CENSUS & TV LICENSEING

SiegfriedsMum

Following a thread here about the Tv License, I stumbled across a youtube video on a response from an individual when the TV inspector called which not only made me laugh, but as with youtube I then meandered into similar calls where Census people called and the exchange was filmed which made me laugh.

I wonder what ones obligation is to be forced to divulge information to others, or to the state.

MagicSean

To the Freeman thread with you

seamus

What complete asshats in those videos.

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

I wonder what ones obligation is to be forced to divulge information to others, or to the state.

It's the law. You don't provide census information, you can be fined or jailed.

There are a few other scenarios where a failure to provide accurate information when demanded can lead to court (such as when a Garda asks), but outside of those set few scenarios you are under no obligation to divulge personal information to others.

Of course, wholesale failure to divulge such information when asked can make life difficult because you will find yourself unable to deal with banks, employers and state services.

ScouseMouse

Is it law though to register for voting etc etc.?

Last year the wife called me to the door where a voting register guy was telling her they had no record of who lived at the address and we had to give our details.

For reasons I will not go into, I told him I didn't. He tried to argue and I politely asked him to leave before then telling him "where to go".

I am definately going to video the next head that trys this. See how that unnerves them. I know they are only doing their jobs, but no means no.

On my property, I will video what I want and will ask any uninvited people to leave.

Surely I have the right to do this?

What does everyone think ?

seamus

Yes, you are not required to register to vote. Though I don't understand why you wouldn't.

You are perfectly permitted to ask people to leave your property and to make a video recording of what happens at your front door (though you're best telling the other person that you are recording).

It's worth noting that you cannot "ban" people from coming onto your property and knocking on your door for legitimate purposes.

SiegfriedsMum

seamus wrote: »

Yes, you are not required to register to vote. Though I don't understand why you wouldn't.

You are perfectly permitted to ask people to leave your property and to make a video recording of what happens at your front door (though you're best telling the other person that you are recording).

It's worth noting that you cannot "ban" people from coming onto your property and knocking on your door for legitimate purposes.

Whats best is not qhats legal. For example, we are all recorded now by many people and companies who don't ask our permission.

But I digress. The TV licence is interesting as I am curious whether or not a prosecutiion is liikely to be successful if they don't know your name, or they have no proof that you have a tv or watch tv live broadcasts.

The videos made me laugh more than anything else, and while the individuals might well be regarded as cranks, it's stil quite presumptious for a stranger to call to your dwelling demanding information from you on pain of penalties if you don't give the information they demand.

While most societies work because we, generally, cooperate with each other, I respect the rights of those who decline to give others any information which they are not comfortable to give.

seamus

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

Whats best is not qhats legal. For example, we are all recorded now by many people and companies who don't ask our permission.

Utterly irrelevant.

The obligation to disclose information is a legal requirement in certain circumstances because the smooth running of a society requires that in some circumstances a person needs to identify themselves.

If this information was being demanded right, left and centre for non-specific reasons I'd agree with you, but as it is there are a couple of very specific circumstances for it, and very good reason for these circumstances.

Refusing to provide this information out of personal discomfort is contrary to the good running of a society. I'm sure plenty of people don't feel comfortable paying tax either. Should they be given an out?

Gotham

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

Whats best is not qhats legal. For example, we are all recorded now by many people and companies who don't ask our permission.

What do you mean?

It's legal to video record people in public without their permission.
It's also legal here in Ireland to record private phone calls without requesting permission. As long as there is no unwitting contributor to the conversation and certain personal details are not explicitly given, the recording can even be admissible in court. Of course the recording cant be an eavesdropping, it must be done by an involved party.

MagicSean

superscouse wrote: »

As a genuine suggestion, could you try something like this.

If they are bothering you, surely it would be legal?

Link to youtube, hope its ok with mods....

You have to wonder what kind of person answers the door with a video camera.

SiegfriedsMum

seamus wrote: »

Refusing to provide this information out of personal discomfort is contrary to the good running of a society. I'm sure plenty of people don't feel comfortable paying tax either. Should they be given an out?

