TV Licensing

valiant

superscaper wrote: »

It would be interesting to see how prevalent their detection systems actually are. I remember having lectures on how tv detection works in our electromagnetism lectures so the principle isn't a myth. Just depends on what TV Licensing do in practicality. It's certianly cheaper to just use a majority of decoy vans and rely on the database of unlicensed houses.

Exactly........but what I personally find most revealing is that in all the thousands of prosecutions that have taken place since the late fifties since 'detector' vans were first commissioned, NOT ONE has been based (or even partially based) on the evidence gathered by a detection van.

I think I understand why. Even IF such detection equipment 'works' (to the extent that it might suggest that a TV was in operation in a particular building) the evidence wouldn't stand up in a court where the defence could argue that the prosecution hadn't proved beyond a reasonable doubt that it was THEIR TV.

Of course, the other reason is that the defence would have the right to be provided with all the technical details of the detection equipment. That technical data (and therefore all the technical deficiencies of the detection equipment) would then be in the public domain.

I think that there is sufficient information currently in the public domain to prove to anyone with an IQ greater than 100 that such equipment does not exist or work.....or in any case, is not used; and that TV detector vans are nothing more than a ruse. Unfortunately, millions of people believe lots of things without evidence (God, homoeopathy, ghosts etc. etc.) so TVL know they're onto a winner with this one.

The only way you're going to be 'caught' using a TV without a TV licence is if the TV is in full view of the publicly accessible areas of your property (e.g. can be seen through a window) or if you are stupid enough to let employees of TVL into your property.

pinkshoes

In a previous property, we had a tv license, but continually got letters to say we didn't have one because our 1 bed flat seemed to be registered as 2 separate flats!! I phoned them on numerous occasions (obviously using their FREEPHONE number 0800 3282020 - found on www.saynoto0870.com) but still the letters continued to arrive, so I just concluded that most employees had an IQ of a frozen pea, and I gave up contacting them and binned all letters.

We now have 2 tvs which are used for watching DVDs and playing computer games, but don't need a license for this. I used to like watching Hollyoaks, but we get such a lousy digital reception we can't watch tv any more, hence no need to cough up £135!!!

goshdarnit

I seem to remember when Peter Wrights book Spycatcher was released, that they, M15, actually invented the technology to scan for TV signals.

dangeroussports

Is it true that you can have a television in your own home but with a split coax running from your neighbours television (who do have a licence) into your own home, that you wont need a television licence since your recieving their signal (paid for) and that your watching the same picture as them. Since their is no freedom to watch any channel?

Is it true?
Is it also true that if you hide under the bed and pretend that you are watching television then you dont need a television?

Is it true that if I refuse to watch British television I will end up having a mind of my own?

moonrakerz

From what I have read on other sites, it appears that if your are watching TV without a licence (totally agree with "dangeroussports" here - pay up!) and you admit this to the TVLA people they immediately try and get you to sign an admission.
This would appear to be what gets you the conviction when it gets to Court.

I am of the opinion that anyone with an IQ 0f 101 would very easily evade getting a licence with an incredibly low likelihood of getting a conviction.
Perhaps we should all do this to get a better system that the licence fee. The problem with the current system is that the BBC is under no commercial pressure, it knows what it's income will be, so it WILL spend it !

On a related subject: With all the stories about 'faked' TV - I heard the other day that the real reason that the BBC pulled out of buying "Neighbours" was that someone told the DG that it was fiction !!

Bamber19

dangeroussports wrote: »

Is it true that if I refuse to watch British television I will end up having a mind of my own?

This is fully dependant upon whether you will also refuse to read the Sun and/or Daily Mail aswell

sinizterguy

Duck wrote: »

Yes they can .............

When a visiting officer calls at your home, he or she will:

• only enter a property when given permission. If we are refused access, we may use our detector vans or apply to court to obtain a search warrant

Valiant - I was only trying to be helpful. I thought this was a forum, a voice box for everyone. This is my opinion and I have every right to it.

And these so called detection vans can pinpoint which flat the signal is coming from in a block of flats without any doubt can they ?

Neighbours on either side of me have TVs (as I hear them) and I dont, in a block of flats 7 floors high. Assuming flats above and below me have TVs too, they are going to pinpoint my flat if I have a TV ?

And this technology is precise enough to base a warrant on ?

I simply dont think so.

moonrakerz

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The National Audit Office report (2002) on the collection of the BBC licence fee states:

"the BBC is introducing new detector vans with enhanced capabilities to detect when a television is in use. This will make it easier for enquiry officers to establish that an offence is likely to be taking place, although they will still need to secure further evidence for successful prosecution. Detection equipment has been used in conjunction with targeted advertising to act as a visible deterrent." (My highlighting)

Draw your own conclusions from that !
As I said before, I think a signed confession is all they can rely on.
[/FONT]

sinizterguy

Clearly from all the info I have got, there is no need to be paying this "tax".

- They dont have any reliable source of detection
- They have no right of entry without a warrant
- They cannot escalate without collecting further evidence, which they dont really have a way of doing unless your television is visible from the window. Even then it may not be on BBC, so they might not be able to justify a warrant.

valiant

moonrakerz wrote: »

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"the BBC is introducing new detector vans with enhanced capabilities to detect when a television is in use...........
[/FONT]

To my mind, that statement, by itself, casts doubt on the reliability of the National Audit Office; which is a real concern. This is an organisation that we rely on to provide independent audits of the financial statements of state and semi-state bodies. If, as I strongly suspect, TV detector vans are a ruse, then the least one might expect of the NAO is that they don't address the efficacy of detector vans at all.......or use less specific language. They would certainly adopt that kind of approach when dealing with expenditure on matters of national security where secrecy may be an issue.

What's also interesting is that despite the supposed health of our investigative journalism industry, it's strange that not one TV channel or national newspaper has ever addressed the subject of this thread. It's as though it's a taboo subject. Why?