Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

TV detector van

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 345 posts

Re: TV detector van

#271

Post by henryfjordan »

otterley wrote: post #263
henryfjordan wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, just that you cannot use a statute like the peeping tom one against Law Enforcement in the same way you'd use it against an average joe. But also, yes, the police can do basically anything and receive "Qualified Immunity" as actors of the state. Under the current interpretation of qualified immunity unless the police know what they are specifically doing isn't allowed then they have immunity, and the court system…

Qualified immunity is a creature of federal Constitutional law; it exists to immunize law enforcement from civil suits alleging that they violated someone's Constitutional rights. The doctrine does not immunize officers against criminal charges, particularly crimes against the laws of the States. "Privacy" isn't (yet) a Federal civil or constitutional right so I'm not sure that qualified immunity would apply. The int…

Thanks for clarifying! My knowledge of the law is second-hand. Comments like this help a lot!

Re: TV detector van

#272

Post by blibble »

raverbashing wrote: post #239
soneil wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't begrudge the TV licence too much. I used to, and then I moved to Ireland - where I pay a roughly equivalent amount for a roughly equivalent licence, which funds RTÉ (and tg4? unclear) with nowhere near the same results. And still ads. It turns out the better half of Europe has TV licences in one form or another - but for some reason, we never hear about them. When the UK has to fund a state broadcaster, it's…

The enforcement actions and publicizing of the license in the UK seem to be the most dystopian, in Ireland it's a bit over the top as well But you're right, it is present in multiple countries, I think Germany and France just turned it into a household fee

"enforcement" consists of them sending you nasty letters, then after after 6 months knocking on the door and asking "sir do you own a television set"

to which my response was "sod off", and they did

repeat again every 5 years

Re: TV detector van

#273

Post by jonknee »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #221
coldtea wrote: post #194

How about a small flat fee everybody pays to sustain the national broadcaster? Whether they watch it or not is not relevant. It's a nation-wide service at their disposal. Either it's worth it to have, like a dam or a highway system or whatever, and it's ok for people to pay for it in taxes, or it's not, and it should close.

Because now you're proposing that people be charged for something even if they don't use it and don't want it.

Yes, that's life in the modern world. My taxes go to pay for all sorts of government programs that I don't use. This is mostly fine.

Re: TV detector van

#274

Post by mshobe »

gumby wrote: post #17
hprotagonist wrote: post #6

“Ministry of oooowsinge?” “it was spelt like that on ‘t van!” “what van?” “the cat detector van.” “you are a loony. “

My immediate thought too! I'm glad someone else got the reference.

I am so relieved to find this specific thread.

Re: TV detector van

#276

Post by tonyarkles »

smsm42 wrote: post #130
tantalor wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bad breathalyzer can be challenged in court as "not scientifically reliable". https://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/08/22/ju...

A dog though is considered always reliable: https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/supreme-court-alert-by-a-t... So maybe they should have used TV-sniffing dogs instead? :)

I wish I could remember the source of the statement: "To search someone's vehicle, a police officer needs a warrant signed by a judge or permission from a dog."

Re: TV detector van

#277

Post by heavenlyblue »

amiga-workbench wrote: post #172
heavenlyblue wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they make it incredibly clear in their message though: If you’re watching live TV, you need to be covered by a TV Licence: a. if you’re watching on TV or on an online TV service b. for all channels, not just the BBC c. ...

Incredibly vague, does a live stream fall afoul of that rule?

Is that live stream being shown on tv while you are watching it? Yes or no? Same answer for having the tv license.

Re: TV detector van

#278

Post by toomanybeersies »

monkeynotes wrote: post #115
agurk wrote: post #7

I lived in a flat in England in the early 2000s which kept getting letters from the BBC saying we didn't have a TV licence. The letters were sometimes more threatening for a period, then sometimes more reconciliatory. They were also running TV adverts at the time claiming they had detector vans about, and if you didn't have a licence you'd be caught. I did some research at the time, and it seemed that evidence from a…

The ads were hugely dystopian: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NmdUcmLFkw I am an ex-pat and as an adult I am have become quite disillusioned with the UK and glad to have gotten out a decade ago. I miss nothing about England except my friends, and I'd feel sorry for them, but they all seem mostly happy with life. Paying a license to have a TV (and it's assumed you must watch TV), opt in porn on the internet, CCTV ev…

There's plenty to complain about re: the UK, but none of what you're complaining about is unique to the UK, or even uncommon (except for opt-in porn, that one's odd)

Most other countries with public broadcasting just roll the "TV license" into your taxes. CCTV everywhere (that the government can afford to put it) is commonplace in most countries (the USA being something of an exception).

Politicians acting like children is standard. In fact, I'd say that it's a desired feature of the Westminster System. Question Time/PMQs, although sometimes childish, serve an important role in the democratic process and open government. At least filibusters aren't commonplace, unlike in the USA.

Re: TV detector van

#279

Post by fmj »

amiga-workbench wrote: post #172
heavenlyblue wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they make it incredibly clear in their message though: If you’re watching live TV, you need to be covered by a TV Licence: a. if you’re watching on TV or on an online TV service b. for all channels, not just the BBC c. ...

Incredibly vague, does a live stream fall afoul of that rule?

I believe it specifically refers to services that provide simulcast streams of traditional TV networks. Like Playstation Vue or Youtube TV.

Re: TV detector van

#280

Post by tangental »

Theodores wrote: post #197
sofaofthedamned wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a child in the 80s I remember my family being scared of this van even though it probably never existed. Because of this my mum got a pay TV instead which we had to put 50p coins in periodically that paid for both the TV rental and the license fee.

The Thatcher years were harsh. I imagine you also had free school meals as your main meal of the day. The TV rental business was very much like mobile phone contracts. For this reason I am not one of those people that buys a mobile phone on contract with the 'upgrade' every two years. The 'contract' your family were on for the TV was 'pay as you go' and I shudder to think how often your family could have paid for the…

> Remember 'who shot JR?'

All was revealed by Father Ted https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq4_c-_r0K4

Post reply on HN