Obelix Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 I can't believe this thread hasn't been closed yet! All you people who aren't paying your TV license are exactly the same type of people who don't insure their cars "Well I'm a safe driver and if I get nicked it's only a £200 fine" or work whilst claiming the dole. You're basically scroungers, you shouldn't be proud of that and certainly shouldn't be bragging about it on here! Why not? The law states that you only need a TV licence to "install or use" a TV set for "receiving broadcast signals" If you only watch DVD's, or prerecorded stuff, or use it as a giant Xbox monitor, or like me for other purposes you don't need a TV licence at all so why pay for one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 Yes they exist and can detect the older cathode tube TV's. IIRC they worked by detecting the back radiation produced by the electron guns, forward radiation is stopped by the screen design. They could tune into the weak signals produced, amplify them and reproduce a picture on a monitor. Because of that they could tell how many electron guns were firing; one for monochrome and 3 for colour and could also calculate the position of the TV. A similar system can also be used as a method of industrial spying on CRT computer monitors in offices etc. You wont see them much now as they cant detect the modern LCD TV's. It's not like that but it's the same sort of system - they look for the local oscillator in the set and from that they can detect firstly if the receiver is running, and then depending on the image frequency they can tell which channel you are tuned to. Difference in B&W and colour is checked by differeing IF freq. This however went out the window years ago when people started using differently designed sets, and digital TV started coming in which made the precise "detection" frequencies impossible to monitor as there became so many of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ValleyBoy Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 Sky TV have been able to turn your signal off/on for years , so they probably dont even have to visit you to know if Tellys on , if you watch BBC buy a license we dont want adverts on there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INTERVIEWER Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 Getting back to the thread topic, the BBC has confirmed (thanks to a Freedom Of Information request) that not a single TV licence fee evader has ever been successfully prosecuted using information gathered by TV detection equipment. Suspicions arise that the equipment is either non-existent, or cannot give an exact location for a television. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INTERVIEWER Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 When it comes to the BBC, this organisation has a track record of deliberately deceiving the public regarding the TV licence - such as sending out millions of letters containing false statistics and fake signatures in order to scare people into paying for something they might not want. I have not paid a penny to the BBC since 1999 - and there is not a thing this bloated monster can do about it. People who don't pay their TV licence fee are heroes, in my book. Anybody who takes on the might of this publicly funded behemoth deserves a medal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 If so, why do we bother buying a licence? I buy mine because of the fantastic content that is second to none. The excellent range of programming that frankly, leaves Sky and the FTA commercial channels standing in a hole. The excellent radio, website and (largely) interest free news coverage. Not to mention no adverts. Best value for money of any service I pay for. (IMV). Don't really want another thread of "tit for tat", but as I have previously said, if I had to pay for the content I watch, listen to or read from the BBC via a commercial operation (iTunes for example), I'd be paying ten fold what I pay now. Yes they exist and can detect the older cathode tube TV's. Interesting that init Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INTERVIEWER Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 It should be remembered that the BBC has got form for deliberately lying to the public, such as sending out letters containing false statistics and fake signatures - which was exposed by 'The Telegraph' newspaper. It was revealed that the BBC had stated in one letter that 33,781 licence fee evaders had been caught in the previous month, while another with the same date stated a figure of 69,838. The BBC is a serial liar when it comes to the TV licence fee. There is more reliable evidence to suggest the existence of 'Nessie' than there is the BBC TV detector van. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INTERVIEWER Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 Don't really want another thread of "tit for tat", but as I have previously said, if I had to pay for the content I watch, listen to or read from the BBC via a commercial operation (iTunes for example), I'd be paying ten fold what I pay now. Why do you selfishly insist that everybody else financially subsidises your viewing preferences? Because by defending the current method of funding the BBC - through the BBC TV licence fee - that is exactly what you are doing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seadograwson Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 I buy mine because of the fantastic content that is second to none. The excellent range of programming that frankly, leaves Sky and the FTA commercial channels standing in a hole. The excellent radio, website and (largely) interest free news coverage. Not to mention no adverts. Best value for money of any service I pay for. (IMV). Don't really want another thread of "tit for tat", but as I have previously said, if I had to pay for the content I watch, listen to or read from the BBC via a commercial operation (iTunes for example), I'd be paying ten fold what I pay now. Interesting that init another bbc bummer you dont work for the jobsworth bbc by any chance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 Why do you selfishly insist that everybody else financially subsidises your viewing preferences? You have previously stated that you enjoy watching BBC content via iPlayer, and stated that you think everyone else should pay for it. So you can ask yourself that question. As it happens I don't believe people subsidise my viewing anymore than I subsidise any public service they use that I might not. Swings and roundabouts, but you already know this. Because by defending the current method of funding the BBC - through the BBC TV licence fee - that is exactly what you are doing! I'm defending the service that the license fee pays for, which is excellent value for money and is second to none. Since you already know all this it seems pointless to labour the points yet again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.