TV licence query

JJ_Egan

You will probably find that the burden of proof is what is picked up by the TV detector vans as that what is accepted in court .
One presumes that as the vast majority of licence cases have never mentioned that xxx was watching SSSS on Tuesday the 23rd as observed from a chink in the curtains .
Fined £1000 and £500 for no taste in curtains .

jje

davidlizard

JJ_Egan wrote: »

You will probably find that the burden of proof is what is picked up by the TV detector vans as that what is accepted in court .
One presumes that as the vast majority of licence cases have never mentioned that xxx was watching SSSS on Tuesday the 23rd as observed from a chink in the curtains .
Fined £1000 and £500 for no taste in curtains .

jje

What is *supposedly* picked up by detection vans is not used in court, for the reason that the technology employed would have to be made available to the defence as well as the prosecution. As the BBC are extremely reluctant to divulge how TV detector vans work - or indeed whether they work at all - then such evidence is never presented. There have been a number of requests made to the BBC over recent years on this very subject, all of which have been denied.

The cases I have witnessed in court have all been from people self-incriminating themselves, for example saying they only watch ITV, or underhand tactics such as telling them they would not be prosecuted if they buy a licence now - then prosecuting them.

moonrakerz

davidlizard wrote: »

What is *supposedly* picked up by detection vans is not used in court, for the reason that the technology employed would have to be made available to the defence as well as the prosecution. As the BBC are extremely reluctant to divulge how TV detector vans work - or indeed whether they work at all - then such evidence is never presented. There have been a number of requests made to the BBC over recent years on this very subject, all of which have been denied.

The cases I have witnessed in court have all been from people self-incriminating themselves, for example saying they only watch ITV, or underhand tactics such as telling them they would not be prosecuted if they buy a licence now - then prosecuting them.

TVL had admitted in a Parliamentary Statement that so-called "Detector Van" evidence has NEVER been used in Court.

IF the OP watches ANY live TV I would put them in same category as rail fare dodgers/shop lifters and other sundry low life - why should I and the other Law abiding citizens pay for their "free ride" ?

PS: I do think the TV Licence is well past its sell by date - but no one seems to have come up with an alternative..........

paidinchickens

moonrakerz wrote: »

TVL had admitted in a Parliamentary Statement that so-called "Detector Van" evidence has NEVER been used in Court.

IF the OP watches ANY live TV I would put them in same category as rail fare dodgers/shop lifters and other sundry low life - why should I and the other Law abiding citizens pay for their "free ride" ?

PS: I do think the TV Licence is well past its sell by date - but no one seems to have come up with an alternative..........

I have a licence and have paid one for years.

However I do not feel I should have to pay when I only watch catch up TV. I want to be sure it is ok to stop paying and I have emailed the TV licence people and have asked if this is ok and they are welcome to come and check the house. They gave such a long winded reply which at the end never said yes or no.

I am not a fare dodger if I do not get on the train!

derrick

paidinchickens wrote: »

I have a licence and have paid one for years.

However I do not feel I should have to pay when I only watch catch up TV. I want to be sure it is ok to stop paying and I have emailed the TV licence people and have asked if this is ok and they are welcome to come and check the house. They gave such a long winded reply which at the end never said yes or no.

I am not a fare dodger if I do not get on the train!

If the highlighted text is true, then you do not need a licence.

THIS explains the need for one.

THIS explains if you don't need one;- "for example, if you use your TV only to watch DVDs or play video games, or you only watch programmes on your computer after they have been shown on TV. "


.

kaya

the bbc are the only company allowed by law to charge a fee, so you dont need a licence to watch or record any other channels as the licence doesn't apply to them
go to bbci player website and click on the terms and conditions, it states quite clearly in black and white (from the people who are allowed to charge you) that you only need a licence to watch LIVE bbc , if you choose not to get a licence this is all the evidence you need in court , providing youo dont watch any live bbc you should be fine

kaya

moonrakerz wrote: »

TVL had admitted in a Parliamentary Statement that so-called "Detector Van" evidence has NEVER been used in Court.

