On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 00:40:16 +0100, "Bill Bennett"
wrote:

So, a friend of mine is going to Uni this year, he wants to watch telly in
his dormroom.

What are the chances TV-L will come and kick his ass if he doesnt pay?

What if he has a real TV (which he covers up if the detectors come round),
and fobs them off with a little battery powered handheld TV (which would be
covered under his parents license?)

20 or more responses and no one has made the point that the TV
License people have no right to be let inside the door, or even to an
answer to their questions. The ONLY people who have the former right
without a formal search warrent are Customs and Excise. The only
people with the latter right are the police.

It's very simple..........unless they get actual sight of a TV then
they have no case in a court of law. The fact that a signal may or may
not be detected by their vans is irrelevant. No one has ever been
successfully prosecuted on the strength of data collected by the vans.
This is born out by the existence of an ongoing debate as to whether
the vans actually do anything useful. 'Triangulation' my foot! Anyway,
it matters not.

They will only get sight of the thing if you're stupid enough to be
intimidated by their demands to be let in. Don't pay, take the above
advice and spend your hard earned cash elsewhere.

It could only be in the UK that up to 80% of households are stupid
enough to pay this stupid and unenforceable fee. It really beggars
belief.



Peter

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:58:38 +0100, Peter wrote:

On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 00:40:16 +0100, "Bill Bennett"
wrote:

So, a friend of mine is going to Uni this year, he wants to watch telly in
his dormroom.

What are the chances TV-L will come and kick his ass if he doesnt pay?

What if he has a real TV (which he covers up if the detectors come round),
and fobs them off with a little battery powered handheld TV (which would be
covered under his parents license?)

20 or more responses and no one has made the point that the TV
License people have no right to be let inside the door, or even to an
answer to their questions. The ONLY people who have the former right
without a formal search warrent are Customs and Excise. The only
people with the latter right are the police.

snip


They will only get sight of the thing if you're stupid enough to be
intimidated by their demands to be let in.

I think *you're* missing the point that the OP doesn't have the same
options in that regard as you or I. If the University authorities
decide to cooperate with the TVL people, and allow them onto the
campus, and then open the doors to the student accommodation so they
can look for TVs, there's not a whole lot he can do about it.

Brian

Peter writes
It could only be in the UK that up to 80% of households are stupid
enough to pay this stupid and unenforceable fee.

What about all the countries that have TV licenses?

--
Dave

bigbrian wrote:
I think *you're* missing the point that the OP doesn't have the same
options in that regard as you or I. If the University authorities
decide to cooperate with the TVL people, and allow them onto the
campus, and then open the doors to the student accommodation so they
can look for TVs, there's not a whole lot he can do about it.

Do any Universities cooperate with the TVLA in this manner?
The Uni I went to didn't allow them onto the campus.

The TVL people have no legal powers to do anything at all.

Andy

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 23:10:11 +0100, Les Hellawell wrote:


"Peter" wrote in message

[BBC License Fee]

It could only be in the UK that up to 80% of households are stupid
enough to pay this stupid and unenforceable fee. It really beggars
belief.

Because we are law abiding people and think it right to do so?

Well I'm law abiding but I still object to being forced by law into
funding the BBC, whether I choose to watch their output or not.

--
Brian Key

Brian Key writes
Because we are law abiding people and think it right to do so?

Well I'm law abiding but I still object to being forced by law into
funding the BBC, whether I choose to watch their output or not.

Well there are lots of things that I may object to funding, on the basis
that I don't use the service... but life's like that.

--
Dave

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 01:17:56 +0100, Dave wrote:

Brian Key writes
Because we are law abiding people and think it right to do so?

Well I'm law abiding but I still object to being forced by law into
funding the BBC, whether I choose to watch their output or not.

Well there are lots of things that I may object to funding, on the basis
that I don't use the service... but life's like that.

Er, well maybe... but this is a broadcasting service responsible for such
socially vital output as the Teletubbies, and not something like, oh, I
dunno - the Police or Fire services, say - neither of which I've used or,
I hope, ever need to use.

It's an odd relationship though, don't you think? I mean, it's not as
though they're short of a bob or two through selling their output
elsewhe they seem to be a commercial organisation doing pretty well -
like many others who aren't public funded, so why the public funding for
the BBC alone?

--
Brian Key

On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 23:10:11 +0100, "Les Hellawell"
wrote:

|
| "Peter" wrote in message
|
| [BBC License Fee]
|
| It could only be in the UK that up to 80% of households are stupid
| enough to pay this stupid and unenforceable fee. It really beggars
| belief.
|
| Because we are law abiding people and think it right to do so?

Or because we think the Beeb good value for money?

Dave F

In 1987 a friend of mine, in University Hall of residence, got a tap on the
door from licence inspector for operating a TV without licence in his room.
Each student was required to have an individual TV licence for their TV's,
mind you in those days the majority of students didn't have TV's.

The inspector had a small hand held box, like a Gieger counter and traced
the signal down to a Teletext adapter for my friends BBC computer that he
had bought at a computer fair. Wasn't even connected to an aerial as no
signal could be obtained from an indoor aerial/piece of wire. My friend was
let off provided he disconnected the adapter. Yes he did need a licence as
he was operating equipment "capable" of receiving TV transmissions!!!

The inspectors equipment could pick up and accurately locate to the room the
38MHz (?) IF of the teletext adapter tuner.

So just bear that in mind when trying to evade paying for a TV licence.

"Dave Fawthrop" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 23:10:11 +0100, "Les Hellawell"
wrote:

|
| "Peter" wrote in message
|
| [BBC License Fee]
|
| It could only be in the UK that up to 80% of households are stupid
| enough to pay this stupid and unenforceable fee. It really beggars
| belief.
|
| Because we are law abiding people and think it right to do so?

Or because we think the Beeb good value for money?

Dave F

Brian Key writes
Well I'm law abiding but I still object to being forced by law into
funding the BBC, whether I choose to watch their output or not.

Well there are lots of things that I may object to funding, on the basis
that I don't use the service... but life's like that.

Er, well maybe... but this is a broadcasting service responsible for such
socially vital output as the Teletubbies, and not something like, oh, I
dunno - the Police or Fire services, say - neither of which I've used or,
I hope, ever need to use.

It depends on your definition of 'socially vital'. I notice you've done
your best to find a ridiculous comparison (Teletubbies vs Police). But
what about Learning Zone vs Adult Education College? What so different
about funding the BBC or funding theatres via the Arts Council and/or
LAs?

--
Dave