TV Licensing Warning to Six Nations Rugby Fans

TV Licensing has issued a warning to Six Nations Rugby fans who might be tempted to tune into the tournament without a valid TV licence.

According to a press release on the TV Licensing website, its goons will be visiting unlicensed pubs, clubs and bars throughout this year's tournament, which kicks off next weekend and lasts until 21st March 2015.

A TV licence is required for any property where equipment is used or installed to receive TV programmes at the time they are shown. Businesses choosing to show TV programmes to customers require a TV licence covering the public area of the premises. Additionally, a second TV licence might be required to cover the reception of TV programmes in private or residential parts of the premises.

Neil Robertson, of trade body the British Institute of Innkeeping, said: "We know that pub landlords are always keen to stay within the law so if you’re showing the RBS 6 Nations, it’s a good opportunity to make sure you’re correctly covered by a TV Licence. Pub managers and landlords with residential accommodation on the premises also need to check that they are correctly covered in those separate areas too."

Remember that a TV licence is only needed if equipment is used to receive TV programmes at the same time as they are broadcast. There are many ways you can enjoy the Six Nations perfectly legally without a TV licence. Here are just a few:

1. Watch it non-live on a catch up service: You do not need a licence to enjoy previously broadcast non-live coverage on the BBC's iPlayer for example.

2. Watch live at a friend's place: If they've got a TV licence you could go and watch their telly instead. If you didn't want to impose you could take your laptop around and stream live TV via their broadband connection.

3. Watch live at the pub/club: I'm reliably informed by student friends that you can nurture a soft drink for at least two hours if you sip it slowly. That's just enough time to watch the game.

4. Watch live at your local electrical retailer: Electrical retailers do not need a TV licence for their display sets. If you're a bit of a cheapskate you could visit Currys and watch the best events there.

5. Become a TV engineer: If you're a TV fixer upper then you do not need a TV licence to test equipment you're working on.

We don't condone anyone taking a chance by watching the Six Nations without a valid TV licence. That said, we're so not bothered if anyone chooses to do just that!

The 2015 Six Nations schedule is as follows:

Round 1:

• Wales vs. England; Millennium Stadium, Cardiff; 20:05 hrs on 6th February.
• Italy vs. Ireland; Stadio Olimpico, Rome; 15:30 hrs on 7th February.
• France vs. Scotland; Stade de France, Paris; 18:00 hrs on 7th February.

Round 2:

• England vs. Italy; Twickenham Stadium, London; 14:30 hrs on 14th February.
• Ireland vs. France; Aviva Stadium, Dublin; 17:00 hrs on 14th February.
• Scotland vs Wales; Murrayfield Stadium, Edinburgh; 15:00 hrs on 15th February.

Round 3:

• Scotland vs. Italy; Murrayfield Stadium, Edinburgh; 14:30 hrs on 28th February.
• France vs. Wales; Stade de France, Paris; 18:00 hrs on 28th February.
• Ireland vs. England; Aviva Stadium, Dublin; 15:00 hrs on 1st March.

Round 4:

• Wales vs. Ireland; Millennium Stadium, Cardiff; 14:30 hrs on 14th March.
• England vs. Scotland; Twickenham Stadium, London; 17:00 hrs on 14th March.
• Italy vs. France; Stadio Olimpico, Rome; 16:00 hrs on 15th March.

Round 5:

• Italy vs. Wales; Stadio Olimpico, Rome; 13:30 hrs on 21st March.
• Scotland vs. Ireland; Murrayfield Stadium, Edinburgh; 14:30 hrs on 21st March.
• England vs. France; Twickenham Stadium, London; 17:00 hrs on 21st March.

If you've found this article useful please share it with your friends and consider using our Amazon referral link for your shopping.

MP Calls For Action Over TV Licensing Threatograms

The Labour MP for North Ayrshire and Arran has called for action against the way TV Licensing terrorises innocent individuals by sending them threatening reminder letters.

A TV licence is only required by those properties where equipment is used or installed to receive TV programmes at the same time as they are broadcast to other members of the public.

Katy Clark tabled a parliamentary question on the subject following complaints from non-viewing constituents about the way TV Licensing continued to send them threatening letters, despite being informed about their no-TV status.

TV Licensing sends an average of 100,000 of the intimidating letters every day, despite the BBC acknowledging that at least 80% of the recipients have no legal need for a TV licence.

Speaking about the subject on her website, Katy said: "I appreciate that those responsible for TV Licensing do an important job and it goes without saying that all those who require a TV License should purchase one. I am however concerned that at present the language which is used in letters sent by TV Licensing to households without televisions can be inappropriate.

"Often those who do not have a TV Licence are either elderly or vulnerable people for whom receiving a letter threatening legal action can be a distressing experience. There should be a simple way for households without televisions to register that fact with TV Licensing and then should any further correspondence be necessary it can be conducted in a much more considerate tone than at present."

