If TV detector vans actually do exist, according to the official surveillance regulator they don't work very well at all! <a href="https://tv-licensing.blogspot.com/2024/04/surveillance-regulator-bbc-tv-detection.html" rel="nofollow">https://tv-licensing.blogspot.com/2024/04/surveillance-regul...</a>
Correct answer...<p>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.<p>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.<p>Philip Dean, Newport, Wales<p>Source: My mother was convicted many years ago, I was there and witnessed the entire confession-based playbook.
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."<p>Sharon, barnsley UK<p>Sharon was mistaken. You <i>do</i> 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 <i>don't</i> need a licence to watch pre-recorded material on VHS/DVD/Blueray.<p>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.<p>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.<p>At the very bottom of TFA, there's a date: the article is from 2011. Maybe that should be appended to the HN title.<p>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).<p>End it, already.
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").<p>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.<p>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.