BBC Confirm Detector Vans Never Used in Court

[ktlight]

FYI:


Despite being very reluctant the BBC has finally confirmed what we all knew anyway - detector van/portable detector evidence has never been presented in court.

The revealing Freedom of Information Act response came after the BBC u-turned on their earlier decision to withhold the information under the law enforcement exemptions of the 2000 Act.

In their revised response, issued after an internal review found in our favour, Beeb Kiwi lawyer Dan McGregor says the following:

"I can confirm that TVL has not, to date, used detection evidence in Court.

"You may be interested to understand why this is the situation. Under TVL’s current prosecution process the presentation of detection evidence in court is unnecessary. This is because TVL uses detection evidence when applying for search warrants. If, following service of the warrant an individual is found to be evading payment of the TV Licence, then the evidence obtained via the search warrant is used in court, not the detection evidence.

"It is worth noting that search warrants are only issued at the discretion of a magistrate (or sheriff in Scotland) in accordance with strict legal requirements. Detection evidence would be carefully considered by the magistrate (or sheriff in Scotland) during the warrant application process."

"It does, of course, remain open to TVL to use detection evidence in court whenever it wishes in the future."

Given the fact they haven't used it so far, in the fifty-odd years the ****-scary (not) TV detector van has allegedly been in existence, it's pretty unlikely they'll be changing that habit.

Sadly the BBC's internal reviewer, James Leaton Gray, can't bring himself to admit what everyone reading this knows - the BBC had little option but to respond, given my warning that I would refer their obstruction to the Information Commissioner. If that had happened the Commissioner would have definitely ordered them to disclose the information in full given the huge valid public interest.


source
http://tv-licensing.blogspot.com/2011/04/bbc-confirm-detector-vans-never-used-in.html

[Anchor]

I am told that the detectors only really worked for CRT style "tubes".

PLASMA or the newer LCD/LED monitors would need to be detected in another way.

[Lord Sidious]

From what I read before, detection vans don't work fullstop.
They rely on people dobbing others in or dobbing themselves in.
If they call around, be aware they have no right to force entry to your home and if you withdraw their lisence to be on your property, they must leave.

[Anchor]

My first job, sometime in the later years of 1980's the one that made me resolve never to do military work again, was on a compound that had a building that was like a faraday cage where secret research was done.

Regularly this bloke in a white coat would walk around the outside with a trolley full of gear and an antenna checking for leakage.

I didnt see it demonstrated, I was not cleared, but when I asked I was told about what it could do - it could actually reconstruct the image of a targeted CRT based on the EM emissions of the CRT and knowledge about the potential set of input signals.

Unsheilded computer monitor screens could be reproduced at a distance from which one could read the content of the screen, and was an espionage technique that was actively used.

It is entirely possible that a civilian model could at the very least work out if you had a CRT based TV set switched on, and more likely than not, which channel you were tuned to.

[Lord Sidious]

My first job, sometime in the later years of 1980's the one that made me resolve never to do military work again, was on a compound that had a building that was like a faraday cage where secret research was done.

Regularly this bloke in a white coat would walk around the outside with a trolley full of gear and an antenna checking for leakage.

I didnt see it demonstrated, I was not cleared, but when I asked I was told about what it could do - it could actually reconstruct the image of a targeted CRT based on the EM emissions of the CRT and knowledge about the potential set of input signals.

Unsheilded computer monitor screens could be reproduced at a distance from which one could read the content of the screen, and was an espionage technique that was actively used.

It is entirely possible that a civilian model could at the very least work out if you had a CRT based TV set switched on, and more likely than not, which channel you were tuned to.

Sure it is possible, but think of the cost.
Do you really think a private corporation would be allowed to use that tech and that they would pay for it?

[Mark Aldebaran]

Shielding of CRTs was part of Program Tempest and was widespread in government, intelligence and security agencies.
A monitor that complied with those standards was called a Tempest monitor, and typically would be used in shielded buildings.
Many buildings around here were previously used by defense companies and you can tell by people chatting outside as cell phones do not work inside.

The Flyback/EHT circuit of a CRT is a huge swinging inductive loop and essentially a transmitter.
Any RF guy worth his salt can pick that up and tell what channel it's on.
With better equipment you can read what's on a computer monitor, easier in the monochrome days.

