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 live broadcast TV programmes, or to watch or download on-demand programmes via the BBC iPlayer, then the law requires you to have a licence and we encourage you to buy one.

If you've just arrived here from a search engine, then you might find our Quick Guide helpful.

Saturday, 16 November 2013

Danny Allen vs. TV Licensing: The Conclusion

It is with some regret, although not total surprise, that we report that Danny Allen has been convicted of obstructing the search warrant TV Licensing attempted to execute at his home last December.

This has not been a particularly pleasant post for us to write. Since the result of Danny's trial we've been carefully weighing up the costs of highlighting TV Licensing's result, against the benefits of warning other people in similar circumstances - exceptionally rare as those circumstances are. Loathe as we are to promote any kind of TV Licensing victory, we have decided to outline the facts below as a warning to others on the receiving end of a TV Licensing search warrant.

There can't be many people who haven't seen Danny's hilarious encounter with TV Licensing goon Ian Doyle on YouTube. In case you somehow managed to miss it, you can read all about the events of that cold December day in our earlier post.

The twists in this story since we wrote our follow-up post are quite astonishing and almost defy belief. Back in August we explained how the court had decided TV Licensing were too late to bring charges against Danny. We published a letter from the court, which clearly stated that TV Licensing's charges were being withdrawn.

In a sickening twist of fate, we learnt a week after our follow-up that the court had made a blunder over the dates. TV Licensing had actually lodged their case within the time limits, but the court had overlooked that point due to staff shortages. The court wrote a letter of apology to Danny explaining their mistake and confirming that TV Licensing would be pursuing search warrant obstruction charges after all. We decided not to publish information about the court's mistake, because we didn't want to afford the BBC and TV Licensing the satisfaction of publicity.

A new summons arrived and Danny considered his options. He decided to plead not guilty and his trial was scheduled for 5th November 2013 at Harlow Magistrates' Court. Without going into too many details the famous "Freeman of the Land" (FMOTL) arguments deployed by Danny on the day of the search were rejected by the court.

Danny's lawyer did not dispute the validity of the search warrant or the circumstances in which it was granted, but he did raise a few questions about TV Licensing's attempts to execute it. The court viewed Danny's entire video of the botched search. Those events were thoroughly discussed and considered by the court, so there is little point delving any deeper. Suffice to say all of the possible weaknesses in TV Licensing's case, which were tenuous to say the least, were rebuffed by the court.

Danny was convicted of obstructing TV Licensing's search warrant, contrary to section 366 of the Communications Act 2003. He was fined £100 and has to pay TV Licensing £300 in costs. Perhaps more significantly he now has a criminal record thanks to adopting legally-baseless, albeit populist, FMOTL arguments in an effort to fend off TV Licensing.

We can state, quite categorically, that Danny has never used a TV receiver in his property. We have seen video footage of him telling TV Licensing employees that fact, despite them denying any knowledge of his no-TV status in court. Had Danny allowed TV Licensing access they would have confirmed there was no evidence of unlicensed TV reception. They would also have also suffered untold damage when video footage of their fruitless search was distributed across the web.

Despite TV Licensing having achieved a technical victory in court, there is no denying that Danny's case has been a particularly unedifying experience for them. The way they toyed with proceedings right to the time-limits demonstrates their action was brought more in spite than public interest. After tickling Danny's balls in a protracted bout of legal foreplay, TV Licensing have seen him punished by the court to the tune of £100. That's hardly a significant money shot.

We strongly suspect that TV Licensing's aggressive and legally unjustified targeting of Danny's property stems from the fact he has previously posted anti-TV Licensing videos on YouTube. TV Licensing has previous form for vexatiously pursuing their outspoken opponents, even when there's no credible evidence of unlicensed TV reception. TV Licensing goon Doyle, who previously featured in their botched prosecution of Michael Shakespeare, confirmed to the court that he was often sent to deal with high profile cases. That seems to reinforce the notion that Danny's was a special case.