Ed Vaizey MP, the Liberal Democrat Minister for Culture, Media and Sport, provided the following response to Katy's question: "TV Licensing is responsible for all operational decisions regarding enforcement of the licence fee, including correspondence. Any changes to the enforcement regime, including outcomes from the TV Licence Fee Enforcement Review, would need to be considered as a part of the review of the BBC's Royal Charter."

BBC Newcastle: RAJAR Drinks Are On Us

BBC Newcastle staff were each rewarded with a £50 voucher and drinks on the licence fee payer, after the station achieved bumper listening figures.

The station, which boasts broadcasting legends like Alfie Joey, Charlie Charlton and Sue Sweeney, comes from premises nicknamed the 'Pink Palace' on the city's Barrack Road. It achieved a reach of 370,000 in the last quarter of 2013, according to figures published by RAJAR.

The story has just come to light after the BBC responded to a recent Freedom of Information request by Carl Jefferson.

A BBC spokesperson said: "BBC Newcastle achieved record listening figures in the last quarter of 2013.

"As common in many organisations, it was decided to hold a small informal get together to thank the station’s hardworking staff for their contribution towards this success, and strict rules and policies keep costs low."

In a previous request Carl established that the BBC spent more than £3,000 on what it grandiosely describes as a "Synergy Wall" within the Pink Palace. The wall, which is hidden from normal public view, includes photographs of various BBC Newcastle personalities and was knocked together by some local university students.

It would appear that Carl has some insider knowledge of how the BBC operates in Newcastle and we'd very much like him to get in touch.

TV Licence: Have Internet, But No TV

An increasing number of people are abandoning conventional TV in favour of the internet, but where do they stand in terms of TV licence law?

Recent Ofcom research indicates that today's teenagers are more tech savvy than ever, with the next generation of licence-fee-payers spending less than half their viewing time watching licensable live broadcast TV programmes. 

An increasing number of younger viewers are turning to DVDs, online catch-up services and downloadable programmes, none of which require payment of the £145.50 a year TV licence fee. Furthermore, only 3% of the 16 to 24-year-olds surveyed said they would miss watching live broadcast TV programmes, compared to almost a third of those aged 65 and over.

It appears people's viewing habits are shifting dramatically with the evolution of new technology, but TV licence legislation remains pretty much as it was first drafted in the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949.

Current legislation, section 363 of the Communications Act 2003, states that a TV receiver must not be installed or used unless the property is covered by a valid TV licence. 

A TV receiver, within the meaning of the Act, is any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any TV programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose. Quite simply, if it's not installed or used for receiving TV programmes, then it's not a TV receiver and does not need to be covered by a TV licence.

Although TV programmes are freely available only a few mouse clicks across the web, a computer (tablet or mobile phone) is not a TV receiver unless actually used for the purpose of receiving TV programmes. That will only be the case if the person using the device actually navigates to a web page displaying TV programmes.

Mere ownership of a computer (tablet or mobile phone), or access to the web, does not therefore require a TV licence unless that device is actually used for the purposes of receiving TV programmes.

Similarly, mere ownership of a TV set does not require a TV licence, unless that set is used for the purposes of receiving TV programmes.

We'd also remind readers of the following important points:

• In some limited circumstances a person will already be covered to view TV programmes in a property other than their normal home address. This rule is particularly useful for students.
• The viewing of non-live catch-up services does not require a TV licence, as these fall outside the legal definition of a TV programme service.
• The occupier of a correctly unlicensed property is under no legal obligation whatsoever to communicate or co-operate with TV Licensing and we strongly recommend they don't.
• The occupier of a correctly unlicensed property is under no legal obligation to confirm the licensable status of their property to TV Licensing.
• TV Licensing goons work for a private company contracted to do the BBC's dirty work. They have no more legal rights or authority than any other visitor to a property.

For further information please download our free ebook, TV Licensing Laid Bare.

If you've found this article useful please point your friends in our direction.

TV Licensing Hounds Bereaved Family Despite Being Told About Death of Licence Holder

TV Licensing has callously hounded a grieving son for the payment of his late father's TV licence fee.

Mike Groom, from Stockton-on-Tees, wrote to the TV Licensing Blog and explained how his father had sadly passed away at the start of October last year. The TV licence for the property was in his father's name and a few weeks later, when Mike's mother moved into a residential care home, there was no longer anyone there to receive TV programmes.

It fell to Mike to make contact with TV Licensing and explain the circumstances. Mike informed TV Licensing that he wished to cancel the TV licence for the property, which he actually owns. He also spoke to the bank and arranged for the monthly Direct Debit payments to be stopped.

A few weeks later Mike received the first of several telephone calls from TV Licensing asking for his father by name. It appears TV Licensing had kept a record of Mike's mobile number from his earlier contact with them. They had associated his mobile number with the account of his father, and had made contact to find out why the Direct Debit had been cancelled and demand he make up the "missed" payments. That tactless call, remember, came despite Mike having previously contacted TV Licensing to explain the situation.

