Had a Visit from TV Licence Man

sniggings

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

You would be surprised what technology is available for surveillance and electronic warfare. And much of this technology eventually becomes commercially available.

so tell me why has it never been used? I guess you either believe it or you don't same with the teeth fairy no one has ever seen him/her

sniggings

katejo wrote: »

I don't equate that with breaking the law . I said that I was not including those who don't watch live tv.

show me where I have support breaking the law, you made daft argument to support yourself with no evidence to back t up, I have made myself clear here, if your only argument is to mis understand me then sorry but argue with yourself not me as it is starting to get daft.

Jamie_Carter

sniggings wrote: »

so tell me why has it never been used? I guess you either believe it or you don't same with the teeth fairy no one has ever seen him/her

I really don't know, but it seems like you don't know for sure either. I'm just playing devils advocate.

Cornucopia

There is no point arguing about TV detection. For people acting within the law, it is largely irrelevant whether it exists or not.

The only possible concern is false positives occurring on the rare occasions when the technology is deployed, or claimed to be deployed. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why it is so rarely used?

The bigger problem is that whilst the BBC clings to the notion of electronic detection, it will probably not seek any change to its existing stop-gap of threatening letters and doorstep challenges to anyone without a licence.

sniggings

Cornucopia wrote: »

There is no point arguing about TV detection. For people acting within the law, it is largely irrelevant whether it exists or not.

The only possible concern is false positives occurring on the rare occasions when the technology is deployed, or claimed to be deployed. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why it is so rarely used?

The bigger problem is that whilst the BBC clings to the notion of electronic detection, it will probably not seek any change to its existing stop-gap of threatening letters and doorstep challenges to anyone without a licence.

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?

anotheruser

Out of interest, how does it work if you use your TV for radio?
I don't know how to tune my other channels out....

Plus, I hardly think there will be an "internet licence" as the majority of the general public simply wouldn't see it as a replacement for the TV Licence, but more as "yet another tax" - it would never go through.
If it did, would I have to give my details over when I am buying a computer from a shop? What if I bought the parts and self-built, would I have to give details to all retailers? Or would my ISP just check? Can't see them wanting to take on that responsibility, considering they didn't really want to block pirate websites... but ya know :P

I also wonder how far the freedom of information act would go on TV Detector Vans...

sniggings

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.

Buzby

TV detector van 'evidence' has been used - but not in the way you think. It was used to identify a working set at an address, and this used to confront the dweller that they were caught 'bang to rights'. A statement was then taken and the operator was the witness who asserted the transgression took place IF the case was contested - they rarely were.

The van fleet (around 12) roamed GB & NI and were operated by PO. They were finally retired prior to Crapita taking over the pursuit under contract to the BBC. Hand-held scanners are supposedly used, but I have never seen these referred to in court pretty much the same scenario as before.

The crime is committed if you have equipment capable of receiving - it then falls to the judge to decide how trustworthy your evidence is. He may believe you, but then again, he may not - and there is no appeal. Think of as carrying a crowbar - police can charge you as a potential housebreaker as 'going equipped' and prosecutions have succeeded without a door bring jemmied.

An analogue TV is no longer a liability, BUT a DVR, STB or other device with the capability reinstate the risks. The Communications Act 2000 spells it out.

sniggings

Buzby wrote: »

TV detector van 'evidence' has been used - but not in the way you think. It was used to identify a working set at an address, and this used to confront the dweller that they were caught 'bang to rights'. A statement was then taken and the operator was the witness who asserted the transgression took place IF the case was contested - they rarely were.

The van fleet (around 12) roamed GB & NI and were operated by PO. They were finally retired prior to Crapita taking over the pursuit under contract to the BBC. Hand-held scanners are supposedly used, but I have never seen these referred to in court pretty much the same scenario as before.

The crime is committed if you have equipment capable of receiving - it then falls to the judge to decide how trustworthy your evidence is. He may believe you, but then again, he may not - and there is no appeal. Think of as carrying a crowbar - police can charge you as a potential housebreaker as 'going equipped' and prosecutions have succeeded without a door bring jemmied.

An analogue TV is no longer a liability, BUT a DVR, STB or other device with the capability reinstate the risks. The Communications Act 2000 spells it out.

so someone was "told" they were detected and they admitted it :rotfl:

So I'm still correct it has never been used in court, just the story of them was enought to get people to own up.

Hardly evidence of detection vans, the percentage of people without licences and no TV receiving equitment is that small, they could knock on any door without a licence being registered at that address and be fairly sure they hit on someone evading, telling them they were "detected" would likely get them to own up, it is hardly evidence these vans could do what they claimed.

You are wrong, having the equipment to not enough to need a licence, you need to be either using it to watch live feeds or recorded live feeds, having a TV is receiving equipment but in itself is not enough to need a licence.

You are also wrong to say you have to convince the judge, no they have to prove you have broken the law, the law is based on defending against evidence not proving you have not done something.

You are also wrong to say there is no appeal, yes there is.

Glad the law is based on facts not a best guess like your post

System

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

With modern technology I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to detect equipment that is receiving a TV signal (even if they only pretended that they could 25 years ago).

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