As we have previously said, anyone who adopts the ill-informed mantra of "search warrants require consent" or "TV Licensing search warrants are a civil matter and not worth the paper they're printed on" is asking for trouble. These arguments have been tested by experienced lawyers in court, instead of unqualified barrack room lawyers chasing popularity. The people coming out with these dangerous rabble-rousing soundbites are not those standing toe-to-toe with TV Licensing.

If their arguments were correct that "Acts are only law if you consent" then the country would be awash with drug dealers immune from prosecution under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; people could go about stealing without fear of punishment under the Theft Act 1968; arsonists could torch whatever they liked without worrying about the Criminal Damage Act 1971. I think those examples totally obliterate any nonsensical logic that Acts are not subject to the full force of law.

In the exceptionally rare event that TV Licensing do appear with a warrant, the occupier is advised to co-operate with their search. By far the best option is to avoid all contact with TV Licensing, thus depriving them of any opportunity to obtain a search warrant in the first place.

Please consider everything we have said carefully.

TJoK has produced a final video conversation with Danny Allen, where they discuss his feelings about the outcome.

For further information from "TV Licensing's Most Prevalent Activist" (that's how the BBC describes us) please download our free ebook.


Ray Turner said...

I totally agree. If there's a Police Officer present and a Warrant, let them in. Its stupid not to when its got that stage, and doubly so if you have nothing to hide...

Anonymous said...

I think you'd better remove that gavel illustration from you post. It is not used in British courts.

Been watching too many US courtroom dramas on TV?

admin said...

It illustrates the point, so it's stopping.

Thanks for your comment anyway.

eck said...

Good on danny and good on you for keeping us informed, I had the goons at my door I raised the nonce saville argument the goon was literally lost for words, told him he was basically supporting saville and the likes, anyway I've since got rid off my tv due to its a pile of $ h1t

TV Licensing Watch said...

Doyle “We do have rights and powers of entry, we do not exercise them, Sir.”

Absurd. Crapita putting into effect the BBC's own policy as stated by Doyle AT THE TIME. A policy of not forcing entry which in essence is obstruction of the search order they applied for to a gullible JP and received.

Hope DA will appeal. Any info whether he will?

Anonymous said...

He may have been fined £100 and had to pay £300 in costs but the fact is he has still refused to buy a TV licence so this is no victory for TVL
I would not let them in and I would go to court just out of principle
They can fine people all they like as long as the end result is still no payment for a licence
Nice on Danny

Anonymous said...

aw"If their arguments were correct that "Acts are only law if you consent" then the country would be awash with drug dealers immune from prosecution under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; people could go about stealing without fear of punishment under the Theft Act 1968; arsonists could torch whatever they liked without worrying about the Criminal Damage Act 1971. I think those examples totally obliterate any nonsensical logic that Acts are not subject to the full force of law."

I offer the following opinion without ill will. Men and women, are lawfully free to do whatever the heck they like as long as what they do does not break 'Common Law'. That means, they are NOT to cause damage or loss to any person place or thing and they must be honest in all their business dealing(s). On the other hand Persons....that's men and women using Berth Certificated Registered Names, must not only adhere to Common Law, but also adhere to Statute Law, (when and only when they have already consented to do so) therefore Acts of Parliament as well.
In your example above stealing is a crime, under common law anyway, and if the thieves and drug dealers, and arsonists are causing harm or loss, whether or not they have registered names they have committed a crime in any case under common law, so they can and will be arrested and charged.

Peace to all. It does take a while to let the truth shine out and this generation is the generation to illuminate the truth.

admin said...

Thanks for your comment Anon. I disagree and you'll find the courts do too.

Anonymous said...

