Had a Visit from TV Licence Man

System

sniggings wrote: »

detection vans are either allowed in court as evidence or not, my opinion is they are not or surely the results would have been used at least once, no recorded evidence of detection van evidence even used to obtain a warrant either, which also begs the question why the need for warrants if detection is available?

Lie Detector evidence isn't allowed in Court so I doubt Detector Van evidence is either, would explain why its never been used too

Jamie_Carter

sniggings wrote: »

surely to get a false positive as you put it, they would have had to at least use this "technology" once in court to realise it was wrong, and how could anyone argue against it in court? this equipment is either court accredited or not, once detected then you are banged to rights, same as in DNA or a speed camera.

detection vans are either allowed in court as evidence or not, my opinion is they are not or surely the results would have been used at least once, no recorded evidence of detection van evidence even used to obtain a warrant either, which also begs the question why the need for warrants if detection is available?

I would have thought that detectors could be used to gather evidence, and used to obtain a warrant.

Jamie_Carter

TheWise1 wrote: »

If they really could do that they would want the Public to know its possible, it would be the ultimate weapon however they turned down a Freedom of Information request to do so...............I think we all know why

They do tell us that it's possible.

Cornucopia

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

They do tell us that it's possible.

As a society, I think we've moved on from simply believing the PTB when they tell us something, and require reasonable evidence.

The idea that a major organisation such as the BBC has a technology that they use to pursue tax evaders but (a) don't want the technology to be seen to be in use, and (b) don't want the technology to be seen to be fair... is ridiculous.

Cornucopia

sniggings wrote: »

surely to get a false positive as you put it, they would have had to at least use this "technology" once in court to realise it was wrong, and how could anyone argue against it in court? this equipment is either court accredited or not, once detected then you are banged to rights, same as in DNA or a speed camera.

The "plan" is that they would use the detector to get evidence to obtain a search warrant that then produces the evidence for court.

If you think about it, even if the detectors worked, they'd still need the name of someone who was not just a resident, but actively engaged in breaking the law. (Very similar to the speed camera nonsense when a keeper is required to name the driver).

oldgrumpygit

sniggings wrote: »

radio is fine, all you have to do if find a way to make sure if your equipment was ever tested then no live feed picture could be got on it.

The guy testing it is not allowed to plug an aerial in or tune your TV but they will try every channel. he can only come in to test if you let him in or has a warrant and warrants are very rare, so best advice is do not let them in and if they have a rare warrant, record them as it has been known for them to see pictures on TVs that aren't visable to other people, if you record the search then no one can make stuff up.

If you can unplug the aerial but then probably no radio either, have a play around with your tv, there may be a way.

Not sure what you mean by testing your equipment.

To listen to digital radio via freeview (for example) you would need an aerial connected. The fact that your TV would then be capable of receiving TV signals would be of no relevance.
You still would not need a licence if you didn't watch live TV.

"it has been known for them to see pictures on TVs that aren't visable to other people" Magic eyesight!

Cornucopia

There is a mis-match here between the strict letter of the law and what actually happens in some cases.

Certainly, back in the days of analog, there were prosecutions based on very snowy pictures. It is alleged that these were sometimes obtained by TVL inserting keys, pens, etc. into the aerial socket.

Although the BBC have said that a TV can be used to receive radio without a licence, I have asked them via FOI to elaborate on how such an installation would be tested by TVL and how it could be protected from false accusations. They refused to say, and I have appealed their decision.

In the meantime, I would say that any unlicensed household using a TV to receive radio where the TV channels are not or cannot be deleted needs to exercise extreme caution when dealing with TVL.

oldgrumpygit

Cornucopia wrote: »

There is a mis-match here between the strict letter of the law and what actually happens in some cases.

Certainly, back in the days of analog, there were prosecutions based on very snowy pictures. It is alleged that these were sometimes obtained by TVL inserting keys, pens, etc. into the aerial socket.

Although the BBC have said that a TV can be used to receive radio without a licence, I have asked them via FOI to elaborate on how such an installation would be tested by TVL and how it could be protected from false accusations. They refused to say, and I have appealed their decision.

In the meantime, I would say that any unlicensed household using a TV to receive radio where the TV channels are not or cannot be deleted needs to exercise extreme caution when dealing with TVL.

What do you mean by "extreme caution"?

If you are not using any equipment to watch live TV you do not need a TV licence therefore you can ignore TVL completely.

No need to correspond with them or speak to them at all.

Cornucopia

oldgrumpygit wrote: »

What do you mean by "extreme caution"?

If you are not using any equipment to watch live TV you do not need a TV licence therefore you can ignore TVL completely.

No need to correspond with them or speak to them at all.

Exactly.

There are plenty of people who may be taken in by them and agree to have their homes examined for potential receiving equipment. If the BBC themselves won't tell us how this particular configuration would be tested, it's probably a good idea to refuse.

oldgrumpygit

Cornucopia wrote: »

Exactly.

There are plenty of people who may be taken in by them and agree to have their homes examined for potential receiving equipment. If the BBC themselves won't tell us how this particular configuration would be tested, it's probably a good idea to refuse.

I'm sure many homes have "potential receiving equipment" however having such equipment is no reason to purchase a licence.