TV Licensing - very disappointing!

[Steve Maskery]

I used to lean out of the window and do obscene gestures, gurn, and the occasional moony.

Ouch! Steady on, Jacob, that is an image I really don't want in my mind!
S

 

[Jacob]

I used to lean out of the window and do obscene gestures, gurn, and the occasional moony.

Ouch! Steady on, Jacob, that is an image I really don't want in my mind!
S

Maybe that's why they hung around - they liked the look of my bum?

 

[Steve Maskery]

There is no accounting for taste.

 

[Eric The Viking]

Truly terrifying thought Jacob.

Notwithstanding, detector vans did work - or at least some of them did.

I encountered one years ago, when my son was small, on a hot summer's day, oddly only two streets away from BBC Bristol (West Park, if anyone's interested). My son was curious, and as the side door was open, I explained what it was, and said hello to the operator, who was pleased to show us what he was doing.

It was the posh modern sort (four aerials on the corners of the roof), and he had height as well as bearing information. He showed us what the middle floor flat was watching, across the road from where he was parked. This was done by receiving the IF-stage emissions from the tuner. I think they could also detect from the scans of the CRT (the security services used to do this, allegedly).

Whether you can tune into a modern digital set in the same way I couldn't say. I've no idea how the analogue side of those works.

Back in the days when the Post Office had the licence fee contract, they did also have dummy vans, to drive round certain notorious estates. Those were very obviously not real though. The one we saw wasn't labelled at all, and I think it was for really catching people, not for show.

Funny business.

E.

 

[Jacob]

Bloke next door had a drain specialist poking a camera down the drain with an image appearing on a TV monitor. It was better than anything that's on telly this evening.

 

[misterfish]

It seems the BBC (via their agents) actively carry out threatening tactics to those that do not hold or need a TV licence. Some interesting reading if you google 'tv licensing threatening letters' or look at http://tv-licensing.blogspot.co.uk/2012 ... inous.html and http://tv-licensing.blogspot.co.uk/2011 ... nsing.html

I have no objection to buying a TV licence as I own and use a TV, but the threat tactics used against those that don't own a TV or don't need a licence is scandalous. You should not be threatened or continuously hassled or have to prove that you don't need to buy a licence.

Misterfish

 

[newt]

I imagine there are many plonkers ( irresponsible Pineapples) who own a TV and watch it and do not have a licence and have no intention of obtaining one. How are are the authorities able to decide at the door if you are genuine and do not have a TV?

 

[wobblycogs]

I doubt very much if they can decide at the door if you are illicitly watching TV but that doesn't excuse the tactics they are using which amount to threats and harassment of innocent people. The fact that they are able to get search warrants is almost beyond belief. Can you imagine someone from Sky standing in front of a judge and asking for permission to search someone's home?

As an aside, I received a reply to my question about using a TV with a games console. Seems you are correct Steve, that would fine without a license. The reply suggested however that I try to modify the equipment so that it can't be used to watch TV. That might have been possible with analogue sets but I think it you'd be hard pressed to modify a modern set. Despite making it abundantly clear I didn't have a TV they went on to threaten me with a visit from an inspector - lucky I accidently gave them a fake address.

 

[Eric The Viking]

They have a job to do; they are on commission.

Neither excuses the rudeness though, in my opinion. I'm staggered they threaten people who make enquiries too.

As for searching the premises, I believe several hundred types of officials, bureaucrats and quangos now have a legal right to search your home without a warrant, under Statutory Instruments brought in by the last government. They're all at it: the Tories complained at the time, but have taken no steps to reverse the situation.

If you're in business, beware any watching of sporting events on the premises. The law may be an ass, but the TV Licensing people are determined to do their own 'gaming' of the present unusual circumstances. I've blogged about it on the company's web site, incidentally (shamless plug). The short of it is, "if in doubt get a licence for the premises".

Don't get caught by them - they make traffic wardens look amiable.

E.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

It's not true that TV Licensing Inspectors can search your home without your permission. They can inspect your premises, but only if you give them permission to do so.

 

[Eric The Viking]

It's not true that TV Licensing Inspectors can search your home without your permission. They can inspect your premises, but only if you give them permission to do so.

It all changed in the last years of the Labour administration.

I didn't say the TV Licence inspectors have that authority, as I'm not sure, but many jobsworths now have, including the electricity, gas and water people, and the local council.

They certainly didn't have authority in years past, but if they DO now have that authority, I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised.

E.

