Ok this is only my opinion but I was under the impression that If you own a
TV you must have a TV licence even if you don't watch it. Its because it is
meant to cover radio as well and there is no way of telling if a TV you have
does or does not receive TV channels, Maybe ripping out the tuner would
prove the fact that you cant watch normal TV but it may not be enough.

As for allowing them into your house I remember when I was at uni they kept
knocking on out student flat and no one would let them in until all TV's
were put in the communal areas, they have no right of access I.e they cant
force there way in they have to be let in so just don't let them in get a
chain for the door and don't open it any further.

ico" wrote in message
...
For about the past year or so I have been receiving increasingly
threatening letters from the TV licensing people about the fact I do
not have a license.

I'm not too fussed about buying one since I do not use the TV for
anything other than watching the occasional video. Indeed, there is
no TV in the main living room and no aerial lead on the TV that is
upstairs.

The 'notices' are sounding increasingly nasty. If I do not get a
license OR write to tell them I do not use a TV, then it is likely
that the skies will darken and the seas will boil etc etc.

My first question is whether I have to tell them that I do not watch
regular TV programmes? I know you can get a fine now for not
declaring SORN on a vehicle if it is off the road, but is TV licensing
as bad as that?

Secondly, does anyone have any experience of what happens when the
inspectors call at your house? They surely will at some point. I
could write to tell them what they want to know, but there is that
little bit of rebel still left in me that hates conforming to the
nanny state's big brother-esque dictats.

Does the inspector actually have to register radiation, or similar,
coming from the back of my TV set to 'prove' I am watching it (not
sure how they would get on with an LCD tv)? If so, surely I would
have to let them into my house. Do I have to?

Also, can they tell the difference between me watching a video and a
regular TV programme? It would be rare that my girlfriend and I would
put a video on before 11pm (sounds fun doesn't it? - the reality is
less exciting). Surely they would not start to bang on the door at
that hour and I could be forgiven for not answering it if they did?

Cheers
Rob


Replace 'spam' with 'org' to reply

"John Borman" wrote in message
...
Ok this is only my opinion but I was under the impression that If you own
a TV you must have a TV licence even if you don't watch it. Its because it
is meant to cover radio as well and there is no way of telling if a TV you
have does or does not receive TV channels, Maybe ripping out the tuner
would prove the fact that you cant watch normal TV but it may not be
enough.

As for allowing them into your house I remember when I was at uni they
kept knocking on out student flat and no one would let them in until all
TV's were put in the communal areas, they have no right of access I.e they
cant force there way in they have to be let in so just don't let them in
get a chain for the door and don't open it any further.

We used to get pestered at work as we bought a large TV for use at trade
shows and got on the TV licencing books that way.

Despite the TV not being used at work we had to get a licence as we "owned a
piece of equipment capable of receiving a TV picture" on the premises. Got
licence, letters stopped.

Mind you they started again when we didn't renew the licence as the TV was
dropped at a show and ended up in the bin. Just told we got rid of TV, had a
nice man call round just to confirm and get someone to sign at that was
that.

"Kalico" wrote:
For about the past year or so I have been receiving increasingly
threatening letters from the TV licensing people about the fact I do
not have a license.

I'm not too fussed about buying one since I do not use the TV for
anything other than watching the occasional video. Indeed, there is
no TV in the main living room and no aerial lead on the TV that is
upstairs.

The 'notices' are sounding increasingly nasty. If I do not get a
license OR write to tell them I do not use a TV, then it is likely
that the skies will darken and the seas will boil etc etc.

My first question is whether I have to tell them that I do not watch
regular TV programmes? I know you can get a fine now for not
declaring SORN on a vehicle if it is off the road, but is TV licensing
as bad as that?

Secondly, does anyone have any experience of what happens when the
inspectors call at your house? They surely will at some point. I
could write to tell them what they want to know, but there is that
little bit of rebel still left in me that hates conforming to the
nanny state's big brother-esque dictats.

Does the inspector actually have to register radiation, or similar,
coming from the back of my TV set to 'prove' I am watching it (not
sure how they would get on with an LCD tv)? If so, surely I would
have to let them into my house. Do I have to?

Also, can they tell the difference between me watching a video and a
regular TV programme? It would be rare that my girlfriend and I would
put a video on before 11pm (sounds fun doesn't it? - the reality is
less exciting). Surely they would not start to bang on the door at
that hour and I could be forgiven for not answering it if they did?

