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 BBC on-demand programmes via the iPlayer, then the law requires you to have a TV 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.

Disclosure

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Friday 15 July 2016

Worcester Man Has TV Licence Conviction Quashed


A Worcester man has won a Crown Court appeal against his wrongful conviction for TV licence evasion.

Nick Thomas only watches catch-up services on his TV set, which does not legally require a TV licence.

But that didn't deter TV Licensing from prosecuting the 43-year-old for an offence he hadn't committed, on the most questionable of evidence.

Fortunately Nick's conviction has just been overturned by a judge at Worcester Crown Court.

We are hoping to track him down for some comment on the case, so stay tuned for updates.

In the meantime, you can read more on Nick's story here.

If you've found this article useful please consider using our Amazon link for your shopping or downloading our free ebook.

Get our latest posts straight to your inbox: Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Same old story... "co-operate" with TVL to explain you have no need for a licence and get ripped off for being helpful in the first place

Anonymous said...

With any luck this begins the start of MANY precedents! I bet the BBC are bloody livid.

Unknown said...

Quote

"But that didn't deter TV Licensing from prosecuting the 43-year-old for an offence he hadn't committed, on the most questionable of evidence."

IMHO, they prosecute too many people using "the most questionable of evidence".
They seem to easily slide this 'evidence' through to a conviction in front of Magistrates..... not so easily past the Judges in a higher Court though....

NB I should know.....