Man at B&Q wrote:
On Jan 13, 9:39 pm, "OG" wrote:
"Jason" wrote in message

news


OG wrote:
I forget the edge case where you only use the TV for watching DVDs...
The trouble is, even watching through a SCART cable only, the receiver
is
still
operating in the background and you an still be done for it if you don't
have a
licence. You need to disconnect the tuner internally.
Wrong.
No you are wrong.
I have evidence, but I'll just offer as much as you did.
My evidence
=====
The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004
includes
Definitions for the purposes of the Communications Act 2003 and the Wireless
Telegraphy Act 1967

Meaning of "television receiver"
9. - (1) In Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV reception), "television
receiver" means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving
(whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television
programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other
purpose.
======
If it is not installed or used "for the purpose of receiving ... television
programme service" it doesn't need a licence.

You may have reference to an older Regulation or Act, but this is the
current law.

The opposite of "installed OR used" is "not installed AND not used".
Boole showed us this many years ago.

you musn't install it and you musn't use it.

MBQ

You are truncating the sentence too early
The opposite of "installed or used for the purpose of..." is
"installed or used NOT for the purpose of...".

The fact that the definition continues "whether or not it is installed
or used for any other purpose." shows that my interpretation is correct,
otherwise the second "installed" would be redundant.
Clearly the purpose for which it is installed is critical to the
definition.

Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:18:39 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 04:42:21 -0800, Man at B&Q wrote:

On Jan 13, 7:09Àš pm, OG wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:
On Jan 12, 7:19 pm, "OG" wrote:
Meaning of "television receiver"
Àš Àš Àš 9. Àš - (1) In Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV
reception), Àš Àš Àš "television
receiver" means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of
receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise)
any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or
used for any other purpose.
So it's clear that it's the *purpose* for the apparatus rather than
the *capability* that's important.
So, with respect, I think you are in error.
By your own quote "apparatus installed or used for the purpose of
receiving", just installing it is sufficient. You don't have to
actually use it.
No, that's why it says "installed or used for the purpose of
receiving..."

If it's not installed or used for that specific purpose, then it
doesn't need a licence.
Installed OR used, not installed AND used. Installing and not using it
still satisfies what it says.
No, expanding it gives "installed for the purpose OR use for the
purpose".

Installing it NOT for the purpose is legal.

"well yer honor, I installed me 54" plasmaa and surround sound , and
satellite dish and Digital aerial just to impress the neighbours, no we
never watch it."

But the case we were discussing wasn't that, was it? It was an installed
TV used to watch DVDs, or fed from a PC with iPlayer.

No antaenna/dish needed.
The principle proves the rule. In the end any legislative body will
take a view, and try not to set an unfortunate precedent that allows
evildoers off the hook.

On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 19:07:54 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:18:39 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 04:42:21 -0800, Man at B&Q wrote:

On Jan 13, 7:09Àš pm, OG wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:
On Jan 12, 7:19 pm, "OG" wrote:
Meaning of "television receiver"
Àš Àš Àš 9. Àš - (1) In Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV
reception), Àš Àš Àš "television receiver" means any apparatus
installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means
of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme
service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other
purpose.
So it's clear that it's the *purpose* for the apparatus rather
than the *capability* that's important.
So, with respect, I think you are in error.
By your own quote "apparatus installed or used for the purpose of
receiving", just installing it is sufficient. You don't have to
actually use it.
No, that's why it says "installed or used for the purpose of
receiving..."

If it's not installed or used for that specific purpose, then it
doesn't need a licence.
Installed OR used, not installed AND used. Installing and not using
it still satisfies what it says.
No, expanding it gives "installed for the purpose OR use for the
purpose".

Installing it NOT for the purpose is legal.

"well yer honor, I installed me 54" plasmaa and surround sound , and
satellite dish and Digital aerial just to impress the neighbours, no
we never watch it."

But the case we were discussing wasn't that, was it? It was an
installed TV used to watch DVDs, or fed from a PC with iPlayer.

No antaenna/dish needed.
The principle proves the rule. In the end any legislative body will
take a view, and try not to set an unfortunate precedent that allows
evildoers off the hook.

Meaningless wriggling.