They can not "detect" TV use. This is a well-propogated
urban myth. You do however need a licence, just for having
the TV in the house.

The first time they visit, they don't usually have a warrant.
You are quite within your rights to send them away, but this
is the time to buy a licence if you're planning to keep the TV.

If I was in your situation, I would buy one of those portable
DVD players with an LCD screen. They don't have a tuner,
so no licence required. Problem is you have to upgrade your
video collection (unless you tear out the tuner from the video
player and use a Scart-AV lead to connect the video to the
LCD screen on the player - some have AV in).

Al

Al Reynolds wrote:

They can not "detect" TV use. This is a well-propogated
urban myth.

True.


You do however need a licence, just for having
the TV in the house.

I think this is also a well-propagated myth!


--
Grunff

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:09:10 -0000, "John Borman"
wrote:

Ok this is only my opinion but I was under the impression that If you own a
TV you must have a TV licence even if you don't watch it. Its because it is
meant to cover radio as well and there is no way of telling if a TV you have
does or does not receive TV channels, Maybe ripping out the tuner would
prove the fact that you cant watch normal TV but it may not be enough.

As for allowing them into your house I remember when I was at uni they kept
knocking on out student flat and no one would let them in until all TV's
were put in the communal areas, they have no right of access I.e they cant
force there way in they have to be let in so just don't let them in get a
chain for the door and don't open it any further.

Now I think that would look very suspicious. Answer the door but
refuse entry? I wonder what they would do if I did that.

Actually I remember a friend years ago just saying it was not his
house so he could not let them in. Not sure how that would work if
they could detect a TV in use though.

Of course, there are a lot of stories about them even being able to
see what channel you are watching or see the picture you can see, but
I very much doubt that. Or am I wrong?

Rob


Replace 'spam' with 'org' to reply

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:38:37 -0000, "Al Reynolds"
wrote:

[snip]
They can not "detect" TV use. This is a well-propogated
urban myth.

I did not know that - thank you.

You do however need a licence, just for having
the TV in the house.

This is NOT the case. It is not like a class A drug where just
possession is the offence. I could have 100 TVs in the house and I
would not 'need' a TV license.

Rob


Replace 'spam' with 'org' to reply

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:46:53 +0000, Grunff wrote:

Al Reynolds wrote:

They can not "detect" TV use. This is a well-propogated
urban myth.

True.

Actually, it seems that this is not a myth. Take a look at
http://www.tvlicensing.biz/



You do however need a licence, just for having
the TV in the house.

I think this is also a well-propagated myth!

Yep, that's a myth.

Rob


Replace 'spam' with 'org' to reply

In article , "Kalico"
says...
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:38:37 -0000, "Al Reynolds"
wrote:

[snip]
They can not "detect" TV use. This is a well-propogated
urban myth.

I did not know that - thank you.

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.

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:09:10 -0000, "John Borman"
wrote:

Ok this is only my opinion but I was under the impression that If you own a
TV you must have a TV licence even if you don't watch it. Its because it is
meant to cover radio

? The law requiring radios to have a licence went years ago.

as well and there is no way of telling if a TV you have
does or does not receive TV channels,

My understanding is that unless elaborately (and very expensively)
shielded, there will be "transmissions" from a receiver - hence the
old TV detector vans.

Maybe ripping out the tuner would
prove the fact that you cant watch normal TV but it may not be enough.

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.

Steve Firth wrote:

They can not "detect" TV use. This is a well-propogated
urban myth.


Umm no it's not, it's just that it is easier to use a database to keep
track of who has or has not got a TV license. TV license detector vans
used to exist, but they may well have been dropped as economically
unviable.

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.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:52:36 +0000, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

TV license detector vans
used to exist, but they may well have been dropped as economically
unviable.

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
|____| www.kettlenet.co.uk 01359 230642

"Kalico" wrote in message
...
For about the past year or so I have been receiving increasingly
threatening letters from the TV licensing people about the fact I do
not have a license.

I'm not too fussed about buying one since I do not use the TV for
anything other than watching the occasional video. Indeed, there is
no TV in the main living room and no aerial lead on the TV that is
upstairs.

The 'notices' are sounding increasingly nasty. If I do not get a
license OR write to tell them I do not use a TV, then it is likely
that the skies will darken and the seas will boil etc etc.

My first question is whether I have to tell them that I do not watch
regular TV programmes? I know you can get a fine now for not
declaring SORN on a vehicle if it is off the road, but is TV licensing
as bad as that?

