Why we're here:
This blog is to highlight the unjust persecution of legitimate non-TV users at the hands of TV Licensing. These people do not require a licence and are entitled to live without the unnecessary stress and inconvenience caused by TV Licensing's correspondence and employees.

If you use equipment to receive or record live broadcast television programmes then the law requires you to have a licence and we encourage you to buy one.

Tuesday, 24 April 2012

TV Licensing Botch Search Warrant Execution

 TV Licensing botched search warrant goon (please contact us if you know who he is).

If a picture paints a thousand words then video footage must paint a million. Words of TV Licensing's embarrassment are being painted today, with the publication of another YouTube video showing in cringe worthy detail the incompetence of two TV Licensing employees.

The BBC is the statutory Licensing Authority, which is ultimately responsible for all aspects of TV licence administration and enforcement. TV Licensing is a trading name used by the companies contracted to undertake TV licence work on behalf of the BBC. The TV Licensing operations contract is held by a company called Capita Business Services, who employ the muppets executing the search warrant in this video. The BBC go to great lengths to distance themselves from the TV Licensing brand name, because they know and condone the despicable enforcement techniques their contractors employ.

Two TV Licensing employees are accompanied by two police officers as they execute this warrant under s.366 of the Communications Act 2003. To get that warrant a representative of Capita had to make a deposition, on oath, to the effect that they had reasonable grounds to suspect the occupier was illegally watching or recording live TV programmes without a licence.

As I am confident Capita and the BBC will read this, I will confirm the authenticity of the article by saying that the botched raid happened today in East Yorkshire.

As the search unfolds it quickly becomes apparent that neither of the TV Licensing employees, who spend several minutes testing equipment in the lounge and upstairs bedroom, find any evidence at all of unlicensed TV use. No broadcast image (or frozen image, in case TV Licensing try to superimpose one later on) is seen on either TV screen, despite the frantic button pressing of the uninvited visitors. When directly challenged with "are you receiving a signal on this television" the sunken-eyed TV Licensing vermin replies "not as yet". At least one police officer was with the occupier at all times during the unfruitful search, which should hopefully be reflected in their notes of the event.

After about five minutes of finding nothing the TV Licensing vermin recoiled like slugs to salt. They skulked out of the house back into the sewers with the occupier taunting their legal impotence and failed search attempts. He also withdraws their implied right of access to his property and reminds them that future intrusions onto his property would constitute harassment.

I wonder what half-truths TV Licensing told to get a Magistrate to authorise that search? Did they claim to have detected a "possible broadcast with a confidence factor of 97%" with one of their kiddies' kaleidoscopes? 

One thing's for sure - their evidence was obviously a complete and utter crock of shit!

11 comments:

TJoK said...

I felt pretty sick watching that.

A search warrant granted over a £145.50 tv licence that wasn't even required. Two police officers in attendance who could have spent better time keeping the streets safe for vulnerable people and this DISGUSTING SCUM harass ANOTHER innocent man.

Did they not learn a lesson from the Shakespeare case or are they so arrogant they think they can continue to bully innocent people?

Shame on them.

Stephen Falken said...

Can you please clarify something for me?

I thought that to be prosecuted you had to either be caught or admit to actually watching broadcast TV. i.e. Caught in the act?

If this is the case, why the hell are they free to roam around his house and even mess with the TV or remote in an attempt to pickup a signal? That would not prove him guilty of anything!

Even if the TV was connected to a live ariel and tuned in, there is no offence unless he is actually using it!

SCUM!

admin said...

Unfortunately Stephen you are a little bit mistaken.

An offence is committed if TV receiving/recording equipment is installed or used without a TV licence.

If they test the TV equipment (e.g. turn on and channel hop) and find it receives live TV programmes then it is installed.

TJoK said...

I think you'll find Mr Falken has had an encounter with that disgusting filth also. He took the precaution of filming his encounter on his own doorstep. When the obnoxious little runt from TV Licensing saw the camera she ran away as quickly as possible, not without a nasty little sneer before she left though. This encounter is one of the most rude I have seen so far but coming from TVL one can't expect much better really.

You'll find the video if you search for 'TV Licensing woman runs away' on YouTube.

elvira said...

Does one have a right to know what the supposed evidence was and who swore it? I have heard of these people getting done for perjury.

admin said...

It might be possible for the victim of the search to obtain a copy of the deposition (sworn statement applying for the warrant) if they say the right things to the local Magistrates Court.

You are right that TV Licensing have employed criminal methods in the past. The BBC has confirmed a number of TV Licensing employees have been convicted to theft/fraud related offences committed in the pursuit of their duties.

As for perjury... I couldn't possibly comment on that. I don't think any TV Licensing employee has been convicted of perjury.

Then again, Michael Jackson wasn't convicted of being a nonce and OJ Simpson wasn't convicted of murdering his estranged wife.

Draw your own conclusions!

Anonymous said...

After watching the youtube video, I have a question. I understand that a tv without an aerial connected is ok, no license required. A computer and internet connection is ok and I do not need a license as long as I do not access live tv but can access Iplayer etc. What is to stop a TV license inspector checking my tv without an aerial (all o.k.) then switching on my computer accessing live tv over the internet and then declaring that I will be prosecuted for not having a tv license as I can not prove that I have not been watching live TV over the internet ? My opinion is that i have better thing to spend £145 on and am happy not to watch tv to save the money but do value internet access.

admin said...

For one, TV Licensing has ZERO right at all to be checking anyone's PC. A PC is not deemed to be "Television Receiving Equipment" in the eyes of the law.

Secondly, if they were to navigate to a website viewing live TV then it would be them that installed the TV programme service (e.g. loaded the webpage) and not you.

But it's hypothetical anyway, because you hopefully know not to communicate or co-operate with TV
Licensing in any way at all.

Ignore them and say nothing then they can't touch you, despite all their hot air.

Anonymous said...

it looks like the person who has previously posted videos', and looks to have been made an example from to keep appearances up to an audience although this has badly backfired.

these people never learn. people are much more aware because of the internet and shared experiences not because of their boring old programs that stopped people paying in the first place.

TJoK said...

The way to stop this happening is easy. Never let this filthy, disgusting and arrogant scum into your house.

Anonymous said...

This is strange. It states on the warrant that there must be reasonable grounds for a search. However the gentleman who had his house searched clearly had no broadcasting equipment. So where did the reasonable grounds for a search come from? Fabricated maybe?