On 22 Dec 2004, John Rumm wrote
One might expect that, but I think one would be expecting too much.
There are, sadly, many cases where one is required to prove that one didn't do something. (For example, I think it's still the case that if a car registered in your name is caught by a speed camera, the onus is on you to prove that you weren't driving it at the time of the offence, rather than on the police to prove that you *were* driving it.)
On 22 Dec 2004, Kalico wrote
Oh, absolutely. Interestingly, that's even stated in black and white on the back of the licence:
Our officers may ask to inspect your licence and television equipmenet at any time, but you do not have to let them into your home without a search warrant.
Actually they can detect a TV in use - they can tell what part of the house it's in and have a good guess at what channel you're watching. But they don't do it much any more - it's more of an incentive to get a license because they _could_ catch you, not because they actually will. These days it's easier to assume that every house will have a TV and watch broadcasts on it unless someone tells them different.
? The law requiring radios to have a licence went years ago.
My understanding is that unless elaborately (and very expensively) shielded, there will be "transmissions" from a receiver - hence the old TV detector vans.
I have heard of no result but Jonathan Miller was fighting the requirement to get a licence if the broadcast stuff was not watched and the last I heard several months back, was that he was fighting on under the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights. Perhaps this is what has led to the "if you don't use it to watch TV" paragraph in the license ??
It would seem plain daft to have people prevented from buying TVs to watch non-broadcast material such as videos, as how would they be able to watch them - this would therefore infringe on the rights nder the Human Rights Act. Miller's campaign could yet have serious consequences for the licensing brigade.
BTW - funny as it may seem, the fine for not having a licence used to be about half the cost of a year's licence :-))
And the thing is - the licence is there purely to support the BBC - not the other broadcasting companies. So why should you need a licence to watch ITV, Channel 4/5 etc.
But with a car you have to register it as not in use and off road otherwise pay the tax.
This topic is an old chestnut in uk.legal (or is it u.l.moderated?) I gather that if you do ever manage to convince the buggers that you don't have a TV, the absence of ever-more-threatening letters is only abated for a relatively brief period, then they assume that the 'status' will have changed, and the whole sorry saga starts again.
Somebody on u.l. who was well-experienced with dealing with these people (and who seemed to know what they were talking about) was proferring the advice that not only should you never invite them in to see the absence of a TV, but that it was vital not to even speak to them - just shut the door on them. Have to say I didn't quite see the relevance or significance of that!
On a different tack... when I was doing a house conversion recently, I had to set up a completely new address via the local council, who then registered it with Royal Mail's postcode database. It took no more than a few weeks before I started getting TV license letters at the address (despite the fact that it was no more than a building site).
One thing that particularly hacks me off is that they invite you to to contact them in the event you don't have a TV, but expect you to cover the cost of writing or phoning. (So I didn't; they went in to the skip by the acore).
David
IIRC there was some discussion on this on uk.tech.digital-tv a while back. The result seemed to be that:
The first line of attack is a database of unlicensed homes coupled with intimidating letters etc.
There are/were detector vans; most however were empty and used only for visual effect / scare tactics.
It *is* technicaly possible to detect a TV if it is turned on, and also possibly detect what channel it is watching. However if there are any vans that are in use that are fitted with the necessary monitoring equipment is open to debate. If there are, they are certainly very few and far between.
It is also difficult to get them to accept that you do not have a set on an onging basis, hence even if you sign a declaration that you do not need a license, you may need to to repeat this every six months to keep them off your back.
As the registered keeper, you are responsible for the car - if it wasn't you driving you should know who was.
I used to see a van hanging round the inner suburbs of Bristol until I left there three years ago. Always Mon-Fri 9-5 :) Never seen one in remotest Suffolk though
Anna
~~ Anna Kettle, Suffolk, England |""""| ~ Lime plaster repairs / ^^ \ // Freehand modelling in lime: overmantels, pargeting etc |____|
I think they actually detect the IF from the set's tuner.
There is a big difference between what can be done, and what actualy is. Go and do a web search for "Tempest enclosures" - i.e. the sort of kit used to keep spooks from evesdropping on your video / computer screens etc.
The linescan output, and that of the local oscilators in a typical TV demodulating circuit are all easily detected with the right kit. Not only that, but the nature of the signals makes them quite conspicous.
Last time I heard they have no authority to enter uninvited so you are at liberty to tell them to piss off. Unless your set is actually operating at the time of calling it won't be radiating anything for their detector to pick up and I can't see them turning up at 11pm (I could be wrong)
FSVO "no" such as "quite a high" :-). AIUI the detector vans have been / are being replaced by hand-held TV detectors, the operating principle of which seems to be a closely guarded secret in the Beeb - but BBC R&D at Kingswood had a hand in the development, so it could be something quite advanced.