Secondly, does anyone have any experience of what happens when the
inspectors call at your house? They surely will at some point. I
could write to tell them what they want to know, but there is that
little bit of rebel still left in me that hates conforming to the
nanny state's big brother-esque dictats.

Does the inspector actually have to register radiation, or similar,
coming from the back of my TV set to 'prove' I am watching it (not
sure how they would get on with an LCD tv)? If so, surely I would
have to let them into my house. Do I have to?

Also, can they tell the difference between me watching a video and a
regular TV programme? It would be rare that my girlfriend and I would
put a video on before 11pm (sounds fun doesn't it? - the reality is
less exciting). Surely they would not start to bang on the door at
that hour and I could be forgiven for not answering it if they did?


Last time I heard they have no authority to enter uninvited so you are at
liberty to tell them to **** 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)

John Rumm wrote:

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.

"Difficult"? Try "effectively impossible".

An organisation I do voluntary work with owns a place in relatively
remote south Wales. The nature of the organisation - scouting, in a
foreign-language medium - means that for the 40+ years we've owned the
place, there's never been an aerial installed, and never a TV. (It's
hard to do "immersion" in a language which was mother-tongue for the
kids' grandparents, or great-grandparents, if there's a TV going!)

The place is unoccupied much of the time. When it is occupied, it's
quite often rented out to other organisations (or even individuals known
to us) who are given access only to the main rooms, but not to the
warren of smaller store-rooms, eaves-cupboards, outhouses, and so on.
Thus, if an Inspector were to call unnannounced, they'd most likely find
the place unoccupied, and next-most-likely find it occupied by someone
who couldn't speak for the owner, was an "occupier" for a period of a
week at most, and couldn't give them access to much of the place.

But they won't make an appointment ahead of time, to coincide with the
presence of the "manager". Because, you see, we might run round hiding
the [non-existent] TV, go up on the roof to take off the [non-existen]
aerial, conceal the [non-existent] secret ductwork leading to the
nearest other house about 200 yards away or more, and all the rest.

And every month they send a "YOU NEED A LICENCE you know" letter. (Gives
the postie an excuse to drive up the single-track lane and take a
well-earned breather, I s'pose...)

So I phone them. I write to them. At some length, not just baldly
stating that there's no TV at the place, but explaining why. I give them
the schedule for a whole year of "work weekends" (one a month) when the
Manager will be in attendance, with group of volunteers, able to show
any Inspector round, and even offer them Polski Homeski Cookingski if
they show up. (P'raps that was the mistake ;-)

No effect. It's like ****ing in the wind. The letters keep coming. Later
phone calls have no record of receiving the letter, or get some
cock-n-bull response about "well we took you off the send-a-letter-list
for 3 months, and now the property's back on, but with a new case number
you see, so there's no link to the previous correspondence; after all
the place might get sold." (Like there's no, um, central Registry of
sales of, um, Land, you understand...)

Ignorant, wannabe-intimidating, grubby little jumped-up jerks, is what
they are. Their presumption of guilt is seriously offensive.

"Stefek Zaba" wrote in message
...
John Rumm wrote:

snipped
Ignorant, wannabe-intimidating, grubby little jumped-up jerks, is what
they are. Their presumption of guilt is seriously offensive.


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.

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 19:00:53 +0000, Stefek Zaba
wrote:



So I phone them. I write to them. At some length, not just baldly
stating that there's no TV at the place, but explaining why. I give them
the schedule for a whole year of "work weekends" (one a month) when the
Manager will be in attendance, with group of volunteers, able to show
any Inspector round, and even offer them Polski Homeski Cookingski if
they show up. (P'raps that was the mistake ;-)

No effect. It's like ****ing in the wind. The letters keep coming. Later
phone calls have no record of receiving the letter, or get some
cock-n-bull response about "well we took you off the send-a-letter-list
for 3 months, and now the property's back on, but with a new case number
you see, so there's no link to the previous correspondence; after all
the place might get sold." (Like there's no, um, central Registry of
sales of, um, Land, you understand...)

Ignorant, wannabe-intimidating, grubby little jumped-up jerks, is what
they are. Their presumption of guilt is seriously offensive.

How about writing to them in Polish?


A former (Norwegian) colleague was stopped for speeding during a
business trip in the U.S. and proceeding to explain to the officer in
Norwegian that he didn't know any English and was from a remote part
of Norway with few roads etc. etc.

