herbalharry   10 #97 Posted January 25, 2016 Engineers don't know how their detection methods work....In other words they're talking rubbish, you're talking rubbish and I've never seen any evidence in 18 odd years to suggest they have detector vans capable of what they claim.  ---------- Post added 25-01-2016 at 21:28 ----------  So explain what dont I have a clue about?  Ive stated they get a warrant and they need to get that from the Magistrates court under s 366 of the Communications Act 2003. They need to show a reasonable suspicion that an offence under s363 is being committed or that they are likely to find such evidence on the premises.  You ain't a clue about anything to do with warrants. Clear?  ---------- Post added 25-01-2016 at 21:29 ----------  Did you not read the bit where I said they were one of my customers?  Not one shred of evidence! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
999tigger   10 #98 Posted January 25, 2016 Engineers don't know how their detection methods work....In other words they're talking rubbish, you're talking rubbish and I've never seen any evidence in 18 odd years to suggest they have detector vans capable of what they claim. ---------- Post added 25-01-2016 at 21:28 ----------   You ain't a clue about anything to do with warrants. Clear?  ---------- Post added 25-01-2016 at 21:29 ----------   Not one shred of evidence!  Its all very well saying I havent a clue, but you arent coming up with any explanations. You arent very convincing. Everything on warrants is in s366.  There you go  http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/366  ps I liked the clear bit, just made you look an even bigger fool. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
herbalharry   10 #99 Posted January 25, 2016 how do you know for a fact? can you prove it? Until it's proven 100% either way, no one (except those 'in the know') will know for sure....  Can you prove it? Because I've never heard or seen with my own eyes these so called detector vans.  ---------- Post added 25-01-2016 at 21:33 ----------  Its all very well saying I havent a clue, but you arent coming up with any explanations. You arent very convincing. Everything on warrants is in s366.  There you go  http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/366  ps I liked the clear bit, just made you look an even bigger fool.  To get a warrant you need evidence...how do you get evidence? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
truman   10 #100 Posted January 25, 2016 Engineers don't know how their detection methods work....In other words they're talking rubbish, you're talking rubbish and I've never seen any evidence in 18 odd years to suggest they have detector vans capable of what they claim. ---------- Post added 25-01-2016 at 21:28 ----------   You ain't a clue about anything to do with warrants. Clear?  ---------- Post added 25-01-2016 at 21:29 ----------   Not one shred of evidence!  If that makes you feel better then carry on...I don't really care what you think you know.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
herbalharry   10 #101 Posted January 25, 2016 If that makes you feel better then carry on...I don't really care what you think you know..  What do you know? And show me the evidence. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
999tigger   10 #102 Posted January 25, 2016 Can you prove it? Because I've never heard or seen with my own eyes these so called detector vans. ---------- Post added 25-01-2016 at 21:33 ----------   To get a warrant you need evidence...how do you get evidence?  Just read the Act. You need a suspicion of an offence or a suspicion that evidence of such exists on the premises. Read it yourself. You have ot yourself in a circular argument, just read the Act for goodness sake. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
herbalharry   10 #103 Posted January 25, 2016 I'll leave it here....  1 you need evidence to get a warrant through court. You don't get a warrant without evidence. 2 there's no such thing as detector vans that can reliably pinpoint households that are watching live tv without a license.  No more to say unless someone can prove otherwise. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
truman   10 #104 Posted January 25, 2016 What do you know? And show me the evidence.  Nope..you carry on believing what you believe and I'll carry on knowing what I know.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
999tigger   10 #105 Posted January 25, 2016 I'll leave it here.... 1 you need evidence to get a warrant through court. You don't get a warrant without evidence. 2 there's no such thing as detector vans that can reliably pinpoint households that are watching live tv without a license.  No more to say unless someone can prove otherwise.  No you dont. You are incpable of reading. You can give a statement under oath that you believe there is evidence on the premises.  Can you do the clear thing again, it's hilarious. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
herbalharry   10 #106 Posted January 25, 2016 Nope..you carry on believing what you believe and I'll carry on knowing what I know....  Carry on knowing what you know, good for you. Doesn't make you win this argument though does it.  ---------- Post added 25-01-2016 at 21:43 ----------  No you dont. You are incpable of reading. You can give a statement under oath that you believe there is evidence on the premises. Can you do the clear thing again, it's hilarious.  You have no idea what youre talking about...I come from a family of cops..makes me laugh.  ---------- Post added 25-01-2016 at 21:43 ----------  And still no evidence. .,, Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
999tigger   10 #107 Posted January 25, 2016  You have no idea what youre talking about...I come from a family of cops..makes me laugh.  ---------- Post added 25-01-2016 at 21:43 ----------  And still no evidence. .,,  So tell me which part of s366 of the Communications Act is wrong? If you read the act it says a statement under oath is enough. But ofc you wont read or cant read. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
herbalharry   10 #108 Posted January 25, 2016 So tell me which part of s366 of the Communications Act is wrong? If you read the act it says a statement under oath is enough. But ofc you wont read or cant read.  Refer to #105....Good night Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...