................ONLY if the cat and dog aren't watching the TV in your house while you're away !

The video for the "Pacers" was better than that !

TVL have admitted that there has never been a prosecution where "detector van" evidence has been used.

Two reasons: (Which TVL do not acknowledge !)

1. This type of evidence is believed to be classified as "covert surveillance", which is the same as telephone tapping. It can only be used on an individual case basis and only when pre-authorised at a high level. This is hardly likely to be given if the reason given is that a Mr bignosemac is suspected of watching Eastenders without a licence !

2. Any prosecution evidence (in any Court case) must be made available to the defence, so that they can query it's viability. The best example of this is speed cameras; all the technical details of these devices are available. If you are a good enough technical wizard you can cause enough doubt on the way the machine is designed/used to "get away with it".  TVL have refused to divulge details of what these much vaunted "detector vans" contain - of late they do seem not to have mentioned these so much - they now have "hand held devices" ! Therefore this "evidence" cannot be used.

The "rant" was certainly not aimed at you - if it came across that way, that was not how it was intended.    
Many people just do not understand the Law on this subject. For example the majority believe that you need a licence just to own a TV - not so...........................sorry, ranting again !
Don't get me started on "detector vans"  ......................................


100% spot on !

I fear that you are one of the many that TVL have bamboozled by their less than honest advertising along with their co-conspirator, the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page).

I am NOT "exempt" anything - I am obeying the Law of the Land.
The Law says that you require a TV Licence to watch or record LIVE television (regardless of its origin) - full stop !

If I use my TV for watching videos from Blockbuster, or playing on my PS3 or even watching last night's Eastenders that my neighbour recorded for me (there may be copyright issues here - but that doesn't fall under TVL's remit) I DO NOT require a Licence.
You do not have to de-tune or disconnect the TV. You do not have to tell TVL that you do not require a licence (If you do tell them this, they say that they will send someone round to check - therefore they are accusing you of lying - nice people ! Apart from which, if they do visit and you are not watching LIVE TV you are not committing an offence).
You do not have to let them into your house, you do not have to speak to them - unless you wish to tell them to "go away" - in whatever terms you wish !
You can legally ban them from ever setting foot on your property (as I have) - they have issued a statement through Parliament saying that people who do this will not be targeted or harassed as a consequence of their doing this.

Don't get me wrong here, I do have a licence  (my "saga" concerned an empty house which I was refurbishing). However, I do think the licence has become outmoded and I think that people who do watch without a licence are stealing from us honest folks who do pay.
What I did object to, most strongly, were the tactics used by TVL, I am old enough and ugly enough to look after myself, but what effect their tactics might have on the elderly and the vulnerable I shudder to think. There are (apocryphal ?) stories of pensioners who do not require to buy a licence actually buying one just to get TVL "off their backs"

Rant over !!

I was aware of that site thanks.  I am completely au fait with TVL's tactics and I am 100% sure of who does and does not require a Licence.
TVL are not only a bunch of cowboys, they are incompetent. When they replied to my MP^▸ (Member of Parliament)'s letter they copied it to me as well - well, sort of !
It was addressed to a Mr Webster (NOT my name) who lived in a place called Arminster.



Edit Note:  This new topic has been split off from http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=6724.msg67066#msg67066 as that particular discussion was going significantly off-topic.  Chris.

Totally agree with what you say about CTAs. What I am trying to ascertain from SWT is exactly what they are saying their "compulsory ticket area" is, if it isn't a "Compulsory Ticket Area". They seem to be imposing such an area but by not calling it one, seem to think that none of the Rules laid down by DfT apply to them !
They are allowed to set up a CTA when not all the operators operate PFs^▸ (Penalty Fare) - if abnormal circumstances apply. I have asked them what these circumstances are - again, IF the area is a formal CTA.
The Rules do indeed say that barriers are not needed to set up a CTA - but if barriers are installed it becomes a CTA (or a cta ?) by default.

I didn't really post here for a "second opinion", my previous post in another forum was just a comment in an existing thread. I was prepared to shrug my shoulders and forget the whole thing until last Saturday when having been told by SWT (in writing!) that the whole world is hell bent on travelling on their trains without paying and that they are justified in their OTT^▸ (Open Train Times website) actions by fighting back against these hordes - I arrive at the "offending station" to find it devoid of staff and all the barriers locked wide open !  That, I am afraid, got right "up my nose" !!!


Since I posted here I have had a lot of very useful information  on this subject from other forum members and comments from at least one other who experienced the same poor attitude of the staff at Salisbury.

If SWT want their "customers" to play by the Rules, it is only fair (fare?) to expect SWT to play by the same Rules - is it not ?

(As an aside:- 3 years ago I had a long saga with TV Licensing, who were threatening me with all sorts of dreadful things because I didn't have a TV Licence. I DID^» (Didcot Parkway - next trains) have a television and it was connected to an aerial and I did NOT have a TV Licence.
The LAW said that I did not require a licence, but TV Licensing decided that the LAW didn't apply to them and kept threatening me. In the end it took a letter from my MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) to this bunch of cowboys for them to stop. I have also banned TV Licensing from ever setting foot on my property in the future, they have acknowledged this in writing to my MP.
The "little man" does win sometimes !!!)



Edit Note: As the discussion on TV Licensing went off-topic at this point, I've moved some subsequent posts to a new topic on that particular subject, at http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=6737.0  Chris.

