Talk:TV detector van

POV Lead

"It is now commonly accepted fact that these vans are a form of intimidation due to the fact that they do not detect anything". I don't think there's much to discuss here - this is a blatantly WP:POV statement, supported by two references that both fail WP:RS. It also contradicts the bulk of the actual article. So why is it here, apart from to push a POV? Cnbrb (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed (I placed the tags). However the "they're all fake" line is pervasive through WP and there's also pushback when reality is allowed to intrude. We ought to keep this as a mention, but frame it properly as no more than an unsupported opinion in some papers. For the lead though, just remove it. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I quite agree. Cnbrb (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Not that it will make any difference, but in 1985 I was at university with a guy who's father's job involved driving a TV Detector van, and trying to locate those who were evading the license. His father told us that the vans didn't actually detect anything, and that the aerial on the roof wasn't even connected to anything. It was just a scare tactic to try to intimidate people into complying with buying a license. He said that he was given a list of names and addresses for which no TV license had been issued, and he simply knocked on doors and tried to find out if those addresses had a working TV set in them. Often it was obvious as the TV was on when the person answered the door. But there was no "detection" going on. If you think about it, the whole idea is stupid anyway - the BBC would KNOW whether a specific address had a valid license or not, you don't need to go through the process of "detecting" it.

At an Amateur Radio Rally in about 1975 a van operator told me that it was indeed the local oscillator that they detected. However, I suspect that was only really possible when TVs mostly contained valve circuitry. And it was certainly never possible with blocks of flats. Other sources inform me the vans were "useless" (they were sworn to secrecy about it) but many interpretations of this are possible. Useless-because-uneconomical is possible. But the most likely truth is that detecting the local oscillator worked in test conditions, not in real life, and the rest was a fear campaign. Fuficius Fango (talk) 07:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

It's quite possible that the vans weren't anything wildly high tech, and it sounds like enforcement efforts were assisted by running the vans against lists of recently purchased TVs provided to those enforcing it, but I have reason to suspect they were, in fact, quite real. My name is Mark Kraft, a US citizen. My grandfather, James Neale, was an inventor who worked for the Wireless division of the British Post in London during WW2 as some kind of wireless engineer. Around 1980, he made a tape recording of his time there, talking about a couple of his projects related to the war, of being bombed while taking shelter in structures adjacent to the postal rail, etc. Lots of fine details that supported his stories. Most dealt with trying to snaffle German triangulation of bombing targets from stations they ran on the French, Belgian, and Holland coast, by basically bouncing the same signals back at them from a series of antennas along the Channel coast. He also mentioned something about Adcock direction finders, which I knew nothing about until somewhat recently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adcock_antenna

He also mentioned one project he worked on extensively, which was the construction and equipping of a couple mobile vans that were used to detect German agents tuning in to specific channels / signals on wireless radios, etc. My grandfather apparently needed quite a few months to help solve the problem and get a van out there... his manager referred to him as his bottleneck. But eventually, there were vehicles roaming through the British countryside, sometimes at night, at least one of which reportedly did find someone, though pinning him down proved difficult, presumably due to them switching off after broadcasts, etc.

Which is to say, the German's own experts likely thought that detection was a potential risk, both technologically and simply through observation, and they had protocols in place with their agents to limit those risks, possibly including limiting the amounts of time for receiving signals, not receiving signals during daytime, or moving around occasionally.

It appears to have been a significant project. My grandfather mentioned going to Blechley Park on at least one occasion for something or other, so it sounds like it was something basically funded and run by the military, or approved for military purposes in the British Post's budget, with some degree of technology transfer going on. This, according to my grandfather, was basically what was later used by the BBC to detect those not paying licenses.

And while critique of the technology's weaknesses could be quite valid, consider the fact that everyone who bought a set basically was put on a list, to the degree possible, as were those who paid their licenses. That means that over time, van operators and people handling the paperwork could probably come up with a useful list of people who they knew DID have a license in a given building or even an apartment, and, even with inaccurate "hits" from a van, could use that to pretty accurately narrow down those who might not... at which point, you can send out form letters to a limited subset of individuals.

Later detection technology was presumably less accurate. There is talk of color TVs basically being identified by comparing the reflections of light on walls, etc. to that of reflections of certain channels in the van. In any event, enforcement could be done less expensively through nag notices and paperwork, to identify those most likely to be evaders.

No, it doesn't sound like a perfect solution. It does, however, sound like a workable one, which likely did rely, in part, on some degree of the public's general lack of knowledge of how the tech worked, and how well it worked at any one time. 71.205.30.189 (talk) 04:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Did anyone actually calculate how far away theses signals could be detected? I suspect that you really can't detect the signals more than a metre from the set. So yes the theory is real but the ability to detect it from the street is fake. This is how they were able to keep the myth alive.

Here's my experience (Physics graduate fwiw): I remember seeing detector vans outside Steelhouse Lane police station in Birmingham in late '90s. They had 6 PCB mounted X aerials, 3 on each side, crudely attached to the roof-rack. None of the PCBS had any circuitry on them and none were connected to co-ax or any other cables.

I can't provide any evidence, but I suspect that any TV-detctor vans that were operating (if they actually were,) were simply cold war military experimentation into the feasibility of tracking and locating enemy agents.

To wit, from the last section: 'In the crudest manners, a discernible video signal can be recognised, but this would be hard to tie to a specific broadcast, or to an evidentiary standard. A simple optical detector may be able to achieve just as much, and from a simpler circuit'.

That is a great bit of sarcastic hyperbole for an eyeball looking through a window. Brilliant!92.28.23.80 (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

You wrote: "the BBC would KNOW whether a specific address had a valid license or not, you don't need to go through the process of 'detecting' it." But so what? They are trying to detect whether a TV set is present, not whether you have a licence for one. 2A00:23C5:FE18:2700:303E:C0EB:78D0:4AE3 (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeed the whole point of the operation is to cross reference a list of addressed licenses against the detections. I know the technology is eminently feasible at least up until LCD's as when a kid I had a simple battery radio that you could tune to detect CRT's from about 10 metres. WatcherZero (talk) 01:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

A friend maintains that when he was a Penniless Student Oaf in Liverpool some local scallies attacked a detector van, overturned it and broke open the rear to reveal… absolutely nothing. Mr Larrington (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Lies

Why is it ok for the BBC to spread blatant falsehoods about these "detector vans"? Are there any reliable sources that have reported on the fact that these exist other than the state-funded BBC? Why is the BBC given a free pass for lying, when other outlets would be ridiculed? They are LITERALLY publishing fake news. Why does no one care? 2404:4408:474A:6D00:30F2:FAA6:5EA7:BB5E (talk) 07:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

The fact is that in the English criminal court system, if they *did* have detection technology beyond the ability to detect a power supply with a load on it , that was then used to charge someone, the prosecution would have to disclose all the details so it could be subject to testing, etc. therefore simply because the BBC refused to disclose how it works it must therefore not actually work or details of how it works would be easily found in court records ,even if redacted there would be evidence of their existence , (beyond here is speculation) especially because if the technology actually did function beyond the detection of a noisy electronic component found in basically any radio equipment (i.e the detection of a TV specifically) this technology would probably be well known as part of an artifact of the cold war.Josephwhyman041104 (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• "The fact is" – unsourced. That's what your (non factual) personal opinion is.

Considering the UK court system, what legal basis is there for requiring disclosure of a technical method? (Take a look at the recent Lucy Letby case.) Would a magistrate ask for this? I know of no jury trials for licence evasion. A defending barrister might, but who would they ask? They can ask the agent investigating the case (representing both GPO and Home Office, and already on the witness stand) and who could easily make a technical exposition on that basis, far beyond the competence of a UK court to assess. A particularly keen (and well-heeled) defence brief might find an expert witness for the defence, prepared to state that such detection was impossible, and also that the Earth was flat. A magistrate might then be swayed by that, except that the triumvirate of the BBC, Home Office and GPO would then have a substantial interest in not having such a precedent set, such that they'd then steamroller the proceedings with their own experts. Now having seen their behaviour over the Marine Offences Act, or the Telecom Gold hacking case (that relied on legal arguments about as coherent as the flat earth ones, but they persisted and won), they would certainly fire up their bewigged steamroller for this.

But all this is irrelevant. The operation of TV detectors was never secret anyway. Read this article and the sources: the POEEJ. Which while obscure, was never secret.

More to the point, such evidence wasn't needed in court. Detection was a method of finding unlicensed receivers, then showing to their owners that they could be proven in court. At which point a sensible owner realises they're caught and pays up, with a minor penalty and an appearance in a list article in the local newspaper somewhere below the Fish Racing results. A foolish owner doesn't, doesn't show up in court, loses by default, then pays a heavier penalty and appears in the front of the newspaper, with their name in the headline. A true idiot tries to fight it (a relatively small cost and penalty) by what is a massive uphill technical struggle, with the traditional UK process of bankruptcy by legal costs.

Now were the TV detector vans intimidatory? Of course they were! That's why they were distinctive and had "TV DETECTOR VAN" in large letters on the side. Yet the RIB (Radio Investigations Branch [1]) were mostly incognito and unmarked, despite chasing much bigger fish (the pirate radio stations) than TV licence evaders. It is certainly true that there were so few TV detectors in service that most unlicensed viewers had a minimal chance of being caught, and that the publicity before a local campaign was intended to cause more licences to be purchased, even though this decreased the number of evaders to be caught. But none of that means anything about the vans not also being an effective means of detecting TVs. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

TV vans and court

I've just added a freedom of information request detailing that these vans have never been used to enforce the license in court.

This information from the BBC is in conflict with a lot of what's in this article. It really does bring the validity of the whole thing into question Jamiejay11979 (talk) 10:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The Freedom of Information request continues to say that evidence from TV detector vans is used to obtain a warrant, which then leads to collecting evidence in court. If that is the case, is it accurate to say they have “therefore never succeeded in enforcing the TV licence”? —Mgp28 (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Dubious claim of "impossibility"

This unsourced statement in the History section seems dubious: "Since it was not possible to stop people without a licence from buying and operating a TV, it was necessary to find ways of enforcing the TV licence system."

