How it Works: TV Detector Vans

[glasgowcyclist]

The people who visit homes to determine if an offence is being committed are employees of a private company (Capita) and have no more powers than any other citizen.

They have no powers of entry, no powers to compel you to answer questions and must stop their enquiry and leave your property when asked.

The sender does have powers if the person ought to have a licence...
Do you have a better idea ?

If they can satisfy a JP that an offence in relation to TV licence evasion is being committed, they can apply for a warrant to enter the property (on one occasion only and within 30 days of the warrant's issue). That's the bit they should concentrate on, targetting licence evaders where they have evidence of evasion, not speculatively putting the frighteners on anyone who dares not to have a TV.

GC

 

[twentysix by twentyfive]

It used to be the case that due to the way they worked, televisions transmitted a radio signal while switched on. This signal (the line timebase oscillator) was detectable some distance away. This oscillator was needed in all cathode-ray tube displays. That was what the detector vans looked for. At the time (1970s hand early 80s) the TV was the only thing people were likely to have that would emit this characteristic signal. However as time went on people had similar screens for computers making the van's task harder. But the final nail in their coffin was TVs using LCD displays which were mostly undetectable. At that point the vans were useless.

The line timebase oscillator doesn't distinguish channels - just a TV compatible monitor screen.

My physics teacher told us it was the superheterodyne frequency that was detected. That is likewise produced when the telly is on. I think that would be specific to TVs and not to any other uses of CRTs, but it is certainly possible to have digital receivers that don't use superhet. Perhaps the detector vans use/used both?

The superheterodyne frequency does distinguish channels and is TV receiver signal specific. So this was the one that was used.

Nowadays data bases are easier and cheaper to maintain and use..............

 

[thom]

That's the bit they should concentrate on, targetting licence evaders where they have evidence of evasion, not speculatively putting the frighteners on anyone who dares not to have a TV.

What kind of evidence do you think they can gather ? I think this thread has shown, there is little that they can obtain without effort and incurred cost to the licence fee payer.

I have a TV licence so have not seen the threatening letters you describe. If I didn't have a TV and was receiving the letters, maybe I'd talk to them but I can't quite understand how I'd end up being intimidated on the matter. I'm sure there are vulnerable people out there who are though - perhaps some kind of profiling would be advisable as to the tone of the correspondence but I expect you understand that prosecuting someone for not paying the licence fee is a resource rich process with little immediate benefit.

 

[subaqua]

If a TV can transmit a radio signal, does that mean you'd need a broadcasters licence too?

best get one for your microwave, your fluorescent lamps , anything with a wound coil really . they all emit electromagnetic waves .

 

[MontyVeda]

The sender does have powers if the person ought to have a licence...
Do you have a better idea ?

The don';t have any more power than my window cleaner. They do not have right of entry to mine, or anybody else's home, and I or anybody else is under no legal obligation to inform the BBC what I/they do not possess.

Even if they appeared with the police and a warrant, I'd tell them to feck off.

 

[thom]

Even if they appeared with the police and a warrant, I'd tell them to feck off.

I'm sure you would.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

What kind of evidence do you think they can gather ?

That's a problem for the people making the accusation, not me.
But if someone's suggesting I may be committing an offence and threatens me with a search warrant or court appearance they ought to have a good deal more than a database entry and a presumption of guilt.

(Let me add, in case there's any doubt about my motives for objecting to the bullying used, I think the BBC produces some fantastic programmes and the licence fee is an absolute bargain.)

GC

 

[MontyVeda]

I'm sure you would.

In order to get warrant they have to 'swear' to a judge that they have evidence... the only evidence they'll have against me is the fact i don't have a tv licence... which as you know, is not criminal. If they do turn up with a warrant... I can be pretty damn sure that in order to obtain it... they'll have at best, mislead a judge, at worst, lied to one.

I won't be the first person who's denied access to TV licensing accompanied by the police and warrant and watched them scuttle off with their tails between their legs.

edit... if they turn up with or without a warrant, they'll claim they've been investigating me, then ask my name... which just goes to show how in depth their investigation is... any 'evidence' they present to judge to get a warrant to search my home will be false, they will be in contempt and will be wasting police time

 

[thom]

That's a problem for the people making the accusation, not me.

Their evidence is based upon experience - people changing property, allowing licences to lapse etc. often enough are avoiding their obligation to own a licence. The evidence is that sending out letters leads to people purchasing TV licences - the evidence is self evident !

 

[thom]

In order to get warrant they have to 'swear' to a judge that they have evidence... the only evidence they'll have against me is the fact i don't have a tv licence... which as you know, is not criminal.

I won't be the first person who's denied access to TV licensing accompanied by the police and warrant and watched them scuttle off with their tails between their legs.

Well don't you think this is rather childish anti-social behaviour ?

Either you have a TV and are avoiding paying your due or you are deliberately wasting the time of licence fee collectors whose jobs are paid for out of the licence fee. Either way, you're wasting the licence fee money I pay and that gets distributed I think I'm correct in saying to all of the BBC, ITV & C4.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Their evidence is based upon experience - people changing property, allowing licences to lapse etc. often enough are avoiding their obligation to own a licence. The evidence is that sending out letters leads to people purchasing TV licences - the evidence is self evident !

That's not evidence, that's guesswork.


GC

 

[thom]

That's not evidence, that's guesswork.


GC

Nope - it's statistics informing the efficient spend of the licence fee paying public.

 

[Mr Haematocrit]

I'm not on a static IP, as most people aren't.. so how does their IP tracking work?

You will be leased a dynamic IP by your ISP for a period of time, this will be logged and stored for 12 months in line with UK data retention laws as such law enforcement agency's can identify you easily.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Nope - it's statistics informing the efficient spend of the licence fee paying public.

We're discussing evidence to support a prosecution or an application for a search warrant. Do you think statistical information on levels of offending is sufficient for either?

GC

 

[thom]

We're discussing evidence to support a prosecution or an application for a search warrant. Do you think statistical information on levels of offending is sufficient for either?

GC

Nope - our wires are crossed, sorry - I'm talking about the generic letters that are sent out, often uncomfortable reading, that work effectively to get people purchasing TV licences.