tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4959111893158321335.post6982325681279590588..comments2024-03-15T09:20:12.565+00:00Comments on TV Licensing: Taking the Fight to TV LicensingUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4959111893158321335.post-49569059762684476292014-11-14T19:56:44.757+00:002014-11-14T19:56:44.757+00:00I see details about prosecutions and fines in my l...I see details about prosecutions and fines in my local newspaper now and again ; for people who are "caught" watching TV without a valid licence. The only quick way now to stop this nonsense is for THOUSANDS of British citizens to refuse to pay this ridiculous TAX , -en masse ,all across the land .Are we too daft to do this ? The oppressive system would soon be crushed. Are we a democracy or not ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4959111893158321335.post-47046473154450180122014-09-26T16:08:31.391+01:002014-09-26T16:08:31.391+01:00If you want to find out about the effects of the B...If you want to find out about the effects of the BBC's letters on elderly or vulnurable people, have a look at the report made by the CAB as a contribution to the BBC Trust's consultation on licence fee collection.<br />http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/review_report_research/tvl/tvl_cab.pdfFred Bearnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4959111893158321335.post-33384277450971314462014-09-22T12:27:37.370+01:002014-09-22T12:27:37.370+01:00There are a number of odd things about the letters...There are a number of odd things about the letters from 'TV Licensing'. For one thing there isn't an organization called 'TV Licensing' - it's a brand or Trademark. The letters are effectively from the BBC, which owns the trademark. Also the return address is given as Darlington DL98 1TL. However, DL98 1TL is a non-geographic postcode. The TL stands for Television Licensing. Capita's Television Licensing HQ is actually in Darwen, Lancashire. Fred Bearnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4959111893158321335.post-24822361729563798142014-09-17T17:41:53.472+01:002014-09-17T17:41:53.472+01:00What amazes me about TVL and their cronies is this...What amazes me about TVL and their cronies is this... you need a licence to fish (rod licence) but Defra don't threaten EVERY householder in the UK that they will visit/take them to court if they don't obtain a fishing licence, so why are TVL allowed to get away with their intimidatory tactics?GeeBeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18156373697925450143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4959111893158321335.post-22675161702200325162014-09-11T23:14:11.038+01:002014-09-11T23:14:11.038+01:00Thankyou Fred Bear...I dearly appreciate you takin...Thankyou Fred Bear...I dearly appreciate you taking the time to respond to my post and offer your advice. The latest correspondence does indeed commence in the way you have stated. This in my view is unlawful as it threatens court action without evidence which I see as a means for me to capitulate according to their little game of bullying and intimidation. The more of us that stand up and refuse to be treated like this the more we will collectively erode their power to invade and violate our privacy. Thank you for sharing your thoughts Fred. Best Regards.Daddy Ratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4959111893158321335.post-51401685109277332832014-09-09T13:04:36.778+01:002014-09-09T13:04:36.778+01:00If the most recent letter starts: 'Dear Sir/Ma...If the most recent letter starts: 'Dear Sir/Madam, you have not responded to our previous letters. We want to ensure you have the information you may need before a hearing is set at your local court.' then is probably one of their standard mailings - they send millions of such letters each year. Have a look at the freedom of information site What Do They Know for some examples, eg:<br />https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/tv_licensing_written_corresponde#incoming-515623Fred Bearnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4959111893158321335.post-66468884266931164712014-09-03T20:19:34.086+01:002014-09-03T20:19:34.086+01:00@Pattonista:
You may be surprised to hear that th...@Pattonista:<br /><br />You may be surprised to hear that the Queen's Writ runneth not in the Netherlands.<br /><br />I think the Dutch response would be "Opkankeren", but not before laughing heartily in the TV Licensing goons faces.<br /><br />Christian van Dykenhttp://www.google.nlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4959111893158321335.post-21922726593851747592014-09-03T19:37:01.149+01:002014-09-03T19:37:01.149+01:00Further to Christian van Dyken's post above, t...Further to Christian van Dyken's post above, the BBC might prefer to lobby the EU to allow their Capita goons to visit viewers and potential viewers in the rest of Western Europe to collect licence fees from them. Fairness and proportion being absent from BBC thinking in the matter of the licence, I would not be shocked it did so.<br /> <br /><br /> Pattonistanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4959111893158321335.post-78960616500009795222014-09-02T23:24:19.029+01:002014-09-02T23:24:19.029+01:00Thank You to Maryon Jeane and the others who have ...Thank You to Maryon Jeane and the others who have responded to my narrative kindly posted by admin on the front page of this marvellous blog on the injustices being perpetrated on those of us who do not need a TV license for one reason or another. I am especially grateful to you Maryon Jeane as your message is extremely informative, and helpful and I hereby thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed message. Thank You for your kind regards on the loss of my beloved wife. Disturbed from the natural process of grieving I have decided to come out fighting and am half way through constructing a letter to the Attorney General to highlight for their attention the abusive practices being employed by the TV licensing authorities. As I mentioned in my blog - the case for the defence is simple. Times have changed. Legislation has not. The BBCi player is not covered by the statutory legislation and therefore no license is required. The arrogance of those attempting to collect the fees does not appear to incorporate this and so I look forward to practicing my