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

Bob Eager wrote:

The principle proves the rule. In the end any legislative body will
take a view, and try not to set an unfortunate precedent that allows
evildoers off the hook.

Meaningless wriggling.

Golly. I suppose the last 800 years of legal precedents are just
'meaningless wriggling'

You should try reading up a few high court judgements some day.

On 14 Jan, 12:12, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:
Was the van empty with an aerial on top and big letters on the side saying
"TV DETECTOR VAN"?

It has often been rumoured that *some* 'TV detector vans' are indeed
empty. I have no evidence either way, but it might be considered a
sensible money-saving strategy (much as many speed-camera boxes have
no actual camera in them).

However the fact that some of them are fully functional is beyond any
dispute. I used to work where the current generation of TV detector
vans were designed, prototyped and tested. I know personally the
engineer who invented and developed their means of operation. I know
how they work, although obviously I can't say (beyond confirming that
they no longer detect the Local Oscillator radiation from the TV
tuner, as the older generation did).

Richard.
http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:23:22 +0000, Jason
wrote:

Mike wrote:

I use the tv for PS2 and DVD

Just be careful. If the tuner is still operating (and it is likely to be doing
so) when playing, then they can detect that and you will be up in court.

Caught in possession of a working local oscillator is not and never
has appeared in any UK legislation.

I could have a tv the size of a small car on my living room wall,
connected via RF on any UHF channel between 21 and 69, and fed from my
pattern generator such that it displayed a very close approximation of
the BBC test card. Just such an 'installation' wouldn't need any
licence whatsoever. I could at the same time leave all presets on the
TV set to specific channels on the local transmitter I can see out of
my window. The aerial plug could remain dangling from the wall just a
few feet away or, come analogue switch off when our local self
provided relay 'dies', I could even plug the aerial in. At no stage
is there *any* requirement for a licence.

Need I go on?



--

On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 02:16:50 -0800 (PST), Richard Russell
wrote:

I used to work where the current generation of TV detector
vans were designed, prototyped and tested. I know personally the
engineer who invented and developed their means of operation. I know
how they work, although obviously I can't say (beyond confirming that
they no longer detect the Local Oscillator radiation from the TV
tuner, as the older generation did).

Signed up to the official secrets act or something?

I can absolutely guarantee that the tv tuner a relative designed and
built 15 years ago as part of a research project cannot be detected by
*anything* other than a Mark 1 eyeball and ear.

He has the test results to prove it.


--

Mike wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:23:22 +0000, Jason
wrote:

Mike wrote:

I use the tv for PS2 and DVD
Just be careful. If the tuner is still operating (and it is likely to be doing
so) when playing, then they can detect that and you will be up in court.

Caught in possession of a working local oscillator is not and never
has appeared in any UK legislation.

I could have a tv the size of a small car on my living room wall,
connected via RF on any UHF channel between 21 and 69, and fed from my
pattern generator such that it displayed a very close approximation of
the BBC test card. Just such an 'installation' wouldn't need any
licence whatsoever. I could at the same time leave all presets on the
TV set to specific channels on the local transmitter I can see out of
my window. The aerial plug could remain dangling from the wall just a
few feet away or, come analogue switch off when our local self
provided relay 'dies', I could even plug the aerial in. At no stage
is there *any* requirement for a licence.

Need I go on?


ISTR that the thing they picked up was the IF frequencies, well enough
to actually watch the same picture that was on the perps telly.

Mike wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 02:16:50 -0800 (PST), Richard Russell
wrote:

I used to work where the current generation of TV detector
vans were designed, prototyped and tested. I know personally the
engineer who invented and developed their means of operation. I know
how they work, although obviously I can't say (beyond confirming that
they no longer detect the Local Oscillator radiation from the TV
tuner, as the older generation did).

Signed up to the official secrets act or something?

I can absolutely guarantee that the tv tuner a relative designed and
built 15 years ago as part of a research project cannot be detected by
*anything* other than a Mark 1 eyeball and ear.

He has the test results to prove it.


Indeed, but what commercial telly is built to that spec?


It USED to be just about possible to pick up what a monitor was showing,
by 'listening' to the high voltage radiation off cathode and scan coils..

