, the BBC’s compulsory tellytax on every television owning household in the UK – sometimes to mock all the wonderful things that are possible because of, as the BBC boasts, “the unique way the BBC is funded”, at others to note, for instance, the unique way the BBC’s tellytax is collected by BBC bootboys.
This often leads to interesting discussions about both the theory and the practice of the BBC’s mass intimidation approach to customer relations, with their fleet of TV detector vans that apparently roam the land, supposedly hunting down unlicensed televisions. Here, courtesy of heartandhumour on Youtube, is a classic piece of 1970’s BBC TV detector van propaganda:
The BBC’s coming to get you, yes, you, at no. 5, in the front room…
Scary stuff indeed! Those of a nervous dispostion can seek comfort and support over at Jonathan Miller’s TV licence resistance forum.
Other gems from the same source include ‘Wish I’d brought me brolly‘, Prince the talking dog from That’s Life and, for viewers in Wales, Tufty & Bobby crossing the road in Welsh.
TV detector vans are a myth. An electronic bogey man designed by the Beeb’s P.R department to keep the proles in check.
In reality, all the BBC have are 2 dozen dummy ‘detector’ vans. Volkswagen Panel Vans with TV Licensing slapped down the side, patrolling busy towns and parking up in supermarket car parks for show.
However, the insides of the van are decked out with nothing more than a laptop and a very bored driver.
Recently, the Beeb have made cut backs on these dummy journeys for cost saving and now just go for the easier option of claiming to have a fleet of un-marked vans on the prowl.
I could wax lyrical about all the technological obstacles that would have to be leapt for the BBC to ever pull of a single effective detector van, but all you have to remember is this:-
There has never been a single case of anyone being prosecuted by evidence from a TV detector van.
Nor has a warrant ever been obtained by TV Licensing to enter anyone’s property after supposed detection from their make-believe vans.
Even if they did exist, their secrecy voids them as an adequate form of prosecution:-
After all if the BBC claim the inner workings of TV detector vans are top secret – then their findings cannot be used as evidence in court.
All electronic devices used to collar the public from speed cameras to police radar need recent calibration records and a clear technical breakdown of their workings to provide an adequate prosecution in court.
Why do the BBC think they are exempt from a law that binds EVERYONE in this land?
There is a company called Buckman Hardy who claim to manufacture detector equipment for BBC TV Licensing.
http://www.buckman-hardy.co.uk/i…o.uk/ index.html
and another that claims to calibrate it:-
http://www.dbbroadcast.co.uk/
I suspect both of these companies do technical work for the BBC, but nothing to do with ‘detecting telly’s.
But they are happy pretending to be Al Beeb’s Inspector Gadgets just to keep their contracts sweet.
I’m sure a search through the UK patent records would come up with a big fat zilch with regards to ‘TV detecting equipment’ on behalf of both of these companies and the BBC.
Personally, I see TV Detector vans as the Achilles heel of the BBC. If the cud chewing masses stopped masticating on such BBC nonsense, they would realise that the only thing likely to secure a prosecution from the BBC Licensing SS Squad, is simply owning up to NOT having a license.
If the public realised that TV Detecting equipment was just another bit of BBC thought control, then perhaps they would stop paying the telly tax in their millions…
…And we wouldn’t have to endure these insufferable lefty pratts for a second longer.
As for a direction TV Licensing may be headed as internet based TV services become common, it’s worth looking at how other European countries raise revenue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence
At some point there will be pressure to standardise on a common European funding model. Taking a close look at how Germany & Denmark (particularly Germany) are addressing the problem and then guess which model would provide the most ‘attractive’ solution.
Don’t say you weren’t warned.
I recently sent an email inquiry to the Magistrates’ Association asking how the ‘evidence’ of detector vans was presented to the alleged offending householder on the doorstep and subsequently in court.
I asked whether the ‘evidence’ was a print out, a GPS reference, a statement from the operator of the equipment etc and was it possible to challenge the accuracy of the equipment,as per Reg’s post.
Within 20 minutes, I had a reply stating that I should address my question to the courts and not the Magistrates.
The Magistrates’ website also has a link inviting them to ask for a Deceptor Van to be in attendance at court open days!