Wow  -  I appear to have really opened a can of worms here !

I have written to SWT^▸ (South West Trains) again. I have asked them  to explain exactly what Salisbury station is. A CTA^▸ (Compulsory Ticket Area) or not ?  and how they justify denying access to (law abiding) non travellers.

I live in Warminster, I have seen NOTHING that says Warminster is a PF^▸ (Penalty Fare) station - but it appears that Westbury is (may be - possibly !).

What a complete and utter farce "!!!!

 

I'll hold my hand up here - one is genuine, one is "Photoshopped" !   (purely for my own amusement I hasten to add)

Thanks for that link mac, I had seen that map before, but could I find it when I needed it.............   

This saga is getting more and more interesting. Is it a CTA.....?

Yes:   SWT^▸ (South West Trains) are not obeying the rules.
No:    What is it ? Can SWT legally do what they are doing ?

(In my second letter to SWT I have said it is a de facto CTA  - hedging my bets !)

What exactly is a CTA ?  As you rightly say Salisbury should not (normally !) have a CTA due to FGW not operating a PF policy on this route.
As far as I, as an ordinary member of the public, am concerned Salisbury IS a CTA - we were both informed that we needed a "valid ticket" to enter the platform area. If that isn't a CTA, what is it ?
Are SWT^▸ (South West Trains) making up their own rules ?

The DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) rules (from IanH's link) seem to be quite clear and unambiguous:

"4.10 At stations with a CTA, operators must make arrangements for people who are not travelling to be allowed into the part of the station covered by the CTA, if they have a good reason. This includes people who are meeting passengers, seeing passengers off or helping them with luggage, people helping passengers with disabilities, and people such as railway enthusiasts. The arrangements might include making platform tickets available at the ticket office or from a machine"


I am putting together another letter to SWT to see what that brings.

Welcome to the forum Ian.

Thank you for that link, VERY interesting - I feel another letter to SWT^▸ (South West Trains) coming on !

The whole series of events on the first occasion was:

We went to Salisbury to collect our daughter travelling down from Kent. Normally she would have gone on to Warminster, but there were no through trains that day and as she had been unwell she asked if we could collect her from Salisbury.

My wife approached the young "lady" on the barriers and asked if we could go through. She was told very brusquely, not without a ticket. I then arrived and was told quite rudely, that in effect: "no ticket - no entry". End of story !
I then went to the booking office window and enquired about platform tickets.  At first I was told that "we don't sell them" - when I said that I thought they still existed, I was told "we have been told not to sell them". When I said that I needed to get onto the platforms, the response was "that's your problem", and the man turned away from the window !

I then asked at the barrier to speak to the Duty Manager, who was very polite, but was obviously "toeing the party line", hence her ludicrous statement about platform tickets. When I said that I could access the platforms at (say) Romsey without a hindrance, she then said that was "covered" because they had ticket machines ! I pointed out AGAIN that I didn't want to travel - just to meet my daughter ! 

Eventually she let us through. When we came to leave, we waited by the barrier for the original "lady" to let us out. She either had VERY poor eyesight  or deliberately ignored us. Eventually she did let us out with as much ill grace as she could muster.

The main reason I wrote and complained was the attitude of the first two members of staff, BUT I may well now chase up the barrier question again !

About a month ago I was refused access to the platforms at Salisbury Station by a couple of less than polite SWT^▸ (South West Trains) employees, because I didn't have "a valid ticket".
Following a further (very polite) discussion with the duty manager I was given access. During this discussion I raised the subject of Platform Tickets and was told "we stopped selling Platform Tickets when the barriers were put in" !!!!! She WAS serious !"

Following this incident I wrote to SWT complaining about their staff (the first two !) and asking what their policy was now on platform access for non travellers.
Their reply totally ignored my comments about their staff and went on to inform me that as there were a lot of "less than honest " people around, EVERYONE would be treated as such.

(It was also obvious that the "letter" was a "press Enter to get standard reply letter to a complaint" as it referred to my having filled in their "Any Concerns" form.  As I had bothered to write a proper letter it would have been courteous, if nothing else, for someone to have done the same in response.)

Earlier this evening my wife and I went to Salisbury Station to meet my daughter arriving from Waterloo. As it was cold and raining we sat in the car until about 5 mins before the train was due; then we went into the booking hall - to find - all the gates locked open ! Not a single member of staff to be seen.

I can only assume that SWT think that all the "less than honest" folk are all in the pubs by 1815 on a Saturday !

Agree - and more of what were "off peak travellers" will now be available for clobbering in future.


According to SWT^▸ (South West Trains) it's 8% of their services.

Another SWT fare "increase" I have become aware of recently:

I use the BRI^» (Bristol Temple Meads - next trains) to WAT service, buying advance tickets, usually First class. A year ago I could get an advance ticket from WMN^» (Warminster - next trains) to WAT for about ^10.50 (can't remember exact figure), it is now ^11.20.
However the ^11.20 fare has become much more difficult to get, even booking right out to the end of the advance period. BUT - a new advance First class fare has appeared, priced at ^19. This fare seems to be as available as the ^10.50 used to be.

It certainly doesn't get any extra revenue out of me - I am going up next week. First up, Standard back; have done that several times recently. I spend the saving on a couple of small bottles of wine at Waterloo to numb the pain of the journey !

In a similar vein, I once heard at an announcement at Hamburg Airport for "Mr Flash and Mr Gordon" to contact the Information Desk.