Line scan was used by the original detectors[1] in the 50s, replaced by LO radiation in the later vans. If they've gone back to line scan 'radiation' (pedants read "induction field") it might make it quite harder to find non-CRT displays, which are becoming very common.
And also in this case, there *is* proof that an offence was commited.
The best thing to do is ignore the whole thing. They'll send inspector after inspector to the property until they realise that the place is never, or hardly ever, used for normal habitation. Any Portable Television receiver on the premises can actually be covered by a license from the owners own home address you know.
Ignore it all, and let them chase you down for a license fee, then if the property is damaged by them, they have to pay out when you sue them. You've answered their letters many times, and given them many illustrations of why the property doesn't need a TV license, so ignore it from now on, and let them work their money.
But by being detuned and without an aerial lead it *cannot* receive broadcast programme services!
On 22 Dec 2004, Andy Burns wrote
I did, in fact, acknowledge that in the paragraph which everybody seems to have snipped from my original post:
In other words, if you've *installed* a TV -- or a video machine -- you need a licence for it. The only exception I've heard of is if you can demonstratae that its capability for receiving programmes has been disabled (and probably permanently disabled, by removing the tuner and turning it into a monitor).
I still suspect that simple de-tuning and not connecting an aerial would be regularly challenged by the licencing people -- "Our officers would like to check that your untuned TV receiver has remained untuned". So the easiest way to "prove" disablement would be to permanently disable the tuner in some way.
"Andy Hall" wrote | Fine, but if they are saying on their own web site that simply | not having the tuner tuned to any channels or with no antenna | is a way of demonstrating that, then they can hardly say that | more needs to be done afterwards.
Somewhere on their website will probably be a disclaimer that the site is for general information and does not constitute a statement of the law.
Whatever TVL say on their website does not change what is the law according to statute and judicial precedent (which may come as a surprise to many, including TVL).
Owain
This was discussed recently on another NG. Tell them, once, that you do not have TV receiving equipment installed. Ignore any further correspondance. If they turn up, tell them to sod off. They have no right of entry without a warrant, which they are highly unlikely to get.
They are paranoid.
That is fine. Unless there is any way that either TV can be connected to any means of receiving a signal. If there is a socket there that could connect to a transmitted TV signal, then remove that option. The receiving of a signal is the most important aspect of this. If you have no means of receiving, you don't need a licence.
They are getting increasingly more paranoid, keep up the good work. :-))
First, ask yourself, did they ask you if you have a television installed? If the answer is no, then why tell them. If they did ask the question, you are under no obligation to tell them. See the WTA
The letters are designed to frighten those that have a television installed into buying a licence. They just assume that all households have a TV plugged up and ready to receive.
When you buy a TV, the seller should send into the govmint of TV licensing, your name, address, postcode etc. Some do, the greedy don't ;-)
I went to buy a free view box at Asda last week and they asked me to fill in a form for the WTA 1949 to let them sell me one. I refused and went to Tesco and bought one without question at the checkout. This form was to tell the retailer that I had bought a device that was capable of receiving a TV signal. Talk about a Nanny state :-((((((((
No, but the authorities would like it that way and run the system so that we, the consumer, think that is the way it is.
We (my family) went through a time that we got totally bored with the program content of TV and sent it back to the rental Co. It was a long time ago, when rental was they way to prove that the TV and video would last longer than the guarantee :-)
We got letters and an inspection that proved fruitless to the authorities.
I'm beginning to like you :-)
All radios, computers and video receivers (that includes TVs) emit radiation that can be measured on instruments that can determine what you are watching and where it came from
No, they have no rights of access to do their job. But remember, they can look through the window and if they see a transmitted program on your TV then they will issue a summons.
Yes, the detector vans can do this, but anyone knocking on your door has no clue as to what you are watching. They can only observe what is visible to them.
The 'Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949' and all it's amendments states (this is for TVs only) that is an offence to have any receiver installed. The 'installed' means that it must not be capable of receiving any signal from things like Sky, digi boxes, terrestrial broadcasts, or any other means of receiving a signal, other than from a pre recorded storage medium. (All those devices and any others that I have not mentioned, that can receive any TV signal must be included)
It also means that there must be no method of connecting any aerial to the device. Recent cases, where the defendant stated that there was no wire connected to the aerial, or the set, but that there was an aerial socket with a signal available lost their case and were prosecuted.
If you want to see a copy of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, then pay a visit to your local library and ask to see it. It is a very complex piece of legislation, but if you read it in its entirety, you will see what I am talking about.
HTH
To the best of my knowledge, all the above is correct as of 22 Dec 2004. If you doubt anything, them mail me about the problem.
g6khp
Dave
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.