TV detector vans exist, but they do not detect anything. They are just for show. TVL have a database of addresses in the UK with or without a licence. It is just assumed that anyone without a TV licence is guilty, and so a campaign of harrassment begins by letters and visits to intimidate people into buying a licence.
Fact 1: Never in court has evidence been used to prosecute people (mainly single mothers) based on 'detector' van evidence.
Fact 2: Although TVL threaten that they might apply for a search warrant if you do not let them in to inspect your house, it is very difficult indeed for them to apply for a warrant. They first need proof that you are receiving live broadcast. Never has 'dectector van' evidence been used to apply for a warrant. Search warrants are very rarely applied for today.
The reason people get prosecuted is that they admit to having a TV and then sign a 'confession' form. They assume a visiting TVL 'officer' has some sort of legal power when they visit. They have no more legal power than if any member of the public came round. Tell them to leave and they must immediately comply else be in breach of law.
Philip Dean, Newport, Wales
Source: My mother was convicted many years ago, I was there and witnessed the entire confession-based playbook.
I ignore their letters, because they're rude. I was looking forward to denying them entry, but the last time one of their goons came around, they said they didn't want to come in because of COVID.
For anyone outside the UK, this is designed to be confusing. Many people unnecessarily pay for the TV License just to stop the harassment campaign by TV Licensing. This entire system is akin to a protection racket.
In the old days it was probably possible to actually detect a TV based on the intermediate frequency. There's no transmitter but neither are they TEMPEST-rated equipment, there would be leaks. But that only detects that there's an operating receiver, not what it is receiving. Originally, live was the only option--but not any more.
One of them actually said to me: "Are you refusing my right to inspect your home for a T.V.?" — notice the wording. I slammed the door in his face as he was saying "You'll be prosecuted!".
Remember, if someone like that is _asking_ for something, it means they have no right to it.
You had to provide your legal name and address to the shop when buying a video recorder, hifi system, or any type of television (including B&W). Basically, it was illegal to buy such devices without providing your name and place of residence.
"I cancelled my TV licence 2 years ago after checking with them that I did not need a TV licence to watch such as Iplayer etc, as I found I was watching very little TV due to work and then when I did nothing I watched was live - or at the broadcast time."
Sharon, barnsley UK
Sharon was mistaken. You do need a licence to watch iPlayer. You need a licence to watch satellite and cable. You need a licence to watch streaming services like Netflix or Prime. You don't have to be watching it live, you need a licence to record or timeshift. I think you don't need a licence to watch pre-recorded material on VHS/DVD/Blueray.
The vans do exist (or at least they did - I haven't seen one since the 70s). I'm pretty certain they were bogus. There's a lot of bullshit in those comments; I assume some of it is from the TV Licensing Authority.
There's a comment there saying that the TVLA doesn't have the power to investigate and prosecute under the Police And Criminal Evidence Act; that is false. The TVLA has the same prosecuting powers as the Post Office, currently notorious for the Horizon Scandal.
At the very bottom of TFA, there's a date: the article is from 2011. Maybe that should be appended to the HN title.
TV licensing is absurd. You're expected to fund the BBC via the licence, even if you don't watch BBC. And in funding the BBC, you are funding the World Service, a government propaganda operation controlled by the Foreign Office. The Director General of the BBC is appointed directly by the government, so arguably the BBC is a government operation, and should be funded from taxes. If it were funded from taxes, we might not have 4 (four!) BBC TV channels, in addition to the panoply of TV channels broadcast by companies that are not the BBC, but in which the BBC is a majority shareholder and provides much of the content (e.g. Dave).
> You need a licence to watch streaming services like Netflix or Prime.
Please don't listen to this person, you do not need a T.V. license if you don't have a T.V. and don't use iPlayer.
Don't let them scare you with their idiot door-to-door license salesmen either. These people have absolutely zero special powers. The correct answer to "are you refusing my right to inspect your home for a T.V." is "fuck off".
> You need a licence to watch streaming services like Netflix or Prime. You don't have to be watching it live, you need a licence to record or timeshift.
This is wrong.
Do I need a TV Licence to watch Youtube?
If you are watching a TV programme live on YouTube, you need to be covered by a TV Licence.
A licence is not required to view user generated content, clips and videos on YouTube. This includes live streamed content that is not part of a television broadcast. Or being broadcast at the same time by other means.
---
Do I need a TV Licence to watch Netflix?
You don’t need a TV Licence to watch on demand programmes on Netflix.
---
Do you need a TV Licence to watch Amazon Prime?
If you’re watching TV showing live on Amazon Prime, you need to be covered by a TV Licence. You don’t need a TV Licence if you’re only watching on demand programmes on Amazon Prime.
---
Do you need a TV Licence to watch Disney Plus?
You don’t need a TV Licence to watch on demand programmes on Disney Plus.
Is the type of problem encountered in a country a sign of the type of civilization you have in that country? In a way, I would expect this article to be applicable also in North Korea, just with different outcome ("42 were shot today due to missing TV license").
Also, given the US gained independence from UK and wanted to go a very different path (ex: 1st A, 2nd A don't exist in UK, but the opposite), why is the same legal system used in USA?
Note that the BBC won't switch to a subscriber model and now needs to include other providers' channels in the tax classification, which should be evidence enough that its content can't compete with modern competition.
As an institution I feel the BBC is no longer needed to educate the UK's citizens as we have other high quality providers for that, and obviously the internet.
The publicly funded channel acts as a quality baseline below which commercial providers won't usually go (since they would lose viewers). It can also be unbiased, where commercial channels are almost always biased in some way, usually towards whichever billionaire runs them. How far the BBC fulfils these needs can definitely be argued (especially on bias), but you should worry about not having the BBC around.
True in some contexts but right now the BBC CEO is concerned that they can't afford expensive dramas like Netflix or Prime can.
Regarding bias, commentators on both left and right claim bias in the other direction. This does not imply the BBC is neutral - to (dis)prove that would require study.
Well you're right about quality baseline, low quality. The likes of Dr Who funded by Disney, and as another commenter mentioned it's unequivocally biased in its news.
On the other hand you have Discovery and History channels, which caters for the education-entertainment niche.
Why should I worry about not having the BBC around? If I'm not watching it already I'm not losing anything (my wife might lose her EastEnders though).
It's not "publicly funded". It's funded by licence-payers. And it's hardly one channel.
> It can also be unbiased
Nonsense. E.g. Any mention of "HAMAS" on the BBC is routinely accompanied by the reminder that HAMAS is a proscribed organisation in the UK and many other places. I used to rely on BBC news, not because it was unbiased, but because their reporting was better (they used to have a large network of international correspondents). But their news staff has been cut to the bone, and job-title inflation means that all their correspondents are now referred to as "editor".
I now get my TV news from ITV/CH4. The notion that the BBC forces up standards for the "independent" channels is manifestly untrue.
