TV license/BBC Vans

[Dom Tuk]

During a discussion with some friends who know a bit about electronics there was agreement that the BBC vans that say they can detect TVs in households is a myth and that the technology does not exist as there are far too many household goods that emit radiation. Besides even though a very sensitive detector can theoretically be made it would be prohibitively expensive for the BBC. Is the van just a deterrent and an elaborate hoax and that BBC finds out non payers through the previous list of payers and enforced address registration of buyers of new TV sets.

[archbishop]

It is not the BBC that enforces the TV licence but The Television Licence Authority.The TVLA assumes every household with electricity has a TV and proceeds from there if a household is not registered with a licence.

[Sproutstick]

My dad was an electronic engineer and he used to say that as long as you sit near the window when watching tele and look out for a van they can't catch you out as long as you turn it off.  I think my dad was right and that in those days the whirly things on top were just to scare people cos you never see 'detection' vans scouring the streets nowadays!  That was in the 80's and their  technology has certainly advanced since then.  Taken from the TV Licensing website:

"How our detector vans can catch out licence evaders -
We can detect a TV in use, in any area. That's because every TV contains a component called the 'local oscillator', which emits a signal when the television is switched on. It's this signal that the equipment on our vans picks up.

But, what if you live in a block of flats or a house without road access? Well if this is the case our enquiry officer can simply use one of our hand-held scanners. Measuring both direction and strength of signal, they make it easy for us to locate television sets in hard to reach places." 

Answer your question??

[londondave]

in blocks of flats, i thought they used a directional microphone to pick up sounds from within a property by pointing it at the weakest spot, ie the window, they then would listen to see if that person was watching television and match up the sound to a hand held bettery television

[Simmy]

Thay can't prove anything unless they come in and see a TV. Nothing else stands up in court. To be honest for �10 a month it is worth it to avoifd the harrasment you get for not having one. It is an archaeic system which will not exits in a few short years.

[stoo_pid]

Can't say whether the equipment worked or not. I've had the TV detector man call at 2 separate properties. If you don't have a licence they bombard you with a mountain of declaration forms. If you ignore them they will eventually come & knock on your door. They then ask you if you have a TV. If you say yes, you get told off and receive a fine (and you then have to go & buy a licence anyway). If you say no & they believe you, you get away with it (but they will keep bugging you forever in case you ever start to use a TV). If they don't believe you they ask you if they can come in and have a look. If you say no they have to go away but they claim they will return when you don't expect it & use the expensive equipment before knocking on your door with the evidence & an even bigger fine. Personally, if it were that straightforward I'm sure they'd just switch it on before the first knock on the door. It would save them time, wages & the huge costs of advertising.

[marchantino]

as ive said before,i am firmly in the belief that the vans are just ascaremongering tactic by auntie beeb.ive known of people go for years without a licence and only get caught when a man comes round asking tosee their licence as they werent registered as having one.and i have only ever seen one detector van in all mylife.

[Sproutstick]

Well that makes it even worse then!  That means that they have told a blatant lie on their website!!  Is there nothing we can do to try and take them to court over this???

[thenewrobinhood]

It is illegal under EU law; Because it is illegal to use a TV set without buying a licence, anyone wishing to use a set but not access services offered by BBC are prevented from accessing services offered by other broadcasting organisations. This is a clear breach of EU rules covering competition as laid down under article 81 section 1 and article 82 of the European treaties. These articles clearly state that it is illegal for any organisation or group of organisations to adopt any policies or practices which distort the common market;

[thenewrobinhood]

continued from my last post 2 of 3

[A] by directly or indirectly fixing purchasing or selling prices or any other trading conditions.

[B] which limit or control production, markets, technical development or investment.

[C] Which share markets or sources of supply.

[D] Which apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage.

[thenewrobinhood]

3. It is discriminatory;

although TV is available to all who own a receiver, the fact that it is illegal to use a TV set without a licence prevents those at the poorest end of society from legally accessing services offered by the various broadcasting organisations. They are therefore unable to take advantage of the educational, informative and entertainment services available via the TV set, and are therefore in no position to improve their circumstances. The licence fee is also discriminatory in that those least able to pay are the very people who are most likely to be punished either by heavy fine or imprisonment for using a TV without buying a licence. If a person is unable to pay for a TV licence, how can he be expected to pay a fine?

At the same time, a prison sentence cannot be justified as it is disproportionate to the supposed crime. At the time this report is being prepared, a TV licence costs 108£ a year, but it costs 3000£ a week to keep a person in prison. Add to that the cost of keeping a family on benefits, should the person in prison be the bread winner, and it will be obvious that, even if the legislation forcing people to buy a TV licence was NOT illegal under EU law, it cannot be justified on grounds of economy.

IN SUMMARY

1. It is time for the TV licence to be abolished: Because EU law takes precedence over state law, the 1949 wireless telegraphy act, the broadcasting act 1990 and any other legislation which forces someone to buy a licence have become obsolete and therefore unenforceable.


2. It cannot be justified as a necessary source of revenue for the BBC as there are many alternatives which the BBC choose NOT to adopt.

3. It is discriminatory because only those who cannot pay are being punished.