I agree that cooperation is the best route. What I wonder about is whether or not compelling others to give information which they don't want to give, is best served by punishing them with fines and/or imprisonment.

We've seen journalists jailed for not giving information and I am not, for example, comfortable about that. I'd rather live in a society where a few crackpots are indulged, rather than one where they are hauled off to prison for not giving strangers personal information.

Gotham

Personally, in this scenario. I would request they get the Gardai over.
I would have trust issues and even their ID wouldn't be good enough for me.
How am I supposed to know if it's valid, especially if I've never seen one before, the only valid ID I accept is from a Garda or one that can be approved by one.
If I'm required by law to give info to some person, I want a uniformed Garda to verify who they are and what I need to do, seeing as they should be able to validate this by whatever computer systems they have to keep track of these registered people.

SiegfriedsMum

Gotham wrote: »

Personally, in this scenario. I would request they get the Gardai over.
I would have trust issues and even their ID wouldn't be good enough for me.
How am I supposed to know if it's valid, especially if I've never seen one before, the only valid ID I accept is from a Garda or one that can be approved by one.
If I'm required by law to give info to some person, I want a uniformed Garda to verify who they are and what I need to do, seeing as they should be able to validate this by whatever computer systems they have to keep track of these registered people.

As Don Tidey found, even Police identities can be forged. I am sure your local police would love to be dropping around to help one person answer the others questions :pac:

While I think many of these sorts of people are cranks, I support their absolute right to be a crank and really dislike the intolerant attitude which appears to be shown by others to them.

Pat Mustard

When the Privacy Bill gets enacted, it will allow individuals to sue for violation of their privacy, to include video surveillance. The Bill will take account of the office or position of the individual and functions performable by them, amongst other things.Accordingly, people who attempt to intimidate census takers and tv licence inspectors with video cameras could find themselves liable for the civil wrong of violation of privacy.

I think that the law would be more effective if criminal sanctions were proposed, however.

Whatever happened to the old fashioned method of not answering the door to people with whom you have no wish to engage?

These Freemen really are children.

ScouseMouse

MagicSean wrote: »

You have to wonder what kind of person answers the door with a video camera.

Someone who looks out the window, spots someone who is a pain in the arse annoying them (for whatever reason), and decides to teach them a lesson and/or get proof they are annoying/hassling them maybe?

Gotham

The Mustard wrote: »

When the Privacy Bill gets enacted, it will allow individuals to sue for violation of their privacy, to include video surveillance. The Bill will take account of the office or position of the individual and functions performable by them, amongst other things.Accordingly, people who attempt to intimidate census takers and tv licence inspectors with video cameras could find themselves liable for a new civil wrong of violation of privacy.

How will that stop the people who are intimidating inspectors? They are on your private property. Not to mention they are An Post workers, who are public servants that are on duty.

Pat Mustard

Gotham wrote: »

How will that stop the people who are intimidating inspectors?

As I already stated, the proposed law will impose civil liability, allowing individuals to sue people who breach their rights by means of video surveillance.

As I already stated, it would be more effective if criminal sanctions were imposed against these sorts.

Gotham wrote: »

They are on your private property. Not to mention they are An Post workers, who are public servants that are on duty.

As I stated, the proposed law will take account of the office or position of the individual whose rights are claimed to be infringed, and the purpose or function of that individual's job.

An Post workers have jobs to do, and when the new law is enacted, it would be surprising if judges did not find that they have a certain right to privacy in the course of carrying out those duties.

A person does not simply leave their right to privacy at the front gate.

The new law has not been enacted in any event.

What is your point?

Gotham

The Mustard wrote: »

What is your point?

My point is that it wont make a difference, and if it ends up making a difference, I disagree with the ruling.

The bill does mention that a defence is possible if the video is made for "the purpose of discussing a subject of public importance".

Section 5 (e) (ii).

I think our rights are pretty important.

Pat Mustard

Gotham wrote: »

My point is that it wont make a difference, and if it ends up making a difference, I disagree with the ruling.

Nobody mentioned a ruling. I presume you mean to refer to the proposed new law, the Privacy Bill 2012.

Maybe you are right. Maybe census takers won't start suing creepy weirdos with video cameras. Creepy weirdos don't always have the assets or income to justify litigation against them.

