TV licensing threats

Kayak10

Cornucopia wrote: »

Kayak believes that he was caught and prosecuted using such a device.

However, the BBC has stated under FOI that he was not prosecuted using such a device - no one has ever been prosecuted using such a device.

I'm not sure we'll ever prove to his satisfaction that he probably wasn't caught that way, either. In fact, based on our knowledge of TVL it's much more likely that the evidence against him was misplaced or fabricated than obtained from a detector.

Proving it? Probably not possible.

Does it matter? Not really. It's clear that they are not in routine use. The BBC admit as much when they stress that they are associated solely with warrant applications. We know how rare those are, and will soon be able to prove it, too.

(A group of us are sending FOI requests to individual courts asking for disclosure of the number of SW requests. Results so far show the number to be tiny. We're having to do it this way because the BBC refuse to disclose total numbers - childish behaviour on their part)

I KNOW I was caught using one As to using that evidence in court i can't confirm as it was around 4 or 5 years ago Obviously they used some evidence I could not dispute else I would not have ended up with a fairly large fine and having to buy a licence to avoid further trouble

[Deleted User]

Kayak10 wrote: »

The reason I KNOW is because the TVL person had it in his hand and advised me he KNEW I was watching TV.

And you believe everything TVL tell you?

As to your other point about going to court Do you think I'm lying ??? :mad:

No, I just don't believe you were prosecuted with detection evidence because, in TVLs own words.

I can confirm that TVL has not, to date, used detection evidence in Court.

[Deleted User]

Kayak10 wrote: »

Obviously they used some evidence I could not dispute

A signed confession perhaps?

cajef

Kayak10 wrote: »

The reason I KNOW is because the TVL person had it in his hand and advised me he KNEW I was watching tv

He was lying and you were gullible enough to believe him.

matelodave

Generally they don't need any fancy gadgets - an aerial on the roof, sky dish on the wall, Virgin media cable going into the house or even watching or seeing the telly through the window. They've probably been down the street at night before they even knock at your door so they know you've got a TV anyway. Once you've opened the door and they can hear it or see it they don't need any more proof.
Even in the good old days when they had a rotating crate on top of a Morris Oxford estate car they only checked out houses that didn't have a licence and they would patrol the streets at night making lists of places which had TV's on to visit during the day. Nowadays if they just had a mobile phone in their hand and said they'd detected you you'd be hard pressed to disprove it if the TV was on in the background.

[Deleted User]

matelodave wrote: »

an aerial on the roof, sky dish on the wall, Virgin media cable going into the house

None are proof of live TV watching/recording.

I have an aerial and a dish on my home, but neither has more than 12" of cable protruding into my home.

or even watching or seeing the telly through the window.

They'd need to actually see the screen, and be able to recognise the programme being watched, as a live broadcast.

Once you've opened the door and they can hear it or see it they don't need any more proof.

Again, assuming they could positively identify it as a live programme.

In the old days, before Video Players, an operating TV was pretty much proof of evasion, but nowadays, with Video/DVD/Bluray Players, VOD services, Games Consoles, etc., it's not as clear cut.

dave4545454

Kayak10 wrote: »

Your are wrong I may have been some of the time But NOT all the time Just because posters dispute what I've said doesn't make it wrong
Several post I've made that are disputed ARE very wrong I was there they weren't so how can they know
Yet again the original thread is NOT being followed :-(

No you're wrong, spreading misinformation, and not listening to the useful people on here telling the facts

Kayak10

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

And you believe everything TVL tell you?



No, I just don't believe you were prosecuted with detection evidence because, in TVLs own words.

As I already said I can't remember EXACTLY what went on Except he had a machine in his hand And if as others say they have not used such evidence Then like I've ALREADY said I expect it was a case of TVL saying I was watching tv and as I was AND in a court of law I could NOT deny it
It's ok for the ones knocking what I'm saying to be wise after the fact

Kayak10

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

A signed confession perhaps?

As you seem to being sarcastic now I want to ask you a question Can you remember EVERYTHING you did and said four or five years ago Cause if you can your a very smart person cause I've never met anyone else in all my many years that can

Kayak10

cajef wrote: »

He was lying and you were gullible enough to believe him.

As I've said to many on here Its ok to be clever after the event Especially with all the crap I was going through at the time
I will not go into it all Suffice to say I was lucky to have a roof over my head