Speaking to the TV Licensing Blog, Mike described his distress at heartless manner of TV Licensing's enquiries: "I was very upset and made that very clear, but still got calls increasingly indignant - they continued to aggressively pursue the amount even faced with the knowledge they had just called and asked a son for his recently passed father."

When TV Licensing did eventually take notice of what Mike was telling them, they demanded written confirmation that a TV licence was no longer required at the property.

Mike continued: "I objected, having already gone out of my way to call them. I said I didn't see why they had to have a letter, since it was easy to check the facts without further upsetting me.

"This went on ad nauseum, one department having seen this letter and another denying it existed.

"The way TV Licensing chased this was not delicate or dignified and was distressing to me during a difficult time in my life - they shouldn't get away with it."

As if TV Licensing harassing a family in mourning wasn't bad enough, it later transpired that Mike's father was actually in credit with his TV licence payments.

We offer our condolences to Mike and his family at this difficult time. We condemn, in the strongest possible terms, the cold-hearted and incompetent manner in which TV Licensing has handled his situation.

Stories like Mike's are sadly quite common. Every week we hear how TV Licensing has attempted to bully payment from some of the most vulnerable people in society when they actually owe nothing at all. Worse still, TV Licensing is often made aware that nothing is owed, yet persists in issuing threats regardless.

TV Licensing's behaviour, which is fully endorsed and condoned by the BBC, is reprehensible. In 21st century Britain it is obscene that an organisation can terrorise people in their own homes on the basis of ZERO evidence of wrongdoing. That's exactly what TV Licensing does on a daily basis.

Enough is enough. It's time to press the standby button on TV Licensing for the final time.

Anyone who has experienced similar treatment by TV Licensing is asked to please contact us via the email address on the sidebar.

Beating TV Licensing: Actions Speak Louder than Words

Our good friend TheJesusofKayaking - the BBC's most favourite kayaking, lasagne and barbel enthusiast in the whole wide world - has produced another fine specimen for the YouTube keep net.

 

His latest video illustrates one of the most effective and foolproof strategies yet for dealing with TV Licensing goon visits: doing nothing at all.

No-one is under any legal obligation at all to assist TV Licensing, so why bother? Doing so is often a total waste of time anyway, as many of our readers would testify.

By doing nothing at all the occupier deprives TV Licensing of its most valuable asset: information. Without information TV Licensing is powerless. TV Licensing needs information about the licensable status of a property to escalate its enquiries. Without information TV Licensing gets nowhere.

As he says, what could be easier than doing nothing at all? Apart from doing nothing at all with your feet up and a can of Stella in hand!

Of course we still encourage filming of TV Licensing goon visits for anyone wanting to tackle them face to face.

For further strategies against TV Licensing please download our free ebook, TV Licensing Laid Bare.

Martin: A Capita TV Licensing Goon With Something to Hide

A Capita TV Licensing goon has been caught on camera showing a disguised ID card to the occupier of the property he was visiting.

We don't know much about this incident but the video footage, stills of which are included in this article, shows that the ID card displays the name "Martin" with no surname. The text is blurred, but we've had a lot of practice deciphering blurred text and we're pretty sure, with a 97% confidence factor, that Martin is the name shown.

TV Licensing ID cards, many of which are depicted in the TV Licensing Blog, always have a visible forename and surname. That being the case, we'd suggest that Martin has somehow disguised his ID card to keep his surname hidden from view.

Martin is clearly a TV Licensing goon with something to hide. Why else would he call at someone's property with a disguised ID card? Could it be, perhaps, that he bends the rules when the camera isn't rolling? Is he one of the many TV Licensing goons prepared to write almost anything, truthful or not, in order to meet stiff performance targets and keep their managers happy?

Perhaps Martin is shy about the prospect of being named and shamed across the web. That's the risk a person takes when they work for an organisation as morally corrupt as TV Licensing.

If he doesn't like the TV Licensing requirement to show his ID card on request, then perhaps he should be seeking alternative employment?

If anyone knows Martin's full name please drop us an email and we'll be happy to share it with the world.

TV Licensing Wrongly Threatens Licence Holder Despite Being Corrected SIX Times

TV Licensing, the BBC's despicable revenue generation arm, has continued to wrongly threaten a Leicester TV licence holder, despite being corrected on at least SIX separate occasions.

Ann Boseley, 64, told the Leicester Mercury how she had been plagued by TV Licensing's threatening correspondence ever since she moved to her current property three years ago. TV Licensing's aggressive enquiries are despite the fact that Ann holds a valid TV licence.

It's a common story and one we hear with alarming regularity.

Ann told the Mercury: "I'm so angry and fed up. At first I thought I'd done something wrong, but it wasn't me at all. I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall.

"Not only that but it's costing me a lot to ring them (TV Licensing). Sometimes I'm on the phone to them for more than half an hour, and I've only got a mobile phone, so it's costing a fortune."