Gotham wrote: »

The bill does mention that a defence is possible if the video is made for "the purpose of discussing a subject of public importance".

I don't see the relevance of this in the context of the privacy rights of census takers and postal workers.

Gotham wrote: »

I think our rights are pretty important.

Public servants have rights too.

Gotham

Maybe I'm totally an utterly misunderstanding the purpose of these videos.
To me it looks like the people who recorded them are trying to document that their rights have been violated, am I incorrect?

Because if I'm understanding this correctly, then it is very relevant.

Pat Mustard

Gotham wrote: »

Maybe I'm totally an utterly misunderstanding the purpose of these videos.
To me it looks like the people who recorded them are trying to document that their rights have been violated, am I incorrect?

Because if I'm understanding this correctly, then it is very relevant.

I take it that you haven't experienced this Freeman phenomenon. There is a Freeman Megamerge thread somewhere around, describing how some very deluded or unscrupulous people give some very poor advice to the naive and the desperate.

Although Freemanism may have had its roots in (possible) genuine anarchism and self sufficiency, the people who associate with it now are basically wasters who want to take whatever benefits they can with a view that they do not have to pay taxes or comply with legislation. They are simply wrong in law, but that it is not a matter for this thread.

The video clips on this thread have a very strong whiff of Freeman from them. At one point, one of those guys mentioned that he did not 'contract' with the legislation so it didn't apply to him.

Look on it this way, if you saw the tv licence guy coming but didn't want to talk to him or identify yourself, then why answer the door at all, let alone attempt to intimidate him by recording him and posting the details on youtube?

Those video clips show intimidation of the people who called to the door, by invasion of their privacy.

Gotham

The Mustard wrote: »

I take it that you haven't experienced this Freeman phenomenon.

I'm aware of the Freeman of the Land to some extent, and yes a lot of what they say is nuts - its difficult to sort the lies from truth.

I agree the behavior is obnoxious but they are correct when they claim they are legally allowed to film Police and Gardai. I have problems when Gardai claim otherwise - they are even allowed to lie.

Frankly I think all interactions with government bodies should be recorded for the sake of both parties.

I have speculations about the proposed bill:
What happens if someone records me in my car, inside the car is private property as far as I remember.

SiegfriedsMum

The Mustard wrote: »

Accordingly, people who attempt to intimidate census takers and tv licence inspectors with video cameras could find themselves liable for a new civil wrong of violation of privacy.

.

I'd look forward to the arguments being put forward in court where someone who decides to call, uninvited, to your house, and then takes an action against the householder who openly video's the conversation. As it's always open to the visitor to leave if he or she does not like being filmed, their arguments as an uninvited (and possibly unwelcome) visitor claiming they had their privacy violated are eagerly awaited.

ScouseMouse

I think this is an excellent discussion and could go on forever.

The next time I have an unwelcome visitor I will try this by standing there with my mobile phone in their face. Probably cause uproar but what can they do about it.

On another note, some houses have a cctv camera over their door, one of my neighbours has anyway, so whats the difference, apart from being blantant and provocative?

Gotham

superscouse wrote: »

so whats the difference, apart from being blantant and provocative?

It appears in the proposed bill listed above, that they make an exception to devices that were installed for the purpose of security.


But I agree, it makes everything ****ing vague as hell.

ScouseMouse

Gotham wrote: »

It appears in the proposed bill listed above, that they make an exception to devices that were installed for the purpose of security.


But I agree, it makes everything ****ing vague as hell.

"The protection of persons and property"

I am protecting myself from threats and various reps telling me untruths.:D

Pat Mustard

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

I'd look forward to the arguments being put forward in court where someone who decides to call, uninvited, to your house, and then takes an action against the householder who openly video's the conversation. As it's always open to the visitor to leave if he or she does not like being filmed, their arguments as an uninvited (and possibly unwelcome) visitor claiming they had their privacy violated are eagerly awaited.

There are a number of ways of looking at the possibility. I have come with three illustrative hypothetical scenarios:

1. Members of a nomadic tribe call to your house on the pretext of offering to tarmac your drive. You ask them to leave but they ignore you. You film five of them wandering in different directions about your property as you wait for the Gardai to arrive.