 

[wobblycogs]

The main piece of duff legislation that allows for just about anyone to snoop on you now is the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. When it was first enacted it gave councils and a few other bodies some really surprising powers. Since then it's been extended so that just about anyone from the milkman up is allowed to spy on you to some extent. Cases of misuse abound but it doesn't look like it'll be going away any time soon.

Interestingly though the TV Licensing people aren't listed as having powers under RIPA. I guess they have bought their own legislation.

 

[newt]

It seems the BBC (via their agents) actively carry out threatening tactics to those that do not hold or need a TV licence. Some interesting reading if you google 'tv licensing threatening letters' or look at http://tv-licensing.blogspot.co.uk/2012 ... inous.html and http://tv-licensing.blogspot.co.uk/2011 ... nsing.html

I have no objection to buying a TV licence as I own and use a TV, but the threat tactics used against those that don't own a TV or don't need a licence is scandalous. You should not be threatened or continuously hassled or have to prove that you don't need to buy a licence.

Misterfish

I agree, but how can they check that you do not have a TV. Clearly just saying at the door I dont have a TV is a joke and proves nothing. No one yet has suggested a fool proof method of establishing who has a TV. Everyone who watches without a licence means I will have to pay more, and they are breaking the law.

 

[wobblycogs]

If I might generalize what you are saying it is: How do you prove that any given person isn't doing something wrong. No government or body has ever managed to find a solution to that problem and some regimes have and still do try very very hard.

Thankfully most civilized society has generally agreed on what is and isn't acceptable behaviour for discovering a persons wrong doing. Constantly harassing innocent people because there may be a criminal hiding among them is not usually considered good form. I would go as far as to argue that a search warrant for such a small sum and relatively minor offence is a disproportionate response especially considering how many innocent people appear to be subject to searches.

I'm not saying I have the solution to the problem but what they are currently doing is just plain wrong. If searches had a 99% success rate and TV Licensing were penalized for a failed search I'd back that method.

 

[RogerS]

It seems the BBC (via their agents) actively carry out threatening tactics to those that do not hold or need a TV licence. Some interesting reading if you google 'tv licensing threatening letters' or look at http://tv-licensing.blogspot.co.uk/2012 ... inous.html and http://tv-licensing.blogspot.co.uk/2011 ... nsing.html

I have no objection to buying a TV licence as I own and use a TV, but the threat tactics used against those that don't own a TV or don't need a licence is scandalous. You should not be threatened or continuously hassled or have to prove that you don't need to buy a licence.

Misterfish

..... Everyone who watches without a licence means I will have to pay more, and they are breaking the law.

Absolutely. Looking at that link referred to earlier, apparently 3.1 million ...yes, million..letters were sent out. Not clear if that was to 3 million households or say, 300,000 households and ten letters each. Even if it's 300,000 that is still a lot of lost revenue.

WC...as we've established, they do not have right of entry. The only way they can do that is to apply to the Magistrates Court with evidence to back up their claim that they believe an offence has been committed.

I do agree that the letters are threatening and the whole approach is just plain wrong.

 

[wobblycogs]

I realize they can only enter with a warrant or by invitation, my argument is that the barrier of evidence is set far too low if large numbers of people are being searched and found not to be breaking the law. Owning a TV, for example, shouldn't be sufficient evidence since owning a TV isn't against the law.

Anyway, as to how many letters each household receives it's a lot. I received my second today hot on the tail of the previous one a week or so ago. Going by my past experience I'd guess we'll get another five to ten this year.

 

[RogerS]

Do we know how many houses are being searched?

Interesting statistic is that in 2006 nearly 400,000 people across the UK were caught for evading their licence. Makes the push behind the letters seem a bit more justified perhaps? Looks like a hell of a lot of people don't have a licence.

 

[Steve Maskery]

From the An Inspector Calls website:

An interesting statistic is that only 12% of visits discover that a licence is needed, while 8% of visits are unwarranted (as they find the household does not need a licence). In addition, 80% of all visits fail to make any contact with the householder at all.

That doesn't seem like very effective stats to me.
S

 

[Phil Pascoe]

400,000 people evading their licence?.........................I wonder if that's the 400,000 we don't know are here?

 

[Benchwayze]

Sorry that you have been targeted but very impressed that they find people without licences - too many people's getting away without paying their dues?

Rod

I haven't got a licence for my TV. I also watch programs streamed 'live' on my PC .
No one said anything to me yet. But I have a secret! :wink: