Pesky Government Announcement!

[Mike JosephParticipant @mikejoseph75242]

Maybe I have missed something, but am I the only one that uses a wind up gramophone and sometimes headphones and a cat's whisker?

I really enjoy winding up the whirly thing and doing a smidget of engineering whilst it runs down.

[Peter G. ShawParticipant @peterg-shaw75338]

Nigel B.,

In a way you are right in that without questioning my brother & sister I can't remember which of the Rastrick schools she attended although "Common" seems to ring a bell. Given the importance she placed on me passing the scholarship exam, as it was then, together with certain other facts we've found out since her death about our mother's early life, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that was where she went, but carefully omitting to say that it was a Secondary Modern. Unless it changed it's name at some point. Also, given that mother, despite the much vaunted Matriculation, was a shorthand/typist doing office work, that also perhaps points possibly to a Sec.Mod. education. And yet, I know she studied mathematics, French & possibly German and as far as I know Shakespeare which suggests English Literature. Maybe it was Brighouse Girls grammar. Right, you've done it now, an email to my sister who is most likely to know.

You are right about not knowing the new industrial estate: I haven't been up Burrwood Hill since 2005 when my parents died, and before that probably 1997 or 98 which was when I went looking for my deceased brother's grave. And before that? Let's just say that my parents moved to Elland in 1966; I left Elland to live at Bradford in 1971, and left Bradford for West Cumbria in 1995. Which makes for a lot of old, but not necessarily accurate, memories.

Peter g. Shaw

[MeunierParticipant @meunier]

Although I am not familiar with the area, mention of Brighouse and Rastrick brings us neatly back to the topic of music in the workshop !
DaveD

[PlasmaParticipant @plasma]

Can I ask a related question? Re the removal of broadcast hardware and software to nullify paying the licence fee.

Long ago we used to have adverts about the TV detector van coming round and catching out unwary women who had not bought a licence (I never dealt with a summons s for a man, always the poor woman of the house).

I also never saw any evidence adduced that they had been caught by said TV detector van.

So was it, as I suspect, an enormous state generated lie?

I can understand radio transmissions being detectable as the opposing sides did in WW2 to locate spies using triangulation.

But I could never see how anyone could use technology to discover I was watching Poldark, in the back room on BBC 2.

Is it just me or were we subject to a fake news campaign to ensure we coughed up every year. Maybe a freedom of information request would work.

Please settle this mystery for my non radio based brain.

Mick

[Frances IoMParticipant @francesiom58905]

in the old 405 line sets it was theoretically possible to detect the local oscillator frequency in the tv receiver that leaked back to the antenna (these sets were superhets that had a fixed frequency IF strip – the LO was hetrodyned with the input channel to match the IF.

Whether this was actually used rather than the simple approach of looking thro the window was debatable.

[Anthony KnightsParticipant @anthonyknights16741]

I have heard (although it could be a load of BS) that advanced technology means that hand held detectors have replaced the detector van. Don't know how they would check stuff coming via the internet.

[PlasmaParticipant @plasma]

Thanks Frances, looking thru the window was my theory coupled with the presence of an aerial on the chimney pot.

I never did see a TV detector van despite being told they were in my area NOW!

But I never saw an elephant fly either.

Mick

[Frances IoMParticipant @francesiom58905]

I have seen many a horse fly however – I did see once a PO van with the impressive rotating ‘antenna’ (think of two large ice cream cones joined at the wide end) on the roof – whether it was a sham I don’t know

Edited By Frances IoM on 20/06/2020 09:43:16

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Plasma on 20/06/2020 08:52:31:

…

Long ago we used to have adverts about the TV detector van coming round and catching out unwary women who had not bought a licence (I never dealt with a summons s for a man, always the poor woman of the house).

I also never saw any evidence adduced that they had been caught by said TV detector van.

So was it, as I suspect, an enormous state generated lie?

…

Mick

It's both! I've been a radio amateur since my schooldays and knew several like minded hams working for the GPO, later BT. In the early 1970s I spent a day cruising the streets in a detector van with it's distinctive cone antenna. At that time it was a fake; the van was stripped of equipment and drove round empty to create the impression unlicensed TVs were being detected. In that role, quite effective apparently – more TV licences were bought whenever the van was in town.