Sadly, these vans are the most successful piece of propaganda of modern times.
Perhaps it’s time for a Freedom of Information enquiry?
To previous posters on this thread, are you claiming that the thousands of people prosecuted each year are a)a myth, or b)incriminated solely by their own admissions?
I’d love to know.
Apologies if this is duplicated, but I just tried to post this question and it seems to have disappeared.
a) Roughly how many people each year are prosecuted or fined for non-payment of the Licence Fee?
b) If detector vans and warrants are such a rarity, is it really the case that all of these people have incriminated themselves by admitting their offence?
If anyone knows, or can point me to a site that can tell me, I’d be grateful.
A FOI response here http://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/docs/freedom_of_information/selected_requests_and_responses/2006/SR2006000375_TV_Licence_Prosecutions.pdf
Gives the following figures for recorded convictions:
2000/01 129,000 ( 30 )
2001/02 114,041 ( 14 )
2002/03 126,377 ( 20 )
2003/04 104,650 ( 17 )
2004/05 120,352 ( 28 )
Figures in brackets are those that have received custodial sentences for non-payment of fines.
just reading through the FOI replies the BBC have posted on the subject – are they allowed to lie about things when answering FOI questions? They claim to have the equipment and claim that it works.
I note, however, their absolute refusal to answer questions about how often warrants are served due to detection equipment-based evidence, on the grounds that it would frustrate their ability to run the collection racket efficiently – which probably means that the detection equipment is rarely if ever used in applying for a warrant.
But – if the figures are accurate, over half a million people have been convicted over a five year period.
Do we really think they convicted themselves? Or is this a myth being floated by people who wish to see the BBC crumble through mass non-payment?
My god. So if each of those convictions represent £1000 fine, then that’s ~£118.9 million, on average, further income per year.
By the way, I read that they give blind people a 50% discount on their TV licenses. They’ve got big hearts at the BBC…
Perhaps many of these convictions are obtained through a search warrant? (Just because the inspector can’t routinely enter your premises doesn’t mean they can’t get a search warrant if they have grounds for suspicion).
gharqad:
To previous posters on this thread, are you claiming that the thousands of people prosecuted each year are a)a myth, or b)incriminated solely by their own admissions?
A) Not a myth, no. The BBC are keen and eager to see the relatively poor underclass of Britain fined, punished and incarcerated so the Beeboids can keep themselves splashing around in cash. However, you may also find on further investigation that TV Licensing has been briefed to stay away from areas with a large ‘ethnic minority’ population. Does that sound like the Beeb?
B) Yes, the majority of prosecutions are a result of people stupid enough to admit to the Licensing Gestapo that they own a TV. However when you take into account the notoriously thuggish and persistent tactics of the TV Licensing Cops, this is hardly surprising.
John Standley:
Forget Freedom of Information. The only freedom you’ll find from that scam service is the BBC not having to be held accountable to it’s customers. They pull shutters down on any questions relating to TV Detector vans under the assumption that such freedom could prejudice prosecutions.
Yeah, prosecutions that never have and never will happen.
I cannot believe that the state locks people in PRISON for not paying the TV tax!
At a time when prisons are full to bursting with real criminals, how on earth they can find room for TV tax dissenters? How many pensioners have they locked up like killers/rapists paedophiles? In the warped BBC mind are they the same?
To be fair, most of the posters are being a little po-faced about the video, which is funny in a post-modern sort of way.
How the TV licencing inspectors get you is by checking your address to see if you have a licence. If not, you get a visit from two pushy officious types who demand answers as to whether you have a TV.
This is backed up by the coercion of every electrical retailer in the land taking your name and address when you purchase ANY item which can receive broadcasts or is an add-on to a TV, ie a DVD player.
No there is no such thing as a detector van, but I’d prefer it if there was and useful idiots had to drive about the streets in them in this day and age. That would be funnier than watching Columbo…
Anyway, isn’t Columbo an American series that was shown on… ITV in the 70’s???
