TV licensing threats

Kayak10

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

I've no doubt they can "detect" an operating TV, by looking for pretty light patterns, being reflected from the walls.

However, that's a far cry from being able to discriminate between an operating TV, and one which is displaying a LIVE broadcast.

Notice how their reply does not contain a single reference, to detecting a TV displaying a LIVE broadcast.

BTW. Were they replying to a FOI request from you, or merely a question?

I accept they did not admit it was live broadcast they detect I missed that so I've sent a further email
As to FOI No I just asked the question
I should have a reply from Ms Doubtfire early next week

silverwhistle

Kayak10 wrote: »

I agree but " the eyeball " can't define if the light is coming from a live broadcast Where as the equipment TVL are referring to CAN
Whoopsy another bit of " misinformation "

This post has been sponsored by TVL...

[Deleted User]

Kayak10 wrote: »

As to FOI No I just asked the question

Then they don't have to tell the truth.

Kayak10

silverwhistle wrote: »

This post has been sponsored by TVL...

What a stupid comment The thread was started by me and down to a few posters It has got TOTALY away from the original point and that was The ever increasing aggressive letters TVL use especially to people that have a current licence and pay weekly or other means than DD or in full

Kayak10

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

Then they don't have to tell the truth.

I'm sure they also don't tell lies But as I know nothing about FOI requests and you seem so intent in ridiculing my ORIGINAL thread perhaps you want to ask them under FOI if you really think they will tell you the truth ?
Also as you've suggested it could ( but unlikely ) be lies I'm going to forward their response to Ms Doubtfire and ask her if it's true or lies

Swans1912

if a TV detection van was used to identify someone using a TV in a way that requires a licence and said person was taken to court; would the evidence have to be disclosed in open court? Hence we would all know?

I've actually just today opted not to continue with a TV Licence having spent the last few weeks trying it out. I'm using the usual catch up applications on a Roku box but not receiving a TV programme as it is being broadcast on TV.

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-policies-AB17

No Licence Needed Policy

Section 1.1
To state the BBC’s policy with respect to those places, occupied as residential accommodation and non-residential premises, whose occupier has declared that there is no television receiving equipment being used at the address to receive live broadcasts (known as making a No Licence Needed claim).

Section 1.2
Note that ‘television receiving equipment’ refers to any apparatus used for receiving (by any means) any television programme service as defined in the Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004.

Section 1.3
Note also that “received” means receiving a TV programme as it is being broadcast on TV. It does not include receiving programmes by means of a DVD or the on-demand elements of services such as i-Player.

I have an old analogue ariel on the propoerty (unused obviously) and a satellite dish with the old STB stored away in the garage. Ultimately both will be removed once I can find someone that can do it at a reasonable price.

[Deleted User]

Kayak10 wrote: »

I'm sure they also don't tell lies

We know they tell lies because, the exact same numbers have been published, for conviction rates, in different parts of the country.

But as I know nothing about FOI requests and you seem so intent in ridiculing my ORIGINAL thread perhaps you want to ask them under FOI if you really think they will tell you the truth?

It's already been tried.

They simply decline to answer, citing the "could help evaders" argument.

Swans1912

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

We know they tell lies because, the exact same numbers have been published, for conviction rates, in different parts of the country.

It's already been tried.

They simply decline to answer, citing the "could help evaders" argument.

Agreed there.

No Licence Needed Policy

Note: Appendices I-IV of this document have been redacted as the information is exempt under sections 31(1)(a), (b), (d) and (g) and (2)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 which relate to law enforcement, specifically that disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime, the apprehension or prosecution of offenders, the collection of the licence fee and the BBC’s ability to discharge its public functions in respect of such matters. This is because they contain information which could be useful to people attempting to evade the licence fee.

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-policies-AB17

[Deleted User]

iKennett wrote: »

If a TV detection van was used to identify someone using a TV in a way that requires a licence and said person was taken to court; would the evidence have to be disclosed in open court? Hence we would all know?

Yes it would, which no doubt explains why detection evidence has NEVER been used as evidence in a LF Evasion case.

After all, you can't disclose/demonstrate something which doesn't exist/work, can you?

Swans1912

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

Yes it would, which no doubt explains why detection evidence has NEVER been used as evidence in a LF Evasion case.

After all, you can't disclose/demonstrate something which doesn't exist/work, can you?

Agreed.

Kayak10 wrote: »

Our detector vans use a number of detection methods, but we don’t go into the details of how these methods work exactly, as we wouldn't want to reveal too much to potential evaders.

Our detector vans use the latest GPS satellite technology and can tell in as little as 20 seconds whether a TV is in use. Once the television is detected, the equipment, which works from up to 60m away, can pinpoint the actual room that the television set is in.

Adrian Rudley

This email/letter just seems bizarre if you ask me. The second paragraph contradicts what was said in the one before it.

They don't want to go in to details but go on to state they use "GPS technology and can tell in 20 seconds whether a TV is in use" - this is where they made me laugh - GPS can be used to validate which locations do not have a TV Licence but not in "in 20 seconds" whether a TV is in use.

Even then just because a TV is in use does not mean it is being used in a way that requires a TV Licence.