TV Licence

[ralphchadkirk]

But what equipment was ordered to go inside them?

Sorry, I don't seem to have all the BBC's invoices on my desk at the moment.

In other news, I don't have any of Siemen's invoices either, so I don't know what they order so I must come to the conclusion that the Desiro classes don't exist. :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They may well have, but there will be no equipment inside. Its all to keep the urban myth going. :roll: Ralph you seem very pro the BBC do you want to declare any interest now? +

I have no interests to declare apart from the fact I like Top Gear. Do you have any interests to declare?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The key point is that while a public body can ask subcontractors to carry out activities for it, Ralph, that does not in any way absolve the body of any liability. That is one of the risks of subcontracting: retain liability, lose day-to-day control. One cannot simply say 'nothing to do with me, blame my subcontractor'.

It's not that simple. It depends what's in the contractor's contract. In some cases they can simply say "nothing to do with me, blame my contractor".

 

[hantsman1205]

The key point is that while a public body can ask subcontractors to carry out activities for it, Ralph, that does not in any way absolve the body of any liability. That is one of the risks of subcontracting: retain liability, lose day-to-day control. One cannot simply say 'nothing to do with me, blame my subcontractor'.

All correct above

And if you want any facts about this have a look at private car parking charges when a landowner hires wheel clampers then finds itself in a county court being sued by the car owner.

 

[Barn]

It's not that simple. It depends what's in the contractor's contract. In some cases they can simply say "nothing to do with me, blame my contractor".

No.

Say person B owes person A duties (whether under a contractual agreement or public duties owed to the public at large).

Nothing that person B puts in a contract with its subcontractor C can ever affect the duties B owes to A. That's a fundamental principle of contract and administrative law.

Obviously B may require C to behave in a certain way, and indemnify B if it causes harm by its actions.

But unless A has specifically agreed otherwise, its relationship is with B and it does not need to trouble itself about B's relationship with C.

 

[Lampshade]

I received a letter from TVL in my second year of university, one of which went like this:

Quote:

Please read the following legal advice carefully:

We have written to you several times between September 2009 and February 2010 about buying a TV Licence, and haven't received your respnse. If you're watching... blah blah blah

1. You will be notified in advance of the date and location of your court hearing etc etc etc

And various other attempts at being intimidating.

All this addressed to The Present Occupier.

TV Licensing, a job for people who just aren't popular enough to be traffic wardens.

There was no way in hell the security wardens were going to let the TVL inspectors in so no one bought a licence, nor notified TVL that we didn't need one as we're under no obligation to notify them - it's up to them to prove we need one, not up to us to prove we don't. The stupid thing about this is that the rooms in the halls I was living in didn't even have aerial sockets.

 

[NSEFAN]

They recently revealed that they had placed an order for 5 vans.

That doesn't mean the vans do anything though.

Some explanations for how detection works talk about the frequencies for demodulating the TV signals, and how only TVs produce this. It is therefore possible to listen in on the frequency to see if you're near a TV.

This might well be true, but if so then all TVs will be doing this on roughly the same frequencies, so unless you're in a hamlet, you're going to be surrounded by noise on this frequency. That also assumes that you can actually detect the noise several hundred yards away from the offending TV, but if that's true you're still going to be lost because noise will be screaming at you from all directions.

Good luck in finding an unlicenced TV in that electomagnetic haystack. I'm still convinced that the whole thing is a con to try and fool the ignorant.

 

[Kier]

The BBC have just renewed their contract with Capita so they must be happy at how they conduct enforcement on their behalf.

About detector vans, maybe I was wrong to say they do not exist. Maybe they do but the fact is that they have never been used to secure a conviction renders them worthless so it doesn't really matter either way. I'm pretty sure they would need a warrant anyway to use them (effectively it is eavesdropping on a property).

 

[hantsman1205]

That doesn't mean the vans do anything though.

Some explanations for how detection works talk about the frequencies for demodulating the TV signals, and how only TVs produce this. It is therefore possible to listen in on the frequency to see if you're near a TV.

This might well be true, but if so then all TVs will be doing this on roughly the same frequencies, so unless you're in a hamlet, you're going to be surrounded by noise on this frequency. That also assumes that you can actually detect the noise several hundred yards away from the offending TV, but if that's true you're still going to be lost because noise will be screaming at you from all directions.

Good luck in finding an unlicenced TV in that electomagnetic haystack. I'm still convinced that the whole thing is a con to try and fool the ignorant.

No need to be convinced, It is indeed a complete con.

 

[Lampshade]

Detector vans are a myth, they provided a good deterrent when TV was in its infancy and most viewers had no idea how they worked. Plus older TVs probably gave off enough 'detectable' radiation, but modern TVs give off so little radiation that the inspecting equipment would literally need to be 2/3ft away from the TV, and even that doesn't account for laptops, portable devices and monitors.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Obviously B may require C to behave in a certain way, and indemnify B if it causes harm by its actions.