TV Licensing has received a lot of criticism for the tone of its routine enquiry letters, which are automatically distributed to unlicensed properties. The letters, which are often daubed with bold red print, threaten the recipients, more than 80% of whom do not legally require a TV licence, with a court appearance and £1,000.

In reality the letters, dubbed threatograms, are nothing more than a kite-flying exercise designed to coerce information and payment from the recipient, whether or not they actually need a TV licence.

Ann continued: "It's scary when you get the letters. In one they even said they had opened an investigation into my house.

"I live on my own and some of the letters have got big, bold red writing on telling me that I have received an official warning. It's quite threatening."

The Mercury contacted TV Licensing, who duly trotted out their well rehearsed line that mistakes can when you've got a database with 30 million addresses on it. For the seventh time TV Licensing has said it will put matters right.

Ann shouldn't raise her expectations too much, as the letters will probably continue to arrive anyway. TV Licensing is the epitome of incompetence and anything it says has to be taken with a pinch of salt.

If Ann is reading this, we strongly suggests she gets on the phone to TV Licensing again to make it pay for her inconvenience. At the very least TV Licensing should be covering the cost of her phone calls.

Reader Letter: Can TV Licensing Catch Online Viewers?

In today's post we respond to an email received from one of our readers.

Our reader writes:

Dear TV Licensing Blog,

I am a student living in a university hall of residence. The university has told all livers-in that they must have a TV licence to use a television in their room. The university has also said that it co-operates with TV Licensing. 

I rarely watch television because I'm involved in several clubs and don't have much spare time. For that reason I don't see the value in buying a TV licence. I occasionally watch television on my laptop, but it's very irregular and mainly confined to Celebrity Big Brother late in the evening. 

What are the chances of TV Licensing catching me watching television programmes on my laptop?

Please can you let me know. Thanks ever so much for all the help your awesome blog has given me so far.

Jenny

TV Licensing Blog replies:

Dear Jenny,

Thank you for contacting the TV Licensing Blog. We're grateful for your kind words and pleased you enjoy reading our articles.

As a regular reader of our blog, you're probably aware of the law already. Briefly, for the benefit of any newcomers also reading this reply, a TV licence is required for any property where equipment is installed or used to receive TV programmes at the same time as they are broadcast to the wider public.

If you only watch TV programmes on unplugged equipment powered by its own internal battery (such as a laptop, tablet or mobile phone), then the TV licence of your non-term time address would normally cover you. That being the case, the simple way to stay within the law would be to unplug your laptop before viewing.

Suppose your non-term time address didn't have a valid TV licence, which is pretty unlikely, then you would have to buy a separate licence to cover the reception of TV programmes within your hall of residence room. That would be the case regardless of the equipment you were using, whether plugged in or not.

Of course you could adjust your viewing habits and watch non-live catch-up services instead, which would not require a TV licence at all.

Turning to your specific question, if you continue to watch Celebrity Big Brother late in the evening then it's pretty unlikely you will be caught by TV Licensing. TV Licensing has to catch a licence fee evader in the act of receiving TV programmes in an unlicensed property before it can prosecute.  

TV Licensing does not have any special equipment or authority to tap into people's web history, nor is it entitled to ask for that information from the internet service providers or university. Given the circumstances you describe, it is very unlikely TV Licensing would ever catch you in the act of receiving TV programmes without a valid TV licence.

As TV Licensing goons have no special rights of entry, you can deprive them of any evidence by simply refusing to speak to them if they call. Definitely do not let them into your room. TV Licensing is known to employ undesirable individuals, some with proven criminal tendencies, so as a lone female student it would be unwise to let them in, particularly if they call in the late evening when it is quieter anyway.

From a legal standpoint the university should not be providing TV Licensing with student information or allowing them access to any student's room without their permission. If the university was to provide TV Licensing with student information, then that would almost certainly be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998.

I hope that addresses your question. If you require any further information then you might find our free ebook useful. There are also some student information sheets on the Resources page. 

Please tell all of your student friends about the TV Licensing Blog.

Best of luck with your studies.

Peter

If you have any questions you would like answered on the TV Licensing Blog, please email us with the words "Reader Letter" in the subject line. Our email address is in the sidebar. As mentioned on the About page, we can't guarantee to respond to every email but will try our best.

BBC Indifferent to TV Licensing Goon Hitting Member of the Public

Using the Freedom of Information Act 2000 we asked the BBC to provide some more information about a TV Licensing goon hitting a member of the public.

The incident, which we wrote about last August, happened in the village of Carlin How near Middlesbrough. The video footage (LiveLeak mirror) leaves little to the imagination. It clearly showed the moment the elderly TV Licensing goon ran up to the occupier and struck his camera with a solid blow.

The BBC has just provided its response, which shows characteristic indifference to the goon's poor behaviour. Time and time again we have seen how the BBC apparently couldn't give a stuff about the antics TV Licensing goons get up to in the name of revenue generation.