Even then the BBC were admitting their dramatic output wasn’t worth the licence fee I guess… boom boom
🙂 nice
Anon:
Yes, the TV Licensing Gestapo sometimes do overplay their hand and believe they are a real law enforcement agency, and actually go to the bother of applying for a search warrant on the flimsiest of visual evidence. These search warrants are rarely granted, but the ones that are have NOTHING to do with detecting equipment, and ALWAYS to do with something the Gestapo SAW or something stupid the customer – sorry, victim – SAID.
Incidentally, if you don’t want the TV Licensing Gestapo on your property you can write to TV Licensing telling them you give them no legal rights of access to your property. Then, if they step on your property, it’s trespass. And you can have TV Licensing up in court rather than the other way round.
So what we’re claiming is that if you are aware of your rights (such as the right to withdraw the implied right of access), aware that TVL employees (I refuse to call them “officers”, they’re just employees of a private company like any other) have no right of entry, and have no legal powers to make you answer any questions whatsoever, and you are not legally obliged to answer any letters, no matter how threatening – then basically there is little they can do but leave you alone?
If true, that would be very good news. I just find it hard to believe that, this being the case, over 100,000 people a year are finding themselves convicted of licence fee evasion.
That’s an awful lot of people acting with extreme naivety…. (and illegally, let’s not forget – we don’t approve of breaking the law on this or any other matter! Certainly not!) But I suppose they are the people the BBC rely upon (and indeed help to mould with their ethos) – people who think what they’re told to think, and sign what they are told to sign, believing in their addled heads that the BBC is the broadcasting equivalent of the NHS or the armed forces, a cog in the state machine, as natural and inevitable to Britain as rain in the autumn…
Reg – my front door opens onto a High Street. If I withdraw the implied right of access are they still allowed to knock on my door?
“These search warrants are rarely granted, but the ones that are have NOTHING to do with detecting equipment, and ALWAYS to do with something the Gestapo SAW or something stupid the customer – sorry, victim – SAID.”
Do you have evidence that this is the case?
gharqad, according to Jonathan Miller’s folk, if you open the door to find the KGBBC facing you, simply say nothing and close the door again. End of problem. If they overstep their powers, i.e. by persisting, call the police.
gharqad:
“Do you have evidence that this is the case?”
As I pointed out in an earlier posting the BBCs alleged detection equipment would not be admissable as evidence due to it’s self-imposed secrecy, therefore no warrant could be obtained on the basis of it.
That goes for every piece of electronic gadgetry the BBC claim to have. It’s all worthless when it comes to warrants and prosecutions. All of it. They know this, which is why their Gestapo agents are briefed to try and see evidence of a TV set or at least trick a confession out of their victims mouths.
The BBCs own “Freedom of Disinformation ” pretty much sums it all up. If you look at the answers they have given to some of the more probing questions concerning TV detection, you’ll see the BBC doing what they do best, obfuscation and avoidance.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/docs/responses_tvlicence.shtml
They cite ‘detection equipment’ and ‘detection technology’ as much as possible because they know it’s a loose term open to interpretation.
Detection equipment = TVL Gestapo Agent’s glasses.
Detection Technology = TVL Gestapo agents clipboard and pen.
BBC’s Freedom of Disinformation are just another minor Department of Lies among the massive hallways of BBC Deception.
What if you open the door to a knock and they hear your TV on in the background?
They have to see your TV. It happened to me. Knock at the door, TV Gestapo there, but he could not see my TV as I lived in a flat at the time. I answered all the questions ‘no-comment’. He then informed me that they would be applying for a warrant if I did not purchase a licence, which of course I did not.
A few weeks later another knock at the door, two TV Gestapo backed up be two very bored looking uniformed police officers and warrant. The entered and saw the TV and I was prosecuted.
So yes, you can refuse entry the first time, but not the second.
I should say that this happened a while ago when I lived on a large and relatively poor estate. That is the area they target door-to-door. They know people are poor and have little spare cash for the TV tax, the people on those estates are living hand to mouth. So they can get through a large number of addresses, and catch a lot of people. In effect they target the poor.
I now live in the country in an affluent area and have never been visited, just the threatening letters that go in the bin.
