TV Licence Super Thread

Tuppy_Glossop · 27 Feb 2017 at 07:25

I'd also like to say that even if it is possible I think it is too expensive and complicated to be used in anger by Capita/TVL enforcement goons and *shouldn't* (although probably would be, in England at least) sufficient evidence to convince a magistrate to produce a search warrant. Furthermore it can be countered by simply cabling a viewing PC rather than wirelessing. So it's pretty much a moot point anyway...

Edit: plus they have to prove who accessed the content, whether they were plugged into the power, and whether they have a license at another address.

jimjamuk · 27 Feb 2017 at 07:47

Tuppy_Glossop said:
Jim, I'm not trying to prove anything to anybody. Earlier in this thread I didn't think it was possible for TVL/BBC/whoever to see if a wifi user is using BBC iPlayer content without illegally entering the network and/or breaking the WPA2 encryption. I went away and researched it and now believe it is possible through steganography. That paper was one of a few that convinced me to change my position. As far as I can tell you don't believe it is possible, even after reading that paper. We disagree; we have different opinions. It is allowed, in fact I would say it is healthy. I respect your opinion (after all you have a wealth of experience in this field) and, contrary to normal GD behaviour, I do not seek to defend my position or ridicule yours... it's science. Plus it's an interesting discussion.

I die a little in the GD threads where people adopt a position and refuse to shift (or in fact entertain other positions at all) while simultaneously trying to discredit and/or convert the (non-)believers.

Agree with you on how some of these threads go and respect your view on what you have read. If anything I do agree with at lads paper that he could probably achieve what he set out but the scope was fairly limited. Anyway this isn't very GD so I'll be promptly pooing in your virtual letterbox.......

Pottsey · 27 Feb 2017 at 07:54

mrbell1984 said:
If it's possible then why isn't it done?

Surely if it's possible more people would be took to court and fined.

The only thing I can think of is that they still can't 100% prove that someone's watching content.

TVL take so many people to court they have to deal with the cases in batch's as there are just to many to do 1 at a time.

Pottsey · 27 Feb 2017 at 08:13

Fishbait said:
He said that those without a tv, get a gentler visit. Mkay, all those dozens of letters threatening me (& others) of court action, harassing for money for something I don't (& have already proven) need. I guess I'm just imagining all of that.

I was thinking the same so the constant threats and up to weekly visits is the gentler visits!

Brenn47 · 27 Feb 2017 at 12:41

*catching* 28 evaders a week, explains why Capitas favourite hunting ground is council estates where they can catch single mums with hardly enough money to put food on the table.

Jez · 27 Feb 2017 at 13:02

Catching 28/week per investigator seems amazingly high :eek:

Nasher · 27 Feb 2017 at 14:37

Seems like an unrealistic target, keeping the "bonus" nicely out of reach. Companies which offer high bonuses like that often use that con.

Also...3 million visits and 300k (rounded up) convictions a year. So less than 10% result in anything. I wonder how many are old/vulnerable people?

TBH if you genuinely don't have a TV. Let them in to "inspect" it, but have a printout of the law in your hands and leave a camera filming what's going on.

Jez · 27 Feb 2017 at 15:15

The "Conviction" isnt even one which will appear on any form of Background check, i cant remember the correct term for the type you get for TV license evasion.

Fishbait · 27 Feb 2017 at 16:04

Jez said:
The "Conviction" isnt even one which will appear on any form of Background check, i cant remember the correct term for the type you get for TV license evasion.

Unless they're going into security/military or something that requires a full in-depth back ground check. Then it'll show up, but probably irrelevant.

Fishbait · 27 Feb 2017 at 16:05

Nasher said:
Seems like an unrealistic target, keeping the "bonus" nicely out of reach. Companies which offer high bonuses like that often use that con.

Also...3 million visits and 300k (rounded up) convictions a year. So less than 10% result in anything. I wonder how many are old/vulnerable people?

TBH if you genuinely don't have a TV. Let them in to "inspect" it, but have a printout of the law in your hands and leave a camera filming what's going on.

Doesn't change anything though. Plenty of us have done this, only to start getting letters/threats all over again some weeks/months later.

CosmicClown · 27 Feb 2017 at 17:01

Fishbait said:
Doesn't change anything though. Plenty of us have done this, only to start getting letters/threats all over again some weeks/months later.

Doesn't matter mate, the pro TV license people always brush this fact under the carpet.

They be like

'HERP DERP JUST LET THEM KNOW IF YOU DONT USE ONE AND DEY LEAVE YOU ALONE PROMISE'

They don't understand the word principle.

Nasher · 27 Feb 2017 at 17:27

Fishbait said:
Unless they're going into security/military or something that requires a full in-depth back ground check. Then it'll show up, but probably irrelevant.

They wouldn't even care as long as you told them during the vetting. They are only looking for people who might be bribe/blackmailable or may sell them out. Being broke or in bad debt is much worse than having a conviction (which your upfront about) if your going in to anything where you handle classified data etc.

Jez · 27 Feb 2017 at 18:02

Fishbait said:
Unless they're going into security/military or something that requires a full in-depth back ground check. Then it'll show up, but probably irrelevant.

Pretty sure the conviction type doesn't even show on an enhanced dbs check?

Nasher · 27 Feb 2017 at 18:12

If it's a DV they will likely see everything.

Jez · 27 Feb 2017 at 18:36

Nasher said:
If it's a DV they will likely see everything.

No this is my point, as far as I understand it is a non recordable offence akin to driving without insurance, or offences of that ilk.

Fishbait · 27 Feb 2017 at 19:05

Seeing several versions of what happens online, so no idea tbh.

Guardian posted "If convicted, you will get a criminal record, but it isn’t one that you have to disclose for most purposes, and it will not show up on basic criminal record checks, the court’s legal adviser explains. It’s only if you go for an advanced criminal record check (when applying for work as a lawyer, for example) that it shows up."

Looks like todays "Approved Visit" was just yet another needless threat, as no bugger turned up.

killsta · 1 Mar 2017 at 15:54

This should please everyone in this thread.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-39130964

Brenn47 · 1 Mar 2017 at 17:11

This caught me attention, as if the BBC didn't know what Capita were doing, its been well known for years.

"The announcement comes two days after BBC director general Tony Hall ordered an investigation into reports TV licence fee collectors targeted vulnerable people, spurred on by an aggressive incentive scheme"

thewanted · 1 Mar 2017 at 17:20

For the first time in 10 years I've just had a TV license inspector knock on my door. I didn't feel like arguing so I showed him our TV, turned it on and changed the source to Freeview. No picture was displayed so he was happy and left.

Not really sure of my rights in this situation, but I had nothing to hide.

Fishbait · 1 Mar 2017 at 17:33

killsta said:
This should please everyone in this thread.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-39130964

Must be to cover the cost of all those pointless letters