On 15 Jan, 18:14, Mike wrote:
I can absolutely guarantee that the tv tuner a relative designed and
built 15 years ago as part of a research project cannot be detected by
*anything* *other than a Mark 1 eyeball and ear. *

That tells me quite enough to confirm that it can be detected by the
current generation of TV detector vans. ;-)

Richard.
http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Richard Russell
saying something like:

However the fact that some of them are fully functional is beyond any
dispute. I used to work where the current generation of TV detector
vans were designed, prototyped and tested. I know personally the
engineer who invented and developed their means of operation. I know
how they work, although obviously I can't say (beyond confirming that
they no longer detect the Local Oscillator radiation from the TV
tuner, as the older generation did).

A shill from the TVLA, are you?

"Jason" wrote in message ...
Stewart wrote:
I have no TV but watch the news, weather etc on computer as well as using
bbc iplayer.
I regularly get a notice from the licencing authority telling me that if I
have a receiver (including computer) that can receive "live" tv then I must
buy a licence.

I suspect this refers to TV cards in the computer. Being able simply to access
the Internet does not require a TV licence.


Wrong I'm afraid ;-)

What I suspect is that we live in the only country in the world where some internet
video streams require a government permit and others don't.

How are you supposed to tell the difference?
Before anyone says that it's easy remember it's not just our domestic UK television
streams that are restricted in this way
--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

Richard Russell wrote:
I used to work where the current generation of TV detector
vans were designed, prototyped and tested. I know personally the
engineer who invented and developed their means of operation. I know
how they work, although obviously I can't say

It's not obvious to me why you can't say. It's not like the single mums
on the council estate are going to rewire their tellies to counteract it.

How do they work?

Pete

On 16 Jan, 12:17, Pete Verdon
d wrote:
It's not obvious to me why you can't say. It's not like the single mums
on the council estate are going to rewire their tellies to counteract it.

It was one of the most secretive projects I've encountered in my time
at the BBC, and even internally little was said about the technical
detail (although the prototype van, and the modifications it
underwent, could hardly be missed!). I'm afraid it will have to
remain a subject for intelligent guesswork.

Richard.
http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/

"Richard Russell" wrote in message
...
On 16 Jan, 12:17, Pete Verdon
d wrote:
It's not obvious to me why you can't say. It's not like the single mums
on the council estate are going to rewire their tellies to counteract it.

It was one of the most secretive projects I've encountered in my time
at the BBC, and even internally little was said about the technical
detail (although the prototype van, and the modifications it
underwent, could hardly be missed!). I'm afraid it will have to
remain a subject for intelligent guesswork.

Richard.
http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/



So why did the company bother to make a device that they cannot/willnot use
in a court of law?

Adam

On 17 Jan, 19:34, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:
So why did the company bother to make a device that they cannot/willnot use
in a court of law?

I'm only an engineer; I know nothing at all about the legal
implications. The detector van simply confirms that a TV receiver is
being used at a particular address, precisely to what use that
information is put I cannot speculate. Obviously it must be
considered of considerable value to justify the substantial
modifications to the vans and the installation of some quite expensive
equipment.

Richard.
http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/

On 18/01/2010 12:57, in article
, "Richard
Russell" wrote:

On 17 Jan, 19:34, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:
So why did the company bother to make a device that they cannot/willnot use
in a court of law?

I'm only an engineer; I know nothing at all about the legal
implications. The detector van simply confirms that a TV receiver is
being used at a particular address, precisely to what use that
information is put I cannot speculate. Obviously it must be
considered of considerable value to justify the substantial
modifications to the vans and the installation of some quite expensive
equipment.


http://www.bbctvlicence.com/Detector%20vans.htm

On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:03:01 -0800 (PST), Richard Russell
wrote:

On 15 Jan, 18:14, Mike wrote:
I can absolutely guarantee that the tv tuner a relative designed and
built 15 years ago as part of a research project cannot be detected by
*anything* *other than a Mark 1 eyeball and ear. *

That tells me quite enough to confirm that it can be detected by the
current generation of TV detector vans. ;-)

Not if it is in soundproof house with lightproof curtains and
surrounded by large gardens with a very high fence and gate with
microwave security ... and a screen that is behind a secret shutter in
a basement that TV licencing and the local council planning don't know
about.