The BBC retains legal responsibility for the collection and enforcement of the TV licence fee, but is very happy to pass the buck to its wayward contractor Capita whenever a TV Licensing goon behaves badly. The BBC maintains a distance from its TV Licensing brand so it can conveniently abdicate its responsibilities whenever the going gets tough.

An internal email from the BBC TV Licensing Management Team to the BBC Press Office said the following: "A video appeared on YouTube today where a householder follows a TV Licensing enquiry officer to his car and films the number plate. The officer then appears to push the camera away and the householder then accuses the officer of assault.

"We haven't had any request for comment, but we usually refer any enquiries about EOs' behaviour to Capita as their employer.

"If approached, our line with be that EOs are expected to follow a strict code of conduct."

Nothing much there, although notice how the BBC's TV Licensing Management Team are immediately playing down the idea of an assault. As we said, the footage speaks for itself. There is no doubt at all about the goon's actions.

Our eye is also drawn to a visit record form, which appears to show that the goon in question reported the fact he had been filmed. Spookily enough - and I'm sure the BBC, as masters of deception, would claim it was a genuine oversight - the goon appears to have omitted the fact that he actually hit someone during the same visit. Why might that be?

We are surprised at how little information the BBC has actually disclosed, considering they have been sniffing about this story for the past five months. That may be a further indication of how little importance they attach to TV Licensing goons behaving aggressively on the job. Just as long as the cash keeps rolling in, eh?

You can read the full text of our request and the BBC's response here.

If you've found this article useful please share it with your friends and consider using our Amazon referral link for your shopping.

TV Licensing Pursues Bizarre Search Warrant Obstruction Charges

At the end of July 2014 we reported on a bizarre TV Licensing search warrant visit to a Kent property.

The visit was bizarre in the sense that the occupier acted perfectly reasonably throughout, but the TV Licensing's goons conducting the visit - Phillip Carvill and Alfred Gjergji - still indicated search warrant obstruction charges as a possible outcome. Their search uncovered no evidence whatsoever of unlicensed TV reception, despite that fact that Carvill personally attempted to install some equipment in a desperate attempt to incriminate the occupier.

We didn't think for one moment that TV Licensing would have the brass neck to pursue any trumped up obstruction charges, but apparently we were mistaken. In a remarkable demonstration of TV Licensing's vindictiveness, the occupier of the property was actually summoned to court on those charges. 

TV Licensing's actions further reinforce our belief that it pursues search warrant obstruction as some sort of perverse consolation prize, even when it uncovers no evidence whatsoever of unlicensed TV reception. 

Clearly TV Licensing doesn't like to lose face by searching a property where there is no evidence of unlicensed TV reception, so it tries to contort the circumstances to its own advantage. When the victim of TV Licensing's malicious search appears in court the newspaper headlines will always be "Joe Bloggs Convicted of Search Warrant Obstruction" instead of "TV Licensing Wrongly Searches Home Without TV". Of course if Joe Bloggs is acquitted of search warrant obstruction the newspapers won't want to know, so TV Licensing wins with either outcome.

In our earlier article we summarised some of the key circumstances of the visit that makes search warrant obstruction slightly implausible in our opinion:

• The occupier allowed TV Licensing entry very quickly, as soon as he has checked their ID and established the purpose of their visit. The time stamp on the video shows that the goons were inside the property within 45 seconds.
• The occupier immediately showed the goons where the TV set was and offered them the chance to examine it. At no time during the visit did the occupier stand anywhere near the TV set, or attempt to block the goons' access to it.
• The occupier rummaged around to find the remote control and attempted to hand it to the lead goon (Carvill). The lead goon refused to take it, instead trying to get the occupier to incriminate himself by turning on the TV set. It is entirely understandable that the occupier refused to turn on the TV set in these circumstances.
• The Notice of Powers and Rights (view here), a document given to the occupier that outlines TV Licensing's rights during the search, does not state that the occupier needs to answer their questions or help them turn on equipment.
• The lead goon actually attempted to install the TV set by plugging in the power and aerial leads himself. Even if TV programmes had been seen, it is difficult to reconcile how the occupier could have been guilty of an offence due to the goon's actions of installing the equipment.
• Both goons clearly lacked the technical ability and mental aptitude to operate and inspect the equipment present. On several occasions they were heard to say "I don't know how this works".
• The occupier remained calm, well-reasoned and civil throughout. He had the forethought to explain his actions throughout the video. He also clearly explained the goons' actions during the video.
• The goons made no attempt to caution the occupier until about 8 minutes into their visit, by which time the younger one had virtually completed the TVL178 Record of Interview form. Given this elementary breach of procedure, we'd suggest the completed form is evidentially worthless.
• At no point was any TV programme image ever displayed on the TV screen (in case anyone tries to superimpose a frozen image from The One Show later on). The only images seen were the DVD player's welcome screen and the TV's own internal menu screen.
• Chapter 16, Section 2 of the TV Licensing Visiting Procedures (which is usually redacted by the BBC) states the following in bolded print: "NB - a refusal to provide name, to cooperate with the interview or to otherwise be "difficult" does not amount to an obstruction of the warrant".