We're not talking about subcontractors, we're talking about contractors. The BBC contract Capita to run the TV License stuff. If they then contracted it on, there would be a sub-contractor but they don't.

My point is that it depends how the contract is worded. It is possible for the BBC to indemnify themselves of the contractors actions as long as the contract makes it clear that they have acted outside of it.

 

[LLF]

I received a letter from TVL in my second year of university, one of which went like this:

Was it THIS ONE?

 

[hantsman1205]

Sorry, I don't seem to have all the BBC's invoices on my desk at the moment.

In other news, I don't have any of Siemen's invoices either, so I don't know what they order so I must come to the conclusion that the Desiro classes don't exist. :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I have no interests to declare apart from the fact I like Top Gear. Do you have any interests to declare?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


It's not that simple. It depends what's in the contractor's contract. In some cases they can simply say "nothing to do with me, blame my contractor".

The only interest I have is in the truth and not false information and spin. So how long have you worked for the BBC or its agents? :roll: So come on fess up.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

We're not talking about subcontractors, we're talking about contractors. The BBC contract Capita to run the TV License stuff. If they then contracted it on, there would be a sub-contractor but they don't.

My point is that it depends how the contract is worded. It is possible for the BBC to indemnify themselves of the contractors actions as long as the contract makes it clear that they have acted outside of it.

Shovel hole, comes to mind.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

That doesn't mean the vans do anything though.

It doesn't mean they don't either.

There are many experiments that you can do at home to detect your TV. None of them suffer from an 'electromagnetic haystack'. With simple geometry it is possible to work out where the signal is coming from. If that can be done at home, I dread to think what the R&D engineers can come up with!

 

[Barn]

We're not talking about subcontractors, we're talking about contractors. The BBC contract Capita to run the TV License stuff. If they then contracted it on, there would be a sub-contractor but they don't.

My point is that it depends how the contract is worded. It is possible for the BBC to indemnify themselves of the contractors actions as long as the contract makes it clear that they have acted outside of it.

My point is that it definitely does not depend how the contract is worded. That is entirely the BBC's business, and it will try to build as many protections for itself as it can within that contract.

But it DOES NOT affect the BBC's relationship with, or duties to, the public. The administration of the TV Licensing scheme is the BBC's responsibility and always will be, whether they do it themselves or contract it out. Delegata potestas non potest delegari.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

The only interest I have is in the truth and not false information and spin. So how long have you worked for the BBC or its agents? :roll: So come on fess up.

I forgot, I do have another interest to declare. I read a BBC news article before. (And actually, as longer serving posters would know, you're making yourself look silly believing that I work for the BBC or Capita!).

Shovel hole, comes to mind.

Not in the slightest. If you actually read my post you'll see that the two points I made are the same - just with different language :roll:

 

[LLF]

With simple geometry it is possible to work out where the signal is coming from.

To within 12"?

If, like many people, you live in a semi-detached or terrace property, your neighbour's wall mounted TV may well be within 12 inches of being in your home.

 

[Lampshade]

Was it THIS ONE?

Not quite the same but along the same lines, I've probably still got it somewhere.

 

[Tomonthetrain]

TV Licensing, a job for people who just aren't popular enough to be traffic wardens.

It's a Civil Enforcement Officer now! There is no such thing as a Traffic Wardern!

 

[Sao Paulo]

you're making yourself look silly believing that I work for the BBC or Capita!).

I have to agree, I've heard these pitches you give a thousand times before and I have still to meet a member of the British public who is so brainwashed by the BBC, unless connected.


Would this happen to be you, same name and location anyway

http://www.bbc.co.uk/filmnetwork//users/42085118

 

[swj99]

Just to clarify the legal position, I researched this a couple of years ago for a friend of mine who was getting hassle from the TV licensing people. To cut a boring story short, it basically boils down to this.

You only need a license if you are watching live tv transmissions. You do not need one just becuase you have equipment capable of receiving tv transmissions (in the same way that every male is not a rapist despite theoretically being equipped to be one). From a procedural point of view, most prosecutions which result in a conviction are a result of a guilty plea on the part of the defendant. For a defended case, the licensing authority would have to actually catch a person watching a live tv transmission. The presence of an aerial is not enough on its own, nor is electronic evidence that a tv in the vicinity is receiving a live tv transmission. I sat in the back of a magistrates court and watched a tv license prosecution case literally fall apart. The defendant contradicted himself several times, and under cross examination, the witness from the tv licensing people could not confirm that he had ever actually met the defendant before. The magistrates were so fed up by this point that they dismissed the case due to lack of evidence.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

To within 12"?

If, like many people, you live in a semi-detached or terrace property, your neighbour's wall mounted TV may well be within 12 inches of being in your home.

"If" "may". If that situation arises then it I'm sure they would take appropriate action.

