TV Licence article Discussion

Paul_Varjak

the_worm_that_turned wrote: »

TV Licencing (a trademark of BBC) are sneaky !!!!!!s.

After I withdrew their implied right of access to my land via a notice I constructed, they sent round one of their employees thereby committing a trespass against me.

I think you would need to put such a notice in writing to TVL at their registered address. A notice on your premises alone, would probably be insufficient.

Cornucopia

mymedi wrote: »

Thanks for the excursion into the legal maze!
Every time I look deeper into it, I find an even bigger mess!

That's where I started with it, several years ago. I find it's an issue that either draws you in, or one you just have to accept is unfair and underhand and get on with your life.

But here, if you say that not paying for the TV licence is a summary offence (which it is), I still don't see how it can be decided without even notifying me as the technical defendant! They are deciding on whether or not something is true without hearing the other side? For example, in the US, if the warrant was obtained by perjury, the evidence is tossed! I'm sure nobody in the UK legal system would even dream of that, thus leaving the motives and means of obtaining a warrant subject to high scepticism... :mad:

We don't have the principle of the "fruit of the poisoned tree" as the US does.

Remember that the vast majority of cases are brought through confession evidence. A further, smaller group involve the defendant being caught in the act of watching TV.

That means that not only are SW cases a tiny number, but that the formal acquisition and presentation of evidence will be an unfamiliar process to TVL (assuming that the SW recipient doesn't cave in and confess, which seems unlikely).

So...

Yes - as long as they get proper sign-off from a Magistrate, they have a right to enter. The evidence and the scrutiny of that evidence is secretive and seems weak. In the event of applications coming up with no evidence the response from the Police etc. is one of "genuine error" rather than perjury.

No - they do not enter by force (though they have that right).

Yes - whatever evidence they find is usable even if the basis of the SW application was false. (Say that the TV was purchased after the date of the SW application, and there was no TV before that).

It's a mess - and I agree, it is a fractal problem - it gets more complex, not less as you work through the detail.

mymedi

Paul_Varjak wrote: »

I thought they could detect radiation from vacuum tube TVs, but I wonder if it is possible to detect radiation from LED/LCD/Plasma TVs?

Don't make me laugh.
First, it's impossible to differentiate among the multiple sources of radiation or anything else for that matter to actually place it within a particular flat from the street level.
Second, even if it were possible - say at a farm house with no other dwellings around - it would be impossible to tell whether that source was a TV or a computer or a photo frame or anything else.
So, no, they cannot possibly detect anything - they wouldn't need to go around knocking on doors if they could, would they? At least then they would be doing that with a warrant...

the_worm_that_turned

Paul_Varjak wrote: »

I think you would need to put such a notice in writing to TVL at their registered address. A notice on your premises alone, would probably be insufficient.

Where I said construct I meant the construction of a written notice that was then served upon the BBC (not TV Licensing). As I said before TV Licensing is a trademark of BBC and in legal land does not exist as a distinct legal entity.

IMO the BBC like to distance themselves from TV Licencing (the name) and Capita (the legal entity working on behalf of BBC) because even the sleeping zombies in the UK might start putting two and two together!!

mymedi

I feel I should amend my last post - on the impossibility of radiation or what not detection from street level.
It is of course technically possible, with the help of as someone put it "space-age technology".
However! The COST of that technology would immediately eclipse not only any potential windfall of its use, but I suspect it will be greater than the entire licencing fees they do get! After all, real technology costs real money... :beer:

neil9313

mrobsessed wrote: »

I'm waiting for someone who actually works/worked for TV Licensing to confirm first hand that TV Detectors aren't used/don't exist.

Anyone?

There seems to be a LOT of conflicting information out there especially from people claiming detectors are a real technology, I wouldn't be surprised it TV Licensing has a dept that posts propaganda about TVs being easily detectable with space-age equipment.

IMHO, its just bluff and bluster.

Its never ever been used in court, so you are correct it doesn't exist.

That's why they knock on doors.

mrobsessed

This person has received information from the BBC that the 'TV Detector' is little more than a video camera. Matching the timing of light and dark cast on a house's curtains by a TV picture to a live broadcast would be an effective way to ascertain if a TV was being used illegally.

No electromagnetic fields required.

Link is here

As usual the BBC resists releasing information about their methods of detection as it is 'not in the public's interest'. IE 'no-one would buy a TV License if they knew how ineffective our systems are'.

mrobsessed

I've been sniffing around the web and the sheer volume of 'TV Detectors are real' propaganda is quite astounding, including photographs of numerous vans and vehicles with 'detector technology' installed.

While this could still be simple theatrics to convince the public that the technology is real - and it is certainly very effective - its actually quite sinister that such a lot of effort is involved in getting people to simply pay for the TV channels. How far would they go to change our perceptions about something much more important and how effective could the fantasy be? **shudders***

mrobsessed

Is listening to Live radio from a TV with the picture on count as a Live TV broadcast? Would you need a license?

As new TVs now have the 'set-top box' technology built in it would not be possible to connect sound equipment to the receiving equipment without the TV being on and the screen active. Does this make a difference?

mymedi

mrobsessed wrote: »

'TV Detector' is little more than a video camera. Matching the timing of light and dark cast on a house's curtains by a TV picture to a live broadcast would be an effective way to ascertain if a TV was being used illegally.

How would they then match it to a specific flat in a building without the internal structural map detailing which windows correspond to which property?