litigation skills in a court of law as I really do hope that they instigate proceedings against me. I am hurt from the horrendous death of my wife and shall not hesitate to remind those that choose to lay down threats before me that they themselves must stand ready and prepared to receive the same. I have many arguments up my sleeve including but not limited to my abhorrence at sponsoring misconduct by those who have been convicted of gross and indecent acts against those who were the victims of highly inappropriate conduct. The comments made by Jeremy Clarkson that strikers should be taken out and shot in front of their families does not constitute talent and stardom in my eyes. Not to mention racist comments on not one but two separate occasions. This is indicative of a corporation living in denial and my letter to both the Attorney General and the new Chairwoman of the BBC Trust will be my best attempt to waken them from their slumber and request that they review the current legislation that permits the bullying and intimidation which includes young single mothers with children to feed who are left in tears after their experience with the TV licensing authorities. Like William Wallace at the Battle of Stirling - I'm going to pick a fight - on behalf of all of us. With kind permission from the admin here - I will ask that my letters and subsequent responses are published here for all to see. I write under the pseudonym of Daddy Rat - the affectionate character name given me by my late beloved wife - so when you see posts from me - you'll know that they are being written by someone who is taking this matter seriously. I am also a proud member of UKIP and have begun to investigate the likelihood of the Royal Charter being renewed. Whether this will or will not be the case - I promise you that we are not alone in feeling aggrieved at the abhorrent behaviour of the TV licensing authorities and the BBC who wish to distance themselves from the methods by which their income is gained. If UKIP get a seat in Westminster - change is imminent. Thank You to all of you who have responded to my post. I dearly appreciate the kindness shown to me at such a sensitive time.Daddy Ratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4959111893158321335.post-47115114048713421252014-09-02T14:42:26.324+01:002014-09-02T14:42:26.324+01:00I must admit that I find the BBC's output to b...I must admit that I find the BBC's output to be very good, but then again I'm watching it legally in The Netherlands (where the Telly Tax was abolished in 2000)<br /><br />If the BBC wishes to protect its product from those (like me) who wish to access it without paying, then maybe they should stop broadcasting it willy-nilly across the Western half of Europe?Christian van Dykenhttp://www.google.nlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4959111893158321335.post-23600711201370097602014-09-02T12:33:39.564+01:002014-09-02T12:33:39.564+01:00If you have not already shredded it, read the late...If you have not already shredded it, read the latest letter carefully. I doubt they have instituted proceedings. The letter is designed to frighten you and is written in such a way to make you think they are/will prosecute you, in order to make you panic and buy a license you do not need.<br /><br />They need evidence that you are watching live broadcasts without a license before they can bring proceedings, and if they have not visited, or spoken to you, or executed a warrant, then they have no evidence, and you need not worry.<br /><br />You are doing the correct thing in simply ignoring the correspondence. If someone does visit, they have as much rights on your doorstep as a double-glazing salesman unless they produce a warrant to enter and search. Say nothing; don't argue or anything - just do not speak - don't give your name. Don't sign anything - absolutely nothing - no matter what the TV License salesman says the document is.<br /><br />Film the person who comes to the door. Don't speak to them, or bother to tell them you are filming, just film them. If you do not have a camera, then just hold up your phone, or anything that might look like it has a camera on it (not a TV remote, though). The TV License salesman will usually leave promptly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4959111893158321335.post-71588496792178658372014-09-02T12:18:25.957+01:002014-09-02T12:18:25.957+01:00The cycle of letters did start again after a perio...The cycle of letters did start again after a period (not two years, but not too far short), but I just ignored them and from then on adopted the tactic first of binning the letters unopened and, much later, of date stamping them as above.<br /><br />I have only ever received two visits in the decades I have been licence-free (I've never actually had a 'television' licence because I've never watched live broadcasts at home - I don't particularly like watching television broadcasts), and the other visit was by a guy who was on my doorstep when I opened the door one day, in a frantic hurry to get to work because I'd overslept. He said he was from TV Licensing and, as I shut the door behind me and passed him I said "I don't watch television" - and that was the end of that.<br /><br />Hope some of this helps. It's very important indeed that we don't just let all this nonsense go by the board because it's a definite and prolonged attack against one of the most sacred tenets of our legal system: that someone is innocent until proven guilty. Let one body get away with this (and don't forget that they've actually placed themselves alongside the police and the Inland Revenue in stop-and-question operations (or stings) against motorists going about their daily honest business), and the door is open to a fundamental loss of freedom.<br /><br />A negative - and again this is a tenet of our legal system - cannot be proved and therefore it is up to the accuser to prove the accusation. So just rebut and/or refuse to engage (and, if necessary and you feel - as you obviously do - that this aggression should be stopped, use (judicious) attack as the best form of defence).