Kemal Ataturk had an entire menagerie all named Abdul!
I’ve heard about this before. Is the tax terribly high? One might think they’d do better to make it low enough that everyone who had enough food would just pay it.
It’s not a ‘tax’. It’s a fee, for watching BBC programmes. It’s currently at just over £150 for a year, free for over 75s, so no, not terribly high. You can choose not to get the service and not pay.
When it started, it obviously wasn’t possible to charge only the people who watched the BBC and not the minuscule number of people who only watched non-BBC channels. ‘The beeb’ had most of the good content anyway, plus no adverts, so there weren’t many people who had a TV but didn’t watch it, especially when there were only a few channels.
Yes, it seems a bit odd now, and I personally choose not to have one and not to watch TV, but it’s a quality service, and no-one thinks twice about getting a Netflix subscription. It’s simply the prototype version of a paid channel, with a few quirks based on historical difficulty of tracking users.
Most people do just pay, it’s primarily students who think they can get away with it and grumpy old sods who refuse on principle who don’t.
My Grandpa definitely fell into the latter category, while he did eventually give up and pay, he was the one who hid it in the cupboard when the inspector came round. The inspector pointed out that he had a TV aerial; Grandpa’s response, in a whisper ‘Shh, I don’t want the whole street to know I can’t afford a TV.’ 
He was worth over £1,000,000 at that point incidentally, before you feel sorry for him, he just liked taking the mickey.
Only on the 'dope could a joke about a Monty Python skit turn into a discussion of broadcast fees…
No he didn’t!
Did! Did! Did! Did! Did!
We know you have a television because we can see the penguin.
I can confirm that those tv detector vans picked up the IF stages, whats more they could record that and display an image to show exactly which channel was being viewed at the time. There were very few of those that were fitted with this equipment, I think it was three or four in the whole UK.
However, they didn’t really need a whole van to carry it all around - things moved on and the detector units were just smallish hand held units about the size of a tablet pc albeit a bit thicker - the advantage being that these can be readily carried to the premises under suspicion.
The vans were actually operated originally by the GPO (general post office) and were horrible old Leyland vans, most of these were completely fake, just fitted out with techie looking stuff and crappy rotating antenna looking things - the enforcement officers inside the vans were real enough but they largely relied upon lists of addresses for which tv licence had not been purchased, along with any local intelligence that might have been sent to them from nosy neighbours.
They also had one tactic designed to attract attention to them as a form of mild coercion - they would drive up and down certain council estates and areas with low percentage of tv licences - in low gears at high revs, making lots of noise, and generally driving like idiots - braking hard with squealing brakes - idea was to get folk looking out their windows and seeing this ‘tv detector van’ careering around. Its was often pretty successful ploy too because there would usually be a significant uptake in tv license purchases in those areas.
I have family who used to drive one of those fake vans around - it was an infill job for when there were slow days on driving the trailer wagons around for Royal Mail.
Odd that penguin bein’ there, innit?
‘Kemal Ataturk, the Man’ by E. W. Swanton with a foreword by Paul Anka, page 91, please.
If it lays an egg, it would fall down the back of the set.
Could it also be that this van, as opposed to just looking for a TV through a window will send a signal that would cause the TV to flash or something more easily detectable from the outside (assuming it’s one and tuned in)?
Dawn Palethorpe, the lady showjumper, had a clam called Sir Stafford.
They might be looking for the specific variable glow associated with whatever the BBC channels were showing at that moment. It wouldn’t take much processing at all to turn the broadcast signal into brightness as a function of time, and to then compare that to the brightness as a function of time coming from a window.
On the other end of the scale, I’ve seen devices that are specifically designed to mimic the varying brightness of a TV as viewed through a window. It’s a little palm-sized thing with LEDs on it. The purpose is to make an unoccupied house look occupied, to deter thieves.
WTF Chronios, Kanicbird ?
Am I on your ignore lists or something? I just posted the answer - tv detector units picked up the IF stages that emanate from tv sets.
You can speculate more if you wish - you could even posit alternatives, but you have the method that was used.
And what exactly did the lady jump a these shows? Surely not a clam, as no one would pay to see that.
Showjumping with horses. Showjumping with clams would be very difficult, as it is hard to find a saddle that fits a bivalve.
And how does that reconcile with the cite saying that it’s an optical detector?
Wrong. There’s never been any credible evidence that “TV Detector Vans” ever did anything, whether hand-held or in the van. The only thing that they were good for is the second part of your post, scaring the gullible.
So the vans are full of show-jumping clams? Or is it clam jumpers?