Lots of jurisdictions have laws regulating the sale of lots of different things. So in general, it most definitely is possible to require a license to buy a thing. I don't understand why this section claims it was "not possible". If true, perhaps this statement should have further explanation with some reliable sources. --2001:56A:FE43:8600:DC77:C8AB:3AFB:CCDF (talk) 02:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

There are laws against murder, but people still get murdered. It's because people can do things that are illegal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0A:EF40:36A:8001:5F20:D322:F50:8980 (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Effectiveness of TV detection

Official information has just been released into the public domain that casts into doubt the effectiveness of the BBC's TV detection technology. The TV Licensing Blog obtained the most recent (12 July 2022) report by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner's Office on the BBC. Para 5.2.4 of the report states: "That said, the success rate (of detection) is limited, with only a small number of deployments resulting in further enforcement action, such as the execution of a search warrant. This could be due to the limitations of the detection equipment, which is apparently struggling to keep up with the technological advancements in television viewing." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7C:DABA:9300:8868:316C:FBDF:2B06 (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

It's quite possible that the vans weren't anything wildly high tech, and it sounds like enforcement efforts were assisted by running the vans against lists of recently purchased TVs provided to those enforcing it, but I have reason to suspect they were, in fact, quite real. My name is Mark Kraft, a US citizen. My grandfather, James Neale, was an inventor who worked for the Wireless division of the British Post in London during WW2 as some kind of wireless engineer. Around 1980, he made a tape recording of his time there, talking about a couple of his projects related to the war, of being bombed while taking shelter in structures adjacent to the postal rail, etc. Lots of fine details that supported his stories. Most dealt with trying to snaffle German triangulation of bombing targets from stations they ran on the French, Belgian, and Holland coast, by basically bouncing the same signals back at them from a series of antennas along the Channel coast. He also mentioned something about Adcock direction finders, which I knew nothing about until somewhat recently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adcock_antenna

He also mentioned one project he worked on extensively, which was the construction and equipping of a couple mobile vans that were used to detect German agents tuning in to specific channels / signals on wireless radios, etc. My grandfather apparently needed quite a few months to help solve the problem and get a van out there... his manager referred to him as his bottleneck. But eventually, there were vehicles roaming through the British countryside, sometimes at night, at least one of which reportedly did find someone, though pinning him down proved difficult, presumably due to them switching off after broadcasts, etc.

Which is to say, the German's own experts likely thought that detection was a potential risk, both technologically and simply through observation, and they had protocols in place with their agents to limit those risks, possibly including limiting the amounts of time for receiving signals, not receiving signals during daytime, or moving around occasionally.

It appears to have been a significant project. My grandfather mentioned going to Blechley Park on at least one occasion for something or other, so it sounds like it was something basically funded and run by the military, or approved for military purposes in the British Post's budget, with some degree of technology transfer going on. This, according to my grandfather, was basically what was later used by the BBC to detect those not paying licenses.

And while critique of the technology's weaknesses could be quite valid, consider the fact that everyone who bought a set basically was put on a list, to the degree possible, as were those who paid their licenses. That means that over time, van operators and people handling the paperwork could probably come up with a useful list of people who they knew DID have a license in a given building or even an apartment, and, even with inaccurate "hits" from a van, could use that to pretty accurately narrow down those who might not... at which point, you can send out form letters to a limited subset of individuals.

Later detection technology was presumably less accurate. There is talk of color TVs basically being identified by comparing the reflections of light on walls, etc. to that of reflections of certain channels in the van. In any event, enforcement could be done less expensively through nag notices and paperwork, to identify those most likely to be evaders.

No, it doesn't sound like a perfect solution. It does, however, sound like a workable one, which likely did rely, in part, on some degree of the public's general lack of knowledge of how the tech worked, and how well it worked at any one time.

71.205.30.189 (talk) 04:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Dubious nature of sources

A large amount of the Article takes the point of view that the Detector Vans were a) legitimate, b) practical and c) widely and successfully used.

The sole source of this chunk is two issues of "The Post Office Electrical Engineers' Journal".

There's a few problems with this. Firstly, The Post Office Electrical Engineers' Journal is a publication belonging to the organization which was, at the time, responsible for license enforcement, with an obvious interest in making people afraid of getting caught. Is this a trustworthy source?

To me this seems to be a bit of old propaganda, and it would be better to discuss how that all detector vans currently known to still exist (two are even included here as photographs) are nonfunctional props, and how there is no record of detector vans ever being used in a prosecution.

At the very least, these sections should be rewritten in a more neutral tone that merely describes how the technology allegedly works, and doesn't throw around baseless words like "successful", "well recognized", "numerous" etc. It should be made clear that the technical description is merely what the GPO claimed at the time.

I could also point out that this part of the article is unnecessarily long. Why should anyone need to read about neoprene waterproofing flaps or conical coil winding techniques? An article on a push-mower wouldn't need to explain iron ore.

2A0A:EF40:36A:8001:5F20:D322:F50:8980 (talk) 14:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)