The occupier attended court to plead not guilty and the case is currently adjourned pending his trial. We will be following this very closely. In this case we really do think TV Licensing has bitten off more than it can chew.

Stay tuned for further developments in this very interesting case.

TV Licensing Malicious Prosecution Victim Speaks Live on Russia Today

Michael Shakespeare, who was wrongly convicted of TV licence evasion, has spoken live about his experiences on Russia Today.

His story almost defies belief. Briefly, for the benefit of anyone unfamiliar with the case, he decided to invite TV Licensing into his home to prove that he didn't legally require a TV licence. The goon that visited, Ian Doyle, was quite satisfied that there was no evidence of unlicensed TV reception at the property. TV Licensing, who don't like outspoken opponents like Michael, decided to go ahead and prosecute him anyway.

You'll have to read our earlier post to see the extraordinary lengths TV Licensing went to in order to wrongly criminalise a completely innocent man.

Thankfully the Crown Court saw through the farce of Michael's Magistrates' Court trial and his conviction was overturned.

Below is a full transcript of Michael's interview with Russia Today presenter Bill Dod. It was broadcast live at 7.15 pm on 6th January 2015.

____________________

Bill Dod (BD): Michael, good to see you. Just tell us briefly about your story. You were arrested, but you didn't actually have a TV. There's something quite sinister that happened?

Michael Shakespeare (MS): The law requires you to have a licence if you watch live broadcasts. If you watch catch-up programmes or pre-recorded programes on, for example, a computer or monitor, you don't require a licence.

BD: And you made it very clear to the authorities that you had no (need for a) licence and interestingly enough they came to visit your property.

MS: I invited them to come, because the regime they operate is so - well some people would say, and I agree - is so oppressive and so aggressive that they keep writing to you, even though you say "look, I don't need your product". I actually invited them around.

BD: They came around and there was no indication at all that you had live television?

MS: The inspector (Doyle) spent half an hour examining the equipment that I had and interestingly enough he said at the time, because I captured it all on film, that he was quite satisfied that I wasn't breaking the law. He went away and 5 months later I was summoned to court.

BD: Why?

MS: It's strange. The prosecution (TV Licensing) produced a piece of evidence from my actual film, or a copy of it, that had an image showing on the TV.

BD: And it was an image of what? A live broadcast?

MS: Well they claimed it was. It was a still image.

BD: Right, so basically you were set up and then you were then taken to court because they accused you of having a TV. Just very briefly, why do you think they corrupted the image and pretended that you had a live TV in your room when you didn't? Just very briefly.

MS: Well obviously I can't say that they corrupted the image. They downloaded the film - the clip that they used - they downloaded it from an unspecified source. An unverified source.

BD: Anyway, you did clear your name. The fact is, don't you think it is right though that people should be brought to account if they do not pay their TV licence?

MS: Personally, no.

BD: Why not?

MS: Because it's a bad law. It's unfair, it's anachronistic.

BD: How else should you get programmes funded? For example, free programmes, as it were, from the BBC. Open access. How else should it be done?

MS: Subscription. That's one model that's been put forward.

BD: But we have a public service broadcaster, which should obviously be supported by the public?

MS: But Channel 4 is a public service broadcaster. They have a public service remit as well.

BD: But what about the fact that people going on holiday - it's not just TV licence fees, but council taxes as well - if you haven't paid up do you think it's right that border control police can actually apprehend you?

MS: I don't actually, no.

BD: Why not? You're breaking the law.

MS: Because they make mistakes. People make mistakes. You're saying that the state should restrict people's freedom of travel on the basis that they say you've not paid your fees.

BD: So just very briefly, if you don't have a TV licence or, as I say, do have a TV at home in the future, would you actually refuse to pay the licence fee? Just briefly.

MS: Yes, I would personally.

BD: And you would be prepared to go to jail for this?

MS: I would be personally, yes.

BD: Michael , thanks very much indeed for joining us. Michael Shakespeare live here on RT UK. Thanks for watching us.

____________________

We think Michael did very well to keep his opinions to himself on the subject of who actually doctored the dodgy video footage. We're in little doubt and it doesn't sound like the presenter is either! 

As RT has now aired TV Licensing's dirty laundry in public, it would be nice if the national press now followed suit and gave Michael's story the prominence it deserves.

If you've found this article useful please consider liking us on Facebook, following us on Twitter or downloading our free ebook.

A Brace of Capita TV Licensing Goons Caught on Camera

Two different TV Licensing goons have been caught on camera in the last 24 hours.