P.S. The aerial is also 'stealthy'


--

On 18 Jan, 17:46, Mike wrote:
Not if it is in soundproof house with lightproof curtains and
surrounded by large gardens with a very high fence and gate with
microwave security ... and a screen that is behind a secret shutter in
a basement that TV licencing and the local council planning don't know
about.

Indeed. Mind you it would probably be cheaper to pay several years
worth of TV licence fees than to set up that facility!

Richard.
http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/

On 18 Jan, 14:03, Piers Finlayson wrote:
http://www.bbctvlicence.com/Detector%20vans.htm

Some interesting stuff there; none of it contradicts my own
information. Presumably should TVLA decide that they wish to use
evidence from a detector van in court, they could then reveal details
of its workings, calibration certificates etc. So (as a non-expert) I
don't see that not revealing that information beforehand means a case
couldn't be brought.

Richard.
http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/

On Jan 18, 3:49*pm, Richard Russell wrote:
On 18 Jan, 14:03, Piers Finlayson wrote:

http://www.bbctvlicence.com/Detector%20vans.htm

Some interesting stuff there; none of it contradicts my own
information. *Presumably should TVLA decide that they wish to use
evidence from a detector van in court, they could then reveal details
of its workings, calibration certificates etc. *So (as a non-expert) I
don't see that not revealing that information beforehand means a case
couldn't be brought.

Richard.http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/

TV license (to allow one to receive the BBC?), sounds like colossal
waste of time and effort. Rather like the 7/6d 'wireless' licence my
dad used to buy at the Post Office back in the 1930s and 40s.

If in UK I would probably forget about TV and get my video news via
the internet, all kinds of stuff available in various degrees of
quality, as I do now. Al Jazeera, Russia TV in English, in addition to
the BBC, the many US networks etc. etc.

However 'BBC World News' available as one channel of the approx. 60+
channels on our local analog cable sytem, is excellent content and
quality. That 'basic' cable TV costs about $1 per channel per month.
Most of them being 'cra*' and not worth viewing. But the channels
available come in packages and in order to get the History, Discovery,
BBC and others one has to take them.

Alternatives (competition) here are two satellite (digital) systems
and also in certain areas so far, digital TV via the telephone company
along with their offering of the internet. So a fair number of
choices.

The only 'from air' TV in this neck of the woods, most easterly
Canada, are a couple of analog TV channels, the CBC and one private
network. Stil have the TV antenna in the attic, but don't now use it.
This is understandable because the total population of this area some
1200 miles from Toronto etc. is less than a quarter million persons
with a total population in this province, with an area that of England
plus Wales, of just over half a million!

On 19 Jan, 13:38, terry wrote:
TV license (to allow one to receive the BBC?), sounds like colossal
waste of time and effort.

Hmm, considering that my entire career was spent working for the BBC
(more than 32 years) and that my occupational pension comes,
indirectly, from the licence fee I'm not likely to agree with that! I
wonder how different the TV industry (world wide) might be now if it
wasn't for the technological innovation of BBC engineers over the past
60 years or so. I think you'll find that very few commercial TV
stations (funded by advertising) have significant technical R&D
budgets.

I was interested to see, in next week's Radio Times, a nice picture of
ITN's 'green screen' virtual news studio (pages 6 & 7 for those who
get RT). If you look very carefully, you can see some of the bar-
coded circular targets in the studio ceiling used for the virtual
studio wizardry. That system (it's called Free-D) was invented and
developed by the BBC!

Richard.
http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/

"Richard Russell" wrote in message
...
On 19 Jan, 13:38, terry wrote:
TV license (to allow one to receive the BBC?), sounds like colossal
waste of time and effort.

Hmm, considering that my entire career was spent working for the BBC
(more than 32 years) and that my occupational pension comes,
indirectly, from the licence fee I'm not likely to agree with that! I
wonder how different the TV industry (world wide) might be now if it
wasn't for the technological innovation of BBC engineers over the past
60 years or so. I think you'll find that very few commercial TV
stations (funded by advertising) have significant technical R&D
budgets.