 

[Sao Paulo]

We're not talking about subcontractors, we're talking about contractors. The BBC contract Capita to run the TV License stuff. If they then contracted it on, there would be a sub-contractor but they don't.

They do this because they don't want gullible members of the public to get the wrong idea. The BBC would rather people believe the whiter than white image, Aunty!

The fact is the BBC do run it but via a third party company that can get the blame passed too. Everything they do though is passed through the BBC first.

They also pay third parties like Capita to try and put any disconnect down they find on the internet (PR Firms)

http://fishburn-hedges.co.uk/work/case-studies/tv-licensing-online-community-manager?area=43

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I have to agree, I've heard these pitches you give a thousand times before and I have still to meet a member of the British public who is so brainwashed by the BBC, unless connected.


Would this happen to be you, same name and location anyway

http://www.bbc.co.uk/filmnetwork//users/42085118

Yes, that would be me. In 2008 I was involved in the production of an independent short film that we were going to submit to a BBC competition. Unfortunately the film fell into what's called "post-production hell". We found that one of our creative decisions to user Super-8 film with some HD digital simply didn't work, and we binned it. I'd registered that account for that reason. I didn't even know it still existed until you posted it - although I very occasionally still get emails from the BBC Film Network.

The film already out had nothing to do with the BBC and was made for a pitch to Dacorum Borough Council's environment committee for funding in ~2006.

I'm not quite sure what that's got to do with TV licences though?

 

[Sao Paulo]

Yes, that would be me. In 2008 I was involved in the production of an independent short film that we were going to submit to a BBC competition. Unfortunately the film fell into what's called "post-production hell". We found that one of our creative decisions to user Super-8 film with some HD digital simply didn't work, and we binned it. I'd registered that account for that reason. I didn't even know it still existed until you posted it - although I very occasionally still get emails from the BBC Film Network.

I'm not quite sure what that's got to do with TV licences though?

So you have had (I believe still does) connections with the BBC which would explain where you get all this information which you insist is genuine.

I am a democratic person and would like to have access to watch the news etc but do not wish to fund Eastenders for you, would that be ok ?

The so called "live feeds" come from transmitters that are privatily owned by the likes of ITV etc (not the BBC)

 

[Barn]

So you have had (I believe still does) connections with the BBC which would explain where you get all this information which you insist is genuine.

In Ralph's defence, that's a bit tenuous!

 

[Sao Paulo]

Did you actually read my post? I said that people wouldn't be convicted on the basis of detector van evidence because AFAIK it's inadmissible in court!

Agreed I know this due to Crown Court and so it makes the whole case for the so called detector vans redundant because its admissible end off. Even a search warrant shouldn't be given out on this kind of rubbish because it's not been proven.

If D/vans did work they wouldn't want to hide the fact yet they do
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In Ralph's defence, that's a bit tenuous!

Read his other posts on the subject and then google, you will see the same pitches

 

[Lampshade]

The so called "live feeds" come from transmitters that are privatily owned by the likes of ITV etc (not the BBC)

The transmitters are owned by Arqiva/National Grid Wireless, formerly owned by the Independent Broadcasting Authority pre-Broadcasting Act 1990. Capacity is given to BBC/ITV/C4/C5 as part of their public service broadcasting obligations.

If D/vans did work they wouldn't want to hide the fact yet they do

Very true.

 

[Sao Paulo]

The licence fee is excellent value.

It's excellent value if you happen to like left wing bias and the BBC. Those that don't see any bias tend to be of the same political persuasion so blind to it.


What about those who want a choice, you know those who would rather do without the BBC. Do you not think they should encrypt it so those who want it like you fund it and can live happily ever after, you'd also know everyone else is happen, being set free from it

 

[yorksrob]

I've not been against the license in the past, but looking at the unadulterated drivel on at the moment I'm beginning to go off the idea.

 

[Sao Paulo]

The transmitters are owned by Arqiva/National Grid Wireless, formerly owned by the Independent Broadcasting Authority pre-Broadcasting Act 1990. Capacity is given to BBC/ITV/C4/C5 as part of their public service broadcasting obligations.



Very true.

There are a few transmitters and ITV own SDN, Crown Castle another and so on
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I've not been against the license in the past, but looking at the unadulterated drivel on at the moment I'm beginning to go off the idea.

You are looking at it the wrong way. Yes there are loads of channels now but you can always find something on, if you miss something you could always get it on plus 1.

Anyway the BBC is the worst for repeats on terrestrial television

 

[Mojo]

It's a Civil Enforcement Officer now! There is no such thing as a Traffic Wardern!

Civil Enforcement Officers and Traffic Wardens are different things. Plenty of police forces still employ Traffic Wardens - for example the Met. Police who use them to patrol red routes in London.

But, as a postscript, sticking up for you I do get annoyed at people who confuse CEOs and Traffic Wardens and do not recognise they are two distinct roles.