<br /><br />Good luck - and I’m very sorry for your loss and hope the sorrow lessens soon.Maryon Jeanenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4959111893158321335.post-5940156021742670232014-09-02T12:16:22.542+01:002014-09-02T12:16:22.542+01:00I duly amended the form, very liberally, before si...I duly amended the form, very liberally, before signing it. The TV Licensing employee objected strongly and warned me that the statement was "a legal document" and that it must not be interfered with or amended. I told him that this was not true and that he could either take the statement away unsigned or my amendments would stand. I made sure that the amendments were made in such a way that they could not be removed without the original text being obliterated.<br /><br />I subsequently received a letter informing me that as I had been found to have a television receiver installed at my property, had admitted ownership of it (which I hadn't as the television wasn't actually mine, my partner had bought it, and I had noted this on the statement), and was therefore in breach of the Communication Act, etc. etc. TV Licensing would be taking me to court. I wrote back refuting all allegations, referring them to my statement (of which I had taken a copy before allowing the TV Licensing employee to have the original) and stating that, if they intended to take me to court, I must have due and sufficient notice of the date and time, with my subsequent acknowledgement of receipt of this notice, so as to ensure that I would be able to attend and refute the allegations again in court. At the same time I noted my distress at having been visited by a lone male employee, after dark, in my home when I was alone, his unpleasant manner towards me, the fact that he had deliberately misrepresented my answers to his questions on the statement form, and their constant harassment of me despite my having told them I did not need a licence.<br /><br />The next letter I received from TV Licensing, after some delay, was an unreserved apology and a "goodwill" payment of £50 (this was in the early 1990s), together with an assurance that they would not bother me again for two years. The letter after that was a warning letter that my property was noted as unlicensed on their database, etc. etc...<br /><br />So I wrote again, in no uncertain terms pointing out that they had just investigated me, found me to be completely innocent of watching live broadcasts, and had promised to leave me alone. I said I was considering private court action against them for harassment.<br /><br />The next letter was a very grovelling apology - and another £50!<br /><br />[<i>continued</i>]Maryon Jeanenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4959111893158321335.post-59973165043829391662014-09-02T12:14:16.986+01:002014-09-02T12:14:16.986+01:00Good luck, James, and more power to your elbow. Th...Good luck, James, and more power to your elbow. The only thing is, however, that you are actually unlikely to have your day in court because TV Licensing/Capita usually back off when they find opposition. They do very occasionally manage to get search warrants signed in bulk by a poorly-educated and/or idiotic magistrate, slipping in the names of a few people against whom they have not the slightest shred of evidence, but this is fairly rare.<br /><br />The most likely scenario is that after the threats have escalated to a certain point there will be a short delay and then the warning letter cycle will start again.<br /><br />Don't forget that, if you do receive a visit, you don't have to say anything at all. A tactic I’ve advocated in the past is to ask to see the identity of the TV Licensing employee and then ask to photocopy or photograph it (they always refuse). When you are refused permission to photocopy the ID card you can laboriously copy out all the information on the card instead, taking your time, at which point sometimes the TV Licensing employee leaves without further ado because they need to achieve a certain amount of visits (and ‘fines’) in a specified time to achieve their commission. <br /><br />For a period of over two years I simply filed the warning letters, unopened, after date-stamping the envelopes. My intention was to produce them dramatically in court (the scattered bundle would have made quite a dramatic statement) but, unfortunately, after an initial run-in with TV Licensing they have always subsequently backed off. As I was running out of space in my filing cabinet I finally wrote to TV Licensing telling them not to bother me any more and, amazingly (last year) I received a polite letter and a promise that they would not bother me for two years. So far...<br /><br />My initial run-in with TV Licensing entailed a visit by a male officer to my home quite late one evening (after dark) when I was alone in a very rurally-located cottage. As I was painting a wooden towel-rail with a fast-drying paint at the time, I told the TV Licensing employee that he would have to come in if he wanted to talk to me as I was unable to stop what I was doing. I even offered him a coffee or tea. He didn't refuse my offer politely, he didn’t smile, he wasn't pleasant (or even particularly human) and he treated me from the first as if I were a suspect in a crime. I answered his questions, continuing to paint the while, and then he handed me the form he had been completing for my signature. Unfortunately for him I never sign anything without reading it first, and I found the 'statement' he had written was inaccurate. Amongst other things it said that the television was "installed for use" and that he had been able to get reception on two channels; this was completely untrue as the television was under the (open plan) staircase and needed some awkward manoeuvring to pull it out to a position where it could be viewed, it wasn’t plugged in or even near a socket and, when the TV Licensing employee had tried to get reception all he had managed was a white blizzard. The trolley on which the television was situated had a stack of videos and DVDs (most of them professional, training-type films) on it and it was obvious for what the television was used, when it was used.<br /><br />Most serious of all was that the statement said that I had "admitted" to using the television. Yes, I had - but not to receive live broadcasts and the implication was obviously that I had admitted to this because nowhere was my clear statement of this fact, nor that the television was used only for viewing pre-recorded material, recorded on the statement form.<br /><br />[<i>continued...</i>]Maryon Jeanenoreply@blogger.com