I was interested to see, in next week's Radio Times, a nice picture of
ITN's 'green screen' virtual news studio (pages 6 & 7 for those who
get RT). If you look very carefully, you can see some of the bar-
coded circular targets in the studio ceiling used for the virtual
studio wizardry. That system (it's called Free-D) was invented and
developed by the BBC!



With Wogan winding down and Jonathon Ross leaving the BBC., the pressure to
hunt down every last license fee evader will be diminished.


mark

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 10:23:06 -0800 (PST), Richard Russell
wrote:

On 18 Jan, 17:46, Mike wrote:
Not if it is in soundproof house with lightproof curtains and
surrounded by large gardens with a very high fence and gate with
microwave security ... and a screen that is behind a secret shutter in
a basement that TV licencing and the local council planning don't know
about.

Indeed. Mind you it would probably be cheaper to pay several years
worth of TV licence fees than to set up that facility!

It's the principle, why fund the BBC when you can watch ITV for free
and with the spare cash have enough money to rule the world.

cue evil James Bond baddie laugh



--

On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 22:51:22 +0000, Mike wrote:

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 10:23:06 -0800 (PST), Richard Russell
wrote:

On 18 Jan, 17:46, Mike wrote:
Not if it is in soundproof house with lightproof curtains and
surrounded by large gardens with a very high fence and gate with
microwave security ... and a screen that is behind a secret shutter in
a basement that TV licencing and the local council planning don't know
about.

Indeed. Mind you it would probably be cheaper to pay several years
worth of TV licence fees than to set up that facility!

It's the principle, why fund the BBC when you can watch ITV for free
and with the spare cash have enough money to rule the world.


Part of the TV licence fee does go to central funds (i.e. OFCOM) to
pay for spectrum management which of course includes the BBC and
'other' users (either analogue or digital), including the "radio"
spectrum.

--
Frank Erskine

The message
from terry contains these words:

with an area that of England
plus Wales, of just over half a million!

Bearing in mind the ethnic origin of most of the population of
Newfoundland, shouldn't you be measuring that in comparison to Ireland?
:-)

"Mike" wrote in message
...


It's the principle, why fund the BBC when you can watch ITV for free
and with the spare cash have enough money to rule the world.

You need a TV license to watch ITV.
The BBC come free as part of the deal. ;-)

cue evil James Bond baddie laugh

John Rumm wrote:

What are your commercial services like for advert frequency? Something
that has always astounded me about many US channels is how anyone can
watch a program when they break for ads *so* often!

When we're in the US, most of our TV viewing is done via TIVO - so we
can easily skip over the ads.

Frank Erskine wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 22:51:22 +0000, Mike wrote:

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 10:23:06 -0800 (PST), Richard Russell
wrote:

On 18 Jan, 17:46, Mike wrote:
Not if it is in soundproof house with lightproof curtains and
surrounded by large gardens with a very high fence and gate with
microwave security ... and a screen that is behind a secret shutter in
a basement that TV licencing and the local council planning don't know
about.
Indeed. Mind you it would probably be cheaper to pay several years
worth of TV licence fees than to set up that facility!
It's the principle, why fund the BBC when you can watch ITV for free
and with the spare cash have enough money to rule the world.


Part of the TV licence fee does go to central funds (i.e. OFCOM) to
pay for spectrum management which of course includes the BBC and
'other' users (either analogue or digital), including the "radio"
spectrum.



And if the BBC ceased to be funded by a cut of any TV licence money then
you can be sure all the money would go to the mother of all central
funds - The Tax Pit erm sorry UK Guvmint...

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "ARWadsworth"
saying something like:

So why did the company bother to make a device that they cannot/willnot use
in a court of law?

old Cold War joke
A Russian bloke in a Transit - a defector van?

John Rumm wrote:
S Viemeister wrote:
John Rumm wrote:

What are your commercial services like for advert frequency?
Something that has always astounded me about many US channels is how
anyone can watch a program when they break for ads *so* often!

When we're in the US, most of our TV viewing is done via TIVO - so we
can easily skip over the ads.