Originally the vans actually did detect television sets. Most radio receivers, including TVs, work on the superhet principle, in which a local oscillator is used to convert the incoming high frequency signal into something more manageable. As the local oscillator is a small radio transmitter, it can be detected some distance away from the receiver, and it reveals what channel the set is tuned to. Detector vans worked well with 405 line VHF TV because the old sets used valves (more power) and long internal wiring that helped radiate the signal. The vans were much less effective detecting transistorised UHF TVs because the local oscillator was less powerful and on a printed circuit board with short tracks. The give-away signal was much weaker. Another downside was the cost. Fully working vans contained expensive calibrated equipment and a three-man crew. It was realised fairly quickly that the psychological effect of detector vans achieved far more than nailing a few naughty individuals.

Policing was tackled in other ways later. For about 40 years when a new TV was bought the purchase was reported and a computer used to confirm the address owned a TV licence. If not, a reminder would be sent and – if ignored – a team would call, who would prosecute if an unlicensed TV was found. Today, the assumption is that all households must have a TV and any residential address without a licence is liable to visited. It's a simple job for a computer. It can be very unfair – I know at least two people who who are persistently pestered by the authorities because they deliberately don't own a TV. On the other hand I've no sympathy for licence dodgers. Student Accommodation is a hot-bed of crime!

Dave

[John BaguleyParticipant @johnbaguley78655]

I haven't had a TV for about 25 years now and used to get a constant stream of letters from the TV Licensing 'thugs'. I did get a note shoved through the letterbox one night saying that the TV detector vans had been in my area and if I had been caught using a TV then I would have been prosecuted. Good luck to them as they wouldn't have caught me using one anyway! They would have a job spotting the TV aerial as it fell off the chimney about 10 years ago!

I think they have finally given up harassing me and now I just have to 'sign' an online declaration every two years to say that I still do not need a licence.

I did use to watch BBC Iplayer occasionally on the computer until they decided a few years ago that you need a license to watch that so I don't even bother with that now. I don't think that I am missing anything. There's plenty of far more interesting stuff to watch on YouTube if I get bored.

John

[Frances IoMParticipant @francesiom58905]

I have two properties no tv in either -one in UK where I have a 10yr+ collection of such letters – the IoM one also gets such letters tho here the detector people were wont to come over and ‘work’ the Island for a few days until one of the Manx nationalist groups complained to the court that the these people were in paid employment without the necessary work permits and their employers no longer protected as civil servants were liable for a substantial fine! – red faces all round when they won the argument

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

As far as I am aware, there has never been a conviction using 'evidence' from a so called TV Detector Van.

Martin.

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by blowlamp on 20/06/2020 10:58:47:

As far as I am aware, there has never been a conviction using 'evidence' from a so called TV Detector Van.

Martin.

I don't think it's needed. First step is to identify potential licence dodgers by checking addresses against the register of licences. There's no need for this to be mentioned in evidence. Second step is to turn up at the address and see if there's "reasonable cause". A TV visible through a window, or an antenna on the roof would elicit a knock on the door. As would a electronic detector reporting a positive result, perhaps pointing to a room round the back or a particular flat in a block. None of these detections need be offered as evidence. The evidence is provided by the third stage, in which the occupier is challenged by a team, including a Special Constable, who find the physical TV set, switched on or still warm. How they found the TV is irrelevant.

Dave

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 20/06/2020 12:05:25:

Posted by blowlamp on 20/06/2020 10:58:47:

As far as I am aware, there has never been a conviction using 'evidence' from a so called TV Detector Van.

Martin.

I don't think it's needed. First step is to identify potential licence dodgers by checking addresses against the register of licences. There's no need for this to be mentioned in evidence. Second step is to turn up at the address and see if there's "reasonable cause". A TV visible through a window, or an antenna on the roof would elicit a knock on the door. As would a electronic detector reporting a positive result, perhaps pointing to a room round the back or a particular flat in a block. None of these detections need be offered as evidence. The evidence is provided by the third stage, in which the occupier is challenged by a team, including a Special Constable, who find the physical TV set, switched on or still warm. How they found the TV is irrelevant.

Dave

Dear God. That we have been so conditioned into thinking this is acceptable. Strangers turn up at your home demanding to know what you've been looking at. Truly frightening.

Martin.

[not done it yetParticipant @notdoneityet]

Of course they have identification and, no doubt, would allow one to check their credentials.

We got rid of the telly 15 years, or more ago. License fee was about to go up four quid to £104, IIRC.

Guys turned up one day asking to check for a TV. Wife was loading things into the car and they were blockling the drive. She said go ahead and be quick or move the vehicle as she was in a hurry. They said ‘you look honest enough’ and left without entering the house. We’ve not missed it in that time – plenty of other things to do, than watch carp and repeats on the box!