2. A census taker calls to your house to retrieve a census form. You refuse to give him any basic information or return the census form, and you film him. He asks you to stop filming him as he has no option to carry out his lawful duties as a census taker. You carry on filming and post a video of the unfortunate gentleman on youtube, identifiying his face, his identity card, and the registration of his car.

3. Ace reporter Raoul Willis is sitting at home when Garry McMurphy, a convicted criminal, calls up to the house, breathing heavily, asking to borrow a shovel. Willis sees soil on McMurphy's shoes and that his jumper has been torn. Recently, Willis had received solid, reliable information that McMurphy was in the area, engaging in illegal activity. Willis takes out his videocamera and starts recording and asking questions, amidst protests from McMurphy.

In the first case, you are defending your home and property (see defences section of the Bill).

In the second case, you intimidate a public servant as he goes about his duties, seriously invading his privacy, and compounding the issue by posting on youtube.

In the third case, Willis might argue that although McMurphy has a right to privacy, that his actions were carried out in good faith, for the purpose of discussing a matter of public importance, in pursuit of gathering news. Willis will also argue that it was his own house and that he has a general right to the reasonable enjoyment of his own property, to include leisure activities such as filming random criminals.

monkeypants

The people who filmed those encounters are clearly daft as brushes. At the end of the first one, he even wanders around with a megaphone, talking to himself.

The census folks handled it well I thought. I don't think I would.

SiegfriedsMum

The Mustard wrote: »

There are a number of ways of looking at the possibility. I have come with three illustrative hypothetical scenarios:

1. Members of a nomadic tribe call to your house on the pretext of offering to tarmac your drive. You ask them to leave but they ignore you. You film five of them wandering in different directions about your property as you wait for the Gardai to arrive.

2. A census taker calls to your house to retrieve a census form. You refuse to give him any basic information or return the census form, and you film him. He asks you to stop filming him as he has no option to carry out his lawful duties as a census taker. You carry on filming and post a video of the unfortunate gentleman on youtube, identifiying his face, his identity card, and the registration of his car.

3. Ace reporter Raoul Willis is sitting at home when Garry McMurphy, a convicted criminal, calls up to the house, breathing heavily, asking to borrow a shovel. Willis sees soil on McMurphy's shoes and that his jumper has been torn. Recently, Willis had received solid, reliable information that McMurphy was in the area, engaging in illegal activity. Willis takes out his videocamera and starts recording and asking questions, amidst protests from McMurphy.

In the first case, you are defending your home and property (see defences section of the Bill).

In the second case, you intimidate a public servant as he goes about his duties, seriously invading his privacy, and compounding the issue by posting on youtube.

In the third case, Willis might argue that although McMurphy has a right to privacy, that his actions were carried out in good faith, for the purpose of discussing a matter of public importance, in pursuit of gathering news. Willis will also argue that it was his own house and that he has a general right to the reasonable enjoyment of his own property, to include leisure activities such as filming random criminals.

What is the difference between having permanent surveillance cameras with microphones in place at ones home, and taking out a handheld device to record a visitor?

My understanding is that both are quite legal.

What happens if one has large fierce dogs wandering about ones property, and the census caller comes to the gate. Does his or her job compel them to open the gate and brave the fierce dogs to get to the doorbell, or does the individual have any choice in the matter?

If they have discretion to decide not to brave the fierce dogs, then they also have discretion to avoid being filmed on someone else's property.

I have no doubt, if one of these cases comes to court, that the defense will point out that the caller who is complaining about being filmed could have left at any stage, and was not compelled to remain only to make a complaint about it at a later stage.

In the unlikely event the Irish courts decide against the householder being allowed to film openly on his own property, I imagine the European Court of Human Rights many have a view which disagrees with the Irish courts.

I started this thread because I found many of the videos funny, if not ludicrous, and they made me laugh. I particularly enjoy the claim that a householder can revoke an "implied right of access", and again I'd love to hear their arguments, in court, when they take an action against someone who they claim has had their implied right of access removed.