Stephanie clague | 07.11.07 – 5:51 pm |
Michael Moore, that scion of truth, once did a film about people being locked up for not paying the TV tax. For the BBC I think but I’m not sure about that. He made the same error many people make. Anyone who does not pay their TV Tax and, as a consequence, ends up in gaol has been imprisoned for not paying the fine, not for not paying the tax. No one ever goes to gaol for just avoiding the tax. People who do not pay fines should be imprisoned or otherwise punished as a point of principle. Otherwise the fine is useless.
Andrew | Homepage | 07.11.07 – 6:44 pm |
Calling the cops if the TV Goons overstep the mark may be a good idea if they are breaking the law but otherwise gives the TV Goons the edge. IANAL but IIRC If the coppers think you are breaking the law they can force access. Whether the TV Goons can follow them in is a moot point but a coppers word that the TV is on would be enough for a prosecution, I believe.
In this internet age, and following the lead of various artists for the pleasure of downloading their latest songs, I suggest the BBC should move into the 21st century and ask people to pay whatever they think the product is worth. Having thought about this I would happily pledge 1p a year, if only for the couple of episodes a year when the questions, and quite possibly contestants, on eggheads aren’t rigged.
… and anyway with the polar icecaps melting and the Beeb, and their patron saint siralgore, ramming global warming down our throats what could be worse for the environment than fleets of gas guzzling vans driving round the country?
Richard (4:14 p.m.): How much is the fine for not having a license? Couldn’t find that info on the BBC FOI site.
Shug Niggurath:
“you get a visit from two pushy officious types”
Hardly. When we were students my girlfriend was visited by a big intimidating bloke with tattoos all over his arms.
I bet they employ ex-crims.
A report from the NAO for perdiod 2000-01 about the BBC tax can be found here:
Click to access 0102821.pdf
It’s worth a skim as the report confirms a lot of what has been said here.
3.20 The BBC is working with the TV Licensing agent to improve the identification of evaders, and the numbers that enquiry officers are able to contact during visits, by ensuring that:
enquiry officers focus on potential evaders most likely to respond to this approach, or unlikely to respond to other approaches such as attempted contact by mail or telephone. The BBC continues to carry out research to identify the types of enforcement activity likely to be effective against different categories of evader and has developed a risk scoring model, based on location and other commercially available information, for predicting the likelihood of selling a licence to individual evaders.
Enquiry Officer visits (page 37)
3,200,000 visits
398,000 suspected evaders caught
…
49,000 the householder claimed to have no set, but the enquiry officer was unable to confirm this.
Prosecutions
In 2000-01 366,388 prosecution statements were taken and 151,312 cases were heard.
The 128,894 people convicted in 2000-01 were together fined £12,923,610 (an average of £100.26). In addition, costs were awarded totalling £5,228,791 (an average of £40.57).
I found this part amusing:
3.24 The BBC is concerned that the levels of fines imposed by the courts, over which it has no influence, do not act as a sufficient disincentive to offenders.
Richard:
“I found this part amusing:
3.24 The BBC is concerned that the levels of fines imposed by the courts, over which it has no influence, do not act as a sufficient disincentive to offenders.”
Of course not. The BBC would only be happy if every white member of the non-licence-fee-paying underclass were banged up for it.
JG:
“I now live in the country in an affluent area and have never been visited.”
Ditto.
Also, if you live in Tottenham, Brixton, Hackney or any other ‘multi-cultural’ part of London you are unlikely to get hit either.
However, partly in thanks to the BBCs progressive agenda on multi-cultural propaganda, trying to find an area of London that’s safe for the TV Licensing Gestapo to raid is becoming increasingly more difficult for them.
Reg Hammer: “Also, if you live in Tottenham, Brixton, Hackney or any other ‘multi-cultural’ part of London you are unlikely to get hit either.”
Not true, alas. I live in Hackney, and have received approximately twenty-five letters over the course of the year I have lived here, along with approximately four visits from ‘inspectors’ – none of which I have opened the door to. They simply leave a pre-printed note which unbelievably says on the front “We said we’d call”, and on the inside, “here’s why we’ll call again” – followed by the usual blurb. It’s threatening, precisely the type of language you might expect from an illegal loan shark or an organised crime racket.
