Why we're here:
This blog is to highlight the unjust persecution of legitimate non-TV users at the hands of TV Licensing. These people do not require a licence and are entitled to live without the unnecessary stress and inconvenience caused by TV Licensing's correspondence and employees.

If you use equipment to receive or record live broadcast television programmes then the law requires you to have a licence and we encourage you to buy one.

Saturday, 11 February 2012

TV Licensing Fail Detector Van Challenge

Last month we brought you news of a challenge TV Licensing were set to prove the effectiveness of their detector van technology.

YouTube user onlywhenpissed, now a regular visitor to this parish, openly announced he would be using an unlicensed TV for the period of a month. He invited TV Licensing to contact him for his address, so they could head around to his place and use their magical equipment to detect his terrible crime. To make things even more interesting he added the following incentive: "£1000 payable if you (TV Licensing) can do it plus a further £1000 to any charity of your choosing."

Last year we exclusively published the embarassing BBC revelation that evidence obtained by their detection equipment had never been presented for scrutiny in open court.

Sadly it would seem TV Licensing failed to rise to the challenge. Perhaps the threat of having their people appear on YouTube deterred them, so they decided to focus on less tech-savvy pensioners or single mothers instead. After all, that's where the easy commission payments are to be found.

2 comments:

Shepy said...

Surely the freedom of information act could come in useful here?

All someone needs to do is submit a FOIA request for something that would prove or deny the existence of the vans, such as how much was spent on the vans, their purchase & upkeep, detection equipment etc for the period 2005 - 2010, for example?

admin said...

The vans do exist. We are sure about that. The FOIA has previously said that a van costs >£112k to purchase, which is pretty pricey for an empty van.

It's the technology that is dubious. So dubious that the BBC hasn't got sufficient spine to test it in court, as our previous article confirms.