IF the OP watches ANY live TV I would put them in same category as rail fare dodgers/shop lifters and other sundry low life - why should I and the other Law abiding citizens pay for their "free ride" ?

PS: I do think the TV Licence is well past its sell by date - but no one seems to have come up with an alternative..........

this is very true, the reason they have never used detector van evidence in court and never will is quite simple, to present and use detector van evidence in court (or any other technical evidence for that matter) the workings of the equipment used MUST be available to both the prosecution and the defence(see speedcameras for an example) there is a school of thinking that detector vans dont work and never have done, this would explain why the evidence has never been presented and also why the workings of a detector van have remained one of the most closely guarded secrets in this country for 40 years, its just the bbc practicing its favourite pastime-propoganda

Bob_the_Saver

davidlizard wrote: »

What is *supposedly* picked up by detection vans is not used in court, for the reason that the technology employed would have to be made available to the defence as well as the prosecution. As the BBC are extremely reluctant to divulge how TV detector vans work - or indeed whether they work at all - then such evidence is never presented. There have been a number of requests made to the BBC over recent years on this very subject, all of which have been denied.

The cases I have witnessed in court have all been from people self-incriminating themselves, for example saying they only watch ITV, or underhand tactics such as telling them they would not be prosecuted if they buy a licence now - then prosecuting them.

Whenever I've seen detector vans with the sun behind them all I've seen through their darkened windows are rows of empty seats minibus style.
Give it a try next time you see one.
Maybe there is a real one somewhere!

derrick

kaya wrote: »

the bbc are the only company allowed by law to charge a fee, so you dont need a licence to watch or record any other channels as the licence doesn't apply to them
go to bbci player website and click on the terms and conditions, it states quite clearly in black and white (from the people who are allowed to charge you) that you only need a licence to watch LIVE bbc , if you choose not to get a licence this is all the evidence you need in court , providing youo dont watch any live bbc you should be fine

This is rubbish, you need a licence to watch TV as it is broadcast, it does not matter which station you are watching, the licence is to receive broadcasts, not to watch the BBC!.

From my first link above;- "You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder."

No mention of BBC only!

.

kaya

derrick wrote: »

This is rubbish, you need a licence to watch TV as it is broadcast, it does not matter which station you are watching, the licence is to receive broadcasts, not to watch the BBC!.

From my first link above;- "You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder."

No mention of BBC only!

.

lol, im afraid you are misguided my friend , the bbc were granted the permission to charge a licence fee by royal charter in about 1927(ish) , this was on the condition that they remained unbiased in their reporting and were to be run "for the people", thats why the bbc is advert free and all the other channels are not, captiva (who administer the fee) are not the bbc , its a play on words, you are on a website that is run for the bbc, it says that you need a licence to watch or record live tv, remember you are on a website that refers only to the bbc, is run for and on behalf of the bbc, and thats what they are referring to, no other channel has a royal charter, no other channel has a licence fee, no other channel is allowed to charge you a fee, you will not find reference to licence fee charges on any other broadcasters site other than the bbc, the whole thing is just another fee collecting con and has been for years and years, feel free to contact any other broadcasting company or channel and ask them if they have a legal right to charge you a fee for their services, they will tell you exactly the same , there was a woman on bbc news a few months back from the licencing dept refering to this very subject:
bbc news interviewer: "so do you need a licence to watch other channels?"
tv licencing woman: "of course you need a licence to watch live bbc, and if you have one that will cover you for all the other channels as well"
another play on words, nowhere in that statement did she say you NEEDED a licence to watch anything other than live bbc, i would love somebody to supply a statement from any other company stating you need a licence to watch their programms, but they wont, because all the other companies know that to do so would be fraud. The licence fee is just another stealth tax, albeit a very successfull one