Luminous

iTrader: (3)

I think the government still has this covered. Even if you use a portable TV set (ie an iPod), you will still need a full licence...

Holy Ghost

Originally Posted by danwrx1980:

"...and the static thing is right, especially off women getting in and out of their cars..."

**

**

i'm glad you noticed it too as i'm mystified.

why does a woman produce more static getting out of her car than a man?

if a woman produces more static than a man then your average bird is much more of a fire hazard than a mobile phone.

so shouldn't we all turn our women off when we pull into a petrol forecourt?

and how do you do that? show 'em a picture of pslewis or what??

joking aside, i'd genuinely like to know what danwrx1980 is on about here...

OllyK

Just a guess - it may be that women tend to wear more polyester / nylon / man made fibre based clothes than men. May be wrong, but that'd be my guess.

Holy Ghost

careful olly - don't say that in female company or your giblets will truly be history! proper ladies do not wear man-made fibres. they wear cotton underneath and woollens on the outside.

perhaps it's because women typically have more (and often bigger) hair than men; it brushes the inside rim of the doorway as they clamber out, thus producing more static.

but then again, women tend to be shorter than men (unless you're pslewis) so surely that should cancel out the likelihood of hair-brushing-doorway-rim syndrome?

or perhaps it's because women take so long to find the remote fuel release cap button each time that by the time they get out of the car, their natural static levels have soared into the danger zone?

OllyK

Actually I vaguely remember something from Mythbusters now. This is a US rather than UK phenomeno, becuase you can still lock the pump in the US and walk off leaving it filling. Women had more of a tendancy to get back in to the car during the filling to check hair, do makeup etc etc, on some occasions a number of times during filling. Each time of course rubbing against the man made fibre seats. So go for leather

Dracoro

The new iPod does not have tv receiving equipment.

Holy Ghost

**

it does make me giggle. mars & venus. my wife has got through six off-side wing mirrors in 10 years. so that officially makes her an ace.

what IS the attraction with clumping other cars when you pass them?

OllyK

Don't even get me started on parallel parking

bioforger

iTrader: (1)

lol on the female static theories

Holy Ghost

**

heh heh, i know - chr1st, sometimes she asks me to do it for her if it all looks a bit tight! if i'm not in hysterics by this point, i usually oblige.

not being a male chauvinist pig but boy i love digging for truffles and rolling in **** [squeal].

personally i think vanity mirrors should be removed from the driver's side: it's just asking for trouble.

what has all this this got to do with TV licences?

Holy Ghost

ah yes, female static. causes interference on your TV and can blow you up in a filling station.

the moose

Hell, my OLD iPod can apparently interfere with an Airbus A300's navigation equipment. But only when the seatbelt signs are on, 'cos it's OK to use after that.

??????????

danwrx1980

thank you olly, i'm glad you're on my side for a change!
its not that women are a natural fire hazard, its that they are more likely to get in and out of their cars while filling up and wear more static producing clothes, as olly mentioned.
just to re iterate, i am not against women in any way, shape or form, and believe they make excellent additions to the human race.

Chris5-0

Sorry but am i the only one finding this hilarious?!

Do you really think the BBC in the late 70's/early 80's had a vehicle capable of telling whether you're watching TV?

Seriously?

I know an ex TV licence inspector who laughs every time i mention detector vans, she says there's ONE in the whole country and even that isn't that good. It's all done by simply cross matching licences with addresses then visiting the ones without to get a look see and a chat with the owner/tennant.!!

WHICH leads me to an interesting tale to do with TV licence inspectors!!!!

About May this year i changed bank accounts and in the usual confusion the tv licence direct debit didn't get transfered across. About a month later a cheque appeared from the tv licencing that my missus opened. Now i'd been complaining that my debit had been too much for a while and thought it was repayment for overpayment. (Anyone see where this is going yet?)

3 weeks ago there was a buzz on my bell and i went into the communal hall (we live in an apartment) to see a young man stood outside. I opened the door and he asked if i was Mr so and so. I said yes, sure. He showed me some id that looked quite official and said he was from TV licensing. As it was raining hard outside i asked him into the communal entry hall. He practically ran inside!

He then started asking if i had a tv and licence, i said yes to both. He asked if he could see the tv, i said no he couldnt as he wasn't coming into the house (like i said, only got a quick look at id). He said cool ok, but what sort of tv was it and how big!?! I told him i didn't know but it was quite big (always play stupider than you are in these situations!). He was writing all this down meanwhile but not letting me see the paper he was writing on.
He then asked if i'd been watching TV today? I said, yeah, about 2 hours ago. He quickly wrote YES down on the paper. The questions went on for about 5 minutes, the bloke being all pally and nice saying there was no record of a licence, even going as far as ringing his mate at the office to check. He then mentioned the cheque and said it was repayment because the direct debit had been cancelled and we hadn't had a licence for about 3 months.

It then dawned on me and i told him the story about changing banks. No problem, he said, we'll set another direct debit up now. Again he rang his mate in the office and explained we were setting up a new debit immediately and making back payments to get up to date.

It was then i asked for his id as he was asking for bank details. It was alright so we gave all the details over the phone. I then got some documentation and was told my first payment was a bit bigger to catch up.

He then said thanks for all my help and asked me to sign the piece of paper he was holding so he could get on his way.

I took the pen and was just about to lean forward to sign when, in the top left hand corner of the sheet, i saw

'You have committed an offence under the 19** Telecommunications act. You do not have to say anyting but anything you do say will be taken down and used Etc. Etc.'

WHHOOOAAAHHH!!!!!! Hold on here mate what the f**k is going on here, i said! Why the caution.

He tried to get in some explanation that people kick off if he cautioned them and wouldnt sign the thing.

No poo i said, give me that paper.

Looking at the paper he had written on i saw he had cherry picked what i had said to fit into the spaces on the charge sheet, the one that drew my eye was 'YES' next to the question 'Do you understand the caution and charges (sic)!!'

I thought it was the time to reveal my profession (cop) and quietly explain he had not onyl broken most rules relating to cautions and charges but had in fact commited purgery by pretty much making up a statement and asking me to sign it.

'So you're not going to sign it the?' He said.

After picking my jaw off the floor i politely told him to f off out of the hall and leave forthwith. He left, saying i might be charged with offences relating to TV licencing and would receive a leeter shortly.

I did, it was a TV licence with a note saying no action was to be taken in relation to the incident.

NO?!?!!

So my point is, if anyone starts asking you anything on your doorstep and writing down the answers insist on seeing what they are doing and NEVER sign anything without checking it fully first, i'm informed this type of cheekiness is not uncommon these days!!

Chris.

danwrx1980

i think you're right, but you're lucky that you're a copper and htat you may have noticed things that other people may not have. it seems a bit like the 'new' DVLA tax computer, we don't need to look anywhere thing. i don't know how many vcans there are and how effective they are, i was just explaining a bit of the theory behind how they (supposedly) work.

and yes i do think its funny that a very simple question about detector vans has spiralled into such a big and silly thread!

StickyMicky

i have read that the best advice is to just ignore them when they call and tell them to **** off

Chris5-0

I couldn't possibly condone that sort of behaviour!!!!!

As for how they work, i'm sure it can be done, but i'm also sure it isn't!!!!

GC8

Its best just to f*ck them off; if they have the evidence to get a warrant to enter your premises then theyll summons you to court. Even if they did obtain a warrant it is worthless because it doesnt allow them to enter your premises by force.

Simon

DEEDEE

DVLA tax computer -- detector vans -- can only detect you if you are on the register, meaning the motor would have a TAX disc sometime in its life, so it is on record. A TV is registered to your address when purchased, so in theory if you bought a new house (not lived in) and never bought or rented A TV you will not be on the register. This is then easy to defend, they have no records of your address so you are invisible.

Chris L

I must admit I fall into the BS camp with this too. It is certainly true that all electrical equipment gives off signals and much of that can be read remotely - government has known this for years. The 'Tempest' that Dan referred to earlier was originally a US government / military project to restrict those emissions and make it much harder to detect them (do a search on 'Van Eck') - you can see a very obvious example of this in the nice gold reflective windows on the MI5 building in London.

However, it is virtually impossible to totally stop the emissions, or so some of my colleagues, who have spent too much time working in certain government installations in Cheltenham tell me

I doubt very much whether the BBC has access to this kind of technology. A good old fashioned database is much more likely when you think about it.

hedgehog

Detecting the LO from a superhet receiver is not, i can assure you, "technology" in the sense that it is modern, shiney and exciting. It is a fairly simple means of locating a receiver which has been in use for a very long time indeed. A grid of antenna (which will actually be quite small when it comes to TV frequencies) may be used to derive the location of the receiving device to a considerable degree of accuracy.

Whether this is actually implemented in practical terms I can't say but to do so is an almost trivial task these days in view of the fact that people have been doing it for such a long time. I'd guess that the licensing people use the database method but wheel in the detector van to crack hard nuts and make an example of them. As stated they might only have one van just for the deterrent value but I would have no doubt that it can work, and that it can tell you what channel you are watching as well.