Needless to say, the officer replied not only in Norwegian but in the
dialect of the region from which said colleague came.

However, there was no ticket forthcoming but an invitation to dinner
instead. That was probably various kinds of herring and lutefisk as
well....







--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Kalico" wrote in message
...
For about the past year or so I have been receiving increasingly
threatening letters from the TV licensing people about the fact I do
not have a license.

They are paranoid.

I'm not too fussed about buying one since I do not use the TV for
anything other than watching the occasional video. Indeed, there is
no TV in the main living room and no aerial lead on the TV that is
upstairs.

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.

The 'notices' are sounding increasingly nasty. If I do not get a
license OR write to tell them I do not use a TV, then it is likely
that the skies will darken and the seas will boil etc etc.

They are getting increasingly more paranoid, keep up the good work. :-))

My first question is whether I have to tell them that I do not watch
regular TV programmes?

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 :-((((((((

I know you can get a fine now for not
declaring SORN on a vehicle if it is off the road, but is TV licensing
as bad as that?

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.

Secondly, does anyone have any experience of what happens when the
inspectors call at your house?

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
could write to tell them what they want to know, but there is that
little bit of rebel still left in me that hates conforming to the
nanny state's big brother-esque dictats.

I'm beginning to like you :-)

Does the inspector actually have to register radiation, or similar,
coming from the back of my TV set to 'prove' I am watching it (not
sure how they would get on with an LCD tv)?

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

If so, surely I would
have to let them into my house. Do I have to?

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.

Also, can they tell the difference between me watching a video and a
regular TV programme?

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

"Rob Morley" wrote in message
t...
In article , "Kalico"
says...
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:38:37 -0000, "Al Reynolds"
wrote:

[snip]
They can not "detect" TV use. This is a well-propogated
urban myth.

I did not know that - thank you.

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.

They certainly can detect a TV in use and tell what part of the house it's
in. It is done by looking through a window. The other way is to knock on the
door and ask. Most people will panic and let the inspector in.

It could also be done with very expensive electrical equipment but this is
not cost effective.

Adam

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 19:00:53 +0000, Stefek Zaba wrote:

John Rumm wrote:

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.

"Difficult"? Try "effectively impossible".

An organisation I do voluntary work with owns a place in relatively
remote south Wales. The nature of the organisation - scouting, in a
foreign-language medium - means that for the 40+ years we've owned the
place, there's never been an aerial installed, and never a TV. (It's
hard to do "immersion" in a language which was mother-tongue for the
kids' grandparents, or great-grandparents, if there's a TV going!)

The place is unoccupied much of the time. When it is occupied, it's
quite often rented out to other organisations (or even individuals known
to us) who are given access only to the main rooms, but not to the
warren of smaller store-rooms, eaves-cupboards, outhouses, and so on.
Thus, if an Inspector were to call unnannounced, they'd most likely find
the place unoccupied, and next-most-likely find it occupied by someone
who couldn't speak for the owner, was an "occupier" for a period of a
week at most, and couldn't give them access to much of the place.

But they won't make an appointment ahead of time, to coincide with the
presence of the "manager". Because, you see, we might run round hiding
the [non-existent] TV, go up on the roof to take off the [non-existen]
aerial, conceal the [non-existent] secret ductwork leading to the
nearest other house about 200 yards away or more, and all the rest.

And every month they send a "YOU NEED A LICENCE you know" letter. (Gives
the postie an excuse to drive up the single-track lane and take a
well-earned breather, I s'pose...)

So I phone them. I write to them. At some length, not just baldly
stating that there's no TV at the place, but explaining why. I give them
the schedule for a whole year of "work weekends" (one a month) when the
Manager will be in attendance, with group of volunteers, able to show
any Inspector round, and even offer them Polski Homeski Cookingski if
they show up. (P'raps that was the mistake ;-)

No effect. It's like ****ing in the wind. The letters keep coming. Later
phone calls have no record of receiving the letter, or get some
cock-n-bull response about "well we took you off the send-a-letter-list
for 3 months, and now the property's back on, but with a new case number
you see, so there's no link to the previous correspondence; after all
the place might get sold." (Like there's no, um, central Registry of
sales of, um, Land, you understand...)

Ignorant, wannabe-intimidating, grubby little jumped-up jerks, is what
they are. Their presumption of guilt is seriously offensive.

Why do you bother? - just ignore them.

In message , Stefek Zaba
writes
John Rumm wrote:

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.

"Difficult"? Try "effectively impossible".