Well lets back up to what actually happened in the vid, firstly the police are violating their common Law oath when becoming involved in civil disputes and they violate Case Law made in our Crown Courts and High Courts.
When Doyle was asked, if we don't let you in what happens, he comes out with the asinine reply of, we will go away and get a warrant. See when you engage these morons you have to be a quick thinker with quick repartee, had it been me I would have fired back quick as a flash, so the paper you are claiming is a warrant is not a warrant its bogus.
Now you rubbish the FMOTL arguments which is risible, trust me Danny is not the sharpest pencil in the box he lacks real communication skills. Of course the powers that be know that Acts and Statutes are not Laws they are the rules and regulations that oil the wheels of their society. They have created and used them to rob people of their freedoms and take away their hard earned debt notes.
I have submitted to the Home Secretary Theresa May her mandarins at the Home Office, Hogan Howe at the MET the Chief Constable of Essex police and my MP my Shoot the Jew Fallacy which clearly shows we have the moral duty to abjure from any legislation we deem to be pernicious to ourselves or others. Laws are immutable and Sacrosanct, man made legislation is fallible, gets repealed and is clearly not.
Not one of those who I sent my well reasoned fallacy to attempted to rebut it because its irrefutable and its based on a precedent set in International Law upholding Common Law which comes from The Creator:

To the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Hogan-Howe

Please ensure that Hogan Howe sees this report when you do nothing and quote bad legislation at me the Police Reform Act I will then push this complaint over to the IPCC and the Home Office. This cannot be allowed to go unchecked, I am starting to believe those dubbed Conspiracy Theoriest who say we are a nation governed by criminals and policed by thugs. With relatives serving in the Met Police I know there are good police out there who have signed up to uphold the Common Law of this ancient Land. I just wish I had a warrant card because I would be arresting those abusing their positions of public trust. This cannot be tolerated and we the Good Law Abiding Citizens of the UK must hold those serving us to account.

Shoot the Jew fallacy

Imagine they pass a law that we the people must exterminate all Jews and they put a Jew in front of you and order you to pull the trigger on the gun they have given you.
Do you have the moral right to disobey the law. The answer is of course you do, you have a moral duty to paraphrase Jefferson and rightly so. What of those morons who would pull the trigger, well they will rightly be brought to justice and there defence of I was only following orders and doing my duty Sir will not pass the muster. That defence was tried and rejected during the Nuremberg trials and Nazis were hung. A precedent in International Common Law was set and cannot be changed. Now tell me that individuals do not have the right to refuse to consent. We have an absolute
MORAL DUTY TO REFUSE TO COMPLY with any legislation that impinges upon our moral code. Don't make the mistake thinking that legislation is law its not, they are deceiving the people and its time we all woke back up into Christ consciousness and put the vipers to bed:

Ignorance is the curse of God; knowledge the wing whereby we fly to heaven.
William Shakespeare Henry 6th

“Woe unto you!”said Christ addressing the lawyers, “for ye have taken away the key to knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves and them that were entering in ye hindered.”

“No enactment of man can be considered law unless it conforms to the law of God.”
The renowned English jurist Sir William Blackstone


kniiiick said...

Hi all, I agree with ANON, though the courts, cops and millions of sheeple don't / won't.

If everyman stood up for common law and our own sovereignty we would be better off methinkx, oh I can dream!!

God Bless us all

Anonymous said...

Guys why has the final thoughts with danny after the case video been removed from youtube?? Can you please post a reply to where he stopped the warrent "that cold morning in dec" lol im gutted author i clicked your link video UNAVAILABLE only if i could tell you what my dog found why walking in a farm field im scared what to do with it as i be arressted so left it nearby

Admin said...

Hello Anon.

The video you refer to was produced by our noble colleague TJoK and he has chosen to remove it from his channel for whatever reason.

Apologies for any disappointment.

SSmith said...

I have studied law. Acts of Parliament or statutes are the highest form of law in this country. In the USA they have a written constitution as the highest law protecting their basic freedoms. We have Parliamentary sovereignty, where Acts are the highest law, and rights we had previously can be changed by only making another Act. The nearest we have to a written document easy to look up by anybody to protect our basic rights that other law has to obey are the European Convention on Human Rights, which Tories and UKIP want to take away. They think they should be trusted to make our own written constitution, when in the past Tories used the police as their personal army against millions they made unemployed, lying that ship building would go over to third world countries when it's now in rich countries like Japan. Then when the only hope many have in communities destroyed by Tories is a job in Tesco, Tories make their life even more difficult if they just want to get by, and not be a slave for the few at the top.
People who say ECHR takes away our sovereignty, really mean it takes away the rights of abusers to change laws taking away our rights.