As we've mentioned on many previous occasions, it is perfectly legal for the occupier of any property to video or audio record any TV Licensing goons that visit. The goon does not need to be informed, nor do they need to consent, for such recording to take place. The only legal way a TV Licensing goon can prevent the occupier from recording is by physically withdrawing from the property, but for some strange reason you get a few goons that seem to enjoy their moment of fame and act up to the camera.

We strongly encourage the recording of TV Licensing goon visits. By exercising their legal right to record, the occupier deprives the goon of the opportunity to fabricate or embellish the circumstances of the visit later on. The presence of a camera also serves to moderate the TV Licensing goon's behaviour and focus their mind on conducting the visit correctly.

The first video was shot in Scotland. The beany-wearing TV Licensing goon, shown in the image above, is clearly a bit of a chancer. He begins by incorrectly saying that the occupier doesn't have authority to record him. Of course the goon knows full well that being recorded is part of the job, because the TV Licensing Visiting Procedures say as much. The goon goes through the now familiar mantra of reciting the address out loud, in the mistaken belief that doing so will prevent the video being uploaded to YouTube.

The second video was shot in the Teesside area. The goon, who had previously been recorded during an earlier visit to TV Licensing malicious search warrant victim Mick Oldfield, was a bit more subdued at the prospect of appearing on camera for the second time. The occupier gave him the silent treatment, but the goon persisted with his doorstep patter. The goon, who is also very familiar with the rules on recording, challenged the occupier about the camera on several occasions. He arrogantly left the property asking if he should tidy his hair for the camera.

If you're the occupier of a legally-licence-free property, then please keep your camera charged up and ready by the front door. 

If you know the name of either of these TV Licensing goons then please get in touch. We look forward to identifying them - particularly the Teesside one.

Update: TV Licensing Won't Prosecute Foreign Student

TV Licensing has decided not to prosecute a foreign student, who complained to the police about the threatening and dishonest interview technique used by the goon.

You might remember that our reader Sera wrote to us explaining how her flatmate had been duped into signing one of TV Licensing's infamous TVL178 Record of Interview forms.

To briefly recap, the goon had arrived at the shared student property and told them that they had been watching TV without a licence and needed to pay the £145.50 fee immediately. 

The students, who hadn't even installed a TV receiver in the fortnight they had been in occupation, rightly stuck to their guns and refused to pay. Sera told us: "He wanted to inspect the property, but we refused because his attitude was bad and he seemed very shady".

Eventually, having been bamboozled by questions, the students were keen to get the goon out of the property. In an effort to hasten the goon's departure, Sera's flatmate signed his paperwork in the mistaken belief it was a simple survey. 

They now realise that the goon's survey was actually the TVL178 form, which they have now had the opportunity to inspect more closely. Sera continued: "Looking back at the form, it contains incorrect information. The TV Licensing man did not tell us he was interviewing us under caution or that the form could later be used in court".

This morning Sera has sent us another email explaining how she has just learnt that TV Licensing has decided not to pursue any charges against her flatmate.

Her flatmate got in touch with the police shortly after the goon's visit, but the police incorrectly refused to accept a complaint over the phone because "it is not a police matter, it's a civil matter". Quite how allegations of perverting the course of justice can be a civil matter remains unclear, but the police's ignorance of the law is only to be expected.

Her flatmate phoned the police again the following day and eventually, after much to-ing and fro-ing, managed to get a reference number for the incident. The logic was that if the matter did get as far as court, at least the complaint would be on file.

The next working day her flatmate contacted TV Licensing, but got no further forward as it had not yet received the completed TVL178 from the goon in question.

About a week later a subsequent phone call was made to TV Licensing, in which it was stated that the police had been contacted about the behaviour of the goon in question.

A few weeks after that a letter arrived from TV Licensing stating that it would not be taking any further action.

Much as we approve of TV Licensing's decision not prosecute, it does mean there will be no closer legal scrutiny of the incident in question. We have previously commented on TV Licensing's strategy of pulling the plug whenever questions are raised about the quality of its evidence or integrity of its employees.

TV Licensing is unlikely to investigate this matter any further. It will likely be filed in the drawer labelled "disgruntled evaders who make complaints and escape prosecution". That's the suspicious mindset of the BBC's militant revenue generation arm.

Still, at least Sera's flatmate is in the clear.

TV Licence Cancellation: One Man's Email to the BBC

Our reader nsabournemouth, who recently decided to adopt a legally-licence-free lifestyle, has kindly agreed to us publishing an email he has just sent to the BBC, BBC Trust and TV Licensing.

He has also copied in his local Member of Parliament, Conor Burns MP, who is a member of the influential House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

We have made some adjustments to improve the readability of nsabournemouth's email, but the essence remains the same.

____________________

To the BBC, BBC Trust and TV Licensing,

As of today (1st January 2015)  I will no longer be in need of a TV licence, because I don't watch TV as it is being broadcast.