LCDs have next to no radiation, probably have to be within a couple of inches, and good luck unscrambling that.
An LCD does not have the equivalent of a horizontal sync with a scan of data; it's written in memory that's mapped to the screen and each type of LCD drives the screen differently.

[norman]

I think the quiet discussions going on here in Britain right now are about whether to shift the "radio" licence along another notch to cover broadband connections or if it's time to drop the licence completely.

I don't have a licence so I'm trying to keep an eye on that issue. If they do opt for a broadband licence I'll have to have a really big think about my on-line status.

Since I've been on line I've had a constant sense that I must download everything I'm interested in so that I've got stuff if I quit the internet again.

[Lord Sidious]

I think the quiet discussions going on here in Britain right now are about whether to shift the "radio" licence along another notch to cover broadband connections or if it's time to drop the licence completely.

I don't have a licence so I'm trying to keep an eye on that issue. If they do opt for a broadband licence I'll have to have a really big think about my on-line status.

Since I've been on line I've had a constant sense that I must download everything I'm interested in so that I've got stuff if I quit the internet again.

I would think the better question to ask yourself is how far are you going to let them push you all?
What if they want to license you to buy food or something stupid like that?
Enough is enough was a while ago.

[phillipbbg]

Licence to buy food is nothing new in the UK up till the late 50's I think it was they were still using ration cards (a licence in essence) and people all over the world on benefits are often given a licence to receive goods through the use of food vouchers, the US I am led to believe have something like 10 million + using this form of food distribution...... GROW YOUR OWN barter for locally made or produced as for TV they even have the cheek to charge us to watch there propagation and lies. I watch the BBC then turn to sky and same stories same footage absolute crap. Now to see what is happening I watch RT the Russian news but even that is tending to become syndicated. I have to go on-line to the bureau of Meteorology to actually see weather charts that are not some pretty little artwork to represent some fanciful idea of what they want us to think the weather is going to do..... anyway...have had my rant..lol

[ScubaMonkey]

If they call around, be aware they have no right to force entry to your home and if you withdraw their lisence to be on your property, they must leave.

This is true if they do not have a search warrant. If they have a search warrant that they can legally enter your home without your permission. Withdrawing their licence doesn't matter as you can't get them for trespass. They can force entry into a property but will not do this if you are not there. If they know you are in and avoiding them, this is when they can take such action. They would be accompanied by the police in such instances who can take further action if you obstruct them, which would be an offence - again, this is only if they have a search warrant - and I doubt that many instances have arisen.

The law surrounding this is similar to bailiffs collecting magistrates' court fines where they too have the powers to force entry but should only use this if they know you are in and deliberately avoiding them. Although they have this power I read the other week that they have only used it 10 or 15 times last year. I'm pretty sure that that number was the total for all bailiff firms collecting fines too, which goes to show it doesn't happen that often. Mainly as if the bailiff cocks up even ever so slightly, it can cost him greatly and they'd sooner pass the matter back to the court and go after someone else who is an easier target.

[Lord Sidious]

If they call around, be aware they have no right to force entry to your home and if you withdraw their lisence to be on your property, they must leave.

This is true if they do not have a search warrant. If they have a search warrant that they can legally enter your home without your permission. Withdrawing their licence doesn't matter as you can't get them for trespass. They can force entry into a property but will not do this if you are not there. If they know you are in and avoiding them, this is when they can take such action. They would be accompanied by the police in such instances who can take further action if you obstruct them, which would be an offence - again, this is only if they have a search warrant - and I doubt that many instances have arisen.

The law surrounding this is similar to bailiffs collecting magistrates' court fines where they too have the powers to force entry but should only use this if they know you are in and deliberately avoiding them. Although they have this power I read the other week that they have only used it 10 or 15 times last year. I'm pretty sure that that number was the total for all bailiff firms collecting fines too, which goes to show it doesn't happen that often. Mainly as if the bailiff cocks up even ever so slightly, it can cost him greatly and they'd sooner pass the matter back to the court and go after someone else who is an easier target.

They are a private company, how can they get search warrants?

[ScubaMonkey]

They are a private company, how can they get search warrants?

