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.

Monday, 2 February 2015

Capita Court Presenter Declines TV Licensing Interview

Capita TV Licensing

Our noble colleague TheJesusofKayaking has been out in support of innocents who don't legally need a TV licence, but get victimised by TV Licensing anyway.

One such innocent, Hannah, appeared before Burton-on-Trent Magistrates' Court earlier today. Hannah was standing trial on trumped up charges of TV Licensing search warrant obstruction.

Without going into too much detail, Hannah doesn't legally need a TV licence. That being the case, it's difficult to imagine what legitimate evidence TV Licensing could have presented in order to obtain a warrant in the first place.

TJoK will discuss the finer points of Hannah's case in a later video, so we won't pre-empt his comments now.

As many readers will know TJoK is a keen photographer and citizen journalist. Sensing an exclusive, he decided to interview the Capita Court Presenter as she emerged from the Magistrates' Court.

In goon fishing terms she was definitely well into double figures, but looking at the state of her it's hard to believe that anyone's tackle would twitch with interest. She drives a black 5-door Hyundai i30, as shown in the image below.

Capita TV Licensing

For some reason she bleated on about having fibromyalgia and a disabled parking badge. Curiously, for someone employed as a Capita Court Presenter, she also point blank denied working for Capita.

"I work. I pay my TV licence, unlike you lot", she snapped condescendingly as the camera rolled on.

By this time she was sat in the car and getting ready to drive away. She shouted through the open window that she paid for a TV licence even though she didn't watch TV. When told that she was a mug for paying for something she didn't need, she snorted back "at least I'm a decent honest mug".

She also threatened to "get" TJoK and said she would sue him if he uploaded the video to the web.

There is one thing she did manage to get correct - the bit where she said "I'm ill". 

Sick in the head, we'd say. It might be an opportune moment for her to take medical retirement.

Please be sure to download and share the video wherever you can.


Maximus Decimus Meridius said...

I doubt it very much that she has that - she just needs a good salad. For the record, the NHS classifies the condition as:

Fibromyalgia, also called fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS), is a long-term condition that causes pain all over the body.
As well as widespread pain, people with fibromyalgia may also have:

#increased sensitivity to pain

#fatigue (extreme tiredness)

#muscle stiffness

#difficulty sleeping

#problems with mental processes (known as "fibro-fog") – such as
problems with memory and concentration


#irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) – a digestive condition that causes stomach pain and bloating

Anonymous said...

Excellent. Take the war to the enemy.

TV Licensing Watch said...

Very active Crapita BBC TV Licensing motormouth considering it claims to have disability.

Wonder what part of her rant was official BBC policy.

Admiral Ackbar said...

Is she not defaming TJOK by claiming, in public, that he does not pay for his licence? It does not matter if he does or does not (although we know) I am fairly sure that, by stating it out in public she's made a slanderous remark

Admin said...

There are two fundamental reasons why it is not defamation:
- Firstly, it is a statement of fact. TJoK does not have a TV licence. He does not legally need one.
- Secondly, she made her comments to him alone and in no-one else's hearing.

Defamation requires a person to knowingly make an untrue statement about some other person to a third-party. Furthermore, that untrue statement has to be something that would lower a reasonable person's opinion of the defamed person.

Lea Natale said...

Another fat useless individual.