Saved thousands by now – license, TVs and recorders, running costs and unwasted time in front of a useless piece of furniture blocking up space in the room.

They used to be able to check if a telly was in use when CRTs were in use as they always radiated rf that could be direction-finded. Not so with LCD sets or the even more modern sets. They can, however, now check where anything is imported to internet addresses.

We’ve had regular reminders, to send back, to confirm we do not watch programs. No SAE, so I just post it back in the same envelope with no stamp – the PO have to deliver those replies (eventually).🙂

[Trevor Crossman 1Participant @trevorcrossman1]

Posted by not done it yet on 20/06/2020 13:08:39:

Of course they have identification and, no doubt, would allow one to check their credentials.

We got rid of the telly 15 years, or more ago. License fee was about to go up four quid to £104, IIRC.

Guys turned up one day asking to check for a TV. Wife was loading things into the car and they were blockling the drive. She said go ahead and be quick or move the vehicle as she was in a hurry. They said ‘you look honest enough’ and left without entering the house. We’ve not missed it in that time – plenty of other things to do, than watch carp and repeats on the box!

Saved thousands by now – license, TVs and recorders, running costs and unwasted time in front of a useless piece of furniture blocking up space in the room.

They used to be able to check if a telly was in use when CRTs were in use as they always radiated rf that could be direction-finded. Not so with LCD sets or the even more modern sets. They can, however, now check where anything is imported to internet addresses.

We’ve had regular reminders, to send back, to confirm we do not watch programs. No SAE, so I just post it back in the same envelope with no stamp – the PO have to deliver those replies (eventually).🙂

I have a collection of 1684 of the TV Licence agencies 'reminder' letters which are sent out on a regular twice monthly basis since I last bought a licence back in 1987, and they will continue to send them whatever you do until you a actually complete one declaring that you do not watch/use/download TV programmes. By signing one you agree to a 'visit to check'. There is no legal obligation for anyone to respond or do anything with their aggressive reminders, and unlike the utility providers have no legal authority to enter your property on grounds of safety/public interest. Unlike the utility providers, they have no legal authority to enter your property without your consent or have a court order for which they would have needed reasonable grounds or evidence of lawbreaking. As a Government agency they have access to all of your phone and computer internet address to look for evidence of illegal TV viewing. The mere ownership of a tv set is not illegal and so it's presence or absence is irrelevant, I've not had one since 1986 nor do I miss it's largely trival output, or our increasingly authoritarian government announcements which seem to apply more to the ruled than the rulers 🤬

[John FlackParticipant @johnflack59079]

Bringing ‘‘this thread. Slightly back on topic?

i find the number of “experts” produced astonishing. A few days ago a MEDIA-MISINFORMATION SPECIALIST was produced…….I kid you not……….. an old east end resident would call that a DAGENHAM.

for those not in the loop Dagenham is two stops short of Barking!!!!!

jf

[Frances IoMParticipant @francesiom58905]

“Strangers turn up at your home demanding to know what you’ve been looking at. Truly frightening.” but for anything consumed over the internet all this is already known to the commercial companies including the BBC which gets more like the old Soviet model each day – have a look at the article in the IET re how much info you can get hold off eg Amazon keeps track of every page turn in your Kindle – the level of data collection + retention is staggering – that once touted NHS app (your duty to download) will resurface in Android’s ability to plot the time and distance from any tracking beacon in a shopping mall etc – Apple at least had the guts to block this level of detailed tracking

[SamsarandaParticipant @samsaranda]

I am chair of trustees for our local village hall and sometime ago had an enquiry from TV licensing as to how many TVs we had on the premises of the village hall, we have none, but the tone of the enquiry was aggressive and went into details of how I would be punished if I didn’t comply or was using equipment without the relevant licence. Their attitude was almost as aggressive as the Performing Rights Society who tax venues that use radios or recorded music, I have had dealings with them and they can be so obnoxious, I throw any correspondence from them straight in the bin.
Dave W

[Speedy Builder5Participant @speedybuilder5]

Years ago, I worked for Cincinnati Biggleswade and in charge of IT at the time. Under my remit, this included telephones, telex, FAX (you detect this was some time ago). I was passed these letters demanding payment for a TV licence. Big company site must have a TV, but we didn't.

They stopped writing officious letters when on one reply I stated that we didn't have any TVs, didn't need a licence, but that we had two security dogs and that I attached copies of their various licences. No more problems after that !

[SamsarandaParticipant @samsaranda]

Nice one Speedy,

Dave W

[Author]

Posts