Had a Visit from TV Licence Man

System

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

They do tell us that it's possible.

Yes I wonder why they do that :wall:

sniggings

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

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

there isn't a recorded case that has, it's like saying a lie detected can be used to get someone arrested, if a detector van is good enough for a warrant,

A, why bother with a warrant then
B, it would have to be presented in court as part of the evidence, and again not recorded case.

You can go on the TV licence site on their Q&A section and see how they dodge questions on this subject.

sniggings

Cornucopia wrote: »

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).

how would a warrant obtain that? the person is not going to be sitting in front of the Tv as the knock down the door...as no knocking down of doors is done.

this is what they want, for people to say "what if" and "they might" etc etc just look at the evidence, they spend millions of other forms of catching people but not once has detection be used in court, call me daft but I go by the evidence I don't go by what ifs.

sniggings

oldgrumpygit wrote: »

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!

it then comes down to what a reasonable person would believe, if your TV was tuned and had the aerial in then it would be down to the judge whether he believed you were not using it for TV, I ask myself this question too as I have iplayer on my freeview box, so if I went licence free could I still use the iplayer and not the TV channels as the channels would still be avaiulble, I guess it's down to what a judge believes?

watch this and the guy won his appeal, the original did not have a picture on the screen but when the guy posted his video on youtube, it was used in court and a picture suddenly appeals on the screen at 1.09 minutes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C83QybcH9Qc

http://www.thurrockgazette.co.uk/news/9867463.Man_wins_TV_licence_battle/

sniggings

oldgrumpygit wrote: »

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

your forgetting the point now, what the issue is if a TV has a duel purpose such as TV and radio but only the radio sid eof it is used but the TV sid eof it can not be detunes, then if a warrant was issued would saying you to not watch the tuned TV channels be enough in court? my guess is it wouldn't be, so best advice is either detune the tv side, if that can't be done buy a radio or use xbox etc and a radio app and iplayer.

as said above I have a freeview with tv and radio but if I go licence free I will just not use the freeview at all...too risky.

oldgrumpygit

sniggings wrote: »

your forgetting the point now, what the issue is if a TV has a duel purpose such as TV and radio but only the radio sid eof it is used but the TV sid eof it can not be detunes, then if a warrant was issued would saying you to not watch the tuned TV channels be enough in court? my guess is it wouldn't be, so best advice is either detune the tv side, if that can't be done buy a radio or use xbox etc and a radio app and iplayer.

as said above I have a freeview with tv and radio but if I go licence free I will just not use the freeview at all...too risky.

I am not forgetting any issue.

If TVL suspect that someone is using equipment without a licence then it is up to them to prove that.

Having the iplayer either on a computer or as an app on a phone/tablet allows you to watch live TV.

So to avoid that "capability" do you suggest people remove the iplayer app and never use the iplayer web version "just in case"?


There is no "risk" in listening to radio through a freeview tuner or enabled TV without a TV licence.

Nothing illegal/immoral or wrong with it at all.

You are suggesting on the basis of no evidence you would be presumed guilty rather than innocent.

(Assumed guilt is I believe the TVL default position)

sniggings

what I'm saying (and it sounds like we agree) is once the "evidence is presented to the court, it's up to the court to decide whether a tv with an aerial fixed and tuned to receiver a live feed is enough to get a conviction, even if the defendant says it was only used for listening to radio?

As to get a conviction you do not have to be sat infront of a TV watching it to be found guilty, just having the TV set up and able to view is enough.

as for apps, that is different as the law stands now, a mobile device can be used away from a property if said property has a licence, so you could only use a ipad at a friends house to watch Tv if said friend had a licence, so very hard to prove guilt there, and if a tv card is not fitted to a mobile device etc atm it is not classed as TV receiving equipment so can not be tested under a warrant, only tv receiving devices can.

[Deleted User]

How come these license fee threads run and run? Every few months there is another one and they all contain the same pro and counter pro arguments, usually from the same posters.
Obsessed much you guys?:)

sniggings

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

How come these license fee threads run and run? Every few months there is another one and they all contain the same pro and counter pro arguments, usually from the same posters.
Obsessed much you guys?:)

forums tend to have the same topics come up, best not click on it and keep posting for 5 pages or you too will become OCD

oldgrumpygit

sniggings wrote: »

what I'm saying (and it sounds like we agree) is once the "evidence is presented to the court, it's up to the court to decide whether a tv with an aerial fixed and tuned to receiver a live feed is enough to get a conviction, even if the defendant says it was only used for listening to radio?

As to get a conviction you do not have to be sat infront of a TV watching it to be found guilty, just having the TV set up and able to view is enough.

as for apps, that is different as the law stands now, a mobile device can be used away from a property if said property has a licence, so you could only use a ipad at a friends house to watch Tv if said friend had a licence, so very hard to prove guilt there, and if a tv card is not fitted to a mobile device etc atm it is not classed as TV receiving equipment so can not be tested under a warrant, only tv receiving devices can.

Incorrect.


Although amazing how many people think that.