IIRC, there was a legal case where some of the TV networks were
attempting to stop TIVO from allowing this... ;-)


They don't (yet) appear to have succeeded!

On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 22:13:17 +0000 John Rumm wrote :
IIRC, there was a legal case where some of the TV networks were
attempting to stop TIVO from allowing this... ;-)

Australian TIVO boxes will reputedly allow you to fast forward
ads but not skip them

http://www.pcauthority.com.au/Featur...th-foxtel.aspx

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on' Melbourne, Australia
www.superbeam.co.uk www.superbeam.com www.greentram.com

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Richard Russell
saying something like:

Hmm, considering that my entire career was spent working for the BBC
(more than 32 years) and that my occupational pension comes,
indirectly, from the licence fee I'm not likely to agree with that!

Hmmm... I suspect that all you've been spouting about the TV detector
vans is utter bull****.

On 21 Jan, 06:11, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:
I suspect that all you've been spouting about the TV detector
vans is utter bull****.

If you believe that, you're a poor judge of character.

Richard.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Richard Russell
saying something like:

I suspect that all you've been spouting about the TV detector
vans is utter bull****.

If you believe that, you're a poor judge of character.

You've already admitted you have a vested interest and so far I've seen
nothing to support your assertions about these wondrous vehicles.

"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
...
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Richard Russell
saying something like:

I suspect that all you've been spouting about the TV detector
vans is utter bull****.

If you believe that, you're a poor judge of character.

You've already admitted you have a vested interest and so far I've seen
nothing to support your assertions about these wondrous vehicles.

So the BBC pay for the detector vans?

And the BBC spend how much each year outsourcing the collection of the TV
licence to Capita?

I suppose the TV licence may be better value for money once that gob****e
Jonathon Ross ****s off.

Adam

On 21 Jan, 22:25, John Rumm wrote:
I have no problem believing that TV detection equipment exists. I do
have difficulty believing it takes a van load of gear to do it though!
Hand held apparatus perhaps.

The link that was given here previously reveals quite a lot about the
different modes of operation of the vans and the hand-held detectors:

http://www.bbctvlicence.com/Detector%20vans.htm

I suspect, but don't quote me on this, that the hand-held detectors
were developed for use with the older generation of detector vans
which couldn't pin down the location of a TV that precisely from a
distance. The current vans can identify the property in which a TV is
in use (e.g. an individual dwelling within a block of flats) from - it
says at that link - up to 60m away. With that capability I don't
really know why hand-held detectors are used at all (maybe they aren't
any more).

Richard.
http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/

John Rumm wrote:
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Richard Russell
saying something like:

I suspect that all you've been spouting about the TV detector
vans is utter bull****.
If you believe that, you're a poor judge of character.

You've already admitted you have a vested interest and so far I've seen
nothing to support your assertions about these wondrous vehicles.

I have no problem believing that TV detection equipment exists. I do
have difficulty believing it takes a van load of gear to do it though!
Hand held apparatus perhaps.

oh, with current technology, its very tricky to pick it up.

You are HOPING that there will be some leakage of some signal out of
what is today a very low powered set.

Its probaly easier for the beeb to try and tie IP addresses that access
its online content to households..

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
John Rumm wrote:
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Richard Russell
saying something like:

I suspect that all you've been spouting about the TV detector
vans is utter bull****.
If you believe that, you're a poor judge of character.

You've already admitted you have a vested interest and so far I've seen
nothing to support your assertions about these wondrous vehicles.
I have no problem believing that TV detection equipment exists. I do
have difficulty believing it takes a van load of gear to do it though!
Hand held apparatus perhaps.

oh, with current technology, its very tricky to pick it up.

You are HOPING that there will be some leakage of some signal out of
what is today a very low powered set.

Its probaly easier for the beeb to try and tie IP addresses that access
its online content to households..

But, as pointed out elsewhere, licence collection has been farmed out
to an external agency, what are they doing getting involved in something
which is no longer within their remit ?

--
geoff

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember geoff saying
something like:

But, as pointed out elsewhere, licence collection has been farmed out
to an external agency, what are they doing getting involved in something
which is no longer within their remit ?

ELINT isn't only about TV sets - I suspect that more than one of these
vans is in plain clothes.