And every month they send a "YOU NEED A LICENCE you know" letter.
(Gives the postie an excuse to drive up the single-track lane and take
a well-earned breather, I s'pose...)


No effect. It's like ****ing in the wind.

They keep on sending me reminders despite the fact that I have a
grovelling apology from them and a promise that they would stop

I just bin the things uinless i'm in a particularly bad mood, in which
case, I send them another ****ty letter (in the original envelope with
Return to sender on, of course)
--
geoff

In message , BigWallop
writes

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.

Err ... sorry, whose money ?

--
geoff

We have been without a TV licence since 2000. Our TV is not connected to an
aerial, being upstairs in the bedroom and is used only for watching videos
and DVDs. It has beeen detuned. When we took this step we called TV
licencing and were told this was no problem and we got a refund on the
unused portion of the licence.

An inspector came once to check our equipment - invited him in and he stuck
his head in the sitting room door and said it was fine - even offered to
show him the actual telly in the bedroom but he wasn`t bothered. No checks
on tuning status aerial connection etc.

Have never had any threatening letters

Will

"raden" wrote in message
...
In message , BigWallop
writes

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.

Err ... sorry, whose money ?

geoff


OOPs !!! Sorry. Of course it should read "work for their money".

(silly me, I forgot what it was "for", what was "for"? That was "for") :-)

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:09:10 -0000, "John Borman"
wrote:

must I compy?

John, Of course you don't have to compy. Why should you?

And remember that this is a time when many people go away for short
breaks so make sure to check whether your neighbours will be away.
If so this is an ideal time to check their garden for any garden
tools, kid's toys etc which they may have left out . Easy pickings
not to be missed.

Don't let people put you off by saying it is petty thieving . We may
be petty thieves but there are a lot of us about.

Steve Firth wrote:

Al Reynolds wrote:


They can not "detect" TV use. This is a well-propogated
urban myth.


Umm no it's not, it's just that it is easier to use a database to keep
track of who has or has not got a TV license. TV license detector vans
used to exist, but they may well have been dropped as economically
unviable.

Especially with modern low power sets, where its not a couple if giant
kilowatt valves radiating the TV IF along the street.

Kalico wrote:

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:09:10 -0000, "John Borman"
wrote:


Ok this is only my opinion but I was under the impression that If you own a
TV you must have a TV licence even if you don't watch it. Its because it is
meant to cover radio as well and there is no way of telling if a TV you have
does or does not receive TV channels, Maybe ripping out the tuner would
prove the fact that you cant watch normal TV but it may not be enough.

As for allowing them into your house I remember when I was at uni they kept
knocking on out student flat and no one would let them in until all TV's
were put in the communal areas, they have no right of access I.e they cant
force there way in they have to be let in so just don't let them in get a
chain for the door and don't open it any further.


Now I think that would look very suspicious. Answer the door but
refuse entry? I wonder what they would do if I did that.

Actually I remember a friend years ago just saying it was not his
house so he could not let them in. Not sure how that would work if
they could detect a TV in use though.

Of course, there are a lot of stories about them even being able to
see what channel you are watching or see the picture you can see, but
I very much doubt that. Or am I wrong?


Used to be possible to pick up the local oscillator with valve sets.

Its tends to leak out of the antenna anyway.

With modern sets at the arse end of a booster and loft mounted antenna,
inside a house covered in wire mesh, I'd be interested to know if it
would work here.

Mind you, with all that gear dedicated to receiving TV, its not likely I
could make a case is it?


Rob


Replace 'spam' with 'org' to reply

Ziggy wrote:

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:09:10 -0000, "John Borman"
wrote:


Ok this is only my opinion but I was under the impression that If you own a
TV you must have a TV licence even if you don't watch it. Its because it is
meant to cover radio


? The law requiring radios to have a licence went years ago.


as well and there is no way of telling if a TV you have
does or does not receive TV channels,


My understanding is that unless elaborately (and very expensively)
shielded, there will be "transmissions" from a receiver - hence the
old TV detector vans.


Maybe ripping out the tuner would
prove the fact that you cant watch normal TV but it may not be enough.


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.

why not?

You have to pay taxes to support free education, if you are childless.

Stefek Zaba wrote:

sales of, um, Land, you understand...)

Ignorant, wannabe-intimidating, grubby little jumped-up jerks, is what
they are. Their presumption of guilt is seriously offensive.

Thats what they wanrt ID cards for.