On contacting TV Licensing I was advised by an agent called Wendy that only her manager can decide that a withdrawal of implied rights of access instruction stands. Unless I am very much mistaken, it is for me to decide who has the right to enter my property or come to my door - not Wendy's manager.

I've come across many videos on YouTube of 'enforcement officers' telling lies, being aggressive and allegedly peering through the window of a young girl's bedroom. It's all very unpleasant stuff and on speaking with another advisor, Tom, he informed me that these videos were staged by opponents of TV Licensing. I ask that TV Licensing provides me with proof to back up these claims.

Behind my change in viewing habits is an utter hatred for the BBC. I hate the fact that I am required to pay for a TV licence even if I don't watch BBC content. More so my hatred stems from the way in which the BBC has conducted itself. Child sex abuse allegations, employees going on strike and the poorest in society faced with having to spend money they don't have to fund the lavish lifestyles of BBC employees.

The BBC is an organisation that cares very little for the people who fund it. I could go as far as saying the BBC is worse than any private company, because they at least have to fight for every penny they make. The BBC, on the other hand, is guaranteed funding regardless of how poor its performance.

As technology and viewing habits change the BBC finds itself getting left behind. Instead of moving forward, it defends a regressive funding method that assumes non-payers are guilty of a crime. This leads to some horrific harassment of law abiding people.

In a blog post James Heath said that the BBC is democratic. How is funding it by fear of criminal record, court, fine and prison democratic? Democratic would be asking me if I wanted to fund the BBC. Democratic would be letting me consume live TV from other broadcasters without fear of the BBC sending me to prison.

Over the past 2 years the BBC has sent out 47 million threatening letters, even to people who have passed away. Last year 159,369 people were cautioned or prosecuted for not funding the BBC. Those employed to seek out people without a TV licence are paid commission for licence sold or person taken to court. Is that something the British public should be proud of? Something other countries are jealous of?

To receive live TV I require a Virgin or Sky box as the Freeview service is extremely poor in terms of reception. As I have made the democratic choice not to subscribe to Virgin or Sky, I will be unable to have live TV. As I won't be watching live TV that should be the end of the matter, no TV licence for me,  but it's not as easy as that.

The BBC assumes I am guilty of a crime and as such will send me threatening letters and employ the services of a private company to knock at my door. Their sole purpose is to try and catch me out and get someone, anyone, to buy a TV licence or sign a false admission of guilt. On TV Licensing's website they use scare tactics such as the threat of enforcement officers and detector vans to frighten people into paying for a TV licence they might not need.

To that end I have attached a letter removing your implied right of access to my home. I do not want to be bullied and harassed by BBC hired thugs. I also fear for my wife, who is scared that one of your hired thugs will turn up and trick her into making a false statement. The BBC, something the British public should be proud of? I certainly do not want you in my home with my baby here.

I've got absolutely nothing to hide from anyone. I'm a law abiding citizen, yet the BBC makes me feel like a criminal because they wrongly think I'm watching TV as it is broadcast. Making people feel like criminals for choosing not to watch TV as it is broadcast - what sort of country is this?

The BBC or the BBC Trust hasn't earned my trust. The BBC doesn't have my respect and I don't see it as a national treasure. I see them both as self-serving monsters, who live off the backs of the hard working British public. Your continued assumption that the British public support you is false and it only serves to prove otherwise.

The BBC will do everything in its power to keep the British public living in fear. This is the job of Alice Dickerson, who walks around Westminster trying to convince people that BBC should still use threats of criminal records, court and prison to secure its funding.

The BBC is morally bankrupt, out of touch, out of date and hanging on by invoking fear. The scare tactics used to harass people are reprehensible

There is a very bad smell of corruption, waste and biased coming from BBC towers and the British public will no longer be putting up with it. I wish my not needing a TV licence was based on principle, rather than my inability to receive live TV. Sadly the BBC prevents me from exercising my democratic right not to pay for its services.

I am sick of your lies, your waste and your threats. I expect TV Licensing to abide by my instruction not to visit my property. I also expect the BBC and BBC Trust to simply sweep my concerns under the carpet, as they appear to have done with child sexual abuse allegations.

TV Licensing Laid Bare: 2015 Edition Published

A new edition of our free ebook, TV Licensing Laid Bare, has just been published.

The January 2015 edition includes some of TV Licensing's latest bloopers, including the fact they have been successfully sued by a TV Licensing Blog reader.

The book begins by identifying the key players in the TV licence system. The emphasis then shifts towards the legal basis of the fee, and clearly explains the circumstances in which a TV licence is required. After a short analysis of how the licence fee is spent the book gives detailed information about how the TV licence is enforced. The book concludes with practical words of advice for the thousands of legally-licence-free people regularly harassed by TV Licensing's correspondence and employees.

The latest version of TV Licensing Laid Bare can be downloaded free with our compliments from this page.

Please share it with anyone else seeking advice about how to deal with TV Licensing. For the latest advice please like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter.

The very best wishes for the new year to all our readers.