I have just recieved a scare letter from the BSA has anyone else recieved one? It states that it believes we have a shortage of licences for Microsoft office.
We have a schools agreement which we renew each year and with a revised number of machines on our network. Sureley Microsoft Know this or are these letters send out randomly as scare tactics???
Just Bin it, its generally where this sort of rubbish goes when I receive it. It will not be aimed at your school and will be part of a mass mailing program no doubt.
did it come with an pre paid envelope? If so, put all your junk mail in, after removing any identification, and return it. It keeps the postie in employment.
Just ignore it, they are complete idiots and just send out scary letters as a form of prevention.
Nothing will ever come of it.
Don't worry about it, the letter is probably just a scare tactic.
Besides, if all your software is legal and they try and forcefully investigate your machines you can kick their sorry asses out the door when they find nothing wrong.
I'm not sure they can legally enter the premesis without a search warrant either. Can anyone confirm?
Speaking of scare tactics: We have no TV at all. And the BBC are VERY invasive with threatening letters and demanding to search the premesis. Can't they get it through their thick skulls that not all of us watch TV and not all of us want to pay their crappy licence?
No-one has the right to enter your property without a warrant of some form (be it from a magistrate or as a result of an arrest).Originally Posted by Friez
With regard to TV licenses, the BBC doesn't deal with them at all. A private company deals with the enforcement of licenses and use very heavy handed methods. However, I found simply calling them and confirming that I own a TV but do not have it connected to an aerial or tuned in to anything but my pc and dvd player solved it for 9 months. Remember, the harassment act provides you with legal protection against the sort of behavior shown by the TVL company. If you are being persistently bothered by them, even after telling them not to, contact the police.
One of the problems about warrants and schools ... it has to be a search warrant specified for specific information or evidence. Most schools are owned by the State in one form or another and so you cannot theoretically refuse access to someone who holds a public office carrying out their normal duties.
This includes Police, Fire or Ambulance services.
If the door to the school is open and someone walks in then it is not trespass, but if you home has the door open and someone walks in it is.
(there is a lengthy legalese explaination of this which takes about 30 mins if anyone is ever suffereing from insomnia and wants me to go through it!)
The likelihood of the Police coming in to search is very small. I it probably going to be a legal letter stipulating that you have to provide evidence of software purchases, inventory and software use to an appointed body on behalf of copyright holders of specified software otherwise legal action will be taken.
BSA are a bunch of jumped up squirts who use FUD to try and make schools panic buy software. If you are ever in any doubt about licences then speak to a) your resseller and b) the software publisher.
thats Capita for youWith regard to TV licenses, the BBC doesn't deal with them at all. A private company deals with the enforcement of licenses and use very heavy handed methods.
Although, this does depend on the intended purpose of the entry. If you should reasonably know that the actions you are going to engage in are not wanted or not allowed (even if you aren't specifically informed of this by notices) then you would be trespassing. This comes under the legal definition of 'intent' and was my particular downfall in a case I was convicted for. (Look up mens rea).Originally Posted by GrumbleDook
Also to take into account is whether the school would be reasonably expected to be open at the time of entry. If under normal circumstances the school would be closed, your entry, even with an open door, would be trespass - regardless of it being a publicly owned property or not.
However, if your school has a door open then it is not fully protecting its children and not enacting the Data Protection Act correctly... IMO.
I think we are talking on the same lines here but without getting to into the depths of it all a little expansion.
Above is one of the reasons why the creation on the criminal offence of aggravated trespass was created.
Trespass is basically a civil issue (ok ... a gross generalisation, but for most things this is true) whereas aggravated trespass is not. If you enter a building (or allotted area) with the intent to commit further offences, or in the process of entering the building you commit further offences then welcome on board to the wonderful world of aggravated trespass.
The police tend to respond to trespass by removing you from the area and then taking evidence to see whether further action is needed. Being honest, the civil side gets better results.
Even if it is simple trespass the police will respond and remove the perpetrator as they have no right to be there and the threat of them being there may also constitute assault (threat of assault is covered under 'common assault')
Also, if someone is trespassing then they are usually up to no good anyway (bloody ramblers and 'freedom to roam'!!!)
If a school does not prevent people from accessing the building when they have no right to then the school is remiss in its duties according to the Children's Act 1989. Part of the problem with police is that they have every right to be on site at any time that the building is in public use (eg during the normal school day).
The TV Licence folks do not have a right, but preventing them from accessing any building as part of their investigation can be seen as perverting the course of justice.
Likewise, making the wait at the front gate of a Garrison whilst the Guard Commander sends the Duty Personnel around the barracks to tell people to turn off all the TVs is not exactly correct ... not that I ever did that ...
Isn't that a bit of a contradiction? If they have no right to enter the building then not allowing them in can't be used against you - that is inferring guilt through lack of evidence which isn't allowed in court is it?Originally Posted by GrumbleDook
Perverting the course of justice only applies when it comes to criminal offences and preventing people from investigating when they have the right to - and in this case they wouldn't have that right without a warrant?
Anyhow, if people want to join the ranks of people who object to the TV license and their tactics, take a look at http://www.tvlicensing.biz/.
One thing that really gets my back up is the fact that they will out an out lie to you about whether you need a license. Money grubbers!! And what do we get out of it? The only good shows that have come out of the BBC in recent years have been Dr Who and Coast.
I never said the law made sense ...Originally Posted by localzuk
The explaination was generalised ... the prevention of accessing the building as perverting the course of justice is when there has been a device capable of accessing broadcasted TV identified at being at a specific location and the defence of the hose owner is that there is not one there. The investigators need to enter the building to confirm this and refusal to do so by the home owner so that they go away and get a warrant and come back and the device is gone is tampering with evidence.Perverting the course of justice only applies when it comes to criminal offences and preventing people from investigating when they have the right to - and in this case they wouldn't have that right without a warrant?
There are many ways around this as a home owner, including refusal to identify yourself as the person who is responsible (even partly) for the house and that you cannot allow the person to enter the property because of this, an act of worship is going on (which can even be the saying of the rosary) ... the list goes on actually.
One of the pieces of homework we had to do during police training was to come up with as many was as possible to put off people from entering your property in spite of them having a right to do so. The best person had over 300 ... but he was a former C&E door basher, so he had a head start. The best one I found was someone had claimed that the house was a registered abattoir and that the police had to wait until they were accompanied by a DEFRA (or whatever it used to be in '96) rep otherwise the whole place had to shut down.
The fact that the house was being used for money laundering meant that people managed to get away and the guy at the door got a caution for perverting the course of justice ... rather than the 15 years he should have got if they had just gone in.
Anyway ... this has gone way off topic ... I told you it was a cure for insomnia.
Back to the BSA. if FAST or one of the companies themselves gets in touch with you then worry ... not that any of us here would worry anyway. We are all good boys and girls (or automated servers in geoff's case) and we are all correctly licensed.
This is the exact reason I find law so interesting - you can absorb yourself in it quite easily and argue over it for days. Kinda makes you see why lawyers get so much money!Originally Posted by GrumbleDook
Yep! That's us! Do FAST carry some clout then?Originally Posted by GrumbleDook
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)