In any case, I live in Hackney, and unless the fabled detector equipment can discern that I am white, I have to say it’s unlikely that people around here are being treated softly on account of their colour.
Can anyone confirm for me: I have two televisions, no aerials, all channels detuned, and they are used only for gaming and DVD watching. I do not therefore require a licence, correct? And that being the case, I am completely within my legal rights to ignore them, to shut the door in their face until they come back with a warrant?
I do hope so. If they think will enjoy ANY co-operation after that “We said we’d call” thuggery, they are more stupid than I imagine they are.
Which is impossible…
gharqad: “I am completely within my legal rights to ignore them, to shut the door in their face until they come back with a warrant?”
I believe that is the case, yes. If they ever do turn up with a warrant it will be interesting to know on what grounds they’ve obtained it – I hope you get and keep a copy 🙂
But, first they came for the televisions and I said nothing, then they came for the PCs…
“3,200,000 visits
398,000 suspected evaders caught
…
49,000 the householder claimed to have no set, but the enquiry officer was unable to confirm this.”
You would think that in those 49,000 cases, the Beeb would send round one of their superduper detector vans, so that they would know you were in your front room watching Columbo.
Has anyone ever seen one of these vans?
gharqad:
“I have two televisions, no aerials, all channels detuned, and they are used only for gaming and DVD watching. I do not therefore require a licence, correct?”
Correct. But I can assure you that The TVL Gestapo will try to convince you otherwise. And I’m sure given half the chance to enter your property they would muck about with your TV and try to PROVE you wrong.
But you don’t need to have a licence to own a TV.
The fact that you yourself are unclear on this (as millions are) proves how effective the BBC has been in scamming millions of pounds out of people who would otherwise be exempt from the Telly Tax, but cough up anyway just out of fear.
Reg, thanks for that advice. I actually just spent an hour reassuring myself that, living as I do at the bottom of a hill, without an aerial connection, neither of my televisions are actually CAPABLE of receiving any kind of transmission – not even of the fuzziest kind.
But after reading many of the stories I’ve read, it seems that the best thing is to deny them entry – unles accompanied by a warrant from a magistrate’s court and police officers – the presence of police officers might at least prevent them from trying of their standard BS.
I’ll just tell them next time they come that I do not require a licence, and firmly but gently close the door on them.
My holiday home is in a reasonable area and I get a constant stream of nasty letters even though no detector van has ever detected any TV tuned to Columbo or any other programme at my address.
The BBC apparently prefers to believe that it is more likely that I am a criminal evading payment rather than an innocent person who pays nothing because I don’t need to. What a disgusting and untrusting attitude for the BBC to take, and one that says a lot about those who work for it and their opinion of those they are supposed to serve.
if a police officer knocked at your front door without a warrant wanting to come in and search your property in the offchance you’re committing a criminal offence you can laugh in his face and slam the door shut, so why do ppl let in the telly gestapo in
also your right to privacy in your home and private life is guaranteed by human rights legislation
‘Has anyone ever seen one of these vans?’
Rob | 08.11.07 – 4:51 pm | #
Rob, what you might see are vans marked ‘Detection Unit’ – I clocked one in a supermarket car park one holiday weekend.There were drawn curtains in the rear passenger compartment and the signs on the side appeared to be magnetic stick-ons.
High profile parking at a weekend – all part of the bluff, hence my earlier use of the term ‘Deceptor van’
Another point about the clipboard mafia from TVL (Capita) is that they receive a commission for every licence they ‘sell’ at an unlicensed address,( about 20 quid) which might explain their zeal and frequentl dishonest behaviour. Imagine the outcry if traffic wardens received a commission for every parking ticket they issue.
Anyone noticed the absence of our resident Beeboids on this one?
Hmmmmm…..
The TV License is like charging people a letter-box fee for receiving govt junk mail.
On detection equipment, some interesting stuff here
http://www.tvlicensing.biz/detection/index.htm
Seems to me a visit to Maplins and some tin foil could scupper the whole system
While idly researching TV detection vans I stumbled on this site
http://www.bbctvlicence.com/index.htm
Particularly amusing exchange of correspondence with TVL on why you should not write below the line on their threatening letters