A Biased BBC reader writes to advise that despite suggestions to the contrary, BBC Detector Van’s evidence has NEVER been used in Court! Here are details
“Despite being very reluctant the BBC has finally confirmed what we all knew anyway – detector van/portable detector evidence has neverbeen presented in court. The revealing Freedom of Information Act response came after the BBC u-turned on their earlier decision to withhold the information under the law enforcement exemptions of the 2000 Act. In their revised response, issued after an internal review found in our favour, Beeb Kiwi lawyer Dan McGregor says the following: “I can confirm that TVL has not, to date, used detection evidence in Court.
I find the whole “detector vans” aspect of the BBC operations positively menacing and evidence of a mindset that is both arrogant and bullying.
I actually find it incredibly humorous David
anyone who could possibly be taken in by bbc flim flam like this deserves to pay the licence
The notion of clapped out vehicles designed mainly to run around in circles designed to threaten and misinform, and whose use and value being denied to the hilt using further public funds to defend the indefensible, being a powerful image.
There is also the issue of the vans the BBC uses. Hope they were carbon offset
I guess they might be keen to distance themselves from the notion, at the moment especially, of an all-powerful state machine sitting outside your home reading every electronic signal.
That would be… what a again, Nick, Robert, Paul, Kirsty, Evan, James, Jeremy, Kevin, John , Alastair, Helen…?
‘just another unacceptable abuse of monopoly’ you all cry?
Well, I never. And, so far, haven’t.
I dunno. You might think so but Beeboids probably like that sort of notion and see no wrong in their own dear selves. We’ll see if the sinister ads on Beeboid TV, intoning It’s all in the database, will be withdrawn.
You will obey!
I gather that most of these vehicles are being adapted to trace AGW dissent from within households behind closed doors. Contravention of the coming “Sceptics Act” will result in a visit from a member of the BlackHarrabin Squad who will be travelling in these vehicles – they will possess powers to summarily sever your electricity and gas supplies, and detain those who do not wear the necessary badge issued by the Khmer Vert, and also anyone not bearing (and rendering readily visible) their prescribed “Denier” tattoo.
We must form resistance groups, and identify “safe” houses quickly…
I posted that here some time ago with a link to the thread on Digital Spy’s Broadcasting forum where it was posted and discussed.
I thought I’d heard that story before. I’m sure DV will send you your fee, at full Huffington rates. 🙂
I’m afraid I cannot find the date of posting to assist the accounts department of B-BBC in settling my account, but for anyone who is interested, here is a link to the thread on DS where I first heard about it: http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1480075&highlight=evidence+from+tv+detector+vans
It has about 2000 posts to date. I read only the first few pages when it started but I would bet my house that it has become one of those interminable threads of pointless argy bargy between the usual suspects: the relentless iain, mikw and co.
TVL will never use “detector vans” as evidence on court. The first thing that a decent defence counsel will ask for is proof of how they detece TV signals.
TVL and the BBC know full well that the TVL vans are empty with a bloke in the back randomly twisting a roof mounted antenna.
They don’t anyone to know in court that the vans are a fraud. They’ll never cite detection vans as evidence.
The vans are scaremongering tactics, no more, no less.
Ignore the knock at the door of TVL / Capita come around. If you are unfortunate enough to get doorstepped, give them no information about yourself, your household or whether you watch TV. Tell them nothing, keep quiet, and close the door in their face.
You virtually have to volunteer to go to court to answer charges of the heinous crime of using your own TV in your own home without paying the BBC for trash like Eastenders.
Let’s face it, even the government is very half-hearted about the collection of the TV tax. The BBC’s minimum wage snoopers are hardly the grim, relentless and efficient Inland Revenue are they?
Has anyone tried invoicing the bbc for administrative costs in returning unsolicited junk mail ( Licence demands) ?
I have half a dozen sitting here, if I send them back individually , with a bill for 25 quid attached to each , I could then file a ccj for non-payment. Any legal eagles here got a view on this ?
Of course SKY don’t need Nazi tricks like detector vans ( I often wonder how long it will be before the BBC send Crapita thugs into schools to tell kids to snitch on their parents for not having a TV licence?) because if you don’t pay for Sky you don’t get to watch.
Why the BBC doesn’t simply say OK let’s kill off the TV tax dodgers by going subscription is beyond me, after all their Guardian reading friends (there’s one who floats around with the name Zedsdeadbed or something he’s aways posting on sites attacking anyone who opposes the state TV tax) keep saying that the BBC is great value for money, so what is to fear about subscription? We will all happily sign up to buy BBC services and the tax dogers will be no more……. won’t we?
I never hear too much about how regressive, anti-democratic and 19th Century the whole notion of a TV Licence is.
Wonder why the obvious parallel of the dog licence is never cited by them-sorry by the “collecting agency” which of course are not the BBC-perish the very thought of the lofty idealists at the Beeb having to get their mitts grubby in strongarming money off pensionners!
Reckon the energy hike coming up will be assuaged by my offering the licence fee to those nice people at Centrica. The Beeb can burn their own money and not mine!
Some of you may have seen these on Youtube, the Crapita scum, effing funny, note how the plod one is about all the dozy bitch is good for these days, collecting the leftists drug money.
I’m sure a lot of people are aware of that thread on DigitalSpy, which now runs to some 80 odd pages.
It was me who originally obtained that FOIA response, so I thought I’d redress the balance by publicising my original efforts to chase the answer to this question – something the people on DigitalSpy haven’t had the courtesy to acknowledge, despite using my material.
It was my donkey work, not that of DigitalSpy, that uncovered this admission from the BBC:
http://tv-licensing.blogspot.com
Yes, I knew that and I believe I commented here at the time on what you had to go through and how persistent you had to be to wring that admission from the Beeboid Corporation. On the other issue, I would say that they are just individuals posting on Digital Spy so it would have been posted by an individual poster who got wind of it and your material recounting what you did to get the info. It isn’t a case of an entity called Digital Spy doing the work or using your material.