Are you thinking of the BBC? The BBC is a public body / private company- but that's a whole other thread

But TV Licencing is separate and it is not a private company - and they are the ones who get the warrant.

If you use a TV without a licence when you are not exempt from requiring one you are committing a criminal offence. That's why it goes to the magistrates' court which deals with criminal matters, not the county court which deals with civil. It all boils down to the fact that someone is committing a crime.

That's why you can end up with a magistrates court fine of up to £1,000 for it and ultimately be committed to prison if you don't pay that (if it can be shown that it wasn't paid due to wilful refusal or culpable neglect).

[Lord Sidious]

They are a private company, how can they get search warrants?

Are you thinking of the BBC? The BBC is a public body / private company- but that's a whole other thread

But TV Licencing is separate and it is not a private company - and they are the ones who get the warrant.

If you use a TV without a licence when you are not exempt from requiring one you are committing a criminal offence. That's why it goes to the magistrates' court which deals with criminal matters, not the county court which deals with civil. It all boils down to the fact that someone is committing a crime.

That's why you can end up with a magistrates court fine of up to £1,000 for it and ultimately be committed to prison if you don't pay that (if it can be shown that it wasn't paid due to wilful refusal or culpable neglect).

You might want to do some more research my friend.
Go to TPUC.org and have a look around, there are people there that have dug up the dirt on these dirtbags.
And come on, no tv lisence is a criminal offense?

[ScubaMonkey]

You might want to do some more research my friend.
Go to TPUC.org and have a look around, there are people there that have dug up the dirt on these dirtbags.
And come on, no tv lisence is a criminal offense?

I've researched the law on this matter thoroughly. Just been having a neb around TUPC.org. I'll give it some more time when I'm properly awake tomorrow. What I've found so far sounds nice, but there is no practical application of it. I note that of all those who went to court and who were using a TV to watch television without a licence were subsequently convicted for the offence and fined. I'm not surprised by this.

Now I like your posts Lord Sid and read them often, but come on! Yes, it is a criminal offence. And yes, people have been imprisoned for not paying the fines that they received when convicted of that criminal offence.

[Lord Sidious]

You might want to do some more research my friend.
Go to TPUC.org and have a look around, there are people there that have dug up the dirt on these dirtbags.
And come on, no tv lisence is a criminal offense?

I've researched the law on this matter thoroughly. Just been having a neb around TUPC.org. I'll give it some more time when I'm properly awake tomorrow. What I've found so far sounds nice, but there is no practical application of it. I note that of all those who went to court and who were using a TV to watch television without a licence were subsequently convicted for the offence and fined. I'm not surprised by this.

Now I like your posts Lord Sid and read them often, but come on! Yes, it is a criminal offence. And yes, people have been imprisoned for not paying the fines that they received when convicted of that criminal offence.

Yet more evidence that our so called western ''nations'' are totalitarian in application.
Fancy having to have permission to use your own equipment?
Oh, it isn't yours? Too right, you own nothing, you are allowed to use it.
Criminal offense, they are having a laugh and you believe them.

[ScubaMonkey]

Fancy having to have permission to use your own equipment?
Oh, it isn't yours? Too right, you own nothing, you are allowed to use it.


Look mate, I'm not arguing with your premise here - but what good does it do to the guy sitting in a cell for a few days and has ended up with a criminal record as a result of it? Most people have to interact with the masses, they have jobs, food to buy, kids to bring up, etc. Unfortunately if people need to play their game they are gona be subjected to their rules. And generally, people need to play their game, at least a little, till a realistic alternative is found

I'm all up for "sticking it to the man". ****, I do that for a living on behalf of the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society. Only I use the "actual" law (and yes, I use the term loosely) to do it instead of academic arguments that have no practical application.

So yes, I'm a divine eternal being of light and energy and silly man made laws do not apply to me. But if I don't want to be a divine eternal being of light and energy sitting in a cell or a house with no stuff in as its all been seized, impounded and sold, well...

:shocked:

[Mark Aldebaran]

You know, as an ex-pat, I really used to hate paying the BBC license fee but now in the States I appreciate what a phenomenal bargain it is.
The TV here is biased to the point of laughable, largely unwatchable, the ads go on for ever and ever and are wrist-slitting bad.
The radio (with the sole exception of NPR) is worse than TV. You guys get off light, believe me.