TV licence query

Blue_Max

veganpanda wrote: »

I agree!

When will people realise that we should never invite in or converse with (at all) the BBCTVL inspectors, they are NOT the law!!

When you get your first BBCTVL demand letter write 'No Contract, return to sender' on it, it'll take your name out of their system. It's how I began the many years licence free :T

But are you not worried about TV Detector Vans?!
If they dectect that the TV was on, would it not be evidence for prosecution?

Swipe

Blue_Max wrote: »

But are you not worried about TV Detector Vans?!
If they dectect that the TV was on, would it not be evidence for prosecution?

They don't exist, they are just empty vans with no equipment. Hence why they have never been used as evidence in court.

Blue_Max

Did a bit of googling and found this site
http://tv-licensing.blogspot.com/
It has text of the sworn statement given to Magistrates on 28th June 2011.
It is anapplication for a Warrant under Section 366(1) of the Communications Act 2003 to enter and search the Premises.
".... the detector van was positioned near the Premises. When the detector camera was pointed at the window of the Premises a positive signal was received indicating a TV receiver was in use receiving a possible broadcast with a confidence factor of 97%."

System

You should read the whole of it. It is based on analysing LIGHT after have bounced off numerous walls, being mixed with ambient light AND being affected by any other light source. That's not science but snake oil. If a warrant was issued on that basis then the guy who gave that deposition should be done.

Wouldn't a computer set to a catchup TV chanell give the same light output?

Blue_Max

"More than 214,000 TV Licence evaders caught during the first six months of 2009", claims TV Licencing website.
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/media-centre/news/more-than-214000-tv-licence-evaders-caught-NEWS19/

varifiable fact or scaremongering ?!!!!!

Stennent

Hi all, New here so apologies if I'm posting in the wrong thread.....basically looking for a bit of advice.

From what I understand TV licences are always issued from the 1st of the month, no matter what date you pay for them....I paid for my yearly TV licence on 20th October 2010 by direct debit (I didn't know about the whole start of the month thing then!:( ), which by my reckoning would mean that it should be valid until 30th Septmeber this year? However I've just noticed on my licence that it is only valid until 31/08/2011, which is basically a whole month and a half under the 12 months I paid for!! I've contacted them and still waiting on a reply (again!) but just wondered if anyone had any advice?

Thanks

Blue_Max

i went to tvlicensing.co.uk and filled in an online declaration form.
hopefully that will be the end of my worries.

davidlizard

Swipe wrote: »

They don't exist, they are just empty vans with no equipment. Hence why they have never been used as evidence in court.

The other reason they are not used as evidence in court is that if they were, then the workings of them would have to be made available to the defence and therefore in the public domain. In the same way the workings of speed cameras are made available.

The BBC are unwilling for this to happen, as they don't want people to either (a) know they are simply a facade or (b) if they do contain anything then people would be able to build and deploy a countermeasure.

vax2002

A detector van can not fill in a contract, in order to prosecute for contact statute breech which this is you need 1 nugget.
A NAME
No name= no contract = no prosecution
it is know as the common law of silent defences
As you are at no liberty to provide your name they are pretty screwed if you dont.
However as you are "taught" to answer to your name every day at school, it's kind of a hard habit hard to break.

Kurtis_Blue

vax2002 wrote: »

A detector van can not fill in a contract, in order to prosecute for contact statute breech which this is you need 1 nugget.
A NAME
No name= no contract = no prosecution
it is know as the common law of silent defences
As you are at no liberty to provide your name they are pretty screwed if you dont.
However as you are "taught" to answer to your name every day at school, it's kind of a hard habit hard to break.

"contract statute breech" what has that got to do with tv licence legal requirements? you seem to have picked random semi legal sounding terms and scattered them about in a sentence.

This is why you shouldnt rely on any legal advice from web forums.