelevant.
>
> How interesting.
>
> What were my intentions in buying that recorder last week?
>
> You are not often as reticent as this...

Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 09:21:10 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
> [...]
>> It's one of the reasons why
>> the licence fee is thought to be outmoded and will in due course be
>> abolished.
>
> I hope you're right.
>
> Rod.
>

It will be added to the council tax bill.

On 07/06/2023 05:15 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 07/06/2023 16:44, JNugent wrote:
>> On 07/06/2023 03:54 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> On 07/06/2023 15:37, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 06/06/2023 05:45 pm, Tweed wrote:
>>>>> JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 06/06/2023 06:39 am, 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I bought a NOS Freeview HDD/DVD-R recorder last week.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please state, with sufficient certainty, what my intentions were in
>>>>>> buying it and subsequently owning and possessing it.
>>>>>>
>>>>> It’s for the prosecution to prove intent. If you’ve just booked an
>>>>> aerial
>>>>> installer that might swing it.
>>>>
>>>> We actually had a whole new rooftop aerial fitted a couple of months
>>>> ago, with a new branch off into a bedroom (the set-top option was
>>>> proving a nuisance).
>>>>
>>>> Now... what were my intentions in buying that recorder last week?
>>>
>>> Your intentions are not decisive or even necessarily relevant.
>>
>> But what were they?
>>>
>>> I've given you two examples of factual situations where they're not:
>>>
>>> If you have powered it up and tuned it in, you have almost certainly
>>> installed it within the meaning of the Act, which means your
>>> intentions are irrelevant.
>>>
>>> If it remains in a tuned-in state and can be used with minimal
>>> effort, eg by plugging in an aerial or just turning it on, you have a
>>> television receiver that is installed within the meaning of the Act.
>>> And that again means your intentions are irrelevant.
>>
>> How interesting.
>>
>> What were my intentions in buying that recorder last week?
>>
>> You are not often as reticent as this...
>
> Your intentions are probably irrelevant.

On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 08:04:46 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

> On 02/06/2023 14:30, charles wrote:
>> HMRC Officers don't even need a warrant if they suspect contraband is
>> being held on the premises.
>
>
> I think HMRC (and its predecessors) have always had more power than the
> police, used to be also said that Traffic Commissioners had more power
> than police but don't know if still true.

Richard Stilgoe wrote and performed something called "Statutory Right of
Entry" in 1974 for Nationwide. Brilliant for its day, and some would say
for now too.

On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 11:54:32 GMT, Paul Ratcliffe
<abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote:

>On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 08:04:46 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> On 02/06/2023 14:30, charles wrote:
>>> HMRC Officers don't even need a warrant if they suspect contraband is
>>> being held on the premises.
>>
>>
>> I think HMRC (and its predecessors) have always had more power than the
>> police, used to be also said that Traffic Commissioners had more power
>> than police but don't know if still true.
>
>Richard Stilgoe wrote and performed something called "Statutory Right of
>Entry" in 1974 for Nationwide. Brilliant for its day, and some would say
>for now too.

I remember that. I was working in Studio E when they recorded it.
There were seven Richard Stilgoes around the piano in the final
recording which must have been seventh generation on 2" quad tape, and
looking surprisingly good considering.

And TV licence inspectors were not on the list.

(I think he's Sir Richard Stilgoe now, and doing something much more
worthwhile than television)

Rod.