More games of blind mans bluff.

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 23:21:17 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

With modern sets at the arse end of a booster and loft mounted antenna,
inside a house covered in wire mesh, I'd be interested to know if it
would work here.

Yes it does work, but probably not for much longer. If they can't get
a LO signal (and you frequently can't these days) you can very easily
van Eck the screen. However this only works for CRTs and recent LCD or
plasma screens make it largely impractical.

There's also the problem that densely packed flats in tower blocks
just aren't distinguishable from each other - and you'd need a
separate warrant for each one to do a search (Ah, happy days in
Cannibal Farm 8-) ).

"TV Detector Vans" are clearly labelled as such and are still driving
around - as much for the deterrent effect, as for anything else. They
may just as well be used for transporting the doorsteppers. As to the
actual equipment, then it fits in a car quite happily - no longer will
detector operators (almost all of whom were keen radio amateurs) have
to drive the van home to make use of its spectrum analyser to study
their output.

The simple numbers these days are that everyone has a TV and only the
clinically insane don't (*). It's easier to just assume the presence
of a TV until proven otherwise - hunting the sets down one by one no
longer makes economic sense.

The TV licensing vans have also been "borrowed" by various
organisations looking for camouflage to drive around obvious snooping
gear in a stealthy manner. Sometimes this was the Radio Investigation
Branch (anti pirate radio), sometimes it wasn't.


(*) I don't have one, and I think I _finally_ managed to stop their
abusive letters by convincing them of this fact. Long explanations
about The Evils Of TV Radiation and chasing the guy down the street
might have helped.

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 23:33:31 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

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.

why not?

You have to pay taxes to support free education, if you are childless.

? I was trying to make the point that the majority of broadcasters
are funded through their own revenue generation, mainly advertising,
so why should you need a licence to watch a channel you are not
required to pay for? And detune a receiver from any BBC transmissions
or pay the licence to watch them.

In article , "Andy
Dingley" says...
snip

(*) I don't have one, and I think I _finally_ managed to stop their
abusive letters by convincing them of this fact. Long explanations
about The Evils Of TV Radiation and chasing the guy down the street
might have helped.

Excellent :-)

In message , Ziggy
writes
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 23:33:31 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

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.

why not?

You have to pay taxes to support free education, if you are childless.

? I was trying to make the point that the majority of broadcasters
are funded through their own revenue generation, mainly advertising,
so why should you need a licence to watch a channel you are not
required to pay for? And detune a receiver from any BBC transmissions
or pay the licence to watch them.

Because, as someone said before, you are paying for the "privilege" of
using the receiver, not for the channel you are watching.


--
geoff

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

why not?

You have to pay taxes to support free education, if you are childless.


Do not get me started on that one...


--
Grunff

"Grunff" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

why not?

You have to pay taxes to support free education, if you are childless.


Do not get me started on that one...


Why ?.... :~)

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

why not?

You have to pay taxes to support free education, if you are childless.


And you then have to pay to educate your own child as well as your taxes
appear to be used to train a pack of knife wielding hyenas that should have
been terminated at birth.

"Mike" wrote in message
...

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

why not?

You have to pay taxes to support free education, if you are childless.


And you then have to pay to educate your own child as well as your taxes
appear to be used to train a pack of knife wielding hyenas that should
have
been terminated at birth.


Don't blame the kids for how their sop called parents have raised them, the
sooner parents are made to pick up the cost of *their* children the better
IMO.
--
Reply to group please.

begin .......nothing!

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
...

"Mike" wrote in message
...

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

why not?

You have to pay taxes to support free education, if you are
childless.


And you then have to pay to educate your own child as well as your taxes
appear to be used to train a pack of knife wielding hyenas that should
have
been terminated at birth.


Don't blame the kids for how their sop called parents have raised them,
the
sooner parents are made to pick up the cost of *their* children the better
IMO.


Sounds fine to me - terminate the parents as well !!

Mike wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:


why not?

You have to pay taxes to support free education, if you are childless.



And you then have to pay to educate your own child as well as your taxes
appear to be used to train a pack of knife wielding hyenas that should have
been terminated at birth.


No argument there...

In message , BigWallop
writes

"raden" wrote in message
...
In message , BigWallop
writes

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.

Err ... sorry, whose money ?

geoff


OOPs !!! Sorry. Of course it should read "work for their money".

(silly me, I forgot what it was "for", what was "for"? That was "for") :